@BYOBBBW @AubriePesky I'm not sure how it's an insult to accuse a prostitute's prospective client of wanting to get off.
Isn't that the point of hiring a prostitute? If you just wanted to talk or something, there are plenty of cheaper ways to do it.
@guyfelicella Saying homelessness is caused by "lack of access to proper housing" sounds a lot like saying that poverty is caused by "lack of access to money."
@cinnamonrollcam @LarrikinW @UltimateJ90 @MicrowaveHyena@epiphanytiff888 My initial point was (to quote): "There are scientists who care very much about DNA. They're called geneticists, and that's a distinct field from anthropology."
...and I think we've established that this is, in fact, true.
@williamlegate@nlefevre There's no right to protest on private property. E.g., you can't set up campaign signs on other people's lawns.
Anyone has the right to control who enters their property and what they do while they're there, just like you can control who comes into your home.
@cinnamonrollcam @LarrikinW @UltimateJ90 @MicrowaveHyena@epiphanytiff888 We're arguing different points. I'm not talking about gender or archaeology. That may be the context that started the thread, but you claimed only an "imaginary type of scientist" is concerned solely with DNA, yet there is a whole field of science devoted exactly to that study.
@TSharraRahl @kkreitman @adorkssssss@BNNBreaking They won't be affected because they were already affected by prior laws that make the current court ruling superfluous & irrelevant.
At least that was my take-away from the original string of tweets.
@hobbit179@Kyla_Lacey If it's a business and you've signed up for it as a co-owner, investor, etc., then you agreed. You signed up for that. But absent a pre-arranged agreement, someone else's debt can't be foisted on you.
An estate can have debt, but that's the estate, not the heirs.
@pankayke Probably a little late to be saying this, but as a general rule, it's best to assume that anything you post online could find it's way back to you irl.
It probably won't happen most of the time for most people, but relying on that assumption too much is dangerous.
@DSdoc97 @BadLegalTakes The law is worded in such a way that it doesn't specifically define what constitutes "individually identifiable," but in a small enough group of patients, one doesn't necessarily need a name.
Ref: https://t.co/FCGrkXGN4t
@DSdoc97 @BadLegalTakes Even stripped of names & ID numbers, if you reveal enough medical detail about a case that it's reasonably possible to infer who is being discussed ("individually identifiable"), that's still a no-no. Not generally a problem in a large population, but it can come up in hospitals.