Why should I be compelled to make myself a sitting duck to be rearended by some idiot behind me because you are too stupid to be proactive about your safety and actually look at the traffic before starting to cross? By your logic if even one person is rearended that way it's reason enough to change the law. 

I'm sold old that in my day the distinguishing feature of an "internship" was that you didn't get paid at all.

Do those useless front doors actually deter any criminals, though? Or are you merely assuming they do? Maybe those front doors don't get smashed because your fears about crime are exaggerated.

So what you're saying is that you love reading your own posts. Well, I'm glad somebody does.

Asian persecution in the US wasn’t remotely comparable to black persecution. Of most immediate topical relevance there wasn’t anything comparable to white flight, which along with the economic and social stratification of the postwar era isolated whole populations from opportunities for prosperity that would have been…

Anybody deranged enough to shoot a prospective car buyer in the head for not going ahead with the deal is likely not going to be deterred by setting the meet at a police station. Mostly the takeaway is that we need to change how males are socialized.

If you stripped out "black" your comment would be far less off-base - males commit nearly all the violent crime in our society. Doesn't consistency demand that you start denouncing males as a group?

Avengers: Infinity War made 2 billion dollars.

they don't need a title, just a batman logo, like prince used to go by a symbol.

this batman is so nerfed he can't even compete with the riddler, he has no chance in hell against a superhuman.

“The Riddler videos felt tonally off; I felt more embarrassed for him than creeped out.”

That’s a quintessentially Trumpian quality, whereas I’ve never seen evidence that Biden has ever considered himself brilliant. Maybe try to be a little less stupid next time you indulge in partisan derangement?

see, this kind of comment is a cry for more aggressive moderation. shitposting inevitably degrades and drowns out reasoned debate, unless it is promptly removed.

i’ll challenge you to stop being a disingenuous, bad-faith debater (if you didn't want to dedicate your time to this discussion you wouldn't have posted) and substantiate your position when called on - somebody else viewing the source material is no substitute for that.

we're not doing your fucking classwork for you by fleshing out for you the arguments you've failed to flesh out when challenged. that is your responsibility as a member of the debate, and anything else would risk strawman fallacy (or accusations thereof). if you have a problem with debate on those terms then fuck off,…

that solves nothing, since people can watch the same source material and come to different conclusions. the only solution is for people to flesh out their arguments when challenged, as mostdispleased failed to do. your response is at best useless and likely derailing of productive discussion.

if you think calling for someone to lose their status in society is anywhere near the list of society’s major problems today, if for example you think it’s worse than bullying members of marginalized groups who are at heightened suicide risk, you lead a super-privileged, myopic life (whether or not you are honest…

If you want to know the mortality rate of a pandemic while it's going on (rather than after it's already over) and you have a cohort of infected, z, you don't divide that into x, the number from that cohort who are already dead - you must divide it into x plus y, the number from that cohort who are not yet dead but…

If it had a 90% mortality rate and was like ebola it would be less of a threat, paradoxically. This looks to be the kind of pandemic that lands right in the destructive sweet spot.

That assumption, that the 3.4% figure must be high, sounds reasonable, but is so far not being borne out when they canvass to test the question. It's a mistake, therefore, to assume it true.