ricecake

One of the other interesting things in the US is that different states can have different laws for meat standards, as long as they meet or exceed USDA minimums. They can't, however, advertising that fact because it's a violation of interstate trade.
So in the US, a legal hotdog ranges from a blend of the trimmings above and what can be removed from the bone with a power washer, up to "hot dogs must be made only of the product of primal cuts with no trimmings or waste meat".

Eh, "refuse" makes sausage sound worse than it is. In the modern world anyplace with a food inspection system will typically see sausage made from cuts of meat that are perfectly edible but don't meet the grading standards likely to sell on the shelf , or the excess pieces of muscle left over after breaking primal cuts down into smaller pieces. No one wants to buy USDA certified Meh grade steak, or a palm sized wedge of uneven thickness. So they get sent off to make hamburger, sausage, and various canned or commercial meat products that don't need to be pretty.

Processed meat also includes much more benign seeming foods, like sandwich meat, ground meats, and bacon. We've known for a while that eating meat, and more so red meat, is a risk for colon problems. Red meats are more likely to be processed and therefore cheap and salty.

The new thing the study adds is that there isn't a lower bound. For a lot of things there's a quantity that isn't associated with any issues, and it's only when you go above that limit that the risk goes up.

Totally agree on hotdogs, but if someone ate a slice of standard toast for breakfast every day I wouldn't say they ate a lot of toast.
Point being, I don't think the frequency can be considered independent of the thing.

They maybe could have phrased it better as "consumption of as little as 2 ounces of processed meat, about one hotdog, a day...".
A hotdog is a relatable unit of measure for an amount of food, but a hotdog a day isn't normal. A hotdog one day, a deli sandwich the next, and so one though isn't preposterous.

True. Italian as well. Proportionally not nearly as big though, so they don't come to mind as readily.

If we're being super technical, it's not actually illegal to be in the US without proper authorization in most cases. Most entries don't involve bypassing border controls, which is a crime. So in normal circumstances if you overstay your visa you get a notice that you need to leave.

The claim is that because they're just being removed and not charged with a crime, putting them someplace like that is just holding them for deportation and not actually punishment. Since they're not being imprisoned they don't get due process.

This is hogwash, both morally and by the actual law, both the letter and intent. Even circumstances that actually do kinda work like that don't work like that.
As an example, a drivers license is legally not a right, but a privilege. Failure to comply with certain stipulations results in an immediate suspension. But oh wait, even then you still can have a hearing to dispute things in the most incredibly cut and dry legal circumstance. You're supposed to get a proper hearing before anything happens so that you can dispute a removal order and such.

Definitely not our first. The Japanese concentration camps spring to mind as a notable example.

People seem to forget those.

Sure, I could, but I don't want to waste my time. I don't get catharsis out of that.
Doesn't mean I don't talk to people, and even if I didn't talk to people on the phone... So what?

Why would they not pay tax? They're living here, working here, buying things here. Those are where we collect taxes.

When your rational for "your parents came here illegally, so now you have to live in a country you've never known and don't speak the language" is "someone might not be paying taxes"... You're being cruel to no purpose.

What constitutes "cruel and unusual punishment" is also defined by the laws of countries. That doesn't mean that we don't determine that some punishment is a human rights violation. Likewise, deciding to punish someone for the behavior of their parents is violation of human rights.

First, you actually can get citizenship from where you were born as well as by blood. It's pretty common. They have dual citizenship. Done.

Your example is not as persuasive as you think. If I'm a nation, of course I need to care for the babies that live within my borders. Are you a monster?
I'm gonna have to tax and get help from the the parents, but that's pretty normal for a nation to do.

Countries exist for the people that live there. If you live here the country is for you.

"Laws are how they are", so why shouldn't your government get to torture you? Just stating where you draw the line doesn't make the line valid.

It's commonly held to be a human right to not be stateless. Why is it a human right to have a country, but not a human right to have your home be that country?

Why are people in general not deserving of citizenship in the place they call home?

Coming into a year old thread to stir shit up is basically the definition of trolling. Doing so in favor of the argument that there's a plague of men pretending to be women to take over women's sports is a conservative talking point.
Arguing that there's scientific uncertainty about how often this is coming up or if the boxer is actually a secret man is... Well I hope you're trolling, otherwise you're a bad person.

So explain to me how telling you to fuck off is "ragebait"?

Maybe one day you’ll learn that insulting other people that don’t agree with you isn’t the way

Maybe one day you'll realize that no one cares about your opinion on "the way".

That's a fair point of discussion. I stand by what I said as a valid response to the claim that government bestows a right, but no, it's not as universally agreed upon in as I implied.

I'd argue that regardless of if a right is a fiat of nature or claimed by the people, that the right is still outside the government. People have the right to this and that, and the government can choose to infringe, respect or protect them, but they didn't create the right.