Debatable. :razz:

Other than that as a parent with two kids; I rely heavily on extended family (1 day a week 1 kid, 1 day a week 2 kids 1/2 day), child care (2 days a week 1 kid), school (3 full days, 2 half days for 1 kid) and neighbours (all the time) to take care of my kids. Seems natural to me.

This thread is total bullshit at the moment. Read the title and whine about or celebrate Trump.

Unfortunately I'm a cis man — MadWorld1

No reason for self loathing really.

https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-current-cell-phones-not-made-in-China#:~:text=Xiaomi%2C%20Gionee%20-%20made%20in%20India,some%20ZenFones%20made%20in%20Taiwan.&text=If%20you're%20looking%20for,Motorola%2C%20LG%2C%20and%20Samsung.

My first little step on boycotting China.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.ft.com/content/4d8285a2-eff0-11e9-ad1e-4367d8281195

Samsung is a good choice as well.

Never said that. Ad hominem aside you're assuming my gender :( — MadWorld1

No sense of humour. Check. Obviously a girl then.

So you're one of those happily oppressed types that want men to take the lead and can't handle the moral conundrums freedom hands to you so you prefer comfortable repression. Good for you.

Nuclear families in Scandinavia are disintegrating? Do you guys send your old folks to care facilities also? — praxis

No no, this is one of those manly men whose manliness is threatened by gays and trans people.

Do you want to know why I would vote for Trump if I where an american? — MadWorld1

Oh goody, I'm just dying to figure out why you'd vote for a racist. Oh wait, no, don't care.

@Banno It's not confidence in moral fibre but confidence in insufficient support for Trump among servicemen.

Sigh. That it rained yesterday isn't proof it will rain today. What circumstances particular to today do you think will lead to the military shooting us citizens?

You really need to show more than a picture to make an argument. That something happened in the past isn't proof for it happening again now or it even being likely or possible.

I think I would start fighting if it came to a civil war type scenario. Say Trump refuses to leave office -- I think at that point we'd have to band together against the military. That's not too far fetched anymore. — Xtrix

Of course it is. There's no way US military will fight against US citizens. Trump isn't popular worthy the military.

And who cares if the "feds" are just private contractors, right? — ssu

The law refers to "employees" of the Department of Homeland Security or transferred from other departments. That excludes contractors doing this.

It also states:

may designate employees... fficers and agents for duty in connection with the protection of property owned or occupied by the Federal Government and persons on the property, including duty in areas outside the property to the extent necessary to protect the property and persons on the property

So, their duty is limited to the protection of federal owned or occupied property or persons on such property and that duty only extends outside such property "to the extent necessary" to protect such property or persons. That's a rather limited scope.

Even so, while an arrest without warrant is allowed, this is only possible on specific grounds. Those grounds are:

1. see you committing a crime
2. think it is in the public interest to arrest you in order to find out your identity, preserve evidence, or prevent the continuation of a crime
3. have reasonable grounds to believe that you have committed or are about to commit an indictable offence
4. have reasonable grounds to believe there is an outstanding warrant against you

Finally, only "brief and cursory" holding of a person would be detainment. This does not include moving someone into a vehicle and driving around.

By not arresting the protesters and not limiting themselves to brief and cursory holding of protesters (detention), it's easy to conclude they are engaged in illegal activity.

"Greatest democracy in the world!"

You're right you didn't use it like that. I'm sorry for giving you the benefit of the doubt for making a wrong inference but if I go by the literal text you wrote it's even worse.

If there is an HIV gene in coronavirus that is evidence, a "fact of the case" (and, please note, I say "assuming this is true" in my analysis), that would need to be established if one wanted to argue that the virus was genetically engineered with HIV (if other evidence came to light, such as testimony of a researcher claiming they were involved in mixing HIV and coronavirus, it would of course be necessary to establish whether HIV genes really are in coronavirus in the first place, because it's important evidence to such an argument). — boethius

You're using a proposition here, the truth value of which you do not know, assume it as true and then conclude that that is any type of evidence.

That's even worse for obvious reasons.

If we were hit by a large meteor, we would be dead. Assuming it's true we were hit, that's "evidence" for us being dead. Except we're not.

Plus, there are instances where the obvious measure of social distancing isn't possible such as crowded spaces. Mandatory mask wearing in public transport and stores makes perfect sense.

They already do; they get fired.

Yes, and as he remarks as well absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is especially true if randomised controlled trials aren't really possible for these types of issues.

Yes, and capital without labour generates no profit so it's only fair labourers get the fair share of the profit they generate.

I'd myself add the importance of income distribution, the fact that prosperity comes when employees, not just the shareholders, do get their share of the income profit. — ssu

I fixed that for you.

I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with.

The very definition of circumstantial evidence I cited from wikipedia is that it is very weak and compatible with mutually exclusive hypothesis. I am using circumstantial evidence in the way wikipedia describes.

Your issue with my statements seem to be you want to gate-keep the word evidence for the lawyer community.

If someone brings up a fact, and it seems plausibly tied to the case, I simply see no problem calling it evidence and analyzing from there. Questioning whether it counts as evidence or not seems a sterile debate. A detective tries to collect or record all the "evidence" in a case, without prejudice as to what's important enough to be called "evidence".

I have no problem saying "we have evidence" and concluding "based on the evidence, no scenario seems more likely", which is my position.

So, if you want to set yourself up as arbiter of what counts as evidence (what premises people are even allowed to propose for making an argument), then I am happy to continue there. — boethius

The problem is that even on the basis of those wiki links, you are not using the term correctly. Your idea of circumstantial evidence is simply wrong.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence that relies on an inference to connect it to a conclusion of fact—such as a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. — wiki

You are willing to entertain that because Jane was murdered in her bedroom and because John's handprints are all over the house but not yet found in her bedroom that this is circumstantial evidence of John having murdered Jane. This is an inference you're not allowed to make for obvious reasons.

Some viruses are engineered, there's a virus, therefore it is engineered... is not a valid inference.

Some viruses escaped labs, there's a virus, therefore the virus escaped a lab... is not a valid inference.

Some viruses are engineered, there's a virus, therefore it might have been engineered... is a valid inference but it's not a conclusion of fact and therefore not (circumstantial) evidence.

That has nothing to do with gate-keeping a word but everything to do with properly using words in their ordinary meaning and logic.

They probably engineered it to distract from Brexit...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7254130/ On face masks. Better wear them.

Ya, youre right for once Benkei. — DingoJones

LOL. You just couldn't resist could you?

Let's not overreact shall we. "it doesn't say much" is sufficient to quote since that means it can still say something by inference. Logically ssu shouldn't have said "but", since it wasn't contrary to the first part but he should've said "and".

Look around you. Most people can't manage to be decent or respectful.

Probabilities of things having happened elsewhere - such as lab breaches, are not circumstantial evidence.

Edit: To add: you have a hypothesis and the questions you quote are the questions to ask to test this. As in any criminal case, you should ask the questions that would disprove the hypothesis. By failing to find evidence of the hypothesis being false, you'll most likely find evidence in favour of the hypothesis. However, you should try to disprove it nonetheless to avoid confirmation bias.

If there is an HIV gene in coronavirus that is evidence, — boethius

Have you paid attention at all these past months? Scientists have already looked into the possibility of it being engineered and it has been waylaid as has been discussed in this very thread. Jeez. https://www.newscientist.com/term/coronavirus-come-lab/

No. Evidence.

I am saying that there is a higher likelihood based on circumstances of the case, not that there is right now any direct evidence. — schopenhauer1

We were talking about evidence all the time since that's what I replied to (the idea of circumstantial evidence being available). If you want to talk probabilities this is a different discussion altogether. Like the example of the used car salesman, the other victims make the likelihood of intent much higher in your particular case. But it's still not evidence though.

From where I'm standing PC used to be about the political parties not allowing certain subjects to even be discussed. Such as racism and communism in the USA.

Meanwhile, idiots have started to equate common decency with PC, thinking that it's a valuable political position to hold to be able to call people names, using slurs and even use hate speech because "free speech".

In all matters, context matters. PC in political discourse isn't wanted. Common decency in everyday life very much is.

So you hang your hat on that argument. It could be a coincidence that the virus started in a the wet market in the same city as a virus lab studying the virus. I agree. Or it could have been a coronavirus that leaked from the virus lab studying this virus. There are many other wet markets. But it coincidentally started from this one. Also, the first known case cannot be traced back to the wet market itself. — schopenhauer1

It's not hanging my hat anywhere, it's dealing with the available evidence. If there is no evidence the lab was involved, then all we can conclude is "coincidence".

If you track the discourse on this; it started as "it was engineered", but this had been proved already not to be the case (boethius' HIV nonsense is just a variation on that) and now the new conspiracy is "it escaped from the lab". The only reason being it happens to share locality. That's no reason or evidence for anything.

Edit: let me try with another example. Say you buy a car from a used cars salesman. You pay too much and the car shows problems. You suspect he does this on purpose and even find out other buyers paid too much for cars with obvious problems. Then you still have no evidence for intent. So you suspect he's a fraud but you're not going to argue it because you don't have the evidence. Even if you proved intent for all the other buyers this says nothing about your particular case.

Here the "evidence" doesn't even rise to that level. Even if every lab in the past had leaked a virus at some point in time then you still have exactly 0 evidence for it having happened this time.

The fact that lab leaks happen more often than we think is in no way shape or form evidence that it is what happened this time. The fact this lab had measures in place to avoid this and live markets don't, means the likelihood of it starting in the latter is many times higher.

All you have is a theory.

You're confusing evidence with proof, due to your fear that simply entertaining the hypothesis fuels Trump supporters. — boethius

Sigh. No, I'm not. I'm not going to condense months of criminal law study in a single post to explain this to you. Look it up.

Sure, the point being that without actual evidence making 1 more likely we should award it a very low probability.

There is no circumstantial evidence, only a hypothesis which is not supported by any type of evidence.

The virus was not engineered. This possibility was explicitly debunked by the science.

That certainly leaves the possibility it might have accidentally come from the lab but lets look at the possibilities here.

1. It escaped a lab that has at least some measures in place to avoid the escape and spread of a virus.
2. It spread at one of those live markets, which have been considered a brewery for new viruses for years, which markets have exactly 0 measures in place to avoid this.
3. The PRC did it on purpose for vague and uncertain politics goals in exchange for predictable economic damage.

I'll give 1 a .9% chance, 2 a 99% chance and the last .1%.

That's been dismissed as a hoax.

Well, preliminary research from the UK is that you'll be resistant against the coronavirus for about 6 months. Thank you PRC government.

Wasting your breath buddy.

I considered that but then thought it would've been better to keep that carrot until after the election in that case.

:rofl:

and he does that right before the end of his first term because...?

So, pretty good news when you understand the subtext. :party: