So, there is some backing - BUT itās not the same for everyone. Fiber, to an extent, inhibits some calorie availability, but the amount and extent can vary from person to person. Itās not an exact science or definite happening. Fiber is great, but it alone isnāt going to work any great weight loss, carb canceling miracles. There are no magic bullets!
1 Like
My hot take question is: why do the book readers try to gate keep reading. IMO, one does not have to read traditional books to be a reader. I think comics are a good tool to get kids into reading. If a kid goes from not reading much to consistently reading comic books, that will in most cases improve their reading comprehension and speed.
As a kid / teenager I didnāt read much (almost 0 that wasnāt required). An interesting anecdote I have is that as a teen I started reading one chapter from the Bible every night. I had taken the ACT test before doing this (I think as a junior), and then again after doing this chapter a day thing for around a year. My reading score improved significantly. I canāt remember how much exactly, but it was noteworthy.
I donāt read to many actual books, but I am a curious person. I read multiple internet articles every day. I learn about all sorts of stuff. I can easily burn an hour learning about stuff on Wikipedia. Iāve had the book snobs tell me I am not a reader because I rarely read books.
1 Like
No intention to gate anything. Was merely pointing out that I didnāt read a book without pictures until I was an adult. When I said comics I was thinking the Dandy or Beano not full graphic novels. All my kids read graphic novels and love them. I agree that reading any book is better than reading nothing. I do though also think that reading books without pictures where you need to imagine the scene as the author writes it helped my comprehension and imagination.
I think reading anything from internet articles to news papers still makes you a reader. I guess some people feel that the term reader is specifically referencing books.
4 Likes
No, it does not.
They have no duty, but they also have immunity under the law for violating rights.
They should have neither.
Except in very limited circumstances. QI, as it stands, takes it wayyyyy too far.
2 Likes
You keep hammering on the point of cops having no duty to protect, which I donāt dispute. Iām familiar with the case that established this notion.
Does law enforcement still have a duty to apprehend criminals? If so, what is the mechanism you propose to shield these public servants?
The only legal duty they have is to protect the government according to the Supreme Court opinion.
I am not sure that encompasses apprehending criminals specifically, but I could make that argument pretty easily I think.
Well for one self-defense should apply to them, which also includes defense of a third person in lethal force or force situations.
I think the same laws and protections that apply to the general public should also apply to them.
I donāt understand why they should be given special protections that can absolve them from trampling our rights when I wouldnāt get the same.
2 Likes
I appreciate the answer. It is a very hot take indeed, at least in my laymanās opinion.
Does the lack of duty to protect citizens, apprehend criminals, enforce the law, investigate crimes, monitor areas, conduct deceptive operations, etc. extend only to Federal, or to all layers of government?
In laymanās terms, what is the trajectory that society could expect if we implemented your legal theory?
9ā¦ No
1 Like
Disagree. Ive seen plenty of guys prosecuted. Even when acting in good faith. Surely you can see how that is a pretty sobering reality check ?
What you will see is a massive decline in self initiated activity, pursuing violent criminals, etcā¦ and the same people wanting QI gone bitching that police are lazy or cowards. Or the āI pay your salaryā cunts whining that cops arenāt doing anything. Its a lose / lose for civilians too.
Its a very dirty, ugly, dynamic and sometimes very dangerous job. Gotta be realistic in your expectations.
QI isnāt the magical pass people think it is
1 Like
The general public isnāt making arrests or enforcing the lawā¦ on their own behalf. Thatās why. Not hard to understand. Thatās why police have that latitude.
Sometimes the police hate really clouds peoples critical thinking. Scary.
Dude hates police way too much to think rationally it seems.
Bizarre but otherwise intelligent people lose their critical thinking skills on some subjects.
In a similar vein then, how do you feel about the severe overreach now that the border patrol can stop anyone without probable cause within 100 miles of the US border (which is actually a large part of the US)? Including stop and searches if US citizens.
You canāt have police powers like that and be āfreeā.
Learning about QI from a legal perspective it definitely overreaches and now extends way beyond its original intent (as far as I understand it from my attorney wife and others).
Border stuff is tricky as its a monumental issueā¦ drugsā¦ human traffickingā¦ terroristsā¦ Not well versed enough on it to give an educated opinion.
Againā¦ QI is not a get off free card. At all. Seen too many people fired and some prosecuted while acting in good faithā¦ and others NOT protected by it as they overstepped their bounds in a way that wasnāt excusable under those circumstances.
All levels.
Wouldnāt the logical conclusion of your legal theory be the abolition of law enforcement as it has been understood for centuries?
I donāt hate police at all.
I donate to them and support them.
You canāt separate your emotions from the police and actually objectively look at the law and how it is wrong.
We can disagree why it is or isnāt wrong from a logical position, but donāt start lobbing bullshit you have no proof of as personal attacks on emotions one way or the other about police.
2 Likes
I donāt see how that follows for having them be accountable for constitutional violations.
Attorneys have to deal with peopleās rights all the time. Iām not protected personally, if I violate them.
Iād be disbarred and could be pursued personally.
QI also applies to all judges and prosecutors, politicians, etc.
It is not just police.
1 Like
Letās not also forget about asset forfeiture where you have to prove your innocence.
1 Like
Yeah, it just gets worseā¦
Yes. The End.
We will need to just agree to disagree on this.
1 Like