To be fair, you're strawmanning him. He didn't say Asimov in totality is a bad writer; he said that one of Asimov's books is bad. That's a world of difference.

You're never going to let him live this down, are you?

In a strict sense, you don't "prove" things in science. You can only support them or disprove them.

>I honestly thought this was agreed upon

I don't have any idea why you'd think that, since the research into the connection between infections and dementia is extremely new. The vast majority of the researchers who do this work, as far as I know, still subscribe to the amyloid/tau hypothesis.

I'm not super into penology, but from memory there is a future criminogenic effect from being prosecuted/convicted/imprisoned.

Essentially, it makes getting a job more difficult, as well as many other things people want to do to survive. Additionally, if you spend time in prison or jail you're more likely to express pro-criminal attitudes. Both things lead people to crime, more or less.

That's not to say we shouldn't convict people of non-violent misdemeanors, but rather we should 1) improve the prison system and 2) allow people to serve their time without a lifetime label that prevents them from getting a job, voting, getting welfare, etc.

People need to be held accountable for their behavior, but that accountability shouldn't be a scarlet letter tattooed on their forehead.

I remember reading a hypothesis by a researcher a while back that stated that tau and beta-amyloid aren't causes of Alzheimer's at all, but rather evidence that the brain was fighting an infection. In other words, they were leftovers of the brain's glial immune system.

I think more evidence is pointing that he was right.

You don't.... you don't know what a neutron star is, do you?

Respectfully, you're acting and debating like a child. If you have nothing to support your opinions and pass them off as fact, I have 12 year old cousins who do better than that.

>I don't have to provide evidence your eduction is not my responsibility.

When you make an outlandish claim that is not common knowledge, the onus is on you to provide evidence.

>There is empirical evidence.

I've yet to see any. All I've seen is opinion.

Right, but you didn't provide evidence for it. I've only ever seen comparison studies that show that exercise is roughly as good as medication, never seen one good review that shows it's better than medication.

Well, not "better", but "as good as".

Most people of African descent do to some extent, if I'm remembering correctly.

Virtually the entire developed world has had low birth rates since the 80s.

>College degrees and attendance is significantly lower for rural communities than ur burbs now and suburban ones, and those who do go tend to not come back.

That's because most universities are not in rural communities, but this only proves my point.

People living in rural communities have to leave those communities to go to college. That is proof that there is no wall blocking rural folks from going to college.

And the vast majority of those people aren't anywhere near political as the average reddit user.

I'm a two time Bernie voter. I have MANY friends who voted for Trump, and the only reason I know they voted for him is because I've seen them post stuff on facebook. Otherwise I'd have no idea. Doesn't make them terrible people in my personal experience, and we have shared hobbies that we like.

I'm not talking about conservative vs liberal. Both places have merits.

I'm saying that you can live in a place that is 60% one or the other without getting into fights over politics.

I did it for 22 years. Lived in a deep red state as a democratic socialist. If you don't make national politics your entire personality you'll be fine.

>The problem is that the people already living in those places feel comfortable advocating for mass killings of people like me while making small talk at the grocery checkout

Definitely not being melodramatic here.

I've lived in plenty of small towns and lots of my friends were LGBT and minority/immigrant (even one illegal immigrant). Not once did I see or hear anyone calling for mass killings. I frankly think you're just lying.

People voting for a local Republican for state house does not, believe it or not, equate to what you're saying.

>Do rural communities share the same values those who work remotely hold?

Believe it or not, you can live in a place where a majority of people don't share political values with you.

I know, it's crazy, but it's true.

>It’s as though people in cities get better educations and thus have the skills unavailable to rural communities with poor access to education due to their lack of density

What are you talking about? People living in small towns most frequently leave for college. Every state has a large university where you can get a world class education. You're acting as though only people in cities are allowed into places like Ohio State.

Where? I didn't find that part at all.

What I saw in the study was a simple observation that the people helping tended to be white and male, while the people hurt tend to be people of color. Which likely means one of two things- 1) either journalists are subconsciously racist and support racial stereotypes, or 2) that first responders (who are mostly white and male) as well as good Samaritans were disproportionately white and male.

It's not unlikely that the latter is true. People of color more often live in distressed areas that are more susceptible to natural disasters, often because of lower property values. If they were more likely to be affected by Harvey, the disparate race coverage was simply reflecting reality.