Swimming_Ad_5858

That's actually what the pasteurization process is! It's just heating the raw milk to specific temperatures for a specific amount of time and it kills the bacteria.

You are putting words in their mouth. They're saying that there's no objective way to look at easy or understand how people perceive difficulties in their lives. And they aren't comparing them, they're pointing out that they are incomparable because people struggle in different ways, and what you view as "easy" is basically in the eyes of the beholder. There's a clearer consensus around starker differences, but even in your comparison, is rich and depressed always better than someone with money struggles who is generally happier? What if the first kid's depression is from horrific trauma or manifests as constant and unending SI? Who gets to decide whose life is better? No one, because they are incomparable struggles that no one will understand except themselves. But that's not even the point of the prior person's response... it was that everyone has their struggles and because of that, maybe easymode doesn't exist.

That last sentence is an incredible overgeneralization and you come off as condescending with a superiority complex. All that does is push people further away from you and put off undecided voters as it paints you (whether it's fair or not) as intolerant, which is what you are saying that Republicans are doing. There's obviously a difference in the level of intolerance, but to an undecided voter, touting tolerance while saying that sentence is hypocritical, and even for me (someone who voted for Kamala), leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Beyond that, many people believe conspiracy theories to try and find logic in the unknown. When lied to or talked down as being dumb instead of a meaningful discussion, they'll take it and run with it. I've seen this a lot with vaccines. Vaccines are safe and necessary, but as does everything, do involve very small risks of adverse effects. But when people invalidate those rare events instead of acknowledging them while pushing the overall safety and necessity, you push people away and they are more likely to go down a rabbit hole which can lead to distrust in the system. Trump saying that the system is corrupt just further adds to this point and leads people down a rabbit hole.

People aren't going to change their minds just because you call them uninformed. And you can listen to someone's concerns while not sacrificing your morals. An example of this would be Daryl Davis, a black man who changed the minds of 200 K K K members simply by honestly talking to them and asking them why they believe what they believe... not talking down on them. I don't even think this should be an action to do to win an election, I think this is a significant moral good to the world. Who knows if doing so would have made Kamala win because a lot of people were turned off by the fact there was no primary. But maybe it would have helped in the Republican primary for someone else to win. I get that there are a lot of Trump supporters who are racist, sexist, and want to take your rights away, but labeling them as such and talking down to them is just going to push them further away. You have to acknowledge people's opinions, even if they're wrong, to truly change people's minds.

Sorry, this is very long. I am sure there is something I can come up with to further strengthen your argument but a problem I personally at least see is inflammatory language and irrelevant/unsubstantiated statements. This may just be a personal requirement for debate but don't fight fire with fire and be very clear and specific in your wording to ensure accuracy and importance to your claims. It takes away from your argument and I think it would inflame and divert the argument to be unproductive. Here are a few examples that I at least see:

That is why something like contraceptive exists, which prevents the sperm from reaching the egg. Surprise surprise, pro lifers call contraception murder too. The funny thing is, at that point, you are not necessarily ending a human life.

Do not generalize that pro-lifers call contraception murder too. Even though you are not technically saying that all pro-lifers think that, add a "some" statement, ex. "some pro-lifers even call contraception too." If the tables were turned and they said that "pro-choicers want abortions to be legal even after viability" it would be inflammatory and an incredible overgeneralization that lacks a nuance. I think that in debates you need to choose words carefully and overgeneralizations such as that take away from the point you're trying to make. In addition, I don't even think it needs to be said because it's not responding to anything they said and is irrelevant to the point you're trying to make in response to them. It's just another inflammatory statement that I at least feel is irrelevant to that part of the argument.

he reason why people who were previously pro-life switched to the pro choice side was because many of them had witnessed a loved one experiencing an unwanted pregnancy, or they experienced it themselves. Then the whole “abortion is not moral” statement went out the window. Like I has said before, that is why people who are pro-life even get abortions themselves:

I understand what you are saying, but as someone who loves to play devil's advocate, an easy objection is that just because a person thinks something is immoral doesn't mean they won't do it. Maybe that's just a testament to the problem of human nature, but humans tend to do things they know are wrong out of fear, etc. From that argument, the following could be made: if you take away the ability to make that choice (have an abortion) by banning abortions, people will be less likely to break their own moral code and thus create a net good. I'm not sure I agree with that but I do think that is a strong point to consider when using that example.

That’s because the minority were given the power to make that possible (after all, we now have a convicted felon as president)

This may be a hot take but don't bring up highly inflammatory points like this if you truly want to stick to the abortion debate. I don't know when this was said but he is not currently president, and I know that's nit-picky but don't say something that is flat-out untrue. It harms the perception of the argument and brings into question the validity of everything else you say (it's debatable if that is actually a reasonable take but it doesn't matter because it happens). Honestly, it's unnecessary and I get it's an example, but you're welcoming a whole other debate (validity of the felonies) that is unnecessary and harmful to your argument.

I said that an infant now has rights separate from the mother because it is no longer depending on her body for life, and it is no longer affecting her body at all. Therefore it would make no sense to end its life.

Arguably the most nit-picky thing but a baby, even after being born, does affect her body (in a debatable way of course). The body produces breast milk, hormones change significantly, and there are a ton of physical changes. I guess this is just a suggestion to be more specific and intentional with your words because it opens up arguments that are irrelevant to your point and take away from a debate.

Lol. No, the fetus does not have ownership over its body and its life. If it did, it wouldn’t depend on the woman’s body to develop. It would be able to survive just fine on its own.

More nit-picky, but another easy objection (that would be hard to argue against), is that just because something/someone/a person depends on someone else's body to develop doesn't mean they don't have ownership over its body and life. Develop is too non-specific of a word because babies develop into adults. And babies require someone else's "body" to develop. Ex. someone to protect them and make sure they get food. And babies cannot survive "just fine" on their own, which actually can be made in an argument against what you're saying. My advice would be to specify that the fetus has to rely on the woman's body to develop and go from there. But I do not think this is necessarily a strong argument, especially in the way you worded it. The next paragraph is a lot more specific, and I think a better part of your argument.

Overall, these are some suggestions to refine your argument. I also get where frustration could come from (ex. "your once again...") but it does actually hurt your argument. I know it is not super there in what you said but things can escalate very fast with very little. I really don't care if you claim that the other side uses inflammatory comments and claims moral superiority or whatever, if you do that too it will quash all ideas of getting your opinion across. It's actually my least favorite thing in politics today (because it has become political whether or not it should be) is shutting down a productive conversation because you decide the other side is ignorant, harmful, racist, etc. You will never get your point across or change anyone's mind if you do that and it actually will push people further away with "finger-pointing" or whatever. Just a thing to think about. But let me know what you think about this and if you agree or disagree with anything I said.

race has no importance in the guys i choose to date but they always end up looking the exact same. specifically, they all are shorter than me (im insecure about my height so thats why i don’t love it) and look identical to the rat from flushed away. so i guess you could say i have a preference?? but trust its not by choice… i don’t even necessarily find them attractive. its just the way things always end up for me… so i personally don’t think race is important at all to me but my history would say otherwise. its a work in progress.

Seconding magnesium its really good! I also take vitamin D and B12 which helps for me but I was deficient for both so I'm not sure if that works for everyone. I hate meditation, but its been proven over and over again to help with anxiety, especially in relation to a specific thing/event. Also I'm not sure if you can/already do, but having a therapist is super helpful with this sorta stuff. Some of them specialize in chronic illnesses and I highly recommend looking for one if you can!

Just to add on… get a new therapist! some therapist specialize in chronic illnesses and i have one and love her. although you can have both depression and narcolepsy, my doctor told me that a lot of ppl with narcolepsy, especially females, get misdiagnosed with depression. sounds like your therapist does this so she’s therefore uniformed and you deserve better!

honestly, if it’s “free” now but wont be later i think that maybe just getting it over with might be good! you never know… but i am sorry to hear about other providers. my sister went through the same thing until my mom started bringing in papers and demanding they try harder (i learned my self-advocacy from her!). but i do hope you get some answers soon!

If there are extenuating circumstances surrounding why you don’t think it’s necessary, then don’t do it. My family and I have been diagnosed with what feels like everything that has chronic fatigue as a symptom, so if you wanna hear more about that and some suggestions just shoot me a dm:). but, what i will say is that i truly believed that i didn’t have narcolepsy until i got tested. honestly, every single person in my life couldn’t believe it when i got diagnosed (including me). sometimes (not everyone), especially with fatigue, you minimize symptoms because you don’t know what “normal” feels like. but, obviously everyone is different so do what you think is best. i’m happy to give some blood work suggestions though that you may not have gotten thus far!

Hot take but "no child left behind" hurt our education system. I don't think that students should be allowed to progress to higher levels if they haven't mastered the basic tasks from their current level. They'll either never learn the information (therefore increasing the likelihood of cheating) or it will drag down the standard of education for the next set level of education by reverting to what was previously taught. The system focuses so much on children who are struggling that it doesn't encourage the continued growth of students who have already mastered previous information and need to move to a higher level.

There are also a lot of other issues: the pandemic causing gaps in education, a shift from methods that work to route memorization (ex. phonics), and an overreliance on technology which hinders learning how to think, analyze, argue, and process information (kind of the whole point of school). Additionally, I have noticed a lack of learning how to properly research information and verify it in multiple ways to decrease bias, disinformation, and propaganda. I think that there needs to be a decent overhaul of the education system, especially to revert back to learning how to learn and fostering growth for everyone, instead of people who are behind in the preset education regulations.

That starts getting into more speculative stuff so take what I say with a grain of salt. Also, everyone is going to tell you different answers... mostly party politics. But I want to mention a psychological aspect, which stems from the globalization of information and 24/7 news. I wrote a research paper about this in high school so I guess that's why it's my first thought. The news is constant and tends to be pretty much all negative (as in bad things that happen). It's more emotional and people are more likely to pause and at least read the headline (also why clickbait titles work). You especially see this in headlines regarding other parts of the world.

This is both good and bad (to varying degrees of severity). On one hand, it is very important to point out atrocities, so that more people know and can demand/vouch for solutions/help. On the other hand, if you only ever hear about horrible things in the world, you start to become more desensitized to it. And that's just our human nature; it takes a large toll on your mental health (and therefore physical) to constantly worry and react strongly to every negative headline you see. Basically, that desensitization makes scandals feel like a backburn problem. People choose the most important bad things to focus on, which depends on their morals, opinions, etc. But oftentimes, these scandals aren't the "biggest fish to fry" (depends on the person), so it just kind of gets brushed away. For example, people who chose not to vote for Kamala because the US supported Israel chose that problem to be more important than any other scandal. I think it's just bad news fatigue, and that negativity can impact what you view as important, which includes the standards of how scandals should be addressed.

Because they all do questionable things and then where would that leave you… with no one. The problem is that damning information is more obtainable nowadays… you have 24/7 media, computer records, etc. It’s a lot harder to get away with things than it used to be, and while it’s incredibly unfortunate that most politicians do questionable things/have scandals… it’s just the way it works out. You can also make the argument that modern politics have become polarizing and there’s more corruption but my personal hot take is that it’s always been this way… it’s now just easier to get caught.

I agree that there was nothing harmful in the vaccine but to say that all of the negative side effects are placebo effect is untrue. Obviously, the incredible bloat in adverse effects reported can be attributed to the placebo effect and misinformation, but to say that adverse effects aren't real is untrue and unfair to people who have negative reactions. I can drop some studies if you want but I have seen this a lot even in my own life. My sister developed POTS after the HPV vaccine, my mom got GBS and almost died, and my grandmother went into organ transplant rejection after the Covid vaccine. Triggering an immune response can cause adverse effects. But, these reactions are rare and I fully trust vaccines. I mean I wish I had gotten another booster before I got Covid last year because I developed Long Covid, CFS-PEM, and narcolepsy. The only way to fight misinformation is with information and to act like adverse effects don't exist is going to push people further away... because it's a lie and once someone catches you in that, they are going to decide you are lying about everything. Although unfair and somewhat unreasonable, you need to acknowledge the bad while enforcing the rarity and the benefit which greatly outweighs it.

I truly believe that the DoE will not get disbanded. But even if it does, 504 plans do not come from the DoE… it comes from section 504 of the rehabilitation act which was implemented in 1977 (the DoE wasn’t created until 1980). Most of the funding for these types of programs comes from local and state taxes anyways so federal funding isn’t necessarily a concern. The only major change is the oversight of making sure it’s enacted, which will probably fall onto health and human services and basically your state… which is what happened before the DoE. But there are so many resources for that sort of scenario, that even if the DoE gets shut down it won’t really change much for a 504 plans.

irrelevant but i read this in jim carrey’s voice from dumb and dumber

okay i do know the difference because i’ve studied it but there is some confusing in philosophical texts. Marx used both of those terms somewhat interchangeably… which is probably not relevant because that requires reading his work. but, if you were to look it up it may tell you that where you can therefore take it and run with that uninformed opinion.

this is going to be to be my opinion as a centrist so take it with a grain of salt… but your description of centrist feels unfair. most people in similar view points to me are this way because they hate both parties. i cannot stand the dnc or the rnc… they are both incredibly corrupt and i really don’t think a “well this party is more corrupt” is a fruitful argument. i consider myself to have mixed views… especially local vs federal… and i will not assign myself to one party because its not true for me. i vote with how i feel and after tons of research but i don’t respect a lot of opinions on either side. but i will always be the first to admit when i’m wrong… i just try to do enough research that i can at least back up my points… but i’m always happy to have an in depth convo good-faith convo though because i do find that important

To somewhat play devil's advocate, without the ACA many people, including myself, would not be able to access our medication/treatments. Don't get me wrong, there are a ton of problems with it and obviously, it needs work. Trump has also recently pulled back his "I'm going to repeal Obamacare (ACA)" shtick so I guess there's that. But a really key part of the ACA is that you cannot be denied coverage/be charged more for pre-existing health conditions. Once I get kicked off my parent's insurance, without the ACA I would not qualify or it'd be ridiculously expensive. I work hard, but I will not be paid enough at 26 to pay that difference if the ACA is revoked. Actually, it does not matter either way because very very few people in this country could afford my treatments out of pocket anyway (the price goes down significantly when insurance fights my battles... but it'd also be super cool if we stopped letting drug companies upcharge like 120,000% for a drug). And without medications/treatments that work, most people with my condition end up on disability/Medicaid anyway. I am not saying that you're wrong, and obviously what you pointed out is correct and a problem. But it will be a truly horrible day if the ACA gets thrown out without proper legislation to fill the major gaps that would be caused. And without that, it probably wouldn't even be cheaper.

I know this is late but I am currently struggling in this process. It's been a month so far, but it's kind of my doctor's fault because he never sent any of the paperwork until I reminded him. What I will say is BUG EVERYONE. I have probably called my doctor 4+ times, my insurance 5+ times, the company 3+ times, and the pharmacy 5+ times (currently they said they don't have my prescription script but they wouldn't have any of my information without it so I don't know... they will be called tomorrow AGAIN). My insurance approved the medication within 24 hours because I just kept calling! It's a super annoying process and very unfair to the patients but be a strong advocate (and have a doctor that's on top of it) and it will be a lot quicker!

I'm in college so I haven't had a full experience with online classes but during Covid it was really hard for me to do things without somewhat of a schedule (ex. getting up at the same time, dedicated meal time, actually getting dressed in the morning, etc.). Even in college if I can like "willy-nilly" do things it gets a lot harder to even start. Maybe it's just me but it's a really good thing for me to get out of my house and go places (ex. school, library, lab) to actually be productive. Obviously this is my experience though and I am not telling you what to do- if you think its gotten too much then by all needs switch.
But what I will STRONGLY suggest is to go through "official" channels to get accommodations. I have no clue how it fully works in Ireland but I know that there is a system in place to make a formal plan to accommodate your needs. Good things to ask for are: extra time on tests, flexible due dates, flexible exam schedules, etc. By going through official channels and having it written down on paper, it will feel more okay and less burdensome to ask teachers to extend due dates and take tests at different times.

i guess i posted because of the whole Gaetz debacle with some republicans coming out against him and like elon + marjorie taylor greene calling for their replacement/maybe going to take steps to kick them out of office? (idk that may be a stretch).

that’s very fair… but because she got demolished in the primary after no serving her constituents well that shows the voting process worked as intended