Honestly ancaps are way more skeptical of ICE than these people. This sub seems to be for fascists who don’t like paying taxes.

I got banned from there for arguing supporting ICE is incompatible with libertarianism lol

I’m torn between satisfaction and fear that what replaces it could be worse.

God I hate these people so much.

It’s extremely unlikely unless you’re doing extreme things like running a marathon or forcing yourself to drink way beyond how thirsty you feel.

Anyone know if these would be subject to FOIA?

Lol

I wouldn’t say definitively that every mushroom is safe to chew and spit out. There could be some toxins you’d absorb through the membranes of the mouth. I don’t know of any but there are a lot of species of fungus. Maybe fire coral mushroom?

There is also Gyromitra which can be rendered mostly edible by boiling… however, the toxin is volatile and can be inhaled by the cook causing poisoning through a fairly unique mechanism.

Yeah I could believe people change. Maybe she was ignorant when she got into it and wanted to right the wrongs she committed. But then to run against someone who is already fighting against ICE? It feels more like opportunism than redemption. Maybe put in some pro-bono work for a few years and then come back if you really mean it.

5 for sure

I’m sure this will never be abused in any way.

But that’s the crux of the disagreement. They can work anywhere.

You claimed that building better infrastructure won’t solve our transportation issues because our cities were built for cars while Dutch cities weren’t. None of that is true.

But I’m not sure why you want me to repeat the entire debate we just had. I’ve already corrected the points you made above. If you’re still confused, read again and ask specific questions.

Because we haven’t built the necessary infrastructure. Also because people don’t like change. Getting around without a car is a skill that will need to be developed, and most people have little reason to develop it. That will probably resolve naturally over time, if the built environment allows people to experience cycling as a safe, convenient way to get around, and as people in your social network introduce you to urban cycling.

But I mean there are a lot of people, myself included, who do currently find it preferable. The difference is I’m willing to invest a little more time and experience some discomfort around safety. The more you chip away at those issues, the more people will cycle, which will improve safety and get more people familiar with the idea.

“But I didn’t think the leopards would eat MY face!”

Well, then, again, I disagree and that’s why we’re arguing. How you describe the arguments you’re making is not relevant. The point is that they’re not accurate. With political will we could have the same experience as these kids in our urban centers.

“Just saying the ability to have it be useful requires a lot of stuff the US doesn’t have”

If that’s not arguing it isn’t useful then I have no idea what you’re trying to say here. Or in the entire thread because every single thing you’ve said is about how pedestrian infrastructure isn’t useful in the US!

I have literally biked many of the routes you’re discussing here. I live in Sacramento and regularly visit the Bay Area without driving. Actually, that’s already the most convenient way to do so. But that’s a fun outing, not practical urban transit. Practical urban transit takes place within or to adjacent neighborhoods. That’s the whole point. Once you reach a certain density of amenities, car infrastructure and travel becomes totally impractical. This density is well below American suburbs, which is why our cities are all clogged with traffic and people are being flattened left and right.

For occasional longer distance trips you can rent a car or take a train. We’re not talking about inter-city travel here. The point is, like the above video, people, especially children should have the ability to safely navigate their neighborhoods. And this is totally achievable in the US.

Regarding the history… all of those cities predate automobiles and most of them still have dense, walkable neighborhoods. A few demolished them. It’s the surrounding suburbs that were built for cars. But they can and should be rebuilt in a better way. It will be a process but the alternatives are far worse.

And on your final point. Yes. There is a severe housing shortage in urban centers and that does make things more difficult. But the same solutions I’m discussing above, densification of inner suburbs along with improvements to non-car transportation are the solution. Infrastructure and development style are active choices we are making, and if we keep making the same choices, housing costs will continue to rise, people will have to commute farther and farther, and traffic will get worse and worse. Frankly, I don’t believe we even have the funds to maintain the system of roads we have now. Some of it, likely outer suburbs, will need to be abandoned. See Detroit for an early look at that process.

What lol. Arguing pedestrian infrastructure is not useful is arguing against it.

Suburban sprawl is an issue. But it is solvable by building more density and improving pedestrian infrastructure. It’s not insurmountable.

Regarding able bodied people, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure is generally superior for people with disabilities. Many can’t drive a car, and the same infrastructure that serves bikes can serve e-bikes, mopeds, mobility scooters, etc.

So yeah, the solution here is pretty clear. Stop wasting millions on a failed car-centric transportation system and start building a better one. It’s actually much cheaper than maintaining the terrible system we have now.