laHiesh1

I can't wait until Amazon launches genetically modified pets that try to sell you things.

Dog opens it's mouth and speaks pre-programmed phrase. "Show how much you love your pet and buy Amazon premium++ dog food, now half price!"

You could say the same thing about Muslims and terror attacks. Using your logic, I could point to them and terrorist actions committed by those who identify as Islamist and use it to justify acts against innocent Muslims pushing those innocents to extremist factions within Islam.

You don't help the issue by justifying ostracisation and bullying of those who are unable to seek female/male attention, it only pushes them to the extremes and extreme acts are what they commit in response.

I've never understood the term incel (involuntarily celibate) as an insult, incels are just people who cannot get female/male attention for various reasons and some make up crazy conspiracy theories to explain it. Many of the people who do fit into this category are sad cases and deserve our sympathy rather than to be insulted and made fun of. The way I see it, it's no different than making fun of a person for having autism. Rather than making fun of these people, how about we help them overcome their issues?

A cap on alimony would very likely help especially since it's driving some of the men to suicide when they are forced to pay 90%+ of their income in alimony. I doubt it's helping the problem when some see that and think twice about engaging in a relationship.

I agree, the goal is definitely equality and I hope that one day it's archived but unfortunately I don't think it'll happen too soon when there isn't much focus on legal and non-legal issues that affect men.

Men and women are not always treated equally under the law, it depends greatly where you live. Some examples would be rape laws excluding male victims, compulsory military service, and infant male circumcision.

It's possible he might believe that child support and it's function is being perverted which is fuelling a decline in the number of men willing to engage in relationships with women.

The negative attention on males is most definitely a factor although I don't think it's the only one. Creating policies that support male mental health and to curb male suicide would be a step in the right direction.

I think it's more likely that we would peruse spinning space habitats to simulate gravity regardless of whether zero gravity has long term and irreversible negative effects on the human body. I don't think it'll be quite necessary to genetically modify anyone.

Do they bother resolving internal domain names such as example.lan? Otherwise that would be stupid and leaky.

I think it's important to draw a line between positive and negative colonialism. The British were legally given HK for 99 years, built infrastructure there, and turned it into a very wealthy territory that enjoyed many freedoms they would not otherwise have if it were a Chinese territory.

Even today, there is a significant number of people within HK that want to go back to British rule. Why deny what the people want?

Given today's culture anonymity is even more important than it ever was. Someone across the world can boycott your place of work and get you sacked for voicing unfashionable opinions. Who will provide for your family then? Don't expect to lean on your partner either, they'll probably push to get her/him sacked too for associating with you.

I'm going to need some citations there, you're saying the effects of radio waves on the human body is a subject that hasn't received much attention despite being heavily scrutinized since radio communications become a thing. The cancer scare from radio waves has being going on for significantly longer than you seem to realise and yet has yielded no evidence to suggest there is a casual link between radio wave exposure and cancer.

How much longer will you bash your head against the wall hoping it will get results?

I have no problem studying the effects of new products and technologies before being released to the general public. After all, I like knowing my drugs aren't likely to harm me. The difference here is radio wave exposure has being a subject studied to death and nothing of note has being found. Simply because you believe something to be true or could be true does not award you the right to make the assertion that it's true. Go get the evidence and bring something new to the table instead of torturing everyone involved with this nonsense.

Simply because there is examples of things that we thought to be safe but were in-fact harmful does not award you the right to make bold claims without the proper evidence. That would be a very slippery slope. If you believe something to be harmful, go and prove it.

Because we were wrong in the past about some things, I'm going to make the claim without evidence that visible light kills. Everyone who has ever died of cancer was exposed to visible light for very long periods of time. Don't expose yourself!

I'm not proposing our default position should be to assume safety until proven otherwise. I'm proposing that if one wishes to claim something is not safe which is counter to existing scientific literature then one needs to provide the proper evidence. I'm not willing to easily discard existing literature on the basis of what someone said.

I'm open to the possibility they're not safe if and only if the proper evidence is provided. As it stands, no peer reviewed evidence has being provided to show that there is a casual link between radio waves emitted by cellular equipment and cancer diagnosis.

People say a lot of things and people are not perfect, they are susceptible to bias and manipulation. So until someone provides some peer reviewed evidence showing that there is a causal link between radio waves emitted by cellular equipment and cancer diagnosis then I'm going to call it a moral panic.

On another note, I would be open to the possibility that Satan is real and is the cause behind cancer if and only if the proper evidence is provided.

No, but it seems like they might be neglecting issues that are affecting their constituents health (potentially easy to fix by the sounds of it) and focusing on the current fashionable moral panic.

This is a prime example of confirmation bias, you think it's having a positive effect therefore it's having a positive effect. It's a sugar pill.

This nonsense is no better than anti-vax parents that believe because two kids at her children's school were diagnosed with autism and had vaccines that it must mean vaccines cause autism.

If you're going to make claims like this, at least provide some evidence otherwise it's not constructive to make such claims.

2.2 thousand an hour ago. A lot of people still play it. https://steamcharts.com/app/275850

That's possibly true, I don't know much about the American health care system however I can't imagine they would significantly raise the cost of your insurance plan beyond what you're able to pay because you needed a 2 week supply of drugs to treat a one-off parasitic infection.

If the American health care system is so broken that insurance companies are making people destitute for receiving care then the USA has bigger problems than a single CEO.

From what I understand only the patients insurance would have to carry the extra costs, those who were unable to pay up were given it for free.