neatchee
I'll come back for one last comment to make this clear:
It is never, EVER acceptable to force someone to use their body to save the life of another. Ever. CORPSES have more rights than that (you have to volunteer to be a donor before death).
You want women to have fewer rights than corpses?
And that's without even arguing whether a clump of cells that can't survive on its own is even considered a life.
You can think someone sucks for having an abortion, and we can discuss what happens when a fetus could possible be viable on its own. But bodily autonomy is non-negotiable. If someone says "disconnect me from the thing attached to my body" you fucking do it. End of story. Call them horrible, callous, a sinner, whatever you want. But you do not force people to use their body as an incubator against their will.
A) You hope it will. In the meantime, we continue to see cases of people being in danger or even dying.
B) Good for you that you can hand-wave away other people's lives and safety as just a temporary bump in the road.
Your callousness is disconcerting, to say the least, and I'm done with this conversation now because I can't teach you to stop looking at people as statistics.
And you don't seem to be listening to people who are telling you that the law doesn't have to be draconian to cost people their lives.
If some number of hospitals conclude that the cost of letting people die and settling wrongful death cases is lower than the cost of defending patients' rights to an abortion under their specific circumstances, then those hospitals will set policy that prohibits providing those abortions. Because they are profit-driven, not charities (a separate but related problem)
I will say it again: if the cost is less than the profit, it's not a punishment, it's a business expense. Put another way, if actually breaking law A costs less than defending accusations of breaking law B, they will break law A every time.
I'm really tired of trying to explain to people that laws and politics do not exist in a bubble.
Unfortunately the HHS Secretary isn't empowered to create law, nor are they empowered to interpret law. They can only share opinions, provide guidance, create policy, etc. So no, in this case, you are not quite right.
Further, as the other user pointed out: the hospital would rather be sued by the individual for violating their rights than by the state for violating the law. Regardless of potential precedent or final outcome, one is far, FAR more costly than the other.
As they say, when the punishment is less than the profit, it's not a punishment, it's a business expense
Ultimately, laws can only be judged on their ability to create outcomes. This one has failed miserably
I'm curious what you mean by "better moderation"? Are you comparing to specific instances? Or do you mean consistency, because it's more centralized?
"A question: Would the flesh-beings like some tea?"
"I'm making an interjection: oopsie woopsie, HK made a mistake!"
🤢🤮
Meatbags?
I'm all seriousness, this is just another in a long litany of horribly oppressive actions taken by China's government. Not looking forward to the US moving in that direction
I see. I think you are applying specific definition to what Favreau means by "the electoral majority" when that is a fairly abstract, undefined thing. I think the more generous interpretation is that we need to figure out what that electoral majority (for Democrats) actually is through research, and then apply the logic Favreau is putting forward.
The electorate is everyone. Not just current active voters. The Democrats tried to go after the current, active voting majority and failed, while leaving a huge number of potential voters on the table.
It's even possible Favreau is specifically saying the Democrats DIDN'T go after the electoral majority because they were influenced unduly by special interests to go after the centrists when they could have been going after the people who didn't vote at all (for whatever reason)
I guess I'm saying your reading of Favreau's post may carry some of your own biases towards what you think went wrong and what his choice of words means to you.
Do you think that's possible?
I'm not entirely sure what about this you have a problem with?
On its face, the statement seems reasonable.
What am I missing?
Unfortunately, no, not really. They are absolutely able and willing to confiscate your devices at any time once you're on Chinese soil, and once you've lost physical control, that's the end of trust for that device. Even beyond that, it's not unheard of for there to be vulnerabilities in Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, etc that make your device susceptible to wireless attacks. IMO it's not worth the risk.
Here is just one example of this type of thing uncovered by The Guardian, New York Times, and others in a joint investigation: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/02/chinese-border-guards-surveillance-app-tourists-phones
Do not bring your normal personal devices to China. They are notorious for injecting spyware on foreign devices at every opportunity. Use a freshly formatted device and create all new accounts to use with it.
Regarding services: do not use self-hosted services unless you you spin up fresh, isolated instances of your services for use while abroad and spin them down afterwards, including formatting any OS they were hosted on.
Regarding VPN: because we are assuming that any device used in China is compromised, do not connect to your VPN unless you have set up a segregated VLAN and are connecting through a VPN server instance created specifically for use while in China.
Basically, assume anything you use in China is compromised. And assume your connections are being monitored. And assume that any device you are connecting to from China is at risk of being compromised. So everything needs to be segregated from the rest of your network and set up specifically to be deleted after you're back home.