“the past 30 days”

So you literally don’t know how drug tests work? Marijuana clears an oral test in about a day, most jobs that test for it simply tell you to come back the next day. This is in legal state, and covers the vast majority of jobs. If you can’t be sober for a full 24-hrs before a pre-employment check you’re an addict. This would be like if someone admitted to being drunk the morning of an interview.

“Neither of those details speaks to sobriety at work”

Again you’re confused by the efficacy of drug tests. If you can’t be sober for 1 or 2 days to get your job that you applied for, it’s far less likely that you are going to be sober on the clock. (Few places do uranalysis, and I’ve literally never heard of a blood or hair test which are the ones that actually can reliably test that far back).

Strictly speaking you cannot prove that the person who shot heroin during your interview, is also going to do drugs on the clock. It is however a very good indicator that they are unprofessional, will be a bad employee and are quite likely to drugs on the clock. Companies don’t just spend thousands of dollars a year to be cruel to employees.

Exploiting a double meaning; nobody claims that a fetuses right to life is greater than the mothers. You are conflating someone’s lifestyle choice with a right to life. Guess what? Society is based on restricting lifestyle choices, you can’t just scream and yell at everyone you meet. You’ll face repercussions that deter such behaviour.

“It doesn’t have thoughts or feelings to protect”

And you think this is why killing is wrong? You realise that these are emergent properties of neurological behaviour? You can’t even possess thoughts or feelings without some time interval, so by that criteria you should be killable so long as your brain hasn’t established a pattern sufficient to be considered a thought? In other words you can be killed at any moment so long as it is fast enough.

“That’s scientific”

You say to a scientist. Boy do I love when lay people try to incorrectly appeal to abductive reasoning.

FYI, also an atheist, another hilarious intellectual faux pas on your behalf.

Hotels are way worse. It’s all the same job regardless of how fancy the hotel is, but the more expensive chains like Mariott will have bizarrely elitist staff, mostly front desk and management.

“The justification”

They don’t legally need a justification. The reality is that drug tests just like felony checks are very good filters for bad employees. If a company actually needs employees they won’t do them, or lower the standards so low that anyone that isn’t actively injecting or murdering someone would pass.

Removed by mod

I don’t believe any state has a law that says that abortions must be provided to you. The legal right ammendments that activists are trying pass are simply to bar the state from restricting abortions.

“There is nothing to protect or give rights to”

1. We protect inanimate objects. Are you asserting that fetuses don’t even exist?
2. There is nothing “scientific” or empirically derived about an application of moral valuation. This is simply you confusing yourself over word salad.
3. “It’s only complicated because of different spiritual beliefs”- And yet the poster gave a non-spiritual reason. So why didn’t you show that it’s either not complicated or that the user is actually relying on spiritual beliefs?

“Clearly should have a right to her own body”

This is actually not clear at all. Consider self-harm, if people actually do have a right to their own body to do whatever they please then we have absolutely no right to take any measures to prevent self-harm; it is a violation of their rights. So if someone says “I want to cut my arm off”, you have no basis for saying “no you really shouldn’t” because it is “their body their choice”. The minute you say “Actually self-harm is irrational” means that it is not what the person wants that matters, but what a rational person would want. And then one could easily argue that a rational person wouldn’t want to engage in self-mutilation or killing a fetus. This is known in the literature as the “suicidal Bob problem” or the “argument of the idealised self”.

This and many other issues with defining bodily autonomy in such a way as to permit abortion is why it has largely been rejected in serious ethics; it’s only popular among the public because it’s essentially an elaborate appeal to emotion fallacy.

Nuclear is attractive because all the renewable options are climate dependent consequently highly variable. Unless you have some new form of renewable energy, this isn’t going to change.

They’re easy to shit on because they are stupid, being passionate and stupid are not a necessary combination.

“I can’t tell how people add information to these things”

As a Wikipedian, it’s actually not that difficult. You typically start by row and just fill them all out. The much harder part is collecting the information initially, and verifying it (which as you can see in most comparisons isn’t actually done).

These aren’t even datasets that are large enough to warrant automation.

CCR is the primary method taught in cardiac care. E.g only compression. This is because the primary issue is preventing clots and making sure you get some blood flow to the tissues. Full oxygenation isn’t as important due to lower oxygen demand of an unconscious person.

And none of this addresses whether or not giving money to panhandlers helps them.

I’ve lived on the street before, it sucks, but what the typical visibly homeless person does isn’t sustainable and doesn’t help them. It’s just a rut of wasteful and irrational behaviour, if you are panhandling you’re not engaging in productive behaviour that will result in long-term changes.

Unless it’s edited, that seems to be the exact opposite of what they are saying. They even clarify using the same poor English.