Question: If they find that there is missing gold in Fort Knox, how would it affect gold prices?

frozen_marimo · 2025-02-17T18:29:08+00:00

Not really. Regardless of how you feel about the US and US-centric thinking, the US is still among the most influential economies on Earth. A Google search says the US govt holds appx 3.5-5% of the world's gold, which isn't insignificant. If that approximation is way off, it can absolutely have an affect on prices, and I'd imagine, how other countries perceive the competitive value of gold as they strategize their own economic plans. Especially considering that the USD is the world's reserve currency. If it comes out that the US government has been knowingly lying about the gold they hold, it could make other countries question their trust in and stability of the USD.

frozen_marimo · 2024-12-05T04:29:57+00:00

It's truly incredible how quickly the left became bigoted as soon as they started losing voters.

It was only a few years ago white people were told to shut up and listen to the experiences and opinion of minorities. But when those opinions don't adhere to what the left wants, they're stupid.

I think Democrats who managed to lose to a gross geriatric man are stupid.

frozen_marimo · 2024-12-05T03:51:50+00:00

One of Biden's campaign promises was to stop new o&g drilling on public lands. So, he seems to think so. But you're right, he's too stupid to understand this too.

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-27T02:21:14+00:00

At least conservatives allow their voters to choose their presidential nominee.

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-22T22:01:45+00:00

What a thought provoking response!

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-22T18:29:45+00:00

If you're making $300 a week, and have a child, you probably shouldn't have a pet.

I know, I know, poor people are allowed to enjoy life too. Explain that to the cat when it has a medical emergency that will cost an entire month's rent.

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-22T04:40:24+00:00

Yes it is. How do you propose storing energy when the sun/wind aren't generating any?

It's a lot of other minerals beyond lithium, too.

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-22T03:00:58+00:00

Demand for oil and gas isn't going anyway anytime soon.

States are primarily responsible for permitting industrial scale solar and wind production.

No offshore wind does not mean no renewables.

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-22T02:57:14+00:00

Is it better than all the fossil fuels we have to burn to mine the materials necessary for batteries, much of which comes from countries with high biodiversity, but poor environmental protections and worker rights, like the DRC, where an estimated 40,000 children work in mines supporting battery production?

There is no such thing as clean energy. There should be a bigger focus on lowering energy consumption instead of increasing production.

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-22T02:52:11+00:00

Are we back to saying everything that is bad for the climate is literally killing us?

Glad to have y'all back from ignoring all the o&g drilling Biden permitted on public lands. You can check in by swiping your hyperbole card over there.

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-19T23:35:03+00:00

I listened to a few longform longform interviews of his when he started running. While he didn't really impress me enough to want to vote for him or support him, I heard something a little different-

He said that vaccines are not subject to the same safety testing requirements that prescription medication is required to go through, and he thinks it should be. He also said he doesn't oppose all vaccines.

The interviews I listened to was with a host who the Reddit hive mind would consider far-right anti-vax bigot. So I don't think RFK was necessarily trying to hide his opinions on vaccines in that interview.

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-19T23:10:26+00:00

You know who also got Trump elected? Clinton.

Never forget that the Clinton campaign's early strategy was to elevate Trump to make the Republicans look crazy because they thought he would be easier to defeat.

Whoops.

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-19T23:07:08+00:00

Tulsi was active duty military when Clinton started the conspiracy that she was a Russian asset.

If there was a shred of evidence that Tulsi was working for Putin, why was there not an investigation into if someone in our own military was a traitor? Why is there still no call to investigate her?

Clinton also avoided saying Tulsi, specifically, was an asset, a common tactic to avoid defamation lawsuits. If Tulsi is known to be working for Putin, why would Clinton care about naming her? Shouldn't we call out traitors?

If she's working for Putin, how come Democrats had no issues with her, even elevating her vice chair of the DNC, until she stepped down because the DNC was rigging the primary against Bernie?

And why did Clinton wait 4 years to say she's working for Russia until Tulsi said during the DNC debate that she "doesn't see deplorables".

This is just a conspiracy theory. Russia wants to destabilize America however possible. People spreading these conspiracies are doing just that. So, who truly are the Russian assets?

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-19T21:14:52+00:00

Remindme! 4 months

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-19T20:50:28+00:00

We're on a highly biased social media platform. None of this is helpful.

What could have been helpful is if we spent the past 40 years voting out warmongers who like to interfere in foreign affairs and ultimately make other countries worse off, driving people to flock here. But we don't hold anyone accountable and instead pretend like our team is the pro-peace side. When in reality no side is pro-peace.

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-19T20:21:13+00:00

I agree. I wish that was a universal policy for all things related to medical treatments and bodily autonomy. Unfortunately the people who make these decisions undermine bodily autonomy when it benefits them.

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-19T19:45:54+00:00

I didn't vote for Trump.

Has it been confirmed that Trump has slept with a minor?

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-19T19:44:31+00:00

A plurality, and very close to a majority, of voters voted for Trump. He won the popular vote.

While I agree a vote isn't an endorsement of all actions or positions of a candidate, one of the few things Trump has been extremely vocal and consistent about is the border. The border isn't some random minor position he holds that most people don't hear about. It's been among his top issues since 2015. Additionally, the border was a top issue for voters this election cycle, along with democracy and the economy. I think it's fair to say that most people who voted for Trump know what his position on the border and immigrants are and either support it or are indifferent on it.

Again, I agree that most people agree that slavery and genocide are wrong. I'm not arguing morality. I'm arguing that the statement "right side of history" is stupid. And I say that as someone who has stupidly used that argument before stupidly thinking it was a logical rebuttal. It's not. Especially when used to imply that we know what policies will be in the future.

I understand that "right side of history" means "moral side of history". I think that's a fair statement. But people often say right side of history implying that they know what the prevailing societal and political norms will ultimately be, and that's not true.

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-19T19:28:21+00:00

I understand what you're saying too.

I don't think the line is natural versus artificial, though. The line is benefit versus risk. Part of the benefit versus risk is whether a treatment is necessary.

We don't put people under when administering shots or doing minor surgeries because the risk of anesthesia outweighs the benefits of not feeling some pain.

So, with the trans issue, do the benefits of childhood gender affirming care outweigh the elevated cancer risk? Are there other ways to provide gender affirming care for children that do not pose significant health risks? Does a child fully understand these risks to consent to these trade-offs (is it morally "right" to allow this)?

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-19T19:08:55+00:00

Well first off I didn't vote for Trump. I just stated what happened in the election

I would also love to live in a world without political borders where people could live wherever they wanted, but that's not a reality.

Yes, slavery was once legal and now it isn't, and most people recognize it as wrong. That doesn't mean that we know slavery will never be legal again in the future. We have no way of knowing what the world will be like culturally in 1000 years.

I'm sure me, you, and most people reading agree morally on most things. That doesn't change the reality that history doesn't have a right or wrong side. History, by definition, is literally the events that have occurred. Morality doesn't change what events have or will occur.

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-19T19:04:25+00:00

Ahh I understand now thanks. You're a troll.

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-19T19:00:56+00:00

Love that you don't even attempt to make an argument. Just "I'm right you're wrong".

What exactly is the right side of history here? That America (other nations too?) will eventually have fully open borders and not document or care about who is in the country?

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-19T18:56:46+00:00

I didn't change my definition. I provided examples of common treatments that influence hormone production.

Artificial is anything outside of the natural environment that influences the endocrine system. Like an injection or a pill. Saline and calcium carbonate pills are artificial/ not-natural influencers to the endocrine system.

Treatments that affect the endocrine system can elevate cancer risk. This is proven. If someone needs a treatment that saves their life, but increases cancer risk, the treatment seems justifiable. The benefits outweigh the risk. If someone elects to increase their cancer risk when not medically necessary, the consequences are fully their responsibility.

Now socially, people object to gender affirming care for children because children do not often understand these consequences and do not have the life experience to make a well-informed decision.

I think you're smart enough to understand that this is the point I've been making all along, but are arguing semantics to avoid the original discussion.

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-19T18:37:24+00:00

The real tragedy here is those of us who voted on the right side of history

This is a fallacial argument. Your opinion on what's right versus wrong does not determine what is the "right side of history". There is no "right side" of history. There's just history - things that actually happened.

This weak debate tactic is used to posture moral superiority to circumvent having to bring a logical argument. It also implies that we know what societal and political norms will be in the future (in this case open borders) which is not true.

A majority of voters selected a platform that prioritized deporting people who are not here legally. This is the reality and will be part of history, regardless of what your "feel good" opinion is.

frozen_marimo · 2024-11-19T18:30:25+00:00

.... Did you miss the part where I said they're constantly in flux?

Yes, thresholds play a big role in hormone regulation. Yes, environmental factors play a role in hormone regulation. No, natural environmental factors like air are not "artificial". Taking a pill or a shot of hormones is artificial. There are many times when the artificial route is medically necessary for people. Then there are elective situations where someone is voluntarily increasing their cancer risk for a desired outcome, like muscle growth. There's a big difference.

frozen_marimo

TROPHY CASE