nxdefiant

joined 2 years ago
[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I can't argue with that, but I'd have no qualms about "lying" about a ''make believe'' thing anyway. Tons of kids get their religious award and then never step foot in a church again. It would be very nice if kids could be honest about it though, even just picking a religion to earn the reward for as an academic exercise should be allowed I think learning about how much of a part religion can play in people's lives, how it affects their judgement, is a good thing for a person to learn about, and perhaps that's the final test. Respecting the requirement for the sake of the ceremony maybe. Even a (respectful) atheist would take their hat off in a place of worship if asked to.

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

it is, BUT, if you read between the lines of the requirements, there's plenty of room for pragmatic atheists (in pragmatic packs/troops). It's not perfect, but overall Scouting has absolutely embraced inclusiveness.

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 7 points 1 year ago

This article reads like it was written by two people fighting over the same keyboard.

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's fucked up, I'm sorry you had to live through that.

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Imagine scrolling back in the Slack chat 50 years to find that one thing someone said about how the chip bypass worked.

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 4 points 1 year ago

It doesn't pay well, but "park ranger" is exactly that.

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 10 points 1 year ago

Fuck. That's exactly it.

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I don't know where or why all these foghorn leghorn memes are coming from, but I'm loving it.

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 13 points 1 year ago

nothing, it's an open standard now: SAE J3400

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 2 points 1 year ago

Certainly not after drinking this stuff

[–] nxdefiant@startrek.website 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Once more, I'm literally not injecting an opinion here or arguing for or against anyone's point. All the articles here talked about counts of individual accidents with zero context about sample size, something that is absolutely crucial to establishing exactly what you're talking about, rates. You can shit all over that, and then pretend you didn't, but Im only pointing out that the math doesn't work unless that context is there.

(I find it funny that the article you just posted is literally an ad for a traffic accident lawyer: here's the study the ad is citing. The ad did some creative interpretation on those numbers, ignoring things like DUI's for example: https://www.lendingtree.com/insurance/brand-incidents-study/#:~:text=Tesla%20drivers%20have%20the%20highest%20accident%20rate%20compared%20with%20all,over%2020.00%20per%201%2C000%20drivers.)

view more: ‹ prev next ›