PhilMcGraw

Honestly it sucks that happened to you, but using that as a reason to decide that a whole form of transport is akin to shooting an AK-47 in a dark room (or whatever it was) or beating a child is ridiculous. People get hurt every day from all kinds of vehicles and all kinds of objects.

Sometimes you can just be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

More poke the insane person and see what fun thing they come up with.

I'm not against the law you mentioned, in my opinion everyone should be driving/riding defensively and crashes are often a failure of both parties to some extent. Even if you're technically at fault often the other party could have done something to avoid or minimise the accident.

The insane part was the comparison to scenarios where a party is clearly at fault. How is beating the shit out of a child anywhere near equivalent to hitting a cyclist that has blindly ridden in front of your car with no chance to have predicted it?

Out of mostly amusement to see what you come up with at this point, what makes cyclists not also a bullet for pedestrians in this scenario? Less heavy but can still be deadly to pedestrians.

Again, insane comparisons, driving a heavy vehicle is in no way similar to intentionally assaulting someone. A more appropriate comparison might be if your lover was punching a punching bag and you dove in front of it mid hard swing, and they had no time to avoid hitting you. Is that your fault or theirs?

If a cyclist runs over a child, who was not visible at all until they ran into their path with no time to stop, on a path designated for bicycles where a pedestrian has no right to be, is the cyclist at fault?

Anyway I think I might be responding to a crazy person, so I'm probably wasting my time, but I'm interested in how deep it goes.

A cyclist us never to blame for a car hitting a cyclist. It is always always always the drivers fault, because they chose to drive a car.

That's an insane take, right? If I as a cyclist blindly ride across a road directly in front of a heavy vehicle, surely it's on me. In what way would that be the heavy vehicle drivers fault?

How do they justify that? I mean I can see why people would be against aborting viable fetuses, but a fetus that will never live seems absurd.

I guess we also force dying people to wait it out, so maybe it's on trend.

Same, always used Google Meet, was forced to use teams. It took me a second to find the right button while rambling about it. Being a Mac I also needed to enable the permission and restart.

I haven't used Zoom in a while either, it would probably take me a second as well if it's not obvious.

I wonder if it was more an assumption that the rules only applied to viable pregnancies.

I mean I'm pro-choice but I'd assume anyone pushing to ban abortion is aiming to prevent viable pregnancies from being terminated while still allowing medically necessary or unviable pregnancies to be terminated.

Was that really the issue? She felt pretty "souly" to me. I'm wondering if it's more voter turnout and people not being ready to vote for a woman (for whatever reason).

I mean was Biden really above and beyond Harris? He beat Trump, and Trump arguably has even less going for him this election.

... Interesting.

I get what you're going for but you're not giving their sexual partners much credit. Do you not believe women can turn down or validly consent to sex with Elon Musk because he's a billionaire? It says a bit about what you think of women.