who would want to pay social and health care security to those assholes ? 2% of population ?

People who are compassionate and understand that paying for preventative measures is much less expensive than paying for treatment.

you dont get it, nearly nobody want pay for treatment too.
imo they deserve to be deported to somalia along with libertarians and bitcoin gamblers.

jesus you reactionary baby.

im sure at this point you've looked up enough studies to realize you life on a cultural island in whatever social group you live on compared to general population and have moved directly on to feels because you realize your worldview isn't consistent with common knowledge.

bigotry? your culture? your worldview is wildly uncommon. do the footwork and find that out with the source you pretentiously asked for that started the whole conversation. your worldview is atypical, that's all my tinfoil zone meant, not some slight on your people. as if that even means anything.

again, do a little work and you'll realize that statistically the reaction of people has been fairly consistent with how the numbers dictate. it is generally common knowledge that men are less likely to commit, its just that simple. butthurt about the fact that you knew the common knowledge but dispelled it with zero statistical backing because you have a vague idea that what you're seeing in entertainment media is a baby boomer ideal isn't a good enough excuse to not do the research when told by others you're wildly offbase. it happens to all of us, i once stated that toiled flush direction proved the round earth and spent a lot of time expressing a view that was dead wrong. get over it

This post was edited by thesnipa on Apr 19 2018 02:05pm

There are people who don't want to pay for it, sure, but these people similarly don't understand the fundamentals of public health. They advocate for short-term savings with long-term financial consequences that far exceed the cost of the former.

A major example relevant in the US right now would be needle exchange clinics, Narcan, and safe injection sites.

Shifting the burden of proof. K then.

when someone makes an arguable claim the burden of proof is on them to prove it. when someone challenges common knowledge the burden of proof is on them to disprove what is commonly accepted. all you've provided to counter that this is common knowledge is your personal experience, which you stated isn't proof of anything. the reason we have common acceptable sets of facts is to prevent everything being a "get a source, u have to prove that" endeavor, its for the good of all. when you asked for a source it triggered me, not accepting common knowledge is a pet peeve of mine. finding out that you hold a wildly unpopular perspective kept me engaged. from now on you'll have to actually present facts, like any facts at all, instead of just playing the victim card.

That reminds me

Btc up $300 today my friend

This post was edited by tonerbond on Apr 19 2018 04:02pm

Ill donate as long as they intentionally poison them

No. When someone says 'I don't believe that's true' then the burden of proof is on the person making the claim to prove it. If it is 'common knowledge' it should be easy to prove and yet so far all you've done is make a weak argumentum ad populum.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm asking you to prove you're right. It's really fucking simple mate. Logic 101.