The risk is the whole point, and certainly does not excuse their gouging.
The risk is the point though. High risk activities will cost more to insure because they'll need to be paid out more often. Couple that with the high destruction possible, and you have frequent accidents that can all cause very expensive damage, necessitating a high base price for insurance.
The price gouging is just capitalism, and I doubt anyone here is going to argue that capitalism isn't bad.
https://www.iso-ne.com/ Looking at my own region of New England, renewables are only at about 8% right now. And that includes burning wood, refuse, and landfill gas as renewable sources.
Do online multiplayer video games count as a commercial use? I kind of like those
I consider it very fascistic that feminists choose to call masculinity “fragile” and masculinity is somehow weak and strong at the same time.
Alright, what does "fascism" mean to you? Because it seems to just be "insulting a thing I like/believe in". And what does it mean to "cancel" someone? Because all that can happen to you here is you get some downvotes, unless you do something to break the rules.
Fragile masculinity means that a person is so insecure about their "manliness" that they go too far in the other direction and overcompensate, usually to the point of being either annoying or actively harmful in some way.
Women have a lot of privilege that got carried over on top of all the equality stuff going on
Do you want to describe any of these privileges? I'd hate to keep making assumptions about your beliefs.
men continue to shoulder the burdens of creating and maintaining society, and men are only surviving due to their strong masculinity and natural biological advantages, which the current feminist agenda does seem to want to equalize.
There are plenty of jobs that aren't involved with construction. I'd be willing to bet that most men don't work in construction or infrastructure repair. And at least in the US, the percentage of women working in construction is growing, so maybe someday it'll be an even split and your entire argument will be moot.
Too many are “dumb” and “hurtful” and are amplified by social media. Harvard research on Twitter shows misinformation gets 6x faster amplified than facts. Similar thing is said about common sense being not so common. There is a reason why men are leaving the dating market in droves, population growth is slowing down and men are refraining from having sex at an alarming rate. They do not want to deal with crazy.
You won't catch me saying that social media has been a net benefit for society. All the more reason to step away from it.
Declining population growth is normal in any developed/developing country. These are society-wide trends that can be seen in countries all around the world. You're going to have to give some kind of evidence that it's because men "don't want to deal with crazy," instead of just following the population pyramid like so many other countries in a similar economic situations.
forgot to tell about locker room part
I don't know much about the story other than what you posted and this article says. It's tragic that someone unrelated became the center of attention and was targeted by online vigilantism, but you still shouldn't want to normalize what you're calling "locker room talk".
I'm pretty sure this article was written before all the information about the case was sorted out. But even if you remove that last part, the "locker room talk" should in no way be acceptable.
No, masculinity being about resilience does not mean you just sit silently while people run towards you with axe and hammer. You can absolutely defend yourself and when cornered, attack when necessary. Masculine resilience does not mean you become this statue that remains so even if birds come and poop in the mouth. Eventually you will grab one bird by the neck.
Grabbing the bird by the neck would probably count as an abusive behavior, the second half of your definition of masculinity. You're very quick to compare whatever treatment you've received (I haven't really seen anything) to physical violence, which probably feeds into why a lot of people you interact with come off as so hostile to you and your beliefs.
Women have always been privileged in different ways than men have. It just so happens men focused on money (key form of capital) and ended up as being more advantageous. Men also have biological advantages that favour them over women.
It wasn't all that long ago that women gained the right to vote, so it should be pretty obvious that women had fewer privileges than men just 100 years ago. Time marches on, and things are more equal now, but there's still a measurable difference in pay by gender just for an example.
I was even being labelled (Jordan) Petersonian by some person despite insisting I have never pushed his conservative talking points or wanted to.
I try not to listen to Jordan Peterson, but if you're saying things in line with his general philosophy, it doesn't really matter whether or not you want to be pushing his talking points or if you even know you're doing it. I can't say for sure you are, but I would generally associate this kind of "women are actually more privileged then men" talk as at least similar.
I have encountered radical feminists wanting genocide of men, men being called male (animal implication), hand signs for dick size, feminists saying “all men bad/die” and “men are not our responsibility”, feminists faking boys locker room chats to gain online attention and harass men, and so on, so I have zero faith in anyone, leftists or rightists.
You meet people that say dumb and hurtful things all the time. My own grandfather once told me that immigrants dying while trying to cross the border was a good thing because it would send a message to others that they aren't welcome and they shouldn't try to come. But that doesn't mean you always need to take them seriously and apply the absolute worst things you've heard to a larger group of (mostly unrelated) people. But also, are these "locker room chats" the harmless kind, or the fantasizing/reminiscing about sexual assault kind?
None of those benefits came close to the cost of the program
How do you measure the cost-to-benefit of longer maternity leave? Or higher high school graduation rates? Not everything the government does needs to directly make a profit. Just look at roads for an obvious example of that.
once initiated productively decreased. Likely would have even decreased further but people knew the free money would eventually end.
There was only about a 13% decrease in hours worked for the entire family on average, and most of that was women going back to work after a pregnancy later and teenagers not working (probably so they could keep going to school).
How do you pay for a program when the local area taxes don’t cover it particularly when the tax income actually decreases once instituted?
It's not about Canada, but you can always find a way to pay for things if you really want to, even if they're objectively bad for tax income.
It wasn't me that said that, and that's not what they said.
Edit: I should really refresh the page if I'm going to spend so long reading the sources.
Since when has youtube had text/image posts? How do you even get to them? Are they a mobile only feature?
The NCBI study actually supports my claim - the outdoor areas show NO particulate matter - thats what’s actually harmful to your health.
Among the different types of outdoor areas, the highest median outdoor SHS levels (nicotine: 4.23 µg/m3, PM2.5: 43.64 µg/m3) were found in the semi-closed outdoor areas of venues where indoor smoking was banned.
You can't expect me to take you seriously if you're just going to lie about what the page says. I'll admit it might not be the best page to prove my point, but it does still show particulate matter exists in noticeable amounts outside. Also, why are you trying to say that nicotine has no harmful effects?
You're just making stuff up.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I wasn’t giving examples of things that should be allowed or banned.
Living in a tolerant society means that we need to be willing to deal with these little inconveniences in our lives. One of my neighbours has kids who love to play on a go-kart and wake me up at 6am on a Saturday morning
As long as it’s not a direct risk to health (e.g. smoking indoors) and not extremely obnoxious (playing extremely loud music and refusing to turn it down) people should be able to do what they want to.
There are plenty of studies which show that a lack of sleep leads to significant health issues.
You gave an example of something that should be allowed (kids being loud), described that same thing as something that shouldn't be allowed (people being loud), and then justified why it shouldn't be allowed (sleep is important).
Alright, but why is it okay for you to decide that some noise is okay, but Ronon Dex can't decide that the air pollution isn't? Why do you get to make that decision for them, and just say "you have to deal with some problems in a tolerant society"?
For vehicle exhaust, we’re basically already solving the problem by moving away from ICE vehicles, so I don’t see the reason in arguing about it.
Because there's more than one way of generating air pollution and some would argue that the transition isn't happening fast enough, or even that transitioning to electric cars isn't really a solution.
The Kickstarter page puts it at 450g, which seems to be fairly good compared to the first tire I googled's ~600g.
From the steam page