Its not out of control now, but that doesn't cancel out previous high inflation rates on things. If people wages haven't kept up then they may not be able.to still afford the standard of living they had a few years ago.

They did hold a primary. You might have not liked how they ran it. I had my own issues with it as well, but they did and once those votes are in the pledged delegates have to honor the winner from it, which Biden was. Tell me how they could have just taken it away from him without him stepping down again?

Do you know how Democrat canidates are picked? Biden already had enough pledged delegates to win the nomination.

I think what we are getting to is the semantics of it. Theoretically, it should be possible to be a billionaire without stealing and exploitation. I think that in reality though, a billion dollars is so much money that's its hard to see how a single person can amass that much wealth without being exploitative, intentionally or not. Even if you were given that much money, holding onto it would require investing into a system that is rife with exploitation.

I'll admit that I'm by no means an expert on billionaires and there might exist some that made their fortune without exploitation. And I'm including indirect exploitation here. Maybe that's another point of semantics, but its one that I feel very much matters in this context.

I utilize scripts for all of my notification needs. It allows me to utilize logic based around certain criteria, like this on that will only notify family members at home. If no one is home it will wait and notify the first person to show up. This also allows me to be able to quickly toggle notifications for my wife when I'm testing automations with notifications.

alias: Notify People at Home
fields:
  title:
    description: The title of the notification
    example: Laundry
  message:
    description: The message content
    example: Washer Finished!
sequence:
  - if:
      - condition: state
        entity_id: zone.home
        state: "0"
    then:
      - wait_for_trigger:
          - platform: numeric_state
            entity_id: zone.home
            above: "0"
    else: []
  - parallel:
      - if:
          - condition: state
            entity_id: person.bob
            state: home
        then:
          - service: script.notify_bob
            data:
              title: "{{ title }}"
              message: "{{ message }}"
      - if:
          - condition: state
            entity_id: person.mary
            state: home
        then:
          - service: script.notify_mary
            data:
              title: "{{ title }}"
              message: "{{ message }}"
mode: queued
icon: mdi:exclamation-thick
max: 10

I don't think you actually do want an nuanced discussion, but here you go.

Let's start by acknowledging that everyone has different morals which makes basing rules of law on morals a difficult proposal. But let's say that rules for a fair and just society usually come down to that one's rights ends where someone else's begins. Maybe you disagree with this, but I'd say it is a pretty basic standard to make things fair.

So in the abortion debate, the opinion of whether or not the unborn have any rights in society. Some people will say no, that until you are a living breathing human, you are not a part of society and its rules. To theses people, the abortion debate ends there. The unborn have no rights so abortion is justified.

Some people believe that the unborn have just as many rights as anyone else, so then my proposed scenerio starts to come into play. If we can force women to give up bodily autonomy in favor another life, then why not enact similar rules to save others in society as well.

Now, you might say, "hold on a minute, I think that the unborn actually has more rights because they are among the most vulnerable in society and can't live unless they have some rights over the mother's body." Well, in that case then my scenario does seem pretty silly, and to some extent that makes sense, as there are plenty of laws that center around the welfare of children, but none that force specific people to give up bodily autonomy in the same way that forced pregnancy does. I would also expect people in this camp to support laws to support children in need by providing food, housing, and other support they need. So in my opinion, if you support abortion bans but don't support laws that help take of children in need, then you are a hypocrite, especially since social support comes in the form that doesn't force any individual to not have control over their own body. Now a lot of GOP politicians seem to fall in this category, so my scenario is aimed directly at them.

Okay, so say you support the rights of the unborn as well as favor societal structures to also help children in need. This at least I can understand, but I would still say that abortion bans are misguided because they usually end up disproportionately affecting people without a lot of means in the first place and do nothing to address the reasons that women actually get abortions. I would say that if you can start by addressing those things with things like free and easy access to birth control, financial compensation, and fostering environments that teach consent so woman can feel safe turning down sex that can lead to pregnancy. But to try none of those and jump straight to punishing women seems like supporting cruelty in the face of better options.

I look forward to your nuanced response.

Its a probing question to find out where the moral line is. It is a ridiculous proposal for sure, but it is basically the same ask as forcing a woman to carry out an unwanted pregnancy.

Looks like your real enemy are all these strawmen that you keep building your arguments around.

You dismiss my views on bodily autonomy by saying that we who support that stance also support mandatory vaccines when you are the only one advocating for that here. BTW, I don't support mandatory vaccines, but I do support getting vaccines and think by supporting better education among the general population, vaccine rates would stay in the range for heard immunity to kick in for those that can't or just don't want them for whatever reason.

In my view supporting abortion ban is the extreme position here. One that has caused a lot of very real hurt and pain. Way more pain than someone making comments that unborn babies are parasites. I'm sorry that made you uncomfortable, but swinging your support behind the crowd that has caused women to suffer in response seems like a weird reaction to me.

And when I bring up putting your support behind less extreme policies that would actually do more to address the reasons women seek abortions you go off on me about fighting political extremes? What a fucking laugh.

I think there will always be ways to make anonymous calls regardless of regulations, especially since telephone systems are on the internet, so are vulnerable to hacking and exploits. But if police can be held responsible for the death and injury they cause, then maybe they will stop going in guns blazing and remove the incentive for swatting in the first place.

I use a Honeywell Z-Wave thermostat with Home Assistant. All local and I not only do I have schedules based on time of day, but it also adjusts the temperature based on if people are home or not.

I think using "creators" is fine because it implies someone using their creative abilities instead of people that have creative abilities, which is everyone, whether they think they do or not.

I just find it annoying, not offensive. I never hold it against anyone using it and I can see why it gets used. I personally think using creators instead of creatives just comes across way less pretentious.