I think you’re forgetting that the supernatural is but another theory, put forth by humans, to explain our existence. It doesn’t earn bonus points for being unobservable. I’ve seen 0 evidence supporting it, contrary to how many questions particle physics has solved.
I’ve simply stated that we can’t draw statistics about things for which we have no evidence - which you now seem to be agreeing with.
I’ve posited quite the opposite of this. If there are two opposing theories, with one substantiated and one not, then the substantiated one is more likely. For example: you wouldn’t say that a chicken’s offspring being implanted in an egg by cosmic rays is just as likely as the egg being fertilized before it was laid because the latter is substantiated while the former has yet to have any observable truth.
I’d say 99% is a completely fair probability as the ratio of something to nothing approaches infinity.
we don’t yet have evidence pertaining to any hypothesis for how it was created
I just gave you some? I don’t know about you, but humans being able to replicate the exact particle that originated matter is a profound bit of evidence towards the universe not being a product of some higher power to me.
I guess I disagree that an office, or someone’s home office is considered a public space.
(15) Public official
The term “public official” means any elected official, appointed official, or employee of- (A) a Federal, State, or local unit of government in the United States other than- (i) a college or university; (ii) a government-sponsored enterprise (as defined in section 622(8) of this title);
I’m not intending this as a ‘gotchya’, I’m arguing that these are public servants that handle matters of public interest. The location is not important to me, and other than this fringe ‘remote’ case we’re talking about public, tax-funded buildings.
State employees aren’t actively gunning people down in the streets, unless they are cops. I think it’s a very big difference. I think you need the accountability that a body cam provides on someone who can literally end lives in seconds.
And I believe that you need accountability for people that can withhold records that could potentially save you from a life of false imprisonment. To me this is not a significant enough of a difference for me to feel the need to justify it.
I’m not sure violating privacy rights is the way to go about restoring civil rights.
violating the privacy rights of office workers
This is where our disagreement won’t be reconciled. There is no expectation of privacy in public. Until the Supreme Court overturns their decision this is not the public’s problem.
Body cams are because police have authority and are interacting with the public.
State employees at any level have authority to abuse, it’s just a very large range.
For example, there have been known cases of county clerk employees refusing to file FOIA requests on completely fabricated precedent. If I’m being charged with something, there should not be any barrier between me and the public records that exonerate me.
This example is just the tip of the iceberg.
Edit: Also just because I failed to bring this up, I wanna add something about this:
Office workers working on information that is often likely PII, thus violating the privacy right of citizens too,
When you FOIA request records, they’re always going to have a chance to censor private information. This comes up all the time with license plates and address on IDs in bodycam footage. It’s the same thing.
I get the concern, believe me. If it weren’t absolutely necessary (IMO) I wouldn’t be suggesting it.
But doesn’t it feel ethically wrong that people are having their civil rights violated by corrupt city officials and their cohorts?
Think about what a difference body cams made for police conduct. It’s more difficult to abuse any power you hold when you can be held accountable for it
No we mean the office workers too, if they’re public servants. There’s an epidemic going on in the US right now of city employees withholding forms and public resources in favor of helping the police cover up their misconduct.
Uncomfortable as though it may be, it’s necessary for accountability.
Was that supposed to be a coherent response? Everyone eats out. I think you would have to scour a nation pretty thoroughly to find even a single person that hasn’t at least had a McDonald’s shake or something. Whether something is mandated or not was not the conversation. The conversation was whether or not it’s possible to actively avoid completely, and restaurants hardly ever list their recipe as it is proprietary.
Are you legally mandated to go shop at the grocery store? No? Then why would you posit that response? You’re going to need more to support your claim than what you’ve said here before you can justify dismissing people.
You’d think it would occur to them that if one is able to consult a list, that makes it possible to avoid Nestlé products
I think you’re forgetting something. This entire chain started with an example to support the theory of it being impossible. The one about eating out where you don’t know the ingredients being served to you or what brand they’re from. You chose to ad hom without even addressing it. 🤷
I’ve read the comment chain, it just seemed like you were implying that this ban would achieve some kind of beneficial outcome.
It’s fine if I’m wrong, that’s okay. I’ll take that loss. That’s not my point. I just think this ban has no positive effects whatsoever and I’m just hoping people realize that if true.
This ban is on the sale of menthol infused cigarettes. It wouldn’t criminalize smoking menthols and there’s plenty of other ways to infuse cigarettes with menthol or buy a synthetic alternative.
If your point is at all that this prohibition would in any way, shape, or form help fulfill that goal, that is incorrect.
Thanks for proving my point for me. I appreciate it.
Your link shows an estimate of alcohol consumption during prohibition based on mortality, but there is. Zero. Accurate. Data. of alcohol consumption during the prohibition.
Being that dependent on a substance suggests that practical decision-making and rational thinking, such as adding motivation to quit through price, is certainly not going to be the most effective way to reduce dependency while also further harming those that fail to break their dependency.
Edit: Also I just want to point out, again, that I was never referring to tax. From what I saw there’s not enough conclusive data for me to form an opinion one way or the other on the effectiveness of increasing tobacco tax . All of my comments are about this ridiculously assanine ban, or the increased prices that come as a result of this ban.
“That guy happened to tangentially mention tax so you must’ve been talking about tax, herp derp”
Edit: Is it really that hard to figure out that I started this whole thread in reference to the topic of prohibition as the title suggests? I’m not talking about taxes. I never mentioned taxes. I don’t care that anyone else is talking about taxes.
How the fuck do you hit rock bottom solely on nicotine?
Tobacco, the main ingredient in cigarettes, is more addictive than meth. If you can imagine somebody hitting rock bottom on meth then it should be easy enough to wrap your head around it. Especially when cigarettes contain added chemicals to make it more addictive than tobacco alone.
Also, I would be inclined towards believing that the habit is mostly spread through peers. Price as a barrier to entry wouldn’t be effective at preventing peer pressure if they’re your first supplier.
I completely agree. This is not even a subject that I’m particularly educated on and I’m still waiting for a single substantiated defeator for my opinions on the topic to change my mind.
Then you look at the downvotes and you’d think that you missed a comment that disproved your statement(s).
Both beliefs are fine, but please realize the hypocrisy (sh.itjust.works)
But it's all about convenience (teacup.social)
Police be like (lemmy.zip)
Try not to use slave labor challenge (Impossible!) (lemmy.ml)
the FDA is considering a ban on menthol cigarette sales (www.verifythis.com)