I can’t remember the details, and too lazy to search it up right now, but I think it was like Greta and him were having a Twitter argument, and he maybe posted a photo with a background that accidentally disclosed his location, so authorities who were already looking to arrest him were able to act on it.

The choice is more between ‘Sally has autism’ (some people think this makes it sound more like a disease, more distancing and separate from the person), and ‘Sally is autistic’ (sounds more like a character/personality trait, a way of being).

I think when you read that article it’s important to think critically about how it’s composed. I am as anti-trump as the next European “centrist dad”, but nothing I read there made me think he went out of his way to tell that story unprompted. I imagine he was interviewed, said a bunch of stuff, and then someone cherry-picked the quotes they needed to support the narrative of the article… You can’t just take it at face value!?

The local pharmacist in my parent’s village died from accidentally eating poisonous mushrooms ☹️

Maybe a bit with gabber or grindcore and harder stuff like that. In the UK/EU at least.

Wasn’t cromulent in Blackadder tho? And surely that was before 96? Or am I just missing the relative age of things again?

:`-( I miss voting in the European elections! 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿🇪🇺💪

I feel like my comment in another thread is even more relevant here:

I have no direct knowledge about that, but if we take the analogy of the egg (shell, albumen and yolk sack) being the life-support system of the embryo during gestation, in humans the placenta would be a big part of that, and exactly whose body it is part of its not simple (from what I remember both mother and child contribute cells, and the ‘plan’ for building it comes from the father’s genes). So maybe for chickens it could be ambiguous whether the shell ‘belongs’ to the laying generation or the hatching one. Seems like mostly a human taxonomy distinction to make anyway, obviously it’s in between the two, but we like to draw the line somewhere.

I have no direct knowledge about that, but if we take the analogy of the egg (shell, albumen and yolk sack) being the life-support system of the embryo during gestation, in humans the placenta would be a big part of that, and exactly whose body it is part of its not simple (from what I remember both mother and child contribute cells, and the ‘plan’ for building it comes from the father’s genes). So maybe for chickens it could be ambiguous whether the shell ‘belongs’ to the laying generation or the hatching one. Seems like mostly a human taxonomy distinction to make anyway, obviously it’s in between the two, but we like to draw the line somewhere.

Brilliant! What’s this from?

Not so! https://gut.bmj.com/content/63/1/179

The main way the atomic bombs worked was by setting everything on fire. The radiation was secondary, and much less significant.

It is interesting, but remember we need food to live anyway, and we need exercise to stay healthy. If we ask used ebikes on max pedal assist to get around, but then go to the gym and pound the treadmill for an hour, what does that do to the numbers? Or if we eat less and burn less energy, but then lose bone density and need more healthcare as we age (just one effect among many of not getting enough exercise)?

It’s my favourite format. I think the original was ‘stop doing math’

Your second sentence does not follow logically from your first though. A randomly selected male might be half as likely as a randomly selected woman to be a victim of domestic violence, but what a man in the far smaller set of people who have googled that particular phrase? I would venture to say the ratio might be a lot closer

Not cool, mate. Too far. disappointed face.

I mean that was possibly their intention, but nevertheless I think it is a reasonable question to ask, and I found it difficult to answer comprehensively.

If we dismiss everything like this as troll, and not worth thinking about, we miss an opportunity to develop point of view and add nuance to our arguments.

I think we should try to answer this rather than just down voting. I think the difference is that conservative thinking led to the policy that led to the person being targeted, and possibly also to a climate of intolerance that made the attacker/s feel like they had the support of the community to do that. We’re not really talking about who is too blame for this individual instance (obviously that’s the person/s who manslaughtered this child). We’re talking bigger picture.

When an immigrant commits a crime, I suppose you would argue that liberal thinking created the situation where that could happen, but I think it’s a false equivalence. Big picture immigrants don’t disproportionately commit crime, and there are major benefits that come with immigration. While trans people absolutely are disproportionately the victims of violence, and there are no real benefits to transphobic policies.

I guess I haven’t done great at this, please other people build on this reply, it just felt wrong to see a fair enough question just being downvoted with no reply.

*England is…

This is a miscommunication, you two are not really in disagreement as far as I can see. If someone {presents as an effeminate man} AND {they say they’re non-binary} => {they are non-binary}. However if someone {presents as an effeminate man} AND does NOT {say they’re non-binary}… Then it’s not sufficient.