An AR-15 is absolutely an assault rifle. It's a rifle with relatively low-power cartridges, high-capacity magazines, a pistol grip, multiple accessory rails, and a polymer frame, designed to have options for burst and full-auto fire (though obviously those are disabled on civilian models). The assault rifle largely replaced the older battle rifle, which had smaller magazines (the M14 has a stock 20-round magazine compared to the M16's 30-round), wood furniture, a standard rifle stock, and higher-power rounds (7.62x51 has about 2500 lb\*f of muzzle energy compared to about 1700 lb\*f from 5.56x45).

This is almost certainly a parody of an /r/redditcensors post. Nonsense /r/redskilledtrillions numbers, the text is edited in (look at the font difference), vomiting a thesaurus all over the title, complete non-sequitur about how great the US, and so on.

OP saw the original headline sensationalizing and went "hold my beer."

They really need to have levels on those labels. If regularly consuming a given product increases my lifetime risk of cancer by 1%, that's probably enough that I should be informed. If it's 10%, I should seriously consider not using the product. If it's 100%, the product should probably be banned. However, the threshold for the CA labels is one excess case per 100,000 people over a 70-year lifetime, and there's only one level. If one product increases your lifetime risk of cancer by 0.001% and another increases it by 100%, they get the same label. Imagine if a product had a label that said "will definitely get you sick" with no way to tell whether it was the common cold or smallpox. Or "you will definitely be shot" and you don't know if it's a Nerf dart or a cannonball. I did just learn that the same bill prohibits all chemicals on the list from being released into drinking water, though, so kudos to CA for that.

Do... do you know what a virus is? How they reproduce? Middle school biology covers this adequately.

...huh? I said "isn't." I'm not a liar, you're just a moron.

>Go back to the articles during that time. Even the "experts" purported it was 2 weeks to flatten the curve - not eliminate it. Putting "experts" in scare quotes doesn't mitigate the fact that they have MDs and PhDs and you do not. And sure, two weeks was the compromise position, and longer would have been better, but that doesn't mean that the lockdowns weren't worth doing. >All Aus and NZ did is keep their populations at the beginning of the viral timeline, i.e. the pandemic has barely begun in these countries. They're facing the same problem regarding covid that the rest of the world was at the the beginning of 2020 right now, just equipped with experimental vaccines So, just like the rest of the world was in early 2020, except *way better off* because they have a vaccine. > in the wake of being ravaged by lockdowns "Ravaged" is an insane word to use for not being able to get a haircut. You are an actual insane person. >a dilemma of of when to open borders Only because the rest of the world decided to take half measures or none at all and let their people die. If they could keep their situation similar to early 2020 for another year, we'd have vaccines with more research time invested, and then postpone them for another few months to vaccinate everyone and you save hundreds of thousands of lives. Or just bite the bullets on the side effects (which are unpleasant, but not life-threatening) and vaccinate everyone now. Either way, better that than the Swedish approach of just doing nothing and hoping that everything turns out OK.

Because unintentionally spreading a disease due to being a dipshit who doesn't believe in it isn't considered criminal negligence.

COVID-19 survives for about two weeks on its own, and the infection lasts for about the same. So yes, it would be a combination of allowing people's immune systems to kill the virus and starving instances that were on their own of new hosts. I suppose that four weeks would be better, just in case someone was infected by a nearly-recovered roommate very near the end of the two weeks, but the people conceiving the plan didn't want people to be out of work for too long.

>Don't give me that two weeks bullshit over a year into this nonsense. It was always two weeks if *everyone actually did it.* You can't go around saying that cars are unreliable because people keep getting stranded when you pour sugar into their gas tanks. It's the fault of you and people like you that we didn't fix this problem 14 months ago. >Look up the actual fatality rate for covid: infection fatality ratio (IFR). Not CFR. You can't have a rational view on covid unless you know this. Estimates range from 0.23% to 3.4%. It wouldn't even be a concern if it didn't spread so quickly. Unfortunately, we live in a world where it *does* spread so quickly. >Look up the average person dying of covid, specifically how old they are and how many comorbidities they have. You'll find the average age of covid death HIGHER than life expectancy for that country, making covid among the luckier ways one can die. You'll also find 2+ comorbidities. The CDC recently stated the average covid death had FOUR additional comorbidities. The one thing that all of those comorbidities have in common is that *they hadn't killed that person yet.* The person was alive with whatever conditions, then they got COVID, then they died. Without COVID, they would have lived longer. >A pandemic is nothing surprising. In 2019, it was an inevitable occurrence of the future. Thus there had been established protocols in place in pubic health (BaSed on ScIeNcE) in response to a pandemic. I suggest you find these and find where in any Western country's public health pandemic protocol were there lockdowns anywhere near in severity in which they've been implemented. A pandemic as infectious as COVID-19 was far from inevitable. It was borderline unprecedented. However, even with the partial lockdowns sabotaged by selfish people like you, flu deaths were far lower in 2020. Had people actually followed the rules, nearly every infectious disease would have been neutered quickly. >In order to determine whether lockdowns harm or benefit more, we must analyse how many life expectancy years they kill vs save. Keep in mind, the life of a 25 year old is vastly more valuable than the life of an 80 year old (average covid death). If a 25 year old loses 5 years of his life in some way due to lockdowns (damaged health due to drug overdose, domestic abuse, loss of 5 years of net worth), just because that person is technically alive, you can't discount or dismiss the damage done to him. That's worse than someone already past the human life expectancy dying from covid, cancer, and diabetes. Well, losing 5 years of net worth is (A) nearly impossible with a two-week lockdown that isn't sabotaged and (B) hardly equivalent to literal death. As for the drug overdoses and domestic abuse, those just sound like random bullshit you made up. Unless you can provide me evidence that they were remotely widespread (and remember, *half a million* deaths from a disease that the vast majority of people survive means that anything you're considering worse has to be *very* widespread), I'm going to discount that as the ramblings of a madman desperate to justify his own selfishness.

>Half a million dead in the US alone I already answered that

Leaving your house is eventually necessary because otherwise everyone will starve to death. Staying home for two weeks to prevent half a million people from dying from COVID doesn't come anywhere near reaching that point, but staying home indefinitely to avoid traffic deaths would. We can't eradicate traffic accidents by simply not getting together for a couple weeks. When I say "kills people," a reasonable person would interpret that as "kills more people than the alternative." Nearly everything, when done by a group of over 300 million people, will lead to at least *two* deaths. You can trip and die whole walking, or choke to death on a glass of water. Clearly, however, I am not communicating with a reasonable person (though I knew that to begin with).

The number of people and the ability to mitigate the deaths are important. For every person killed by the flu in the US in 2019, **twenty** people died of COVID-19 in 2020. Traffic accidents in 2019 are still only about 1/13 of COVID deaths in 2020. And that's *with* more than half the country obeying lockdowns and mask mandates. Flu deaths were significantly lower in 2020 than in 2019, so it stands to reason that COVID would have been even worse given the opportunity to spread with only the countermeasures that we use for the flu (i.e. few masks and no lockdowns).

The answer is yes, if leaving your house kills people, you should be forced to stay home. And it is absolutely a stupid question. Half a million dead in the US alone and people are still whining about not being able to get haircuts or go to Disney World.

If they're stupid questions that have been answered a million times, yes.

I'm quite OK with banning people for being racist.

Looks like the top comment is a comprehensive and accurate answer. Why would we need any more comments?

>Is this, [r/RedditCensors](https://www.reddit.com/r/RedditCensors), also an anti science, misogynist, right wing sub? Yes. Why do you think there are tons of posts about getting banned for being racist, but few (and none with high scores) about getting banned from right-wing subs?

>Who knew only US State propaganda is allowed. It isn't hard to guess. Reddit's owners, servers, and most of its userbase are in the US.

He also claimed that trans women aren't "real" women. It isn't about the preference, it's about being an asshole.

I mean, yeah? Even if someone did it, and there's no evidence that anyone has, it would basically be like throwing a milkshake with some dirt in it. Sure, it isn't good to drink anymore, but dangerous?

Sugar ruins concrete. Putting it in milkshakes would do absolutely nothing, and there's no evidence that anyone has actually tried it. Also, you forgot to mention "phrenologist" among Ngo's qualifications.

They already got banned and then unbanned, and now they're banned again. Pick one, /u/spez.

You linked to some right-wing think tank and used a bunch of non-ASCII characters to obfuscate your title. What did you think would happen? edit: you're also incredibly racist: >Fuck off racist. Black people are not a threat. Chinese "people" are. Quotes not mine.

This honestly belongs in /r/WinStupidPrizes itself. What exactly did you think was going to happen? It's funny, but it was never going to end any other way.

No, I meant that the US had half the emissions of China.

That is, again, exactly what I said.

That's per capita. I very clearly said total.

Yeah, the US is literally #2 in the world for total carbon emissions, with about half the total of China (which has four times as many people).

Honestly, it's complicated for everyone. The only hard and fast rule is to do your best not to be an asshole, mostly by respecting everyone's explicit wishes.

They hit $3 million this year for the first time.

OP's post history is about 1/3 shitty posts and 2/3 bitching about how the mods removed his shitty posts.

Good riddance. /r/neverbrokeabone stands alone.

I'm pretty sure it isn't, I was never notified about my ban from there.

Yeah, you can get banned from like a dozen subs at once by saying something anti-Trump in the_donald. They'll ban you for opposing daddy, and a bunch of other subs will ban you because they don't check the content of your post, only the sub it's in.

You don't get notified of a ban unless you've posted there before, so not much.

Cats are smarter than fascists, liberals, and tankies, so I seriously doubt it. I suppose they could be pulling one giant, bloody prank, though. That doesn't seem out of character.

So why bother banning trans people if they'll end up not qualifying due to that existing question?

There's a physiological basis for gender dysphoria. The patient's opinion on it may be a criterion, but it's hardly the only one.

Not all abnormalities belong in the DSM. The DSM is for mental disorders, which can be loosely defined as permanent, bad abnormalities of the mind. Gay people may well have served an evolutionary function, such as increasing the number of males able to defend a group without increasing competition for females (obviously applies only to gay men). In modern, developed areas, reproductive rates aren't really a problem because infant mortality is so low.

>The mods on every subreddit are on a power trip. The mods over at /r/kkjdroid are not on a power trip, guaranteed.

/r/killthosewhodisagree