WhatTrees

You’re not dog whistling, you’re just certain that something fishy is going on when one athlete is bigger and stronger than another. You clearly are trying to imply something, why not just woman-up and say it?

The people whose job it is to decide already did and she qualified. What more is there to do, unless you think they need to look at it again because they got it wrong?

Yes, you totally have no opinion on it whatsoever which is why you vague-posted a “just asking questions” type comment on here.

It does come pre-installed on some computers depending on the provided OS and the changes made by the manufacturer. If you install your own fresh version of windows, it should only be installed if windows believes you need it for the component to function.

My last pre-built came with a bunch of garbage before I wiped it with a fresh copy of windows and almost all went away. I would certainly not say Intel is the worst though, older dell machines and even relatively modern HP machines come with a bunch of “necessarily for the component to function” garbage that can’t really be uninstalled easily (windows will reinstall them).

It’s both because there is more than one kind of road.

America really likes stroads which give the impression that you can safely travel at speeds that are actually dangerous. We do that often in neighborhoods where we should be going 20-25 max but the design of the roads encourages us to drive faster. Since the speed limit is often actually at a safe speed, the issue of speeding is about the design of the road and not the speed limit.

Larger roads like highways, freeways, and expressways are designed for high-speed travel but often have speed limits that are low for the sake of revenue generation. If you’ve ever driven through a small town where the highway design doesn’t change but the speed suddenly drops from 65 to 35 you know what I mean. In those cases the problem is with the arbitrarily low speed limit as some states have raised the cap up to 80 and have not seen a substantial increase in accident-related injuries and deaths.

Connector roads often suffer from one or the other problem listed above. They are either designed to make you feel like you can go 60 when you should be going 40 or are set at 30 when you could safely go 40. The road design needs to match the safe speed by making drivers feel unsafe when they exceed that speed and not unnecessarily penalize them by not putting the limit lower than that speed.

Both of those result in speeding but have different causes.

Our roads are designed to make us think we can go faster than we should and localities have an incentive to keep speed limits arbitrarily low to increase fines from speeders.

Why would I bother answering any of your questions after you spent days ignoring mine? Why should I bother building an argument when you never presented a coherent one yourself?

You made a claim you refused to support and ignored analogies for, you shifted the goalpost to something entirely different, and now you claim to want a good faith discussion. You never did. You wanted to make your ridiculous claim about government criticism being somehow racist because you have to find some way to support an authoritarian government you like because the sole party with power is using communist in their name. You don’t have a consistent world view and just want to find a way to excuse the unexcusable actions of a tyrannical government you wouldn’t hesitate to call out of the were in the west.

You don’t have any high grounds in this conversation.

Trying to act like you’re suddenly good faith when you’ve been acting the way you have is probably not the flex you think it is either.

No, it’s cuter if you hang up first babe.

No, you hang up first. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

I don’t really understand your questions and am going to pretend they aren’t relevant so…

I think you should talk to my friend, maybe he could explain my position to you since I can’t. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

“I don’t understand your questions and don’t care to respond to them.”

So, no evidence then?

Yes. Without the courts ability to determine if something is unconstitutional then it would always be up to Congress / the executive to decide what is constitutional and what is not. That presents an obvious separation of powers problem and could easily be misused by a Congress or executive branch that are hostile to certain rights.

So then, no evidence that they don’t attempt to hide the information or ban people from holding memorial services? You could provide evidence that the government allows memorial services, or you could prove that the specific claims made in the evidence I gave you are incorrect. For example, you could show that access to the relevant wiki pages and Google searches are not blocked in China. None of this is proving a negative or an impossibly high bar to meet.

We already covered this multiple times. The claim is they can’t because of government actions that you refuse to prove don’t happen. Are you now backing off the other part altogether and saying the only thing you’ll defend is that some Chinese people have said things about TS?

Or, better yet, increase the number of justices to at least the number of circuits we have. I would say take that number and multiply it by three so that there are 3 from each that can form a small panel to deal with smaller issues and form a larger, randomly selected, 9-11 judge panel to deal with bigger issues. It would also dramatically limit the power any one justice holds. Mandate a strict code of ethics and disclosure and put in term limits.

How could I accept something I haven’t seen? Why would I accept something unrelated to the claim at hand?

My dude, it’s been the same conversation this whole time. “People can’t talk about TS” because the government hides information about it and bans memorial services. You’ve been pedantic about this for a while now but this is another level.

I like that the end of this road is just an attempt to shuffle me off to someone else who you hope could defend your position since you apparently can’t. You can stop responding if you like, I have no idea why you keep responding but not providing any evidence for your claims. I’ll keep asking you for evidence as long as it takes for you to either provide it, admit that you don’t have a good reason to believe it, or walk away as you’ve always been free to do.

I know you don’t care, that’s been obvious this whole time even though you keep responding, but I don’t for a moment believe you’re too dumb to understand the connection or relevance. You’ve only been answering the questions you want to answer because that’s easy but have pretty much always refused to answer the hard questions. You’ve been avoiding the questions that would highlight exactly how preposterous your claim was using identical logic to talk about other countries. You’ve refused to supply evidence unless I agree to accept it first. You’ve shifted the goalposts from is sinophobic and an anti China buzzword to has more than 0 racist underpinnings, a standard you know damn well you don’t apply to other countries.

I just don’t understand why you have such a strong need to protect an authoritarian government from criticism. China isn’t smol bean and they don’t need you to white-knight for them. They are a big-boy country who can handle criticisms of their actions. I don’t care if their people faced oppression, the government doesn’t get a pass for oppressing their citizens. Even if you think the criticism isn’t true, I hope you can see how wrong and determental it is to call it sinophobic. It’s a transparent attempt to co-opt liberal idpol to cover for the actions of a government you’ve decided you like. And you’ll have to forgive me for not believing your “trust me bro someone else can totally prove this to you.”

I never said they’d have to line up with ideas I already have. The evidence you provide would need to adequately demonstrate what you are trying to prove and address the points brought up in the evidence I’ve already provided. I don’t care about “the western narrative”, I care about you proving what you claimed was obvious.

I haven’t rejected anything yet because you haven’t provided anything yet. You want me to agree to accept evidence I haven’t seen and that doesn’t address the actual claim made. My claim wasn’t that “all Chinese people believe the government is trying to hide information about TS” or “all Chinese people have 0 knowledge about TS” , it was “the government is trying to hide information about TS.” Showing me what a handful of Chinese people think is not going to address the claim at all. Do you have government documents that show something different? Do you have a reliable way to show that the claims in the evidence I provided are false?

If not, we are left with you choosing to accept the testimony of a few over the documented actions of a government.

I doubt you really want to have a conversation about our inherent biases given the stances you’ve taken in this conversation and the disparity between the evidence provided by the two of us. Which one of us has expressed a willingness to change their mind if presented sufficient evidence? Which one has backed up even a single claim made?

I have no doubt that chauvinism is an underpinning for some of my beliefs, in the same way that I doubt you would claim to have 0 racist, sexist, or chauvinistic underpinnings yourself. We are products of the cultures that surround us, especially during our formative years. True impartiality is impossible.

Once again though, you’d need to demonstrate that the belief is wrong not just that it has a non-zero number of racist influences.

You could have just provided sufficient evidence or provided what you have and see what my response would have been. Attempting to paint me into a corner by agreeing to accept evidence I haven’t seen yet and don’t know the nature of, other than you saying it’s the words of Chinese people, is ridiculous. Would you agree to accept my evidence before seeing it only knowing it’s coming from an international nonprofit?

Is that all it took to convince you? Would that kind of evidence be sufficient for any of related claims for other countries? I highly doubt you’d accept it if the tables were turned.

You understand that I don’t have to think someone is lying to be wrong about something, right? How is your evidence going to show that these people aren’t simply mistaken or misinformed?

Why don’t you just provide what you have and see what objections come up?