When I started gender transition I was a nominal cis het guy working at a conservative engineering company in Texas. As I grew my hair out and my features started inexplicably softening, guess who always got selected for the “random” drug tests?

I’m calling the police right now to report you for the millions of crimes you could potentially commit over the next year.

I’m calling the police right now to report you for the millions of crimes you could potentially commit over the next year.

Honestly, if it was built right, that would be the perfect type of bathroom. Imagine a bathroom where all the surfaces are water proof. Then, when it’s time to clean the bathroom, you just hose everything down the floor drain!

Ok, so what does this look like in terms of the risk to an actual individual pilot? For example, at that crash rate, what’s the probability of an Apache pilot being involved in a crash over the course of their career?

Also, for some reason I assume the Air Force uses the Klingon system for promotions. If you can kill your superior officer, it’s perfectly legal. And you get their position. Only the strong survive in the US Air Force.

Before asking for a source for commonly known information, you should first demonstrate that you’ve done a modicum of searching yourself first.

Here’s my compromise: we give the Flock CEO twenty to life instead of sentencing him to public flaying like he deserves.

What is the color of a carbon atom?

You think adjunct teaching comes with job security and pensions?

You are completely and utterly unqualified to participate in any discussion whatsoever involving labor issues of any kind. You lack the prerequisite background knowledge.

You didn’t answer my prompt. Don’t just vomit wikipedia. In your own words, I want you to CLEARLY demonstrate that you know the difference between:

1. Recognizing and mentioning a predictable outcome.

2. A slippery slope fallacy.

Your response didn’t attempt to do this. I don’t want you to just vomit a definition you stole from somewhere. I want you to actually demonstrate you know the difference between these two things. Everything you’ve said so far shows that you don’t.

You need to get out more if you think coffee can serve the same function as alcohol socially.

Dude, if you need chemicals to be social, that’s kind of pathetic.

You aren’t human.

nah. there’s people out there whose favourite thing is to do the niche “yucky” or tedious things, but they can’t, because they had to get a job in marketing, or work in retail because they needed ANY job just so they could survive.

This is one of those ideas that only makes sense at the surface level and fails at the slightest bit of scrutiny. Yes, it is technically correct that any job out there will have some nonzero number of people who would do it just because they want to. But that’s no way to run a civilization.

That system only works if there just by random coincidence happens to be a perfect match between the jobs people want to do and the jobs that need doing. Are there are a few weirdos that would wade waist-deep in literal shit to clean out sewers for free, just because they enjoy it? It’s a big world and people are weird, so there probably are a few people out there like that. Are there enough of those rare weirdos to keep all our sewers operating? Highly unlikely.

I know your system would fail because we have clear evidence from our own economy that there is a major mismatch between the jobs people want and the jobs that need doing. Look at every job out there that attracts people who want to do the job for its own sake. Look at university teaching, for instance. Universities can get away with having classes taught by poorly paid adjuncts because lots of people would like to teach university courses. There are far more potential university lecturers out there than the number of lecturers universities can actually support. Universities can pay their adjuncts a pittance, and they still have people sign up to teach classes. The low adjunct pay problem would disappear tomorrow if people simply stopped taking adjunct teaching jobs.

Look around to nearly any field that people go into primarily out of passion. They nearly all pay a pittance. “Let people choose whatever job they want” simply isn’t a viable way of running an economy. Everyone wants to teach kids or care for puppies. No one wants to clean out sewers.

You always have to have some way of getting people to work jobs that they wouldn’t choose voluntarily. There are simply things that need to be done for society to function that not many people want to do. In a capitalist system, this is done by offering higher wages for positions few people want. In socialist systems, this looks like offering more perks like better housing to unwanted jobs (pay by another name.) But you’re trying to hand waive away an unavoidable problem by dismissing it as, “no worries, people will just do what they want and things will work out!”

I don’t follow your logic. Can you define the difference between recognizing a predictable outcome and making a slippery slope fallacy? Because you’re using them interchangeably.

“Don’t breathe air, it has sharks in it! BLUE HAS SHARKS IN IT

???

The same is true for all colors. Tell me the color of a single atom.

Yes, air can be colors other than blue at unusual light conditions, like sunset. But the same is true for any material.

You’re stuck on the urge to explain. You call “the air is blue” incomplete. But all answers are incomplete. When someone asks what color an object is, they mean under ordinary distances and conditions. Air is blue even in an ordinary room. It just takes miles worth of air for its slight blue color to be noticeable.

Who says alcohol has no benefit? Serving as an occasional social lubricant is a perfectly useful and valid benefit.

You’re confusing the slippery slope with making reasonable predictions. Every future prediction is not a slippery slope. Slippery slope is only a fallacy when you’re making wild baseless predictions, not entirely predictable and likely outcomes.

I was listening to Adam Connover’s recent podcast on alcohol. And they were talking about how we don’t even have major public health campaigns to reduce alcohol use. They mentioned how most attempts to do so are met by people by people citing neo-prohibition fears. They explicitly said it’s not a big deal, and that no one is talking about banning alcohol.

Yet this same discussion was based around arguing that we should apply the same efforts we currently use for tobacco to alcohol. Yet, we’ve actually seen efforts to explicitly ban tobacco in various countries. The current preferred approach is to ban it for anyone born after a certain year.

It’s not a logical fallacy at all to be seeing this as a move to banning alcohol. The modern discussions about increasing alcohol regulation are all in the context of the last generation’s public health efforts against smoking, and those efforts have culminated in attempts at banning tobacco entirely. A country writing a law that said, “no one born after 2010 will ever be allowed to purchase alcohol” is entirely in line with contemporary alcohol and tobacco regulatory efforts.

They never got the update.