I think there's a misunderstanding, I was asking about the distinction being drawn between natural and artificial.

Specifically in the comment to which I was replying.

That seems like a particularly shaky foundation for a blanket statement like that, given the current state of police forces across the globe.

A nice idea though.

I’m....not sure how much better i can phrase that question ?

It was concise, contained all the information needed for an answer, it could even be a single yes or no.

If you have an example of how that could have been asked in a better way, I’d be interested in seeing it.

There was no reference to my thoughts on the overall theme, the question is only loosely related to that theme.

If it helps, i don't care at all about the overpopulation classification or anything to do with it.

Is it easier if i remove all references to the theme? Let's try this :

Doesn't directly proportional mean both metrics being compared need to track each other?

I know its a hyperbolic example (though entirely possible in the context you describe)

What would be your thoughts on speech that had the effectual equivalent of murder?

There's no traps here im just interested in the thought process behind the context you provided.

Side note: if verbal violence is possible then it would probably track that there are degrees of violence, much like the physical equivalent.

If that's true the argument that you shouldn't regulate subjectively heavy violence because "who here hasn't physically hurt someone?" Isn't a reasonable as it sounds at first glance.

For the record, Rowling is a shitbag, the potter books are mediocre and the actors were the best thing about the movies.

None of that bias is in the foundation of my questions though.

Shhhh, don't overload them with reason, it's rare to see this kind of naivete in it's natural form.

edit: some salty salty lurkers around today, come on in, the waters fine, i'm sure you have coherent arguments to add.

it can’t be judged without well-defined critical, no.

That's a partial answer at best , a nice deflection though.

So your argument is that there is no possible criteria by which competence/ability can be judged for a school board position so popularity is the best option ?

seriously, what is the qualification or criteria for being a good school board member? tell me. I’d like to know because as far as I am aware, there absolutely is none.

Once you answer the original question or the newly revised version above i can give you some idea on this.

anyone can run for school board.

Who can run for a school board and how a school board member is evaluated for the position are unrelated.

Perhaps summed up as , "no true leftist" ?

worth checking the modlog, seems there were answers that have since disappeared for mysterious reasons.

i'd imagine they exist and would be equally if not more suspicious because fiscal benefit tends to bring a higher likelihood of shenanigans.

By "don't work", do you mean the physical camera's are unreliable and malfunction or that they don't work as a measure to reduce speeding and increase safety? both ?

edit: for clarity

That's a lot of assumptions about the poster but I can see how you got there.

Below is a response to the idea of supremacy in general, not a response to @chuckleslord@lemmy.world

That seems like a particularly stupid and relatively indefensible hill to die on, but I suppose if you are going to plant a supremacist flag, you haven't really used well reasoned arguments to get there in the first place.

Why not just go with "I disagree with them to such a degree that I wish them and any like them, dead" ?

No need to base it on utterly and stupidly false claims.

Because stoners are basically a cult at this point, and refuse anything even as remotely negative as “it’s not good for your cats?”

I mean, i specifically stated it wasn't related to the actual topic being discussed, but i can address this anyway i suppose.

Possibly culty i suppose, about the same amount as alcohol consumers, smokers, people who see chiropractors etc.

Less than people in organised religion ( big cults ), actual cults and MLM schemes.

If all of the stoners you know are your definition of culty ( except you of course ), perhaps consider that it's your choice in acquaintances rather than an entire demographic.

Can't say i care either way, but i'd be interested in any studies you might have on the subject ( belief systems of stoners in general, not specifically the ones you know ofc, that would be unlikely )

To be clear, I smoke most nights… but god damn do I hate people who feel the need to defend weed against everything.

If that personal preference works for you, who am i to tell you you're wrong.

It’s a drug, y’all. It’s not good for you.

Drug doesn't automatically imply harm, but i think i know what you mean.

So, two things unrelated to the actual topic being discussed.

I’ll pretend your choice of words isn’t low-key confrontational and dismissive like every other comment on this site

It's entirely possible to be correct and do it in such a way that invites confrontation and dismissal.

If it seems like everyone apart from you is confrontational and dismissive, perhaps it's time to consider additional perspectives on why that might be happening.