ChocolateReignRemix
-
Posts
1,040 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by ChocolateReignRemix
-
-
1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:
Is there a gun to your head? No. Does the single parent who has a religious problem with certain vaccines but can't practically homeschool her child and lives in CA have a choice? Not in reality.
The previously linked article mentioned that a government is banning people from places of worship. That is absolutely 100% unconstitutional and wrong. No government should think it's ok to ban people from places of worship. If the preacher/priest/rabbi/imam/etc wants to, fine.
Incorrect. In time of a heath emergency public health officials can restrict to public places. If they were only restricting access to places of worship or singling out specific groups then there would be a violation. In the manner you are describing they would be acting within the law.
-
5
-
2
-
-
21 minutes ago, SKL said:
Maybe they were talking about the incredibly high rate of deaths from medical mistakes. It blew my mind when I saw it - probably because nobody ever talks about it.
They would still be incorrect as the statistic for medical mistakes /= "doctors cause more deaths". Medical mistakes is a broad category that includes a lot more than malpractice/mistakes by caregivers.
-
12 hours ago, Bluegoat said:
I think Esme understands your argument, but if it is a palatable PR presentation, people will believe it.
I mean, this was the whole argument in the 60s and 70s for decriminalising children having sex, and a lot of people believed it, it gained a lot of traction among progressives.
Wait...what are you saying happened exactly? Both then and now the laws were not structured in a way to criminalize a child having sex, but rather it was (and still is) a criminal act to have sex with a child. Those are two very, very different concepts under the law. If you are hinting that progressive were somehow accepting of no AOC laws at all, then I will need to see some receipts showing that was a broadly accepted view. Hint: it wasn't.
-
4
-
-
13 hours ago, DesertBlossom said:
There was a news report where it was quoted that the goal was vaccination compliance.
Good.
-
4
-
-
1 hour ago, kdsuomi said:
Go ahead and celebrate that people are being denied the right to go to "public spaces" if you want to, but that is incredibly scary to many people. The government in no way has the authority to tell people that they don't have the right to go to a place of worship because of not having a vaccine. In fact, that directly violates the Second Amendment.
Reasonable quarantines and other measures to protect the public health do not violate the Constitution.
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/197/11.html
-
9
-
2
-
-
36 minutes ago, Laurie said:
I ( I think we'd be wise to get rid of the computers in libraries so at least the pervs roaming the streets can't use the internet. Let people read books and use encyclopedias! And don't get me started on the legalization of drugs like pot!)
You know, when someone comes out with a comment like this I really do have to wonder if they even take a moment to just think it through a little. Have you never heard of people with limited resources using library computers for job searches, job applications and the like? And you really think one of society's major issues is "pervs" getting access to library computers? Really?
I won't get started with you regarding the legalization of pot because I don't have time for a remake of "Reefer Madness" right now.
-
6
-
-
4 hours ago, Fifiruth said:
Here is some good economic news as reported on money.com (Money magazine):
http://money.com/money/5639032/stock-market-strong-start/
Interesting but not particularly useful when discussing a potential recession, particularly as it was written before the yield curve inversion on Friday and the latest manufacturing numbers. It also focuses on stock market returns, which are nice so far in 2019 but still has down around 5% from October.
Monday is going to be a shaky day for the markets based on current futures action and the performance of Asian markets today. Another correction in the next few months is not out of the question. A lot will depend on trade deals and the next round of economic reports.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:
Dh has been attached to the construction industry for years which is a definite factor. He has now moved away from that to some degree but would still be somewhat vulnerable.
Real estate wise prices appear to be going backwards here in some states. I think everyone’s a bit unsure as to what the long term result will be.
I have a few Aussie friends scattered about and they have told me something similar about real estate prices. Construction is particularly recession sensitive so I would certainly be cautious. There isn't an impending international economic Armageddon but on a personal level there doesn't need to be. As the old economic saying goes, if your neighbor loses his/her job there is a recession. If you lose your job then there is a depression.
The other one I like is:
--A recession means you need to tighten your belt.
--A depression means you have no belt to tighten.
--And in a panic you don't need a belt because you no longer have pants.
-
1
-
1
-
-
Just now, Ausmumof3 said:
Thanks for this very well explained commentary! I agree, I see dire financial predictions semi regularly from one source or another but something about this one seemed to be a bit more concerning somehow. We have some financial decisions to make over the next six months. I don’t want to hold off forever on stuff in fear of the next one. However we were fairly young just before the last one and had paid down our mortgage pretty well. Our accountant decided to play financial adviser and recommended we reborrow and invest a significant amount in shares. We seriously thought about it but held off and sure enough the gfc happened a couple of months later. On the other hand we had a property investment opportunity at one stage and held back because of uncertainty and it would have been a pretty successful thing!
at this point I kind of wish I had studied economics at school.
1.) Ask yourself if these are long term or short term decisions. The shorter the term the more recession risk I would assign to the decision.
2.) Evaluate your personal risk in a recession. How secure are your primary sources of income? How leveraged are you? Not all recession risk is equal.
3.) I am old school here, but never borrow to invest. And even though the numbers don't totally support this, eliminating debt has life equity value that doesn't show up in a balance sheet. The best of both worlds is investing for the future while also working a debt elimination plan but sometimes life says "hahahaha no!" to that plan.
4.) If it is an investment decision (and this is not professional investment advice), equities have limited upside in the near term. I wouldn't let FOMO (fear of missing out) play a role at this time. If it is more of a real estate decision it is more of a grey area.
-
1
-
1
-
-
The article has some accurate information but trends towards the hysterical a bit.
Every day you don't have a recession you are a day closer to your next. The 3 mo/10 year yield curve did invert, and this is often an indicator that a recession is looming. Some of the impact of the indicator is lessened as that time horizon for the predicted recession is fairly wide, with the average time lag being somewhere around a year (give or take). There is a question as to whether the amount of debt held by central banks is lessening the reliability of the inversion as a predictor this time around. I am still catching up on the financial news today, but I don't think the inversion lasted through the trading day. If not I would be looking more closely at the average yield between the 3 mo and 10 yr over a 30 day average. Institutional demand can play a role in a brief inversion.
We definitely are seeing slowing economic growth due to variety of headwinds. The past year of the trade war has caused a many companies to hold off on making investments as they are not sure about future pricing/demand. China has showed weakening growth (more alarming due to China usually overstating growth so admitted declines causes a concern that things are even worse), we have slower growth in the EU, and Brexit is looking more like a shit show ever day.
On the plus side, there are signs the US and China could reach something that looks like a deal, China started a stimulus effort in late 2018 which should yield fruit soon, and the job market and consumer spending in the US remains strong. The US housing market has taken a hit but most of that impact has already appeared in the data and shouldn't get much worse in the near term.
Summary: I have expected a recession or enough of a slowdown to feel like one by 2020. I don't see anything that really changes my mind, other than a small chance that the China deal causes some exuberance and sparks business investment again. The Fed has also backed off of rate increases in the near term which takes that fear off the table, and helps alleviate some of the debt concern expressed in the article. We also do not have any indications yet that credit markets have gotten overly risk averse (helped a bit by future business investment running low at the moment), In the end I think all the headwinds together gives us a short recession and without additional negative stimuli I don't expect anything more than something along the lines of what we felt around 2000.
What I do not see is a massive global meltdown akin to 2008. And yes, every analyst wants to be the one who can say they called "The Big One", which means some will call everything that next Big One until they get one right. Keep in mind that consensus of economists have successfully predicted 12 of the past 3 recessions. 🙂
If you want to play economist with the pros, watch the labor markets, energy markets (especially a collapse in demand) and the manufacturing reports. If you see unemployment increasing while the manufacturing reports decline and energy demand drops, you will know the recession is on the horizon.
ETA: the inversion did hold through the day. I would still wait and see what the movement is over the next month.
-
8
-
3
-
-
4 hours ago, Katy said:
Why did the FBI and people who specialize in criminology categorize it that way? I'm no expert but as an educated guess... because of the ways people process fear and make choices. The risk of someone you know flipping out and murdering you is much higher than a stranger murdering you, despite people being much more paralyzed by fear of the stranger. Gang violence can largely be avoided by avoiding gang territories. Because people need to know it is much more important to escape domestic violence with your children than it is to avoid schools, shopping malls, concerts or places of worship. Because people generally know if a coworker is unhinged before they go postal, and they need to know there is nothing wrong with expressing a concern that someone is unwell and needs help before they get so sick they make a huge mistake.
Of course you're much more likely to die of anything other than murder. But it's murder by strangers that paralyzes people with fear and fear of crime that think tanks and lobbying groups use to push for political changes on both sides. Either you're afraid of anyone having a weapon or you're afraid to not have a weapon because "The bad guys have them." Falsely inflating the types of crimes that people have NO control over is only done for the purposes of fear mongering click bait (money) and political propaganda (power).
I hear it from both sides and I'm SO SICK of it. People don't share misleading information for no reason. I honestly don't know what the answer to weapons is. Like many hard problems it is complicated and there is no easy solution. But I can guarantee you that people who are manipulating the facts are hiding an agenda, and the fears they stir up give extremists a platform. I don't trust extremists on either side. I trust the people in the middle who are dedicated to reason and using the truth so much more.
Shenanigans. Posting the entire data set is not being misleading.
-
5
-
-
1 hour ago, gardenmom5 said:
here's one about slavery.
I never learned this in school - but it was touched on in a Netflix series about "great irish castles". (goes well with great british castles.)
eta: modern historians try to get around this by claiming they were "indentured servants". if it is treated (and abused) like a slave, has no rights like slave, has no hope of ever being free like a slave - it's a slave.
FWIW the claims in that link are greatly disputed, and while indentured servitude was awful, it legally was a very different status in the colonies than that of a slave. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/17/us/irish-slaves-myth.html
https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Runaway_Slaves_and_Servants_in_Colonial_Virginia#start_entry
-
4
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, StellaM said:
Just going to leave this here - on the issue of informed consent.
Professor Carl Heneghan, Professor of Evidence Based Medicine, Oxford University, in the BMJ of Evidence Based Medicine, 2019.
Evidence review conclusions (bolding mine).
There are significant problems with how the evidence for Gender-affirming cross-sex hormone has been collected and analysed that prevents definitive conclusions to be drawn. Similar to puberty blockers, the evidence is limited by small sample sizes; retrospective methods, loss of considerable numbers of patients in follow-up. The majority of studies also lack a control group (only two studies used controls). Interventions have heterogeneous treatment regimes complicating comparisons between studies. Also adherence to the interventions are either not reported or at best inconsistent. Subjective outcomes, which are highly prevalent in the studies, are also prone to bias due to lack of blinding, and many effects can be explained by regression to the mean.
The development of these interventions should, therefore, occur in the context of research. Treatments for under 18 gender dysphoric children and adolescents remain largely experimental. There are a large number of unanswered questions that include the age at start, reversibility; adverse events, long term effects on mental health, quality of life, bone mineral density, osteoporosis in later life and cognition. We wonder whether off label use is appropriate and justified for drugs such as spironolactone which can cause substantial harms, including death. We are also ignorant of the long-term safety profiles of the different GAH regimens. The current evidence base does not support informed decision making and safe practice."How can the teen in this case be making an informed decisions when the current evidence base doesn't support it ?
Just taking a flyer, I am going to say because others disagree and believe the evidence does support it? Just a guess as I don't follow the research closely.
-
1 hour ago, Aura said:
Yes, depending on the discussion. Sometimes I've come away thinking, "You're all insane!" 🤣 Sometimes I've come away with, "Holy cow! How did I not know that!" 🤯 But mostly, it's been more gradual, introducing and exploring new ideas and lines of thinking that I'd never crossed before. I've learned a lot from discussions like this on the Hive.
I can't say I have had my mind swayed but much on WTM, but over the years I have gotten a lot from discussions on other boards.
-
2
-
-
30 minutes ago, TCB said:
But there are more than 2 options here. The child could wait until they are able to give informed consent. I understand that there are risks or side affects involved with that but there are also risks and side affects with going ahead with transition now. I don't think there is enough evidence out there to really determine which of those risks is greater at this point.
Except according to the law in BC the child is legally old enough to give consent. In the end the final decision should go to the one with the most at stake if there is reasonable evidence to support that decision. In this case the child does have the support of one parent and health care professionals.
-
2
-
-
10 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:
LOL...it's like you aren't grasping why I feel that the court shouldn't have ruled.
This ended up in court because the parents disagree. My point is that the parents disagreement doesn't automatically give the court the right to make a decision. Just because a parent brings a question to the government, that doesn't mean the court should make a decision.
Correct - don't get why you think the court shouldn't have ruled. It's like you don't get why courts exist.
-
4 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:
It probably doesn't in the situation of this specific kid. Much like my sister went to court over my nephew's school situation and the court battle drug out so long that he GRADUATED before there was a resolution. I will be straight up, I would rather a court defer to the parents (again, in a situation where we have active involved parents, who want their kid to be ok........and as I said, we have CPS and so on.....I am not about to specifically outline what is or isn't abuse, of any sort.) than to try to act AS the parents.
Basically, parental rights before government rights.
And when the parents disagree? I mean it's like you aren't grasping why this ended up in a court.
-
1
-
-
42 minutes ago, happysmileylady said:
I disagree. I think this is a sort of situation where a court should step back and say "this isn't our place to decide." And that, IMO means all the difference in the world from a legal standpoint. And the legality of of the issue is what I am concerned with in this case.
So...what then? How do you think it gets resolved?
-
9 hours ago, happysmileylady said:
I am not really interested in re-hashing the same tired old thread.
So I will repeat myself once more and then let others take over-
It's scary to me that the benevolent betters of the government can simply override a parent in this way.
Except a parent is getting overruled here either way.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, Quill said:
What’s the big win, though, if either or both things happen the summer after they leave high school?
15yos who haven't completed a high school education with babies tend to have worse overall outcomes than those who are 18+ when they have their first child.
-
2
-
-
41 minutes ago, Ellie said:
Yeah, those pesky parents who can't figure out on their own that the immunizations protect their children but have to have a government nanny make the decisions for them.
I don't think you completely get how immunity works.
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, moonflower said:
You can't separate the action from its context. She knows, I presume, that the vast majority of people in the US vaccinate, and that this provides her child with protection. If measles and polio were still common diseases in her environment, probably she'd vaccinate, and if she didn't her kid would have a right to say that it is a miracle he is alive (or at least it would be closer to the truth to say it - it's not like any child surviving these diseases before vaccines was miraculous anyway, as most people survived them).
What would be a miracle: if there were an easily available ebola vaccine, and they lived in the DRC, and she didn't get the vaccine for her kids, and the ebola epidemic there got to where it infected like 95% of the population, and he survived childhood anyway.
That would be a miracle.
This is not a miracle.
Sure, he can judge her -all kids judge their parents as they grow up. But he is wrong to say it's a miracle that he survived, because it's not. He doesn't understand vaccines in the US any better than she does, evidently.
He has enough sense to get vaccinated so his understanding is leaps and bounds beyond hers.
-
4
-
-
6 minutes ago, EmseB said:
Are you saying your son gets to an even $0 owed/returned? That is impressive. I think our current system is nuts. The government asks me to estimate what I owe under their horribly complex tax code and count on me getting it wrong because it's too hard for most to know their exact tax bill each year. No one can get it right! There's almost no possible way for the government to know throughout the year exactly how much you will be taxed, but the IRS has forms and calculators so you can figure it out. But mostly you owe them or they owe you. BUT if you do your return wrong or set your withholdings too low, you get penalized. You can get fined and ultimately go to jail for being wrong on your taxes. If the government makes a mistake, ah well, that's just how it goes, it's too hard for them to do it any other way. :shrug:
Is it hard to track down people who don't pay? Sure. But it's hard now. Are you saying people would stop paying taxes if they got a true tax bill from the government every year? If so, I would support wage garnishment for those who fail to pay their taxes. Sure. But right now they're garnishing everyone in a way that confuses a whole lot of people about what they're truly being taxed (or not, as the case may be). If those calculators are out there and people can do this to the penny, why not have the IRS do that and send a bill instead of relying on a bunch of lay people to figure it out on their own?
You won't go to jail for simply being wrong on your taxes.
The tax code is really not that complicated for most personal income tax calculations. We usually have ours set up to where we are +/- $400-500 each year.
To our second bolded, we operate as a pay as you go system so that the government has an income stream throughout the year, and also because most people would rather not have to hold thousands in cash to pay a lump sum bill every year.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, DesertBlossom said:
I don't see how providing free condoms is going to help teenagers grow up into responsible adults who buy their own condoms.
I think the primary goal is to make it less likely they become parents or catch an STD while in high school.
-
7
-
New Yorker article - "The Rage of the Incels"
in The Chat Board
Posted
+1
I would also like to add even though Bluegoat's point about slavery "declining" for a time is technically correct, during that same time period the Church also routinely participated and condoned the subjugation of the peasant/serf classes throughout Europe and elsewhere.