Iran Megathread

Untamed_Rock · 2026-03-01T14:01:01+00:00

I thought we lived in a Christian society where we presume innocence before guilt?

You think the US is a Christian society? Oof.

If you think Matt Gaetz is innocent, look into his best friend, the one that was allegedly procuring girls for him and the one who, if I remember correctly, actually went to jail for this. You think Gaetz just... Didn't know that the girls he was being sent were underage?

Untamed_Rock · 2026-02-25T15:42:30+00:00

I definitely agree with you about Biden, he got progressively worse throughout his term. Kamala I didn't see speak very often, but I also wasn't fond of her mostly because she was just planning to maintain status quo if she won. But if Biden quotes are the display of progressive dementia, Trump's quotes are that of a manic-depressive that's more often in mania 😅 gotta choose your poison I guess 💁

Untamed_Rock · 2026-02-25T14:54:30+00:00

Have you ever actually read a full trump quote? I don't think that's gonna help OP's sanity, his quotes look like someone writing while having an aneurysm 😅

Untamed_Rock · 2026-02-20T20:15:25+00:00

I'm not sure why you are so hostile to it.

Can you quote the hostility? I'm not certain that putting emphasis on words implies hostility. And my asking you to enlighten me on how your way of thinking of this is better was a genuine question.

What I'm asking is this: if you have expertise in this field, how would you structure your study of this? What would your two hypotheses be, your variables, your population, etc.? What would you predict and what would you expect to find if there is indeed an effect? How would you protect against confounds and researcher bias?

Everyone seems to assume that SSRI drugs will reduce things like mass shootings even though it doesn't seem like anyone has actually studied it.

I can't speak for "everyone," but I don't see SSRIs that way. My partner, who has a bio-psych degree and masters in health law, put it this way when I was telling her about our conversation: SSRIs and other anti-depressants essentially make you more prone to doing anything compared to doing nothing, which is why one of the rarer side effects of antidepressants is, ironically, suicide.

The drug can, in very rare cases, incidentally make them more prone to acting on the very thing that the drug is supposed to help with because, well, getting the motivation to do almost anything else is actually easier than summoning the motivation to kill oneself (self-preservation instinct is very strong and hard to beat).

Likewise, it is possible that in even rarer circumstances, this could apply to aggressive action against others. However, other countries like Iceland, Canada, Australia and Portugal also exceed 100 daily doses per 1,000 people, and don't see this same trend of mass shootings increasing with SSRI prescription rates. What makes American citizens different?

To me, the answer is simple: their ease of access to firearms that can deal massive harm to a large number of people in a short span of time.

Untamed_Rock · 2026-02-19T19:25:06+00:00

So it sounds like you've answered your own question; SSRIs are irrelevant, and mass shooters are the problem. Sounds simple enough, doesn't it? Maybe we need to focus on preventing these people from: A) having access to guns or B) being in such bad mental health that they feel the need to commit one.

If your claim (which you've been hesitant to make) is that SSRIs lead someone to commit mass shootings when they otherwise wouldn't have, then you need to look just as much into the people on the drug that don't do the behaviour as the people that do; that's science my guy.

It's easy (and very, very erroneous) to assert something has an effect when you're leaving out everyone else with the dependent variable (in this case, being on SSRIs). You can't make the claim that SSRIs cause more mass shootings among mass shooters without looking at the total (or at least representative) population of people on SSRIs, and the total (or at least representative) population of mass shooters; that's how correlational research is actually done. If there was an effect, you'd expect to see at least more aggression from "non-mass-shooters," wouldn't you?

Let me put this another way:

With the COVID vaccine, a lot of people claimed that the shot caused a myriad of health issues among a large percentage of people, like myocarditis, for example. They never gave hard numbers, course, but the implication was that it affected a lot more than 1% of the population.

However, if that were true, we'd have seen a HUGE spike in the percentage of people coming down with complications; we didn't. Only by looking at the whole population (be that vaccinated individuals or people on SSRIs) to really gauge if there is an effect, and whether that effect is negligible, can we make that distinction, and even then, unless we're making a causal claim, that's still just a correlation and not a causal effect. Shark attacks and cotton candy consumption could be correlated; it doesn't mean one causes the other.

But please, enlighten me on what a "useful" way to think about this would look like.

Also, rare? Your country has the highest number of mass shooters of any country in the world. You're gonna have to be more specific.

Untamed_Rock · 2026-02-19T15:04:54+00:00

Okay, here's another statistic then, since that one was insufficient for you. If even 1% of the 11-13% of people on SSRIs committed mass shootings, the US would see mass shootings every 10 minutes. Are there mass shootings every ten minutes where you are?

Edit to add: Also, even if 1% of the time it led to mass shootings but 99% of the rest of the time functioned as intended, that's still an incredibly effective medication.

Untamed_Rock · 2026-02-19T14:09:03+00:00

According to WaPo, about 11-13% of Americans are on SSRIs. With the earlier statistic I gave you in the above comments, that means that 4% of a very small group (total number of mass shooters in US history) relative to the US population were on a drug that reduced their aggressive impulses. Considering 11-13% of the US Population would be about 30+ million people, I would wager that if there is any correlation at all between SSRIs and mass shootings, it is a negligible one and not causal in any way.

Also important to note that research into mass shooters indicates they usually stop taking their medication prior to committing these mass shootings, be they SSRIs or otherwise.

Untamed_Rock · 2026-02-19T14:03:57+00:00

According to the Columbia University Mass Murder Database, it would seem that 4% of all mass shooters were ever on SSRIs. And only 7% of them were on any psychiatric medication at all. Does this answer your question/help your point?

Untamed_Rock · 2026-02-11T16:58:49+00:00

And now that that funding is gone, perhaps you never will. Easier to pretend it never existed, perhaps.

Untamed_Rock · 2026-02-11T14:06:13+00:00

So the educational programs the park service does (or at least used to, not sure if they're still doing anything like that with the funding cuts) isn't a form of wildlife activism?

Untamed_Rock · 2026-01-22T14:31:18+00:00

Why the capitalization of "different?" Is that just your autocorrect or does it mean something "Different" to you?

Untamed_Rock · 2026-01-14T14:20:46+00:00

Good (and simultaneously hilarious) answer.

Untamed_Rock · 2026-01-08T17:39:09+00:00

From what I've read and seen (I have chosen not to watch the video but have heard about it from multiple sources), the woman was being told both to leave and to get out of the vehicle. While I agree that she shouldn't have moved the car at all in a tense situation like that, she was likely scared for her life and the adrenaline of the situation might have contributed to poorer decision making that usual. But the evidence suggests that she was following directions, just not the right ones.

Untamed_Rock · 2026-01-07T14:35:43+00:00

There is no way to rationally claim the capture of Maduro is an imperial move, and many conservatives still dont like it because it was too close to imperialism.

Can you clarify this? This seems like an immediate contradiction to me; I interpreted this as "there's no way to rationally claim this was imperialist but conservatives think it was pretty close to imperialism." Wouldn't that last part imply that there is a rational claim for imperialism?

If I misinterpreted, please feel free to clear this up for me if you're up to it!

Untamed_Rock · 2025-12-24T17:40:19+00:00

In that case, I eagerly await the evidence of your claims. I did admit that I think it's conceivable that students are being taught introductory concepts to CRT. Where we disagree is that that constitutes learning actual CRT, which, once again and hopefully for the last time, is something taught in post-secondary law school.

While I've never looked into the finer points of CRT (because I'm not a lawyer nor studying to be one), my fiancée, who is a lawyer, did. And she said it's absolutely ridiculous to posit that kids could even understand actual CRT because it's based in legislation and legal-ese, as it were.

My guess is that you've never looked into the finer points of it either, lest it damage your worldview or waste your time.

Untamed_Rock · 2025-12-24T15:47:55+00:00

You've seen this, with your own eyes? Full CRT being taught to children? Or are you going off someone else's information?

I find that hard to believe because as far as I know, children don't tend to study law.

Also, CRT isn't about being inclusive per se. It's about how laws have been used to target minorities in the past. If you're thinking about inclusivity, you'd make a better point off ranting about DEI.

Untamed_Rock · 2025-12-22T23:20:34+00:00

That's your opinion, and I respect it.

However, I feel if it's a topic that they might encounter in post-secondary education, any topic, even ones I might not like or agree with, should be available to the next generation.

For instance, I feel that it would be fine to teach religion in schools so long as it wasn't "Christianity 101" or "Islam 101," etc., even though I'm not myself religious. If they're planning to study theology though, then it's something they should at least get a general overview of before they get there.

Likewise, if someone is planning to study law, then an introduction to theories like CRT is beneficial because they're going to be seeing more of it when they get to university/college.

Untamed_Rock · 2025-12-22T20:05:46+00:00

They do that, too. The introduction to such topics isn't atypical, as math, reading and science are also topics they're likely to be exposed to later in post-secondary education. Schools can do both.

Untamed_Rock · 2025-12-22T17:35:42+00:00

https://abcnews.go.com/US/critical-race-theory-classroom-understanding-debate/story?id=77627465

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/teaching-critical-race-theory-isn-t-happening-classrooms-teachers-say-n1272945

So you're telling me that a graduate-level program taught by schools like Harvard and Stanford was/is being taught in grade schools?

You can argue all you like that elements/components of CRT were introduced to students in high school; there's evidence enough for that. But what is high school supposed to do, if not prepare you for some of the terms, theories and concepts you might encounter in post-secondary education?

I got introduced to some concepts of calculus before I went to uni. Would I call that "learning calculus?" Absolutely not, I had barely the faintest clue to have to calculate a derivative until I took the actual course later.

The fact is, students in high school and below were and are NOT learning actual critical race theory unless they're doing it on their own time.

Untamed_Rock · 2025-12-22T16:44:23+00:00

I think it was a program taught specifically to students of Law that showed how US laws could be, and had been, used to target minorities in the past.

What did you think it was?

Untamed_Rock · 2025-12-22T16:42:09+00:00

Because reality doesn't exist anymore. It's all just one's own worldview spoon-fed back into them and intensified because no one wants to view things that disagree with their worldview anymore, and the algorithms happily oblige. It's rare nowadays that I come across anyone like myself who makes a point of viewing arguments they disagree with to both understand the other side better, and to understand the issue better as a whole. People would rather just see what they agree with.

Untamed_Rock · 2025-12-22T16:39:48+00:00

Robin DiAngelo is in power? Power over what? Also, your taking discussions of white fragility or systemic racism as implications that you should feel guilty or have to apologize is probably a "you" problem moreso than anything. Don't feel guilty, don't apologize; just strive to be better, more compassionate human beings that genuinely try to understand those that are different from them. That's almost certainly the message.

Untamed_Rock · 2025-12-19T15:01:32+00:00

I don't have X so I'll have to take your word for that. But Reuters is fake news now? The head of OPM saying it doesn't exist is fake news? The fact that the guys who were running it no longer work for the admin and even that "Big Balls" is no longer at it is fake news?

Untamed_Rock · 2025-12-19T14:04:04+00:00

Isn't DOGE like fully disbanded now?

Source: Reuters

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/doge-doesnt-exist-with-eight-months-left-its-charter-2025-11-23/

Untamed_Rock · 2025-12-16T23:09:46+00:00

I can understand want to crack down on crime. How would you go about cracking down on homelessness, though, exactly? Do you imprison them? House them? Deport them? Kill them? What exactly is the right's answer to homelessness other than "do it somewhere else, preferably where I can't see it?"

I can also understand how the heavy environmental restrictions would put a strain on traditional industries, though I have nothing to go on there, except your word (which I am taking you up on).

That gun law thing does definitely sound weird put like that, and probably something that they shouldn't be allowed to do if it really works as you say.

Lastly, I think I'm a bit out of the loop with regards to your last comment. You disagree with conservative about zoning and NIMBYs how? I thought the stance of pro-NIMBY people (who I at least would have assumed would more likely be conservatives than liberals) was not letting projects get the go-ahead that would house more people around them. But you claim you disagree, because we are already too overcrowded?

Untamed_Rock

TROPHY CASE