I’ve always had the opinion that anyone who can’t handle those being free to love who they want must have repressed feelings - I don’t see why that should apply any different depending on what country you live or whether you grew up in a society where the first repressed person made the original rule

TIL about Italy’s shunning of their past in contrast to the “collective guilt” felt by Germans after WWII

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italiani_brava_gente

Italians embrace their cultural and gastronomic exports while shunning certain parts of their history - I wouldn’t say that’s racist… In fact I would call that humanizing

I wonder what their response would be to a bunch of lemmings outside the reach of Germany’s laws doing the same?

Drug has a pretty loose definition - anything with a physiological effect; but I was trained to think a drug as being those chemicals which can cross the blood brain barrier (BBB).

Alcohols can increase permeability of the BBB to solubilized substances in the blood so isopropyl would be able to affect the brain. Since a molecule has to cross lipid membranes (the capillary cell membranes etc) it’s most dependent on the polarity and size of the molecule.

any positive effects

This is another valid way to define a drug depending on which branch of science one is inclined to study but I prefer to think of this as merely adding a characteristic to that molecule; i.e. addictive qualities

Not BNN Bloomberg for any confused Canadians

I came here to talk about methyl groups and no one gives them a mention :(

Always wanted a “personal” website but felt I wasn’t creative enough to create anything useful enough… Maybe a wiki was the best I could come up with

Care to share what you use the website for exactly?

This is so much better and more effective than throwing confetti at Wimbledon for attention

Yes dude (or dudette) exactly what I’m saying is that it can’t be proven one way or the other until “you have the possibility of some information being made public”.

I mean clearly there is a third option - being a knob and claiming you’re always right no matter what the facts say

The false dichotomy? Id argue that’s you not believing someone can be concerned about an issue that affects everyone (global issue) regardless of location… but okay

Edit: A regional issue being more pressing for countries in that region does not justify saying a global issue does not need attention

I’m just seeing you agree in different words?

If government is the only one with the knowledge then it can never be proven to those who are properly skeptical

TIL Ukrainian lives are only a European concern

I personally think it is worth investigating these allegations

And you hit the nail on the head about why an elected representative won’t say one way or the other unless it’s objectively proven or shown to be false - anything else doesn’t need a response. Further any rep who does claim the matter to have been solved, one way or the other, only opens themselves up to criticism for something they probably didn’t get into politics for in the first place.

When scientists and experts (plural) start getting involved then it’s interesting however, imo, your focus on government being the ultimate truth-finder is flawed

But why are they inconveniencing people who wanted to watch a tennis match and not idk… oil execs?

They get as much sympathy from me as I gave the truckers who protested outside my apartment building in Ottawa trying to convince me covid isnt real as if I had any decision making power

Tl,dr: pick your battles