Unless the black community is at war with itself, I don't see how these things are comparable.

Are you asking for a statement of fact, or are you asking if it's ethical? I have no idea if such a procedure is possible, but outside of one twin being a risk to the life of the other and/or the mother, I can't see an ethical reason to subject both twins to the risk involved of aborting just the one. There's always a risk of harming the one you want to keep. Generally I find abortion to be immoral, but even in cases where I find it justifiable (e.g. rape), I can't imagine why you would want to only abort one child if you can safely deliver both and you do, indeed, want children.

Any kind of vehicle that cannot be insured shouldn't be on the road. I support bike lanes, but when these aren't viable, the sidewalk should be the standard. If a cyclist hits a pedestrian on the sidewalk, it could lead to a pretty bad injury, but both parties will almost certainly survive the experience.

If a cyclist gets hit by a car, they'd be lucky to survive in any capacity.

The question is vague and poorly worded. Are you saying no student should have an after school job, or that less than all students should have an after school job? Some students should have an after school job and some shouldn't. It comes down to their personal situation and wants in life. I think it's good that the option is available, but I think it would be a sad reflection of our economy if teenagers working after school because financially necessary for the average household.

Only if you laugh at him while you're watching.

In all seriousness, no. You're not responsible for the death of somebody you didn't save. other people's problems aren't your responsibility just because you've become aware of them. On the other hand, if you try to save him and end up screwing it up so bad that he drowns anyway, it could be argued that you are responsible for his death because there's no way of knowing that he would've died had you not intervened.

Is this a real argument? Of all the reasons to be for or against Russia in their invasion of Ukraine, "caring about buildings" is a new one to me. Buildings get destroyed in war, whether the war is justified or not. I don't see any reason to care about these particular buildings that wouldn't also apply to every war, ever.

I remember lunch being about 50 minutes when I was in school. it seemed like a fair amount of time then, and it's longer than most jobs give their employees. I don't really see a need to extend it.

Are you arguing for or against free speech? Because it sounds like you're pro free speech, but you're "disputing" my argument, which is also pro free speech.

1000 lives is an almost comically low price to pay for the ability to exercise the right to free speech. Billion dollar corporations falsifying data and pseudo governments assassinating medical workers (which is what the Taliban did) is not at all comparable to people being wrong about something on the internet.

Giving people the freedom to be wrong and believe wrong things is necessary for free speech to function. The extent to which that ability is curtailed is the extent to which you've empowered the "censors" to manipulate people with their own disinformation. I'd rather let 1000 people die as a result of their own mistakes made by exercising their own free will than let a monolith decide the "correct opinion" for us and ban all dissent.

Disinformation is only a problem if people don't have access to dissenting opinions. If people have access to arguments from different perspectives, they have the ability and responsibility to choose their own positions on any given issue. Some people will choose poorly, but at least it will be their own choice.

Misinformation doesn't cause harm. It just exists. You have to use misinformation in a way that causes harm for harm to occur. You can also use misinformation to avoid harm. Banning people for "misinformation" is essentially just banning people for being wrong, which I oppose on the grounds that adults have the right to be wrong about things, and it's worse to disallow 'being wrong' than it is to weather the results of people being wrong. I certainly don't want to live in a world where I'm told what I can and can't believe.

In the first place I'm not convinced any of these people are knowingly spreading false information, or that they're even wrong at all. I don't care about Facebook's policy because I'm of the opinion that anything that can be legally said should be permissible on social media.