PaintedSnail

Time management is different for everyone, and when you're on a deadline, or just dealing with a one-off situation, the extra research has no value.

Sometimes you don't need to know how the clock works, you just need to know what time it is.

I'm not your Mary Tyler Moore.

They were very obviously making a joke based on the original picture

No thanks, I'm FIN.

Focusing on the general idea of the last statement of your first paragraph, I completely disagree. I would much rather have a smart evil person in charge over an evil idiot.

A smart evil person will, at the very least, work for their own self-preservation. They can be negotiated with, even reasoned with, because they know that some give and take is required to meet their own goals.

An evil idiot will just break everything and take everyone with them if they don't get what they want simply because they don't understand what it is they are breaking.

Correct. Infant botulism can result from bacteria in raw honey that is otherwise harmless to anyone with a developed immune system.

I suppose the question is which would use less energy: boiling to distill, or boiling just enough to bind the microplastics to the calcium and then filter the now easy-to-remove large particles.

That is a very drastic slippery slope fallacy. You're claiming that if convicted criminals have rights, then crime will take over and run the country. You are incorrectly conflating the preservation of rights with the removal of deterrents.

By the way, which South American countries are communist? If you are thinking of Cuba (which is not South American), then they actually use the criminal justice system to suppress rights, which is what this thread is claiming will happen if the rights of the convicted are removed.

I'm not sure how you made the jump from "removing rights" to "removing punishments." Even the U.S. constitution has explicitly protected rights for the convicted and we definitely still have prisons.

Yes. The hunters would gift their kills to the gatherers, and the gatherers would gift their findings to the hunters. The economic model is known as a "gift economy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer#Social_and_economic_structure

There is no such thing as not having an "economic model." As long as there are people with unmet needs and wants, there will be an economy, and that economy can be modeled and given a label.

I agree. Please read my last sentence.

The statement, however, indicated that they were more annoyed that a politician would change their stance because of poling numbers rather than because it's the right thing to do. My point is that our political system is designed for just that. Politicians have always done what is best for themselves, and expecting different from any politician is naive. Our system is deliberately designed to allow people to put pressure on politicians to (try to) keep them from sacrificing the people they are supposed to govern for their own gain.

I was talking more to the general sentiment of the statement, not to these specific circumstances. Don't blame a politician for bowing to political pressure from the people. That's what they're supposed to do to keep your vote. Allow them to change their policy, even if they don't change their stance. Instead, blame the ones that double-down on harmful decisions because they don't want to appear "weak."

This is all theoretical, of course. Recent elections have shown that too many people are willing to be sacrificed to allow those in charge to appear "strong."