Wasn’t a lecture… I just assumed you were asking in good faith, so I explained why it’s a “new” concern and why some people seem so angry about it. Of course we can all have our own opinions…an opinion would be “I’ll keep my gas stove for now because I’m not concerned about the additional risk” or “I’m switching immediately because I AM concerned.” Saying it’s a conspiracy by green energy companies isn’t an opinion, it’s just misinformation.

Sorry that you’re going through something OP. Everything I say after this is probably something you don’t want to hear, so read on at your peril.

The reason people tell you to go to your doctor when you ask for medical advice online is because the question itself implies you want good or useful advice and nobody besides you’re medical team can give you that. You can find some general stuff online or ask to speak to a different doctor if there’s trust issues with your current provider, but nobody without access to your personal medical history is able to advise you accurately. It takes at least 8 years of constant study to be a newbie doctor. Human bodies are extremely complex, and we still don’t know how everything works. Even if we did, not all bodies work the same way. On top of that, humans are shit at statistics, and we heavily bias anecdotal evidence, especially when it is our own anecdote or from someone we know.

Here’s a simple example.

Say I get an upset stomach after eating meals and I complain about it to a friend. Trying to be helpful, they told me they used to get that too, so they tried switching to a vegetarian diet, and they got better. Sounds innocent enough, right? I know what vegetarian means (it’s “common sense”, right?) so I stop eating meat and start getting salads or fruit for lunch instead. After about a week, I fell asleep while driving home. Turns out, I’m anemic. I was getting just enough iron on my old diet to keep the worst symptoms that would have scared me enough to see a doctor at bay, but when I cut out meat I went from iron deficient to anemic. Had I gone to the doctor, they’d have easily seen my iron deficiency and put me on a supplement or advised me how to change my diet, and the nausea would have gone away. Instead, I end up imaking my condition worse and landing in the ER after an auto crash.

That didn’t actually happen, but I think it’s a good example for several reasons. It’s a common side effect (nausea) of a common problem (iron deficiency) that you’re likely to think doesn’t warrant a doctor, but you’d still mention to a friend. It’s a super common symptom associated with lots of conditions. The friend even gave good advice (for most people, changing their diet wouldn’t have been an issue, but because of an underlying medical condition specific to our protagonist, it was bad advice FOR THEM). The friend had no way of knowing or even suspecting it could be dangerous advice because most people don’t spend a decade learning about the body and disease more generally and they didn’t know about the specific issues related to the specific case. It’s the same reason you shouldn’t get legal advice online… It’s a super complex system, and every case is literally different.

It’s worse than that, even another doctor should not be diagnosing or advising people online…they don’t have access to your medical history, current medications, comorbidities, etc and all of that data is VITAL to giving sound medical advice.

Anything beyond “eat a variety of foods - not too much or too little, get enough sleep, and exercise within your comfort limits” without any of that additional information should be considered bad advice and there’s probably even cases where those 3 very general rules would be ill-advised.

Because, through science, we are constantly improving our understanding of the world, including our bodies. Sometimes, that means things we used to think were safe or acceptable no longer are. We used to shit in buckets and throw it out the window in the morning right next to where the butcher was carving up a carcass on the street. We used to have parties when a kid got sick, so all the kids in the neighborhood got sick at the same time. Recently, we learned more about the impact of the compounds released and their concentrations when we burn natural gas in a confined area.

My understanding is that, while we knew about the compounds released by gas stoves, we either didn’t know how high the concentrations were or didn’t know enough about the dangers those concentrations could present. Of course, the reactionaries blow it out of proportion and a statement like “Gas stoves might not be safe without adequate ventilation” becomes “THEY’RE GONNA TAKE YOUR STOVE BY FORCE” just like how “cattle produce a lot more greenhouse gases than we thought” became “THEY’RE MAKING BURGERS ILLEGAL!”

Everything has a does-response curve that, at one or both extreme, will kill you. Oxygen, water, nitrogen, pizza, everything. Since 1986, California has had a reporting law on the books with a very steep financial fine, so it’s cheaper to slap a sticker on any product that may contain those chemicals than to run the risk of the fine. For things like furniture/matresses/clothes, it’s usually off-gassing of flame retardants. Most foods have been exposed to herbicides/pesticides/fertilizers or are packaged in something that would qualify. Building materials are chock full of carcinogenic.

We’re fairly good at keeping everything to safe doses for the general population, and making companies tell consumers about the crap isn’t a bad thing. Think about it loke nutrition labels… most people don’t care, but if you have a dietary restriction or an allergy, it’s pretty helpful to know what’s in it before you buy and eat it.

And we’ve tried everything from “making guns easier to get” to “absolutely nothing,” and we’re out of ideas.

I really wish we could have a good faith conversation in this country about the intersections between rights and responsibilities. Until then, I’m fine with people going to prison in foreign countries for this kinda crap.

Do the debates, and reveal the results of the drug test (taken by both candidates) DURING the debate. Let’s do this shit like Maury.

And they’d probably name it something like the “Jeff Landry Satanic School of Science” or something too. chef kiss

He can’t possibly be expected to masturbate to completion with some pathetic tradwife on the screen. He’s no beta-male cuck! Only 2 or more alpha males railing each other can produce the kind of testosterone-fueled intensity to make him climax.

Unfortunately, the whole scenario is a little contrived, and it feels quite a bit like the same tactic as describing things like fingernails or the “heartbeat” of a fetus…it’s designed to get you to act on emotion without learning more.

Now, if a surgeon were to be found doing gender reassignment surgery on minors without the years of therapy and other interventions that are all part of the real process…then I’d be fully on board with yanking their license to practice and probably charging them and the kids guardians with any applicable criminal charges. As far as the real process goes, the whole thing is designed to give the person every opportunity to change their mind or only partially transition before anything irreversible happens. It usually starts with letting the kid pick their own clothes/hair/whatever and therapy. If they change their mind, they just change their clothes and hair. Then, more therapy and maybr change their name ( it doesn’t even have to be a legal change yet, as they’re a minor), maybe puberty blockers as appropriate. If they change their mind, they just stop the blockers or go back to their old name… whatever they feel comfortable with. Then maybe top surgery as a late teen or early 20s… again, it’s harder to reverse but still doable.

Because of the way the process is gradual and guided by medical professionals, actual cases of someone fully transitioning then changing their mind is less than 1%. Gender affirming surgery to make you look more like your ideal version of your assigned sex (breast augmentation/lip implants/whatever) have mich higher regret rates.

Gotta release a bunch of burning ewoks to scare em and start a stampede…

deleted by creator

And some aren’t even strawmen…they recognize the police state is already directed against them and guns haven’t solved the problem…just made it easier for police to pull the trigger because they’re all terrified for their lives.

Personally, I’ve yet to see a single American successfully use guns to protect any other constitutional right from government infringement.

I have seen lots of examples like Waco and Ruby Ridge, where the government should have tried harder to deescalate, but in the end, everyone died. The closest example I can think of where the government did backoff was the Bundy standoff and all those guys were “defending” was their ability to let their cattle graze illegally on federal land because they didn’t want to pay for access like everyone else.

Probably not yet…biggest advantage of moving from Sch 1 to Sch 3 is that it means federal research grants/money can be used now to determine what the actual medicinal uses.

But then the people who want to use that public trust for personal gain won’t want to run for office! Then what!?!

Wanted a post-scarcity world but ended up with a post-satire one instead.

In Caitlyn’s case, it seems to be disapproval of people like herself. Even after coming out and transitioning… still seems to hate herself.

This image implies the existence of both infra-gender and ultra-gender persons that we didn’t evolve to see…

He’s not happy, but that’s got little/nothing to do with his money. He’s doing the same things and experiencing the same consequences as a lot of people who fall into the extreme-right. He alianted his family, he’s in trouble at work and he’s blaming everyone and everything but himself. Only difference between him and the qanon conspiracy-brain who got fired from the plant in some small town for saying racist shit on Facebook is that Elon’s wealth and public status means his life falling apart is a public spectacle instead of a private one. That, and the fact that his meltdown impacts a lot more people.

Money actually does buy happiness for most people (up to about $75k USD annually, at which point the correlation fades). I suspect that happiness is a direct result of not feeling like you’re 1 sick day from homelessness, but I don’t think the data is there to support why yet.

Edit: $75k, not 7k