Just get a filter for your tap, and cases of individual waters have been fine to buy for emergency use

Education research for the last 40+ years would disagree heavily with you. Standardized testing primarily reflects the ability to repeat rote information you've memorized, and is especially useless on question types like multiple choice or mix and match columns. We also know there are plenty of students who have inhibitions to standardized testing including executive function, attention, and learning disorders - and that most of those kids are not being put into an IEP or special needs program that can fit their needs.

I know it makes sense on paper (heh) that if you can't put it on a test you don't know it. But that's not really an accurate reflection of what a student knows or how they think, there's better ways for us to go about this with evidence-based learning science

Anti abortion, pro judicial punishment, an asshole - all conservative qualities I see in you

They'll be proud of it

I don't know if we have the data out there to prove it conclusively. If we do I'm not aware of it to be honest. But I do know that negative reinforcement in general doesn't work, and so I expect that trend to hold true for financial crime regardless of the severity of the punishment

I could have made my point more clear. What I mean to say is, because we know it doesn't deter a premeditated violent crime, I'm pretty sure it will also not deter a premeditated large scale financial crime and that is why I say the theory doesn't hold water. My greater implication being that the death penalty doesn't help in basically any way, there's no benefits that aren't based on emotional responses

I do agree with your point that something like that affects way way way more people and at larger scales than any isolated violent action. Steal $50 with a gun and you're away for 20, steal $50M with a Ponzi scheme and you're put away for a couple years at best

Honestly I lean towards no. And there's slippery slope and liberty implications which I appreciate. But if we're asking, does a parent have the right to deprive their child of basic knowledge necessary to function in society, I gotta say no on the same grounds as beating your kid isn't ok. Being a parent isn't free reign to abuse your child and I very much think zero real education is abuse

You're the one whining about being "punished" lol lmao conservatives

They're also anti government they DO benefit from, unless it harms someone they think is lesser than them

Capital punishment doesn't deter premeditated violent crime. I appreciate your thinking but I don't think it holds water

Oh no! Not checks notes anatomically accurate sex education!

Shrooms here ain't shit as far as I've found. It's pretty available though which is nice.

At some point Colbert, the daily show (god I still miss Jon Stewart), SNL etc just became bad imitations of reality in a way, haha

I'd say it's still an incel mindset either way

Edit to explain more - I feel it's evolved from the original meaning to also include misogynistic (and misandristic et al) behaviors based around the idea that someone owes you sexual consideration or favors for really any reason, and the backlash these people display when they don't get it.

Think of the scenario where a person comes on to someone, gets rejected, and says "I didn't like you anyway / you're not attractive anyway / fuck you anyway" as a form of retribution. That's incel to me and it can definitely manifest in "nice girls" type of cultures as well as the more classic "nice guy" archetype

Well, we know the justice system skews those numbers by nature. It's not a good comparison. There's no disproving the fact that more guns means more gun violence. Keep on raging contard

It's short for "involuntarily celibate". It connotes a group of mostly straight men who hold resentment or hate for women because they feel they're owed sex but don't get it.

And if you were less numerous than you are, the murder rate would be lower. Shocker

Technically correct: the only kind of correct!

Same applies to everyone in the state lol

Again, not a serial killer in this scenario, someone wrongfully convicted. We have killed dozens of people in the US that we now know for a fact were innocent

You ever seen a grown man naked?

That's the whole rub. What level of emotional response (no matter how justified, true, or widely-shared) could outweigh a very real potential to kill someone who was innocent?

That does open a question though - are you still performing prison labor if you are on death row? If they can't or don't, then there is an interest in the profit lost to those who benefit from the prison-industrial complex

The greater point of the satire I tried to make was that every gun owner is a well intended responsible and safe gun owner, up until the moment they aren't. The opposite is a rhetoric that tries to justify guys like these, mal-intended or not.

*Autocorrect

How do you feel about the militia bit?