111–120 of 229 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If treat means a lifetime of a much higher OI risk and a 2000% higher risk of cancer.
OI? Please expand acronyms: we're not all in your context.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
HIV turned out to be easier to treat than prevent.
Sort of. PrEP exists for high risk populations. For cures: Currently, it is if you're able and willing to wipe out your own bone marrow and able to find a compatible donor who's immune. 2 giant expensive and risky IF's. CRISPR personalized medicine may also work: https://www.technologyreview.com/2023/10/25/1082306/gene-edi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“libertarian” is as much of a slant as left or right is; that its largely orthogonal to the left/right axis, and lots of people think only in terms of that axis (on which Reason is clearly on the right, but not as far from center on that axis as it is on the libertarian one) doesn't change that.
There's about a 50/50 split in the libertarian party so it really isn't. Actually, I would say most of the people there lean left, or center.
> The first [trial], in 2021, was declared a mistrial after prosecutors and their witnesses couldn't stop talking about sex trafficking despite none of the defendants facing sex trafficking charges Thats always been my take on the backpage case, but I didnt feel comfortable talking about it because people are too emotionally invested in curbing sex trafficking We’d be better off just treating it as labor trafficking,…
Estimated no one cares about labor trafficking. They care about other people having sex.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> evangelical Christian white supremacists Ah yes, the ol' reliable 'everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi' approach
I think they described the situation fairly? The folks who legislate against sex work tend to tick most of those boxes.
Sex work is legal and more-or-less regulated in most of the UK and Europe even where Le Pen-flavor nationalism is ascending in prevalence.
The US has a special kind of polarized infighting and much more variance in rights and restrictions that the rest of the world. For example, if I were to say "I'm pro conceal carry guns for people who continue to show demonstrably sane and stable residents." this wouldn't fly in most of Europe or Australia, regardless of right or left party across the way except for perhaps the fringe far-right. That is to say: norms in America differ significantly from the rest of the world in sometimes disquieting ways to outsiders, due to enduring historical roots and political interests. Perhaps a compromise to placate the majority of Americans would be: "don't touch the right to bear arms in exchange for bodily autonomy and healthcare."
The 1995 Oklahoma City bombing didn't happen in a vacuum. It was 100% homegrown terrorism that thrived and came to pass in a culture of government conspiracy theories, Waco, white nationalism, and failure to care for and reintegrate Gulf War vets. Chris Hedges wrote a book on the topic: American Fascists (2008). Excluding Jan 6th as different kind of event, that there hasn't been another domestic terrorism mass casualty event due to diligent work by law enforcement combined with a tinge of dumb luck.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All news media has a bias, it's literally impossible to serve a finite news set and not exert some editorial control. However, if you describe a news site as (very political ideology) I think it's fair to consider it slanted.
While that is philosophically true, but this thread is illustrating why that isn't a helpful perspective . Consider a media organisation has a bias towards accurate reporting with a view to helping readers achieve the best outcome for themselves and good outcomes for society. We could correctly call such an organisation "slanted", but it is missing the point that there some slants are privileged by virtue of leading…
I think you'll find that literally every media organisations thinks it's doing exactly that — the issue is that people have _wildly_ different conceits of what "best outcome" for them is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Raising HIV against prostitution is like bringing up animal cruelty for veganism: it's not really the most important of many overlapping concerns surrounding the issue. Anti-prostitution and anti-abortion laws in the US exist because evangelical Christian white supremacists are able to tell heathens what they can't do with their bodies and pass laws to force their views on other people. These come with the burdens of…
If I’m not mistaken, animal cruelty is the number one reason for vegans being vegans. What exactly are you saying?
There are much more pressing, self-interested reasons to advocate veganism:
1. Meat ag and bushmeat lead to pandemics: bovine tuberculosis, "Spanish" flu, Nipah, SARS, H7N7, H1N1, MERS, COVID. There are others.
2. Meat ag abuses the same antibiotics humans take (but manufactured in the veterinary supply chain) for purely economic reasons (mostly, to make animals grow faster) leading to the evolution of antibiotic resistant microbes and making antibiotic medications in humans less effective.
3. Climate change. It contributes 1/6 of all human GHG activity.
4. Air, soil, and water pollution are the result of mega grain farms, large pig farms, and CAFOs.
5. It's resource intensive and drives up the cost of all food by shunting more water, diesel fuel, arable land, etc. to less output.
6. Along with palm kernel oil, it's a leading driver of old growth deforestation.
7. And it hurts both the cute and the ugly critters.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Media Bias Fact Check ranks Reason as a "Right-Center" biased website with a "High" rating for factual reporting: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/reason/ They certainly approach stories with an editorial perspective, but they're generally factually reliable and hardly "incredibly slanted".
Reason’s libertarian bias sits outside the mainstream Left-Right axis of US political discourse. So what looks centrist or right leaning on a 2D scale is actually heavily biased in a different political direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> evangelical Christian white supremacists Ah yes, the ol' reliable 'everyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi' approach
I think they described the situation fairly? The folks who legislate against sex work tend to tick most of those boxes.
And something tells me Muslims, practicing Jews, etc. aren’t a fan of prostitution either.
So really you could just say “religious people,” and it’d be far more accurate.