TNG first season? Eww

What an odd thing to say… “If conditions would be completely different the statistics would be different, therefore I don’t trust the statistics”. What’s your point exactly?

But why don’t they just ask the mother whether she took any medication or drugs she shouldn’t have? Given what happened in the article, the information provided by the mother would probably be more accurate anyway. Routinely not believing women is on brand, though. Again, we’re talking about women with absolutely no history of drug abuse. I’d seriously like to know how many women with no prior history of drug abuse start doing drugs just as they are getting pregnant to warrant routine testing.

Another problem with these kinds of tests is that they are not accurate enough. If you test urine samples routinely, the majority of your tests will be false positives. (Example: you test all pregnant women, 1% take drugs, the test is accurate 98% of the time. Congratulations, 2/3 of your tests are false positives.) That’s why you only do those tests if you have a suspicion based on other data and not just test everyone.

Please explain?

Hospitals have no business testing for drugs without cause, which they do in the US per the article: “Hospitals across the country routinely drug test people coming in to give birth.” Screening people routinely for drugs is some police state shit.

You’re right, it doesn’t say that she didn’t consent. It also doesn’t say she did either, the article simply doesn’t address it.

However, I just cannot imagine a scenario, where someone would be consenting to a drug test without coercion, can you? Why would she? If you didn’t take drugs, there’s no benefit. If you did take drugs and you want the doctors to know, tell them. If you took drugs and you don’t want the doctors to know, you don’t consent. And that doesn’t even take into account false positives. I don’t see any conceivable reason why anyone would subject themselves to a drug test where no possible outcome would be positive for you. So, please enlighten me, how are these completely voluntary drug tests with zero benefit to the test subject so common?

Add to that, that these tests are not good enough for random testing. You have too many false positives, so you must have additional indicators of drug use to even consider them from a purely scientific perspective.

OP might like to shit talk the US and try to find topics specifically to do so. But they are not wrong here.

You ought to understand liberal democracies don’t just routinely drug test their population without consent or at least clear indication of a crime and following a court order. There was a time where the US at least aspired to be in the liberal democracies club. That you guys defend this practice even on a left-leaning platform such as lemmy is seriously frightening.

Why’s that? I drove a Cupra Born last week, pretty decent imo. I also drove a VW ID3 and a BMW i3. So far the only European EV I didn’t like was the Audi e-tron. I haven’t driven a Korean or Chinese EV yet, so I can’t really compare. What do you prefer about them?

Why the fuck would you make this about the US? Or Iran?

You could even remove 5 more words

but it’s his legal right.

One of the stupidest laws in existence

Well, then it’s crown princess

alumnum

That’s the kind of manager that also tells you that you just lack creativity and vision if you tell them that it’s not possible. They also post regularly on LinkedIn

I don’t think so.

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/verfassungsschutz-afd-102.html

Kommt ein Verbotsverfahren? Mit der Neubewertung durch das Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz dürfte die Debatte um ein Verbotsverfahren gegen die AfD neu entfacht werden. Allerdings gibt es keinerlei Automatismus: Die Bewertung als “erwiesen rechtsextremistisch” ist weder die Voraussetzung dafür, noch ist ein Verbotsverfahren die zwangsläufige Folge.

Translation:

Will a ban procedure be implemented? The reassessment by the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution is likely to reignite the debate about banning the AfD. However, there is no automatic process: The assessment as “proven right-wing extremist” is neither a prerequisite for it, nor is a ban procedure the inevitable consequence.

The reassessment means that more resources can be invested and that the intelligence services have more tools at their disposal to monitor the party e.g. spying on them and not solely relying on monitoring the media. I think it also means that civil servants cannot be members of the party.

Everyone who has ever analyzed anything statistical on the population level knows that everything you just wrote is bullshit.

I’d be wary of a statistic where absolutely no Democrat likes Trump. Some people are just stupid or have extremely weird ideas so even completely bonkers stuff is believed by some.

Go to Democratic rallies and look

That’s the biggest fallacy right here. Most democratic leaning voters never go to any rally. In general, many voters never discuss politics. You’re in a bubble.

Absolutely. The AfD is careful to walk the line. What they want according to their program is abhorrent and stupid but not illegal. That’s why no party was banned since the 50s, parties know what they can and can’t state publicly.

And what do you base your assumption on that the AP does that?

No, it’s not. The hurdles to ban a political party in Germany are extremely high. Only three institutions can request that the Bundesverfassungsgericht (similar: supreme court) rules on a party’s compatibility with the liberal-democratic basic order. The government, the Bundestag (cf. House of Representatives), or the Bundesrat (cf. Senate). There’s no majority for such a process in either of these chambers or the Government. One of the main reasons is the fear that the court will not rule to ban the AfD and that the court proceedings would just damage the democratic parties and the constitutional order.

I can’t say I blame them. That this process to ban the AfD would be successful is not very likely. The decision would have to be made by the court with a 2/3 majority and several points need to be proven:

They have to be unconstitutional: “Parties which, by their objectives or the behavior of their supporters, aim to impair or eliminate the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany are unconstitutional.”

However, simply being unconstitutional is not enough: “Rather, there must be an actively combative, aggressive attitude toward the existing order. This attitude must systematically undermine its functioning and, in the process, seek to eliminate it itself.” (From the proceedings of the ban of the communist party)

In addition, the party must intend to impair or eliminate the free democratic basic order. Elimination means “the abolition of at least one of the essential elements of the free democratic basic order or its replacement by another constitutional order or another system of government”.

Furthermore, they also need to have the means to be able to reach that goal.

Because of these high hurdles, only two such bans were successful in the Federal Republic of Germany. In the 50s, a Nazi Party and the Communist Party were banned. No party was sussessfully banned since then.

Better article

“don’t know” it’s right there in the article