Could have said something specific then, rather than “literally anything acute”. As it is, I don’t know why you’d assume your magical elf that’s known to cause cancer could also be so benign as to only give people a cold.

Any time you vote for a candidate that loses, this is the case. And of your preferred candidate wins in a landslide, every extra vote they didn’t need might as well have been blank.

choose between having an acute health condition and cancer

The ironic part is you just might be better off with the cancer. An acute problem could be anything, from broken bones or an infection to a heart attack or acute radiation poisoning. At least with cancer you know what you’re going to get and should have time to seek treatment.

why do people have this innate ability to underestimate what we might be capable of?

Because we can see what we’re currently capable of in terms of climate change, and the outlook is pretty bleak

why do you think its impossible for us to become masters of our own genome?

Because even in the best case scenario, this is dangerously close to eugenics

not getting off this rock means our species is doomed regardless of how ‘perfect’ we keep earth.

If we can’t keep earth livable, an entire self-regulating planet that’s been livable for hundreds of millions or billions of years, what are our chances of keeping anywhere else livable?

I’m not actually trying to argue one way or the other, but

No, the cart always has to be voters. Actually showing up to the polls has to be the cart. Anything before that is nonsense.

You’re literally putting the cart before everything else, including the horse. Work on your metaphors a little.

The risk is the whole point, and certainly does not excuse their gouging.

The risk is the point though. High risk activities will cost more to insure because they’ll need to be paid out more often. Couple that with the high destruction possible, and you have frequent accidents that can all cause very expensive damage, necessitating a high base price for insurance.

The price gouging is just capitalism, and I doubt anyone here is going to argue that capitalism isn’t bad.

They’re not, they’re complaining about the problems inherent to cars.

Before Oregon became a state, it fashioned itself as a whites-only utopia. When it joined the union in 1859, it was then the only state with laws specifically prohibiting certain races from legally living, working, or owning property within its borders.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/oregon-once-legally-barred-black-people-has-the-state-reconciled-its-racist-past

It was started as a white ethnostate. Some people never really got past that.

All I can really say is, if you don’t want your personal image to be commodified, you probably shouldn’t commodify it. The fact that Alex Jones has used his company that’s deeply tied to his personal image to attack and lie about the families of the victims of Sandy Hook make his case particularly unsympathetic, and so now that he owes an absurd amount of money to those families I think he should be forced to give up his social media accounts if it helps give those families what they’re owed.

It also doesn’t help that he still thinks there are “unanswered questions” about what happened at Sandy Hook and doesn’t feel any remorse for lying and spreading misinformation about the families for years.

Take his real assets and sell them.

This is exactly what the lawyers trying to take the account think they’re doing. There’s some real value in having access to his social media followers, especially if that access can be tied to the purchase of the larger operation.

But I think they’re not ‘his’ assets, they’re the choices of those subscribers. To ‘buy’ them seems like defrauding the people who chose to listen to him.

And those subscribers can easily unfollow him as soon as they don’t like what they’re hearing. It’s not like once you follow someone on twitter you’re forced to see updates from them for the rest of your life. But since they’re following TheRealAlexJones probably to get updates about his business at InfoWars, it makes sense that the social media account that he uses to promote the business being sold needs to be considered as part of the business.

But they did own the onions before they were sold to customers, which I think means they deserve at least some fault here.

For something like t-shirt likenesses, I suppose I think the line is the person’s consent

So if he had a warehouse full of tshirts with his name or face on them and decides after filing bankruptcy that he doesn’t want to sell them anymore, should he just get to keep it? Should it all be destroyed?

If he took a cattle brand and burned his name into everything on set, does that mean he shouldn’t have to sell it any more?

In the extreme case: a person is legally entitled to sell nude images of themselves, but surely a court would never order it, even if that person had been previously selling nude images.

If someone was already selling porn before, do you think if they continued to that they shouldn’t have to give any of that money they earned to the people they owe money to? This case isn’t anywhere near that extreme because he’s not the only person in the world named ‘Alex Jones’, so how much of his ‘likeness’ is being sold is debatable to begin with. And also, we aren’t talking about future permission to use his likeness, we’re talking about a social media account used to promote his business.

If you had a talk show called the [Your Name] show, should it be immune to bankruptcy courts? Should a the company [Your Name] Inc. not be allowed to be bought and sold? Should we forbid people from selling tshirts or pictures with their names and faces on them? Where do you think we should draw the line?

The same precedent applies to ordinary people too. Should a debt collector acquire your Facebook page? Because you used Facebook marketplace it’s now a business asset?

Most people don’t own a business. The occasional use of facebook marketplace doesn’t make a personal account part of a nonexistant business.

His billion dollar settlement won’t be discharged through this bankruptcy, so his wages will probably be garnished for the rest of his life as it is. I really don’t have any sympathy for him, and taking the social media account he’s been using for his business as part of that business’s liquidation really doesn’t feel like a big deal.

I think it has more to do with the fact that he uses his twitter account mostly to advertise his business, making it more of a business account than a personal account even though it has his name on it.

Edit:

In seeking the rights to the social media accounts, the legal team for the trustee argued in court filings that Jones’ X account, and others on Telegram, Gab, Parler and other platforms, “are frequently used to promote and post Infowars content, and in some cases, have a significant number of followers.” Jones’ X account has nearly 3 million followers.

The trustee argued that social media accounts of influencers, celebrities and political personalities have become valuable assets, and that Jones’ accounts have drawn particular interest from multiple parties in buying them.

From the article neither of us bothered to read.

Only reason to be anti genocide is you being an Iranian agent.

What a thing to say. Really, just step back and look at the words you wrote.

Yeah, but have you considered the electoral college? For most people, their vote for president doesn’t matter.

It also didn’t help that it was one of the first $70 games when the norm was $60.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/syr/

I’m looking at the Full Volume, and on page 71 you can see

With about 2°C warming, climate-related changes in food availability and diet quality are estimated to increase nutrition-related diseases and the number of undernourished people, affecting tens (under low vulnerability and low warming) to hundreds of millions of people (under high vulnerability and high warming) … Climate change risks to cities, settlements and key infrastructure will rise sharply in the mid and long term with further global warming, especially in places already exposed to high temperatures, along coastlines, or with high vulnerabilities (high confidence).

At global warming of 3°C, additional risks in many sectors and regions reach high or very high levels, implying widespread systemic impacts, irreversible change and many additional adaptation limits (see Section 3.2) (high confidence). For example, very high extinction risk for endemic species in biodiversity hotspots is projected to increase at least tenfold if warming rises from 1.5°C to 3°C (medium confidence). Projected increases in direct flood damages are higher by 1.4 to 2 times at 2°C and 2.5 to 3.9 times at 3°C

Global warming of 4°C and above is projected to lead to far-reaching impacts on natural and human systems (high confidence). Beyond 4°C of warming, projected impacts on natural systems include local extinction of ~50% of tropical marine species (medium confidence) and biome shifts across 35% of global land area (medium confidence). At this level of warming, approximately 10% of the global land area is projected to face both increasing high and decreasing low extreme streamflow, affecting, without additional adaptation, over 2.1 billion people (medium confidence) and about 4 billion people are projected to experience water scarcity (medium confidence). At 4°C of warming, the global burned area is projected to increase by 50 to 70% and the fire frequency by ~30% compared to today

However, if you really want to get into it, you can read the Climate Change 2022: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Full Report. It has a lot more details about the effects of climate change on all parts of the world, but it’s also a 3,000 page pdf.

“Driven” suggest more than half of total pregnancies,

Less than 20% of a total is “significant”?

The amount the percentage represents is irrelevant. A billion people could be involved, but if the total is 7 billion, it’s not going to be a significant part of the total trend.

In the terms of your analogy, this is about 3 people out of 20 pedaling a (weirdly long) bike and steered by all of them (somehow). Would you say that group of 3 are driving? Or would you concede it’s the two groups of 6 that are mostly driving the bike?

Your “words wholly” includes more than whatever you think it does.

My point has always been about this study

Has it? I think you’re far less clear and careful with your words than you think you are. You’ve been arguing from the start that less than half of something isn’t and can’t be significant. We aren’t even discussing the text in this study that you can read in the screenshot:

More than half the drop of America’s total fertility rate is explained by women under the age of 19 now having next to no children.

What you’re saying now about “the traditional driver of USA birth rates” isn’t reflected in your other comments.

Your numbers are all over the place and don’t really make sense for what you’re talking about. 3 plus two groups of 6 would only be 15 out of 20, so where did the other 5 people go?

But more to the point, if those 3 stop pedaling, or pedal harder than everyone else combined, or apply the brakes, or tip the bike over, any number of other things they could absolutely change the speed/direction of the bike.