WhatTrees

Roe, Chevron, brides, immunity, there are just too many to pick from!

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.

No, she won and now they think she could only win because she’s secretly a man somehow.

Boxer from Algeria beat an Italian boxer in something like 46 seconds.

Algerian girl had been previously banned from a boxing event after some “confidential” test determined she didn’t qualify. Later,the boxing group said she had XY chromosomes but no solid evidence. Olympics tested her and she passed. She was born a girl and always lived as a girl, being trans is illegal in her country.

The right is insisting she is trans because of either the XY thing or a claim that she has high T levels (I don’t think this has been confirmed). Suddenly they are acting like her genitals don’t matter and she is a male anyway even without any evidence (at best she would be intersex from the chromosomes but not trans).

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.

Your edits do add additional context and information, but they miss the broader point

Forced marriages (sometimes called arranged marriages) are a breach of consent regardless of abuse or trafficking being involved. Having your parents set you up with a date you are free to ignore or choose to engage with is one thing, having them pick who you will marry and when without your consent is another. Regardless of culture, you don’t get to violate others consent.

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.