Coreece

Probably around 400 four-year scholarships and maybe 150-200 prof salaries for 4 years.. Maybe this guy isn't as expensive. I hear he might be looking for a job:

So to sum it up: Netanyahu is like Hitler because Trump, and invented Hamas since it's actually the right wing evangelical jews that chronically sabotage peace in the middle east, lmao. . . .and then they say Slim and Brent are the trolls.

So that would be, "my younger sister has a daughter, Alice. They just turned 20. They identifies as female?" Is that how it would go? Seems more practical to just speak in sentence fragments like wolfriverjoe did in the original quote above. Or, you could just use relative pronouns: "My younger sister has a daughter named Alice who just turned 20 and identifies as female." Problem solved.

Only to sneak back across the border again 3 days later.

So that would be, "my younger sister has a daughter, Alice. They just turned 20. They identifies as female?" Is that how it would go?

Missed that one, but I saw the other one where she accepted impermissible gifts and paid for them only after the investigation began. But the database does allows you to filter out the type of misconduct you're OK with, leaving only a handful of Reps that that didn't wear a mask on the House floor.

https://www.govtrack.us/misconduct Counted 78 Dems and 85 Reps over the last 10 years or so. . . Interesting how corruption skyrocketed after Obama was elected.

Practically every hot topic today involves a level of complexity that people are unwilling to accept if it doesn't align with their narrative. Racial and gender disparities are a good example. They're not all explicitly about race or gender, and if those reasons aren't acknowledged and explored proportionately, then how do you ever expect to fix them?

Well the whole "gas the jews" thing in Sydney is taking us back to the 40s, and the anti-religious sentiment is taking us back to the 20s. We've finally invented time travel. Not really what I expected, but hopefully we get it right this time.

Yet again, that 50% reduction was INTERNATIONAL and also happened in Europe and other developed countries which don't have guns. But not necessarily for the same reasons. Things like violent crime Bill of 1994 and (proven) violence prevention programs wouldn't apply internationally, and serve as a practical framework for reducing gun crime in the U.S, today. Exactly, but they are hardly ever the topic of discussion. And when they're brought, people just tend to ignore it. Nobody wants to talk about the success of the (Biden's) aforementioned violent crime bill in reducing crime. The left has already admitted that it was a "mistake" given the "unintended consequence" of disproportionately incarcerating blacks. (tho Clinton warned about the consequences a week before signing it.) And conservatives don't want to give Biden/Clinton credit for drastically reducing crime. And again, it should be recognized that gun homicides, suicides, and active shooter incidents are influenced by a variety of factors and impact different demographics that call for distinct solutions. I get that 0 guns = 0 gun deaths, thanks for the memo. But let's say that we actually do start to reduce guns and cut the number in half, back to 80's & 90's numbers? (200 Million) What makes you think gun crime is going to be any less than it was back then if we don't address the underlying social & economic factors? What is the magic number of guns before we start seeing direct results? 100 million? 50 million? 1 million? 0? How do you intend to achieve that goal? And if you acknowledge that it might not be feasible or effective, why prioritize it as the primary focus instead of concentrating our efforts on the practical (though incomplete) framework we already have, where we can invest our time/money/energy more efficiently?

Why does there have to be a dividing line? What you do is either beneficial and edifying, or it's not. That's kind of vague. I haven't read the details of this, but in general most of the quarrels today are unnecessary and easily avoidable, but we insist on provoking each other.

You can burn it but I don't think that's a particularly wise thing to do. Freedom is a dish best served with a side of personal responsibility.

"All things are lawful, but not all things are profitable. All things are lawful, but not all things edify." People need to start thinking a bit more and at least try to stop making things worse, especially with their "solutions."

Either way, they're gonna need a bigger noose.

You sound like brent saying "if CO2 levels are the highest they've ever been, why is winter 2022 COLDER than summer 1998!?!?!" He can't fit more than one variable in his mental temperature model, and you really should consider more than just number of guns in your analysis of homicide statistics. Learn what a monotonic function is and realise that homicides are not monotonically increasing with guns because other variables exist. But additional analysis like trends, correlation coefficients, etc. will tease out the relationship. IIRC, Bill's the one that made the comparison between those two specific years. I was referencing the 50% reduction in violent/gun crime/homicides over a 20 year period that has been the subject of much research. There are about 5 main reasons attributed to that decline, none of which were a reduction in guns.

Sorry about the facts. I know you are. Facts without insight. You say more guns, more gun violence - and then illustrate that with facts about how 2021 had a lower (but near equal) homicide rate than in 1994 when we had 200 million less guns. And then you deliberately ignore everything else in between that doesn't align with leftist talking points.

No you did not answer. Again, here it is: Explain exactly how this would work. Use real numbers, costs, loss of jobs, economic impacts. . . Never mind that. I had this discussion with him like 10 years ago. Back then he was saying that it would take GENERATIONS to get gun levels that low, but it's a start. Now he's saying 8 years, lmao. And He never addressed the point wrt who cares about waiting generations when we already had cut the homicide rate in half between 1994 ans 2014 despite doubling the amount of guns. We must've been doing something right. And even if we were able to cut the amount of guns in half, we'd still be at around 1994 numbers when the gun homicide rate was the highest, so why does he think anything would be better? Having said that, at 1994 numbers (200 million guns iirc) there is a possibility that we could've seen this rollercoaster of spikes in homicide rates every 20 years or so regardless of an increase in guns. (currently 400+ million) Perhaps 200 million is the magic number, and getting below that might render some positive results? But again, why bother when there are already proven programs in place, they just won't get the funding. They rather just make it political and try to take guns away from their conservative boogie men, and garner votes in the process.

And now it is back to that level. In 1994 (a peak in gun deaths, so the best year to cherrypick) there were 6.8 deaths per 100,000 people due to gun violence. In 2021 it was 6.7. Ya, just keep on selectively quoting my posts and dodging the point/questions. You're good at that.

Maybe actually say that next time then? You were directly replying to this statement "What Genesis is missing is good science." with the comment "Hmmm, that's pretty much the opposite of what most astrophysicists are saying today." Can you see what people are gonna think you mean? ya, but it was an after thought and didn't feel like editing it. I was caught up in the moment, what can I say? Plus, I offered a tiny bit more context than what you quoted, and felt that it might be enough to figure out that that's not what I was talking about if you really wanted to, but I don't blame you. Totally my bad. I really don't think you need to bring up planck time to see the problem with the statement that God created the heavens and the earth*... and then light. Seems a bit redundant. Truth be told, I was kind of projecting when i said "what else are you missing?" It's been awhile since I revisited Genesis, and in the back of my mind I too felt that light came first. After all, from a human perspective you kinda want to see what you're creating. Plus, when reading, you're actually visualizing it, so light is sort of a given. I didn't really think about it until Jerry asked the question about light in the beginning, and it was immediately brought to my memory that it actually says "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." I just found that more interesting. But again, try to understand that I view biblical texts more as poetry rather than a science book explicitly trying to describe "how" and in a precise chronology. Scripture is filled with instances admonishing human pride and arrogance, even including instances where people themselves felt in their heart that They were God. We see even today how self centered Humans are, let alone during biblical times. So from a more poetic stance, I see Genesis as saying, look, God did it. He created the Heavens and the Earth. It's all here, and than Bam, I'm the one that turned on the lights, and If fact, I AM light. So don't forget it. In my mind, it's a powerful way to make the point, especially since there is lots of language about light in general (both literally and metaphorically) so the chronology doesn't matter as much.

Citation needed. You need a citation for how astrophysicists are saying the opposite of what the Bible says? Because that's what I meant. I was associating the photon epoch with "the beginning." So in that sense it's the opposite since Scripture says He created the Heavens and the Earth, then He created light. But then again, maybe it's not really the opposite. Was there light prior to the photon epoch? Maybe, but it wouldn't have been as transparent, and differ from our contemporary understanding of light. Bottom line is that the Bible is not a science book. It's long enough as it is without explaining everything in planck time. It effectively conveyed its intended message in a manner that was accessible and comprehensible to the people of that era. Basically that God did it.

What Genesis is missing is good science. Hmmm, that's pretty much the opposite of what most astrophysicists are saying today. . . .but they say a lot these days. Anyway, never really thought about it like that before. Interesting. Makes sense tho that it would be that way. . .opposite.

You are quoting Canadian Professor Jordan Peterson (clinical psychologist) in that he perceives the current fad for trans-gender surgery to be a fad. A fad like teenagers cutting their own skin .... a fad the Salem Witch Hunts ... a fad like another dozen religious crusades .... a fad like a variety of religious jihads ... a fad like the Flat Earth Society ... a fad like disco music .... No, if anything that seed was planted by the 80s videos I was posting in the music video thread that day and something I read in L.A times that I posted here about a year ago: https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2022-04-12/a-transgender-psychologist-reckons-with-how-to-support-a-new-generation-of-trans-teens "She has helped hundreds of teens transition. But she has also come to believe that some children identifying as trans are falling under the influence of their peers and social media and that some clinicians are failing to subject minors to rigorous mental health evaluations before recommending hormones or surgeries. “I think it’s gone too far. . ." Edit Actually no, I remember now. It was from this Bill Maher Segment that referenced that article:

But again, we cut the gun homicide rate in half between 1994 and 2014, and it wasn't because of less guns since we nearly doubled them during that time. How were we able to reduce the homicide rate during that time? Why were they killing more in 1994 than 2004? Why are they killing more now than in 2019?

Since the link also listed overall death rates - yes. Ya, since 2019 like I already said in the part that you selectively quoted out. Besides, we've had all these guns way before that. Something else dramatic must've happened in the last 5 years. . .

Agreed. But gun violence - specifically total dead due to gun use and active shooter incidents - are up over the last 20. That's the concern. Agreed, it's gained popularity ever since columbine in the 90s. At the same time, I'm wondering how do those 200 or so incidents from your link over the last 20 years actually affect the overall numbers/rates we're talking about?