Technically not. In many states you have the option of posting a refundable security deposit with the government to meet the minimum liability requirement as an alternative to purchasing auto insurance.
“Standards of clothing” is not a set with a total order, and society has never had one way to dress. You’re unfairly projecting your values (of a certain style of dress) onto society as if it’s shared by everyone.
This is not maths, and nothing is shared by everyone in a human society.
I am actually an algebra major and I always felt that the need of some of my peers to stuff the entire outside world into mathematical definitions does not lead anywhere. Please don't mathematize societal concepts ("a set with a total order"), you will only mislead yourself and others. Maths isn't a good tool to understand people.
Let us talk about humans in a human language instead.
This is a good point, but I’m not convinced it negates the author’s argument.
Consider whether you could pick up that same fragile glass with your eyes closed? I’d wager you could, as you’d still receive (diminished) textile feedback despite the thick gloves.
Bills are not due in advance. The analogy is inapt.
The taxes were cut 8 years ago. There aren't further "cuts". Billionare tax rates have been the same for the last 8 years, and will continue at the same rate at least into next year.
Yes. They were temporary cuts so that they could claim they didn't raise the deficit. Now they are claiming that everybody knew they were going to be permanent. So they either raised the deficit in that cut, or the current one. It's the same party, claiming they didn't raise the deficit either time. And Americans put up with this shit.
That doesn't prove anything. Disturbing burrowing bugs or bugs in grass and bushes with rumbling and lights is easily enough to account for a vast difference alone...Then consider the environment was more wild with more habitat space for bugs compared to a road...
I think it casts a reasonable doubt on the simple theory that wide spread use of pesticide somehow killed off enough bugs that we no longer have them hitting our windshields. If bug populations were dwindling you wouldn’t encounter them in the wild this way.
It’s more likely I think that most successful reproduction for the past century has increasingly been done by bugs who avoid flying over roads. There could be many reasons why they do this. Perhaps some sense the vast asphalt plain and prefer to stay in greener areas. Temperatures above roads in full sun are much hotter than above grass. Turbulence encountered by cars may encourage some bugs to seek calmer airspaces.
So just to be clear: your theory (which has absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support it, and is entirely your personal anecdotes of which there's no causal relationship established whatsoever) refutes both broad evidence of how much damage pesticides do to outside of the target species (and to humans, and birds) but also refutes extensive scientific evidence that we are living through a time of massive ecological die-offs of species?
I would bet they don't live rurally or havent been alive very long. Anyone rural alive over the last 30 years shouldve noticed a decline everywhere around them....would also expect them to notice bugs are different by the road to in the fields to by the ponds, and that different times of year, weather etc, changes which bugs are out and how many are out...its harder to notice these things in suburbs or cities.
I really don't think it does. Especially since it'd be an entirely different set of bugs. You'd be hitting crickets and other bugs you wouldn't find on a road.
reply