Well, you asked if I was arguing against improving safety when compared to fatality rates for any activity.

But for me to have made that argument, I’d have to have said that there is no rate of fatality that would justify improving safety. So, I was asking if you think that’s true:

Does no threshold for the rate of any cause of death justify improving safety?

But I sucked at wording it clearly. That’s on me.

In short, no, I’m not arguing that. Really, I was just clarifying what the person you responded to was saying. I’m not making an argument either way.

Does no threshold for the rate of any cause of death justify improving safety?

Well, nothing is 100% safe, and we allow plenty of things that are demonstrably unsafe to continue. So if you compare bike-car collisions against say, firearm suicides in the US, you’ll see that bike-car collisions aren’t that bad.

The fundamental argument is that nothing is totally safe, but some things are safer than others.

More like if you contextualize the incidents of bicycles and pedestrians with cars, you might realize they’re safer than you think. This is absolutely false for cars and pedestrians though in America at least.

It’s cute af too, with their little tongues sticking out

Looks like Zoids…so, yes.

As someone who doesn’t use the /s and regularly gets downvoted as a result, I’m less interested in your downvote and more interested in why anyone upvotes.

For example, if we’re discussing American healthcare and you’re arguing for universal healthcare because it makes sense, I’m likely to respond sarcastically with “But that’s socialism! In America, we’d rather pay and arm and a leg to die from preventable diseases than just secure healthcare! That’s true patriotism!”

Now, if you were to take that at face value, I’m curious as to who you think would genuinely argue for excessive payments to die from preventable diseases so blatantly. Literally no one does that. That’s not giving credence to an exaggerated position because it’s not an actual position anybody would take. But your reaction is beside the point, because I’m not interested in you.

I’m interested in the people who agree with my sarcastic position, often by tamping down the hyperbole, because they’re unreasonable. These are people I’m trying to catch with my vinegar honey pot. It might giving credence to their views long enough for them to respond positively to me, but after that…it’s all mudslinging. And if someone says they oppose universal healthcare because it’s socialist, well then I get to have being extremely sarcastic with them while you get downvote me.

The current Lt. Governor of North Carolina is black and worse than Trump. Idk about the sexual assault stuff, but he’s still an absolute piece of shit.

Every answer so far is wrong.

It can be used for good purposes, though I’m not sure if characterize creating a personalized Jarvis as good per se. But, more broadly, capitalist inventions do not need to be used only by capitalists for capital ends.

There’s a few ways in practice.

1. Court decisions are binding broadly. The conservative capture of the Supreme Court is political genius, honestly. They tend to have the final say regarding policy.

2. Federal agency rules are also broadly binding. EPA rules that limit greenhouse gas emissions, for example, apply everywhere in the country.

3. State legislatures are often less polarized, which facilitates a more productive legislature.

4. State agencies, like a state environmental department, mirrors its federal counterpart but is more localized.

5. Non-state organizations can get things done, though their interests are often limited and not necessarily in the interests of the broad public as state and federal institutions are.

6. International institutions can ‘set the tone’. They may not have any power to actually do anything within a specific jurisdiction, but people within those jurisdictions can draw policy inspiration from international organizations and try for something locally binding.

I don’t use /s at all. I eschewed it a few years ago.

Some views deserve to be ridiculed, and that’s exactly what I’m trying to invite people to do.

Oh really?! Tone isn’t conveyed in text and you can’t detect literal sarcasm unless it’s broadcast like a beacon from someone’s warped piehole? Like a ship at sea in the calmest waters, you can’t find your way home without a lighthouse?

Exactly

What’s particularly strange about it is that it doesn’t really serve any purpose for a vast majority of people aside from a government-approved official statement that someone finds their in-laws unbearable.

That’s a pretty good purpose. Everybody can save face by taking part in bureaucracy. That sounds like I’m being facetious, but I’m serious. Think about the alternative: avoiding them awkwardly all the time or telling them to screw themselves directly, which will engender negative feelings. At least with the bureaucracy, the sentiment gets filtered through a impartial, uncaring medium.

While he had fake electors last time, they weren’t as widespread as they’ve become over the last 4 years. He also didn’t have the coordination of the Heritage Foundation either like he does now. He also didn’t have a House of Representatives willing to steal the election last time.

He has a lot going for his machinations this time.

What did your neighbor say about it?

You’re only partially right. There was a penalty for not having healthcare that was reduced to $0 where it has stayed since 2017. When that happened premiums shot up because healthier people decided to not get insurance. Considering health insurance is about pooling risk, healthier people left weren’t there to subsidize the relatively sicker folks. So, it’s also a problem of incentives

Coffee badging is the practice of going into the office for a few hours to “show face,” which could entail coffee with co-workers or sitting in on a work meeting — but then leaving to work remotely.

So, they comply institutional requirements to waste time for no reason before going elsewhere to do work? And this is characterized as being disengaged?

This doesn’t make any sense. Is this a joke? Who came up with this? Wtf is this journalism?

That’s racism with extra steps

Americans are not required to have health insurance. Generally, health insurance is tied to one’s job. Perhaps OP is a business owner and has decided to forego insurance for other things? Idk. And neither do you.

Also, it’s not like American health insurance is effective in reducing hospital bills to the point of being reasonable. It’s a trope that health insurance is a scam because it’s so bad.

Also, like all economic decisions, health insurance vs a home is a trade off, one that OP made for whatever reason. It’s not something to blame them for.

And finally, it sounds like they can afford their home just fine with outfit tradeoffs.