ChairmanMeow

also giving infants 70 shots is insane

Yoi're right, letting them get infected with life-threatening diseases with as little protection as possible is much more responsible.

Only thing this is benefiting is big pharma, they don't make money off of healthy people.

This has always been a stupid argument. Imagine two pharmaceutical companies, A and B. A develops a treatment that treats but doesn't cure a patient. B develops a more expensive treatment, but it completely cures a patient.

Which company would you want to be a customer of? Obviously B, they can cure you. Pharmaceutical companies are financially incentivised to cure rather than treat.

Now imagine A also tries to develop a cure. The only was they can compete is by making the cure cheaper, safer or more effective.

Being the only one with a cure means you can also ask higher prices, as you've essentially monopolised a disease.

This is also self-evident from all the diseases that we've found cures for in the last few decades. Even cancer is becoming less and less of a death sentence.

RFK is right

He's wrong.

Nothing lasts forever. But for now, it's decent enough.

I haven't found a story that doesn't use Reason as their source. I only found one that tried to contact the police department for comment, but they hadn't responded.

So we do still only have one truly distinct account of this story, which is the mom's side of the ordeal.

Virality and outrage don't make a story more accurate.

We don't know why the woman who encountered the boy on the road called the police. We don't know what the kid was doing at the time. Was he walking to the side of the road? Was he walking on the road? Did he seem "off" in some way that made it so that the woman called the police? Were there previous warnings that that road was dangerous?

Police set up a safety plan for the son, that involved making sure someone always knew where he was. Why was that done? Multiple people in the PD all looked at the case and decided this was the right course of action, why?

I'll judge once I hear what the police says their motivations were. They could have well stepped over the line here. Or there were legitimate concerns for the child's safety.

Police today released that of the 62 arrests 10 are Israeli hooligans.

Unlikely. In the age of globalism, it's much more likely that manufacturing will leave the US to dodge counter-tariffs. The combined markets of Europe and Asia is for most products larger than the US market, and that trend is only likely to increase in the future as Asia develops. Manufacturers know making stuff in Asia is just cheaper, and that American consumers are more likely to go into debt to buy stuff than other consumers. They also know that these tariffs are unlikely to last for long, because if the US takes the expected economic hit here then it becomes less likely that Trump/the GOP remains in control (eg midterms flip control back to the democrats).

Not much reason to move factories to the US, which is wildly expensive, when taking the hit and waiting it out is ultimately most likely cheaper.

Different network layer. MAC addresses are layer 2 iirc, whereas IPv6 is layer 3.

I'm surprised to hear GIMP crashed on you, I don't think I've ever had it crash on me.

Women ended up not really voting for her either. She got worse results than Clinton did with women.

Trump is currently > 1,5 million votes behind his 2020 numbers with >99% counted almost everywhere. I don't think he has a chance of getting even close to Biden's numbers, and beating his 2020 numbers seems unlikely at the moment.

They are pedophiles. I know it's a wild thing to state but I don't like pedophiles.

This makes sense and all, but a pedophile who hasn't harmed a child hasn't caused any harm. These people have a disorder that should be treated, but this isn't always easy. If this can give them some outlet that prevents any actual harm being done to children, then that can easily be argued to be a net positive.

I prefer these people jack off to AI porn over real child porn or worse, them turning to actual sexual abuse of children. What's wrong with preventing child abuse?

Do you have any research that backs this up? Because there is research that claims the opposite and that this can work as a preventative measure.

We're not talking about basic biological functions here. We're talking about issues that men and women may experience differently. This example is apples to oranges.