You can try as much as you like to excuse women from responsibility for killing their partners, but the fact of the matter is, women can be just as ruthless as men, just usually in different ways.

Maternal infanticide is still a thing, and a “pediatric study of mothers in the general population found that 70% of mothers with colicky infants experienced explicit aggressive thoughts toward their infants, and over a quarter (26%) of them had infanticidal thoughts during colic episodes”. So, 26% of these kind and loving creatures thought of killing their own child because they cried a lot.

There is a gender disparity, and a much greater difference in expression, but if you want to deal with the root causes of violence, you will have to look beyond gender.

And no, I don’t have a pile of these saved up. I’m just willing to accept that people are people, regardless of gender or a myriad of other demographics, unless a clear link is shown between the demographic and the behavior being examined. The trend towards being shitty has far greater factors than gender.

This is one reason we need to get rid of FPTP. It makes it harder for the extremes to gain a foothold. It would also lead to enough “teams” having a say that working together would be necessary to get anything done, which would be a novel state in North America.

I’ve called myself a fiscal conservative, and I have a lengthy comment in my history about it. I’m not finding a link.

Most of the proposals by people who call themselves fiscal conservatives don’t want to spend money now, and don’t want to think of spending money later. This doesn’t solve the current issues and does nothing to prevent those issues from recurring in the future. They also seem to think that policing and incarceration are free, and that poor people have no interest in eating or shelter, which means they obviously won’t break the law to achieve those goals. They also ignore that a good education for everyone, not just their kids, is one of the best predictors for a financially successful future (and that financially successful people are less of a financial burden to society), and that hungry kids don’t learn as well. In spite of that, they don’t want to pay for public education. They also don’t want to pay for school lunch programs in spite of all the studies showing that wherever they are implemented they provide a net economic benefit of at least 6 to 1.

The only conclusion I can come to is that most people who call themselves fiscal conservatives don’t want to spend money, not even wisely, and fail to recognize that the costs will still be there - you just get to choose whether you want to spend it on education and social services or policing and prisons.

I heard there was one about him being an advisor to Trudeau, so why would you trust him to make anything different happen?

Well, he was also in charge of the Bank of Canada for most of the time that Stephen Harper was the PM, and I have a suspicion the governor of the Bank of Canada did some advising to the PM during those years, so you’d think they would be okay with him, right?

So how are burrowing animals doing? I’ve seen pretty pictures of deer and trees, how are the rabbits and foxes? What are their lifespans compared to those in other regions?

Just because the animals don’t look like cutscenes from The 100 doesn’t mean their life is idyllic, or even better than elsewhere. And all those animals are eating food grown in irradiated ground. Now, whether that’s better or worse than microplastics and fossil fuel waste and leakage is another interesting question.

It also caused a bunch of Russian soldiers to get sick because they dug holes in the ground. It isn’t a nuclear paradise, and I’m not interested in Chernobyl-grown food, but it isn’t a complete wasteland, either.

Atomic transmutation is never easy, and the only thing that really scales is a nuclear reactor. And not just any nuclear reactor will do - breeder reactors are the only ones that make it in any quantity. If you want to make this using a cyclotron or with centrifuges, a lot of the diagnoses and treatments we take for granted today will be almost completely inaccessible and only available to the very wealthy.

If you want to find out what the average person thinks, polls from 1000 to 5000 people work. If you want to educate the average person or get the opinions of already-educated people, those are different tasks.

I generally agree, given that geothermal and solar keep getting cheaper, and now cost less than nuclear or are at least competitive, but nuclear plants do more than just provide energy. Where do you think medical isotopes come from?

So the boycott was pointless, as indicated. I also saw people saying they were going to boycott InBev, and they clearly had an impact for some period of time, along with the Bud Light boycotters, yet here we are. Also, you mentioned InBev, not Bud Light.

InBev stock is up 1.6% over the last year. If you’d bought stocks this January, you would have made about 30% profit.

Breaking betteridge’s law!

I ran across some Sovreign clown in my area. White van, big flags/shields, lots of text. I haven’t taken the time to get all the detail because I’m worried it would cause brain damage.

First, I love how you got upvotes for saying, “I didn’t bother even trying to find any evidence before posting.” But that’s not on you.

Second, murders are usually followed up on in the developed world, at least to some degree.

Here’s a BBC article. 20% in the UK (I found other regions with higher amounts, but I’m okay with this one). Note also that we are talking about something that is incredibly unlikely. 30,000 deaths worldwide per year of women in relationships by their partners. Assuming half of adult women worldwide are in relationships and noting there are about 6 billion adults gives 1.5 billion women in relationships. Note that the country with the highest rate of singles for both sexes is at 25%, so this is pretty conservative. That is a 2 in a million chance per year. Assuming women are in relationships for 60 years because, why not, puts your risk at 120 in a million of being killed by a partner over your lifetime. That is about 1.2 in 10,000, which is about 10 times as likely as dying from general anesthetic.

So now that we’ve determined that 1.2 in 10,000 men are killing their partners, and I will happily acknowledge that domestic violence is much more prevalent as long as you acknowledge that depending on region, 40% of victims of spousal violence are men (279000÷(432000+279000)), why would we waste our time targeting men for awareness of spousal violence when most men aren’t doing it and a significant part of the people who are doing it aren’t men?

So we have a problem that is done by a tiny minority of one demographic, and a third as many of the population that aren’t part of that demographic, yet you insist that demographic is the key factor in the problem at hand, and I’m supposed to believe I, who haven’t committed this act, am a part of the problem.

If you want to keep believing that the core issue is that men (or generally people with high testosterone) tend to be more violent, is the key issue, and not that there are people of either gender who wish to treat others as objects and believe their feelings are more important than other people’s well-being, well, who am I to stop you? But you might find it easier to teach people that other people have agency and as many rights as them than you will trying to teach men that being a man is a problem. And you might reach 33% more people at risk of engaging in spousal violence than if you just look at men.

As for the whataboutism, I’m speaking of spousal violence, in which you and the person in the article seem to believe only happens in one direction in any significant amount.

While studiously ignoring 25% of the problem. Gotcha.

Well, I guess if only one in four of these “always men” are women, that doesn’t count.

That’s a very hyperbolic statement, and studies suggest about a quarter of spousal murders are committed by women. Closer to 3 in 8 in America.

That’s a good idea. So why didn’t you?

Alright, that’s fair. Here’s a quote that kind of meets in the middle: Some people use statistics the way a drunk uses a lamp post - not for illumination but for support.