mejari

20 ms·

181.
by mejari 10y ago
>Well of course, but the comment I responded to questioned the assertion that there is a large, economy-wide cost. No, I did not. The comment I replied to implied a net-negative cost.
182.
by mejari 10y ago
>Why did you feel the need to reply with this sentence? How does it advance our conversation whatsoever? Because you replied with a link to something that did not further the point under discussion. >Is a large cost not a large negati
183.
by mejari 10y ago
Having a cost and having a "large, economy-wide negative impact" are very different things.
184.
by mejari 10y ago
Sorry, I don't see anywhere in their comment where they talk about the cost or efficacy of solving any problems. They mention other problems that have regulations, but not whether they are effective or cost-efficient.
185.
by mejari 10y ago
Which we accept as the natural form of evolution, but wholly reject continuing to act without recourse on our species. Unless you also dislike any medicine or safety measures.
186.
by mejari 10y ago
You can argue the correctness of the ban, but saying that because there is worse problem X we shouldn't try and solve less-bad problem Y doesn't make any sense.
187.
by mejari 10y ago
>The large, economy-wide negative impact of regulation are well established by academics. That sounds like an easily made, hard to back up claim.
188.
by mejari 10y ago
Simply claiming a fallacy is not a discussion or a rebuttal. Also, there is no "but think of the children" fallacy. You may be thinking of the Emotional Appeal fallacy, but even then it isn't always a fallacy to point out pot
189.
by mejari 10y ago
>And if your child (Lets say over the age of 3) is still eating random non-food items without checking with you, then you're not doing a great parenting job. That's just plain ridiculous. No amount or quality of parenting will
190.
by mejari 10y ago
>Because it undermines the integrity of literally every post on the site. Maybe the posts on the site shouldn't be afforded the assumption of integrity? Trump's supporters have already taken over the front page with a constant
191.
by mejari 10y ago
And any user can claim to not have said something, citing this as evidence.
192.
by mejari 10y ago
"investigating" in the same way they "investigated" a daycare and the Boston bombing.
193.
by mejari 10y ago
But that still isn't any different, fundamentally. Any state could come up with such programs now. This dynamic of legislature vs governed liberal populace vs fiscal responsibility exists now, so I don't get your point about how i
194.
by mejari 10y ago
>But remember that once CA is its own government there's little to stand in the way of ever more generous programs There's nothing standing in the way of that now. Colorado just had the opportunity to vote in a single-payer hea
195.
by mejari 10y ago
Doesn't California, alongside most other "blue" states, contribute more to those welfare programs than they take in?
196.
by mejari 10y ago
How would DKIM signatures show who stole the e-mails? > I trust in DKIM signatures. Any statement by an intelligence service ever is caked in multiple layers of conflicting motivations from expanding their budget, pleasing their lax over
197.
by mejari 10y ago
All of that is true, you should ask those questions. That doesn't mean one should lie and say that such accusations are fringe.
198.
by mejari 10y ago
"Silently elevated" by being the consensus opinion among the entire intelligence community.
199.
by mejari 10y ago
Why? Not unilaterally deciding the US presidential election isn't mutually exclusive with "one of the greatest foreign operations in decades". I might disagree with their assessment, but Russia did influence the election and
200.
by mejari 10y ago
Saying that it influenced the election isn't the same as saying that it is solely responsible for the outcome, don't be disingenuous.
201.
by mejari 10y ago
The only nice thing about this election is I don't have to give two shits about Podesta's e-mails or the random insane bullshit people like you imagine are in them anymore.
202.
by mejari 10y ago
Not taking everything they say literally isn't the same as taking nothing he says literally, which is what your quote said.
203.
by mejari 10y ago
That's just a self-important way to sound superior. You shouldn't look down on people for actually listening to what someone says.
204.
by mejari 10y ago
Have you seen our new Vice President? He supports literal torture of gay people. That's not even hyperbole.The only "pro-LGBT" thing Trump has ever done was use the Orlando shooting as a way to attack Muslims.
205.
by mejari 10y ago
Dude, it's over, you won. You don't have to pretend to believe that bullshit anymore.
206.
by mejari 10y ago
>And somewhat ironically, if Hillary had won people would be telling those disenfranchised voters who broke for Trump to listen to the will of the people Hillary wasn't threatening groups of people. Muslims, gays, transgender people
207.
by mejari 10y ago
This title seems like a massive departure from the actual content of the article.
208.
by mejari 10y ago
I don't believe those are all the rules that hotels have to abide by
209.
by mejari 10y ago
That's not fair. I even gave you a valid scenario of exposure. But there is such a thing as irresponsible exposure that endangers people. They could easily have exposed the issues you're talking about without endangering the p
210.
by mejari 10y ago
>Wikileaks did not steal anyone's identity. To use another one of your tortured metaphors, it's a bit like if Wikileaks found your wallet and pinned your credit card and driver's license to the nearest telephone pole. Not

More ›