ObjectivityIncarnate

Oh, so all of a sudden Hugo from New Jersey’s not good enough to get a red underline?

It’s now trivial, in 2025, to depict the world as a 3D shape, this is coming a few decades after it matters, imo.

Is appearance really the first thing it occurs to you to comment on?

EDIT: “Yes, body-shaming is indeed my chief concern, hence my comments based on candid photos” was the response. Cringe.

There are so many better ones out there and they’re not filled

You admit, within your sarcasm, that you’re guessing at the rate of incidence.

That was the entirety of my point, really.

The “undercurrent of hostility” exists only in your imagination. I just stated some facts that contradict the assertion, which I think is fair to say is much more hostile in nature than anything I wrote, ironically.

I certainly never compared Mexico or anything in it to feces, anyway.

How many people has that happened to? Surely you can show that it’s happened a statistically-significant number of times, to talk about that as if it’s a normal/typical course of action.

Or has alarmist media made you assume it’s a common event, when it isn’t?

Not offended, just pointing out the objective absurdity of the comparison, on the axis of overall average danger.

Don’t project your emotional response onto me.

We are talking about the risk to travelers.

Where the travelers are traveling to, and away from, generally tells you all you need to know about where the overall quality of life is better.

Again, Mexico’s net migration is literally negative. If two bordering nations have one nation that has a net loss of population to emigration, and the other has a large net positive from immigration from the bordering nation, saying that the former is “bread” and the other is “shit”, sounds pretty ridiculous on its face.

Not to mention that it comes with it the heavy implication that you know better than the majority of those who actually undertook the endeavor of leaving their home country behind in search of better surroundings.

I see what you’re implying. However:

Quote:

Homicide has been the leading cause of death [in youths age 1-19] since 2017 in Mexico…it reached 6.5 deaths per 100,000 people in 2022.

But in Figure 1 here, it shows the rate among US children to be about 1.5 per 100,000, in the same year, 2022.

Children are, likewise re the general population, four times more likely to be murdered in Mexico as in the US.

Also worth pointing out that in 2022, the rate for only Mexican children (6.5) is greater than the rate for all ages in the US (6.3). That fact should speak volumes all on its own.

Edit: Never stops being funny to see a simple, plainly-laid-out debunking of an assertion, with cited evidence, downvoted by ideologues who apparently just can’t handle having their narratives challenged.

What the base murder rate doesn’t tell you is that over 90% of the murders are by cartel members to other cartel members, which means that only 10% or less of the murders are happing to a random bystander.

And what makes you think the type of murder breakdown isn’t similar in the US? Most of the murders there are gang violence etc. as well.

The fact that Mexico’s raw number of annual murders is higher than the US’s, despite being a much, much less populated country, is not something that can just be handwaved away.

There is a reason Mexico’s net migration rate is negative.

You’re literally 4 times more likely to be murdered in Mexico as in the US, according to both countries’ own statistics.

Edit: lol, imagine downvoting a plain fact.

Yeah, never mind that the murder rate per 100k in Mexico is quadruple what it is in the “backwater” US (25.2 vs 6.3). It’s flawless and beautiful, and the US is just horrible and worse in every way than there and everywhere else, “shit”, as you said.

Wonder why so many people are trying to immigrate there, then, hm. Also, Mexico’s got more people trying to get out than get in, how strange.

Ah, what do all those people know, anyway? They’re just making the decision to completely uproot their lives and go to another country for fun, not because they’re desperate for a better life!

Anubis is so lightweight you’ll forget it’s there until you look at your hosting bill.

I don’t know if they realize this is implying it’s onerously expensive, lol.

The US’s incredible levels of prosperity back then was essentially a unique period of time created by extremely specific circumstances (i.e. the US was THE superpower, and the primary economic force on the planet for decades). There’s a reason the ‘baby boom’ happened then. It was literally a unique slice of world history.

It is unrealistic to expect to ever return to that level. Comparisons between now and then are all disingenuous for that reason.

Instead of framing the changes we want to make in terms of ‘but we had X back then’, they should simply be framed in terms of what improvements are beneficial, feasible, and sustainable, in the present.

Probably because you’re making references to a ~30 year old episode of a cartoon, as if it’s your own joke.

But you did say it. Everyone knows what the word is. You went out of your way for literally no reason, to accomplish nothing but making people wonder why you did such a pointless thing.

Why are you proposing scenarios other than the ones I used to specifically exemplify the fact that the measure of sexual assault/rape was massively overinflated?

Do you think “but what about the situations that are rape” is a counterargument to that? My point is that they counted a lot MORE in ADDITION to those legitimate scenarios, and that’s why such a scary number was arrived at.

The bottom line fact is, no survey etc. that doesn’t massively dilute the definitions of those terms has ever or will ever reach a conclusion like “1 in 5 female college students have been sexually assaulted or raped”. There is a reason that figure isn’t being thrown around anymore these days–it’s been debunked thoroughly.

In my college there was a flyer in the restroom about how something like 1 in 6 women will experience sexual assault or rape.

And that was shown to be complete horseshit arrived at by defining ‘sexual assault or rape’ in a survey more broadly than any reasonable person ever would.

It’s similar to the survey in the 80s all the ACABers cite to claim 40% of cops are domestically violent–in that survey, even if a voice was raised one time in the past six months, and it was the cop’s spouse yelling at the cop, that survey dumped the relationship in the domestic violence bucket. Big surprise that 40% figure has never been replicated since, lol.

One example: at the end of a first date that you weren’t really feeling, the guy goes in for a kiss and you decline? Guess what, even if he ‘graciously’/completely accepts the denial and the date ends without incident, that went in the “sexual assault” bucket, regardless of whether the woman herself felt anything bad had happened.

Ever had sex while less than stone cold sober (keep in mind the entirety of the surveyed considered to arrive at this figure were college students)? Survey says you were raped. Doesn’t matter if you were just tipsy, doesn’t matter if you and your partner were equally drunk, doesn’t matter whether you think you were raped/assaulted, nope, we decided you were.

Stuff like that is the only way to get to a figure so absurd.

It’s probably people who think no matter what, every single life is precious and should be preserved.

I doubt it’s that, simply because the OP is not talking about doing anything to anyone in the real world.