It might be anecdotal but this honestly just seems like a Republican Establishment thing. I peruse conservative talking spheres both online and off because of my location and extended family, for the most part everyone just agrees that if someone committed a crime they should be punished regardless of the side of the aisle.

That being said, it doesn’t invalidate any statements made here about the possible motivations for this newest publicity stunt. I think the majority of people are just tired of hearing about “this side bad” and just want the government to get their shit together and actually legislate to help the working class.

Be still my heart, apparently it matters because you’ve lost all words and have gone the typical route of insults. I hope that’s how you learn and are happy, to think you actually had any factual knowledge to have a conversation with is my fault. This replies screams of something you’re dying to tell yourself in a mirror, you’re not even pointing out what I need to admit to so I’m assuming it’s a message to yourself. Have fun crying in your shed and make sure to clean your basin often, you can think of me next time you’re out there.

You’re really latching onto that sometimes bit hard aren’t you?

the context of this post is about upvoting incorrect information, and downvoting correct information.

…information about… come on… you almost got it. I’m glad you learned about catch basins, unfortunate that you believe it negates any water run-off. You do have an outlet from the basin right? Is this a magical abyss of a basin that catches all the run off from your 3k sq ft structures and you think it’ll never fill up?

I see you’re already engaging with the OP and admitted to having horrible reading comprehension since you couldn’t discern the original intent of the post. But then you continue on with the SoMEtIMEs!! rhetoric. As you’ve stated, you’re a niche land owner who is ACTIVELY adding on to an already oversized shed, your land wasn’t originally developed that way nor is that a practice that’s done without an active home owner who has stated those needs to the builders. No one is going around developing 60%, sOmETiMeS! people add on as is their right after purchasing. Love your use of picking and choosing through the argument, truly impressive.

Nice to see you showing your ass on a pedantic post like this.

outside of niche hobbyists or being used for work related activities/storage is nonsense

oh look, you fit the exact description I referred to! The context of this conversation is about a mass land development, try to fucking think about it.

No, not adding a shed, extending my garage/shop… perfect concrete with a drain.

perfect concrete?.. you do know a drain has to lead somewhere right? Into the surrounding area which if it was all developed like you’ve done would cause problems. “Slapping” refers to adding on or new but I see I hit a nerve talking about your “bestest shed”. Would be interesting to see the videos but I try not to support creators who are assholes and your descriptive reply does nothing for the conversation. Again, you’re helping prove the point that a few anecdotal observations isn’t the norm or recommended but seems to get upvotes. Continue arguing on though, love to see the hot gas pouring out of more than a hawt dog furnace.

unless you don’t consider steel frame buildings and pole sheds, but why wouldn’t you?

You do not, in fact, count those buildings towards your houses square footage. Doing so would open yourself up to all sorts of liability.

Covered, enclosed porches can only be included if heated and using the same system as the rest of the house. Garages, pool houses, guest houses, or any rooms that require you to leave the finished area of the main house to gain access are not counted in the square footage of a house. source

The only common situations in which the exact size of a home may be legally important would be:

1. For tax appraisal purposes
2. For qualifying for a certain mortgage or home equity loan
3. If a buyer has already bought, or at least has signed a contract on a home, and now claims that fraud was committed because the home is not as large as advertised. source

For further considerations of those that are interested (ANSI Draft, figure 1, page 6, outside source as the real ansi website is just atrocious to navigate and I’m not gonna dox myself by loading up local code.)

As shown, the upper-level plan has an open foyer and a protruding window that does not extend to the floor; neither area contributes to the square footage of the upper level. The calculated finished square footage of the entry level does not include the protruding fireplace, covered patio, garage, or unfinished laundry. The finished area of the basement is counted toward the below- grade finished square footage in its entirety, including the area under the stairs that descend from the entry level. The area of the unfinished utility room is calculated by using the method prescribed in the standard but is not included in the below-grade finished square footage.

All that aside, you’re slapping a 25’x52’ shed onto your 1/4 acre property? That’s almost 20% of your land use not including lot encroachment setback, drainage, and basic driveway/building infrastructure. It’s your property so definitely do as you wish, but to think this is a common practice or a desirable thing outside of niche hobbyists or being used for work related activities/storage is nonsense. Neighborhood flooding, no natural green spaces for habitats, it all sounds like a horrible dystopia on your mini-compound.

I don’t know about upholding time honored traditions, seems contradictory and subjective to me when your later stance includes an example of the Quran (another time honored tradition you don’t agree with). I don’t agree with making it illegal for anyone to attend school so it seems like a double edge sword that’s based solely on a personal morality which is hard to codify for an entire population.

I also agree a private protest is no protest at all, but it becomes complicated when you’re targeting a religious group’s texts just because bad faith actors are using it for control. Even burning their flag seems weird when it’s not the people of that country making the decisions but by the administration in charge (I’m not sure on what the target for the protest should be then in that case though).

Constitutionally you have to make a decision, I believe this has been debated and somewhat agreed upon though that access to a happy life (access to healthcare and freedom of religion) is more important than the right to “burn shit” as one has been documented and burning is not mentioned in most or any constitutions. Though freedom of expression is, which again becomes complicated when that expression is wished to be expressed through destruction of property (public/private). Again, I don’t have a particular stance on this subject but just pointing out contradictions in the arguments to better understand the ideology behind everyone’s thoughts.

Personally this feels like a contradiction.

They can be arrested or just refused entry if they are known to be connected to extremist groups. They should be screened as any other person traveling to Denmark… bad domestic actors use it as a means to push some other (anti freedom) agenda.

State surveillance measures taken after 9/11 is part of the anti-freedom agenda to me. To effectively screen or establish connection to an extremist groups requires enhanced surveillance for effectiveness and arresting anyone with even a distant connection seems dubious (what type of connection, family, friends, being tricked into going to one meeting, etc). The people defining what an “extremist group” is can also be nefarious if bad actors are in play (think of the anti-communism/socialism scare that is portrayed in the recent Oppenheimer flick).

Plenty of good or interesting points being made by both sides so I appreciate the conversations. I’m not too sure of what the problem is though when the discussion and article mostly revolves around public spaces. Usually there are gathering/event requirements around anything that constitutes pyrotechnics or the use of fire in a performance as that can be a hazard and special precautions need to be followed (fire extinguishers, etc). I’m not too sure about the laws currently on the books of most countries but I doubt many places allow you to just walk up to a street corner and start a fire whether the item you’re burning is your property or not.

I’m also confused on the double standard of what constitutes public or private when it comes to online media. I think this is something that needs to be fleshed out more in this day and age. For instance the article references a current law Denmark has on the books,

The ban is expected to be added to a section of the criminal code that bans public insult of a foreign state, its flag or other symbol.

Is social media/the internet a public space? If so, does posting a video recorded on private property and then uploading it to said online public space nullify the private property? I’ve seen a lot of people use this double standard only when it benefits them. For instance, if you typed out something online that’s considered “free speech” but violates civil law because of it’s context then they are in the wrong. On the flip side, if you record a video of someone having a conversation at a private backyard bbq and upload it, has the person broken a law when they weren’t in “public” during the recording?

The ban above is a great example to use. I, myself, feel like the criminal code goes a little too far with no public insults of a foreign state. How does that work out with the scenario I presented when the video gets released. I’m not sure if the criminal code even touches on the digital aspect of it, or who is at fault (the uploader, the person making the statements, or the hosting site).

Another ironic stance I’m seeing is the freedom/protection of expression being used to allow the public burning of books and condemning those who are against it. There are specific and recognized groups which receive protections under the law from discrimination and targeting of hate speech (the Denmark suggested law also covers bibles so it’s not just a Quran issue). Are we picking and choosing who these protections are allowed for based on our opinion on whether we agree with them or not?

For example if religious text burning is allowed for a public display, are all forms of expression then allowed? Burning a cross in front of an historically African American church, burning a pride flag at a pride march, burning baby dolls in front of an abortion clinic, political rivals, medical clinics that perform care for transitioning, hell even nazis burning disney shit outside of disney world?

If you’re of the belief that all of this should be allowed under the umbrella of freedom of speech/expression, what do you feel should be the governments stance on protection of it’s citizens from harassment in public spaces? Should the government even address these problems, or is it the same as no one should expect privacy in a public space so therefor expect persecution and harassment as well? How does this not effect businesses and organizations from being targeted with hostile forces? I’m reminded of the civil rights era, groups of white nationalists armed and congregating outside of a business to intimidate anyone of color from using the premises or social services. Groups will maintain these tactics and multiply if there is no resistance from a governmental stance, this will only heighten confrontations when opposing groups are formed to combat these scenarios leading to civil unrest, physical harm/altercations, and potentially death of innocent bystanders if something were to escalate.

I am not of any of those targeted groups, not a policy maker, and have an indifferent stance so I’m open to honest debate on everyone’s side. I also feel like the remarks made by OIC needs to be investigated,

The Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) called on its members to take appropriate action against countries where the Quran was being desecrated.

Any group that can be seen as calling for harm to members of that countries population should have legal ramifications in that country, but I’m unsure of what they mean when they say “appropriate action” which is why I said it should be investigated further.

I don’t wear headsets but I have a similar shape (not sure if it’s as pronounced since I haven’t shaved it like that). The article goes onto explain that it takes near 300lbs of pressure to dent the skull and if anything it’s just soft tissue/fat being weird, which can go away through massage and giving it a break lol.

I guess if you’re wearing something as tight as a belt it might make the fat form around differently. I’m skeptical though, I just don’t know what kind of devices these guys are specifically wearing and the weight/time duration so I guess anything is possible.

and yet every single online grocery shopping I’ve been on refuses to have a filter or sort by price per weight option. It’s even more incredibly infuriating when you have to click into an item’s description or calculate it yourself, extra bonus hell points to the sites that change the weight metric so it’s an extra step to figure out what the actual comparison is (probably more a US problem with ounce/pound conversion).

Are there any personal thoughts or insights about the article you wish to share?

Huh, I was forced in my early years to be raised around very conservative and racist individuals so your use of the word and validation for it’s usage feels very much like my childhood experience. To each their own though, the commonality is just interesting to me when I saw your first comment.

I’ll have to take your word on the interviews, I’m open to other perspectives which is why I initiated this dialogue with stating my confusion. I’m still not seeing the connections that I initially confronted. As you stated, the questions are usually answered and administered from top-down (department, district, then principal). I’m not sure on what effectiveness a “skilled” principal could have when the district is not prepared, though I could see a case for an unskilled principal not instituting/following change as instructed.

All of the questions you’ve brought up are valid whether there is a pandemic or not (which is why I specified your pandemic remark). When considering any fairness, edge cases will always be problems that need to be addressed. I agree the situation of overworking was exacerbated during the pandemic but existed long before that as funding and support systems have been slowly dwindled away.

I’m not sure on what the crux of this debate is but I feel like the light has been shifted from “education responsibility” to “pandemic bad/we need X”. I believe education has been getting the short straw for decades and the pandemic was just the straw that broke the camel’s back. A decent principal or administration assessing the health scenarios you presented would not fix the broken system. Schools being all paper based, the overworking of staff, students lack of reliable internet, not having a pre-pandemic plan ready (it’s been known for a long time that it was a problem to arise soon), all of these are problems that needed to be addressed a long time ago. Most early education schools only have one I.T. person and usually doubles their role in another form (teaching classes as well).

I feel like teaching is chaotic as a whole regardless of the situation society faces. Hearing about how the pandemic was the root cause of the problem just sounds disingenuous and completely glosses over the need for distant education to be an effective tool for future students. Teachers should be available to help explain and instruct how to fill out health forms, just like tax forms and other important documentation that should be covered at some point in a students career. Classes should be hybrid, teachers should be familiar and take supplemental training for the new tech they are using. All of this should be countered with support so nothing is “added on” to the workload. Again, these aren’t problems that were cleared up when the pandemic restrictions were lifted. Plenty of teachers are still on the edge of bailing as the system continues to decline.

This is off-topic, but I keep seeing Anglo being used (maybe I just keep running into your comments). Is it suppose to be insulting like in the context of your comment? Is it descriptive? How do you know if someone is an Anglo online? Do you feel like it has any negative connotations being used? Feel free to answer any of the questions or none at all lol, curiosity got the better of me.

I’m not really understanding this comment. Teaching during the pandemic was chaotic, yes. I don’t think a skilled or unskilled principal made the difference for a lot of people (besides some mental support and I’m assuming you’re referring to the position of principal). There were attendance rules for the districts around my area, grades were calculated regularly like before (not sure what you mean by “fair”), and the curriculum was maintained the same so I’m not sure where the ton of extra work was coming from.

This is all anecdotal from my perspective so if you had a school district that failed to properly follow protocol I apologize and sympathize with the situation you were in. I think most of the problem was how we transitioned with such a drastic change. Resources weren’t properly reinvested, proper training support for educators wasn’t given, and the students weren’t prepared in a meaningful way for the shift.

In this day and age of online training though, for future employment, it could’ve been something that better situated students to handle obstacles they may encounter in the future (what school is suppose to prepare us for). Just looking at the stats for online education show more than 1/4 of all students are engaged in a form of distant learning. This is going to be something that only increases over time so we should be better prepared as a society to be flexible with transitions like WFH, etc. (source source)

You:

the US didn’t give a shit about it at all

Response:

the United States spent more than $9 billion on a dizzying array of programs to deter Afghanistan from supplying the world with heroin

You:

lmao, so?

That doesn’t prove it’s why they were there.

Now the goal post has been moved to WhY?!? were we there? Throw up some more pretty images to explain the situation please.

person replies back with factual evidence contradicting your personal beliefs in a foreign war, “lmao, so?”

Where is here? The World News community? The only one I see whining is the pickle. Is this a small step away from saying people should go back from where they came from and leave this social space you’ve claimed as your own? IDK wtf you’re thinking coming into someone else’s post, refuting verified evidence, then proclaiming hate because its context makes the US look subpar. What’s your point, you love the US, why come on here and have to ignorantly shout it?

How do you feel about government subsidies being used to bolster a free press? From past examples like oil, they don’t become a shell company of the governments whims and I feel journalism is just as important to an educated populace in comparison to oil for our commerce.