[dead]
> he had finally started focusing on violent crime instead of, “quality of life” crime like shoplifting and vandalism.
Why not both? > this disregard for the English language is truly despicable. You ought to be ashamed.
I mean, you brought race into it and implied I would care more if it happened to a white woman. That is the textbook definition of race-baiting. Both of your examples knew they were pregnant and abused drugs that killed the fetus. And both happened before Roe was overturned. So is there a point you're trying to make somewhere? > Says who? Some prosecutor?
The law, which is written by legislators democratically elected by the populace of the area they serve. That's how democracy works. If you think giving meth or valium to a baby or a developing fetus is a woman's prerogative, then I'm not sure there is any point in this discussion. > If a man takes a Valium, he won't be charged with anything.
Neither will a woman. Now if she is breastfeeding or pregnant that is a different story because it is no longer just her consuming the drug. She is no longer just endangering herself at that point. If a man endangers a child he will be charged as well. And in fact men face far heavier sentences in the legal system than women do. [0] > Tell the world you will stop development until alignment is figured out.
Oh alignment was figured out already, look at who is on the board of OpenAI and the connections they have to US intelligence. > companies can potentially produce 10 times as many products/services
How exactly is that a good thing? We already consume too much, now we will have 10x as much to consume? Unlikely that demand for "the things" goes up 10x, which means the value will drop. > despite the fact that their bill was basically Romneycare.
Romneycare was a plan built for one particular state, one of the main problems with the ACA was trying to replicate that state-based plan across 50 states that all have various systems.