A community for the country in question would be a valid starting point.

Though you will need political supporters and momentum to properly try. It’s going to be ignored if it’s eventually just you sending an email to government.

Good question!

They aren’t necessarily bad as such, just “random and unfiltered”.

Dominant genes get “battle tested” all the time, by definition. The harmful ones are likely to result in a human that can’t survive or have children, while the good ones remain.

Human genes only really “work as intended” when they are combined from very different sets.

So-called “recessive” genes are overruled by your partner’s different pile of genes. They are usually shit traits like soggy bones or hair growing backwards, but since they never dominate, they haven’t been naturally selected away. They’re just harmless baggage.

You can still get them because it’s all random, but the likelihood is generally low.

If you don’t have that difference in mating genes, more of these recessive genes get to have a say in building the human. This severely increases the likelihood of birth defects.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding

Fun fact: This is one of the reasons why - when we start colonies on the Moon or Mars or wherever - it’s important that we send a fuck ton of people.

We don’t have to make excuses for Hamas in order to call out IDF for their horrid war crimes.

They, too, are disgusting and vile war criminals.

Can you give an example of a post?

The part of your brain that works stuff into long term memory is normally dormant when you sleep.

When you wake up it turns on slowly, and when you wake up by an interruption (like an alarm clock) it turns on quickly.

Meaning dreams closer to morning are more likely to be remembered.

Cured sausage. It doesn’t dissolve or absorb water.

Not many foods are edible without exposing them to shower water while taking them out, though.

Smoothies from a closed-lit container and a straw.

Not directly enough that you can draw a link between a piece of art and someone’s action. People have tried to blame bad actions on games, movies, shows, rock music and rap music for ages without getting any substantial traction.

But all media does influence and normalize thought patterns. This is why advertisements and promotional campaigns exist and work, why war propaganda exists to bolster or harm morale and unity, why grisly horror movies are restricted from small children, and why people who are raised Christian have more faith in Christ than people raised Buddhist.

Can you find a link that someone raised on American movies, news, conversations, and comics are more likely to call for using deadly force on a burglar instead of someone raised in Finland? Very likely. Could you make the argument that “Home Alone 3” caused Steven to shoot and kill a confused drunk who went to sleep in the wrong house? Absolutely not.

Aha, then I could easily see myself making that mistake during a tired and stressful day if my phone rang while paying or something.

Do some countries or areas have gas pumps that you just insert and then they pump without you constantly squeezing the handle? The ones I’m used to feel kinda impossible to forget because there is no reason to ever let go of the hose handle until it’s back in place.

Assuming we have a surplus of oxygen istead: Things would catch fire pretty quickly and pretty intensely.

Yeah, bugs are most heavily size restricted by oxygen intake. It would be horrifying to let them have more.

Like most of your other questions, this appears to be a veiled call for validation in feeling annoyed at and superior to your coworkers.

Sometimes it’s not all the other cars on the motorway driving in the wrong direction.

Fortunately, he was not guilty of that. The article was just listing more rules from the rulebook.

I appreciate your comment, and that you share the sentiment of seeing past the obvious legend, but I accept that people can find my answer unhelpful. :)

That’s Ernesto. He was president of the National Bank of Cuba for a few years.

E.g. for A you could say “That’s a misconception” and try to leave it at that.

For D you could rebuke or ridicule. Like “That argument comes from intolerance rather than reality - it makes you sound like a zealot” or “Why do you spend so much effort thinking about penises gliding into anuses”? Or just “Oh my GOD I’m so tired of hearing that old myth. Can you find something better?”

For E, the Twitter approach, something snide and aggressive. This will however just make them double down and feel like they are right and their opponents are glib assholes.

These were just some quick examples to illustrate that your intentions are important - by no means all possible or even the best responses.

Meta answer: Consider what you want to achieve with them. Because a valid response differs depending on what you choose to affect.

Some examples:

A) Do you want to display disagreement but not engage?

B) Do you want to change their mind right here right now in this argument?

C) Do you want them to doubt their stance and maybe change their mind later?

D) Do you want them to feel reluctant to bring that argument up another time?

E) Do you want to display conviction and wit to impress an audience or when retelling the encounter later?