Most of those where cops only larping as military. Military operations are a completely different thing. No country wants to fight their own people. Your own logistics, intelligence, supply chains, and financing all rely, in part, on the very people you are fighting... You can't trust or count on the chain of command at any point, at any point your keys to power can turn on you and you're dead. Leaders with half a brain know you usually don't have a long life attacking your own people.

Domestic wars are never pretty, no matter how powerful the military. Most people in the military don't serve to shoot their own country. Countries don't want to damage their own infrastructure or enflame their own people. Oligarchs won't support a war that damages their bottom line. People vastly over simply how easy it would be to stop an armed resistance.

Thank you, I think she believes she is not protected. I'll look into this.

My sister in law is blind in one eye, but because she has one working eye she has no disability protection as far as I know. She still can't drive because she has no depth perception and it's very dangerous. It's made navigating going to work difficult over the years, often working the same place my brother did so he could drive her. Luckily her current employer works with her and lets her work from home. But a decade ago no one would have dreamed of letting her work from home.

Both parties are fully bought and paid for by corporate interests...

I get what you're saying in the rest of your comment but I think you are wrong here. To say "fully" bought and paid for is incredibly misleading. On the vast majority of issues that favor corporate interests democrats vote in favor of working people at a high rate. It's really not hard to check the voting on each issue. It's the same 5% of Dems that repeatedly vote for corporate interests. While the other 95% get blamed for it. On the other hand nearly all Republicans vote in lock step with corporate interests. They are not even remotely comparable.

None of the things by themselves fully justify "belief" in a religion yet many people claim they are without a true belief in the entire system. It's the problem with such a vague question. By a narrower definition very few people attending a place of worship are true believers. Someone can believe in god, but not really believe in the rules, and still say they are "religious". Someone can believe in the rules, but not god, and say the same. I think if you are practicing the religion to some extent then you have a right to call yourself religious if that's how you view yourself regardless of your true beliefs on god, rules, etc. Cultural impact matters more than we give it credit for.

Another big reason is reason number 4

4. Gives a sense of community and cultural connection that other things don't quite provide.

I've met a not so inconsequential amount of people in my life that when pressed admitted, they don't believe in god, don't believe in the moral teachings, but attend a place of worship because they think there is no replacement for the interwoven community and cultural connection their place of worship provides. Many people simply like the community connection of their root culture. This is especially true in minority groups (black church, synagogue).

I'm not a fan of lawns but I have a huge lawn that does none of these things and looks fine. I don't irrigate and my lawn is greener than the neighbors. I let anything grow and cut it long with an electric mower. Plenty of shade /w 20+ oaks covering the whole property. No idea about nitrogen, but I don't fertilize, everything that drops from trees gets mulched back into the lawn which keeps everything healthy. At least there are ways to avoid these things if you care.

Realistically it's only those 1-2 days after snowing when things are still being cleared that it's an issue. I bike commute 52 weeks a year in Minnesota and there were only 3 days this year I regretted biking. 2 snow days and one heavy cold rain. I can always supplement another option on those days.

I do and it's honesty much better than those 33+ c days. When it's below freezing, I wear thermal high tops, snow pants, down jacket, face mask and ski goggles. Its perfectly comfortable.

I don't doubt anything you are saying, but it's worth mentioning that (iirc) 80%+ of severe injury and death on a bicycle is caused by motor vehicles, or complications of motor vehicle involvement. People very rarely have severe injury or death on dedicated bike infrastructure. The primary risk on bicycles is motor vehicles. If you remove motor vehicles, there is still risks, but someone might decide that risk is low enough to forgo a helmet. I don't feel those people should be called stupid for their choice.

There is considerable evidence that everyone wearing a helmet in a car would save vastly more lives and prevent severe head injury, and yet pretty much no one even considers that as a normal thing to do. The bike helmet thing is therefore just as much a cultural attitude, as it is about safety.

I still use a helmet, and more importantly, visibility gear, on my bicycle in 100% of my rides. I've never worn a bike helmet walking or driving in a car, even though my cousin died from a head injury getting hit by a car while walking and my grandma-in-law died of a head injury in a car...

A helmet is only needed if you intend to spend significant time in traffic. Most of the world doesn't use one.

The math behind using one is a lot more on the margins than people realize. In order for it to save you, it first has to prevent a head injury, and then prevent one that is in the range of severity that makes it useful. The vast majority of bike injuries won't fall in that range, they'll either be related to another part of the body, or in the case of high speed crashes from a car, too severe for a helmet to matter. But helmets do give people a false sense of security. Statistically people ride faster and take more risks with a helmet on. Lastly, again statistically, the visibility gear you put on yourself while riding does more to keep you safe in traffic than a helmet. Lights, reflectors, reflective vest, etc.

All this to say, the religiosity with which people proselytize helmets is misplaced. I still wear one, but I don't judge people who choose not to.

Also, are you incapable of having a conversation without having to be "right" all the time?

The lack of self awareness in this sentence is of monumental proportions, the only one getting their ego wrapped into this conversation was you. I'm guessing you had a bad day, making it harder to have perspective, but maybe self reflect after you have some time to chill...

Maybe comparable was the wrong word but I think think your using that to intentionally miss my point. When assessing the risk of a commute, if you are looking at per mile risk, biking is less lethal but more injury prone.

By comparable, I mean from point a to point b. If you have a 10 mile commute to work, you have a slightly higher lethality driving a car on a highway, than biking to work, but you have a higher chance of non-lethal injury by biking.

From what I recall it really depends on how you classify danger. Bikes are more dangerous for non-lethal injuries. But any car trip that you drive over 45 mph is slightly more lethal than biking per comparable trip. So it depends on what danger you're willing to risk.

From what I recall it really depends on how you classify danger. Bikes are more dangerous for non-lethal injuries. But any car trip that you drive over 45 mph is slightly more lethal than biking per comparable trip. So it depends on what danger you're willing to risk.

I looked it up, named after how you eat it, by pulling it apart like a monkey.

Getting caught up with semantics arguments seems like a waste of energy. Because, genocide or not, for many people impacted by any war with disproportionate power imbalance, it sure as fuck is as horrific as a genocide regardless of how one defines it. (I'm not necessarily criticizing the use of the word by some, I just think many activists get bogged down in defending the use word rather than addressing the horror.)

At no point did I ever say that killing people was good. The only one on here advocating killing people is you, you literally said you would kill people on this thread. The fact that you're accusing others of being genocide apologists while advocating killing people is laughable. Go outside and touch grass, you clearly need a break from the Internet.