staysafeanon

>Study? You're hoping for a peer-reviewed science journal that published an article on who's offended by Joe Rogan?

Oh, so you have nothing. Thanks for agreeing with me. Your points dismissed.

>The original claim was that the total number of people still offended by COVID-victim Joe Rogan's comments was "none."

Not my nor your claim. Stop shifting goal posts.

>I've posted evidence to support mine

Wrong, you've posted none such thing, as I have proven above. You still haven't supplied evidence to support your claim.

>your defense is a thought-terminating cliché coined by a game show host.

Yellow journalism predates the birth of Trump, wrong again.

>I was pretty sure you wouldn't have any criticism more nuanced than "FAKE NEWS," but it's nice to see it confirmed.

And as usual, you're wrong. You still haven't linked any study or non-yellow journalism that tries to objectively capture how "many" people are still mad at Joe Rogan.

>I provided a few links because you're apparently unable to use search engines.

A few links to fake news outposts that did not support your claim whatsoever. If you can't find a legitimate claim to your original statement, it can be dismissed outright. You still haven't found anything, and so you're claims are dismissed.

>FAKE NEWS

You seriously reply with two more links to yellow journalism. I can't tell if you're trolling or not, but that's three strikes, you're out.

Salon is not news, it's yellow journalism.

>How is this not just flagrant hypocrisy

It's not at all. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Logical, data driven approaches to understanding problems like this are heresy in the empire of virtue signaling.

>Do nuclear power plants require stability to be safe?

Not any more or less than any other form of power generation, no.

> Is the world becoming more or less stable?

Definitely more stable. This is the safest, most crime free/stable the world has ever been.

>All of the objections you raise could have been remedied in the recently-enacted legislation across the country. All they had to do was require state-funded schools to put the same info found on a DL or CCL on their student ids.

I can hear leftists screeching from here over this proposal. That's exactly what Republicans want... Now student IDs can't be issued to illegal immigrants, need the same verifications required for DLs, which is White supremacy or something.

> school in most cases already knows this information because they need it to verify the tuition rate for which a student qualifies.

Which is hilariously inaccurate. I knew many students who feigned residency to save themselves tens of thousands.

>But GOP-run state legislatures didn’t do this and the reason why seems obvious given the public intonations coming from these individuals.

Because it was shot down by Democrats. Republicans just want to bring the US to the 21st century and match what the rest of the first-world countries are doing. Anything else is regressive.

Nonetheless, as far as Texas is concerned, students can get a free voter ID that qualifies, so the student ID point is moot.

Except in reality their coworkers weren't farting on every burger, they were just giggling over non-PC jokes, and the camera system confirmed that there was no farting.

Sadly, the employee that leaked/whistleblew is suffering from a mental illness, and they delusionally thought their coworkers were farting on the burgers.

>There is, of course, no bias in the types of people who are comfortable with and can easily pass a background check, and those who are not or cannot.

You're correct, there's no bias on the system for background checks. Anyone of any race, color, or creed can get a background check to verify their eligibility to exercise their right to own/carry firearms and vote.

>There is, of course, no bias in the types of people that have one but not the other.

I agree, and it's in Texas' state law: any legal resident regardless of race, color, or creed can apply for a concealed carry license. It's truly bias free.

>A student ID proves identity.

Except student IDs don't even do that. They prove your student status, not state resident identity. That's why you can't use student IDs to buy alcohol, board a plane, or purchase a firearm. Voting and buying guns are both constitutionally guaranteed rights. Are you OK with people buying guns with student IDs? If you are, at least you're being consistent.

Many student IDs are not even issued by the states (private schools). Also, there are hundreds of schools per state, being a student at Piney Woods Community College isn't easily verifiable if it's even in the state.

>The comment upthread I initially replied to stated student IDs aren't appropriate because they don't demonstrate citizenship

Nor do they demonstrate residency, nor are they valid for a number of other rights and privileges so it holds that they're not accepted.

>I pointed out neither does a drivers' license.

Which is true, but not what I stated above.

>The appropriate time to look at residency/citizenship is at the voter registration step. This is already done!

Some states have same day registration so it is not already done. Nonetheless, a student ID is a poor ID for exercising a person's right to vote.