I thought being religiously motivated also would qualify as a hate crime? Or is the implication that one’s religion is also immutable?

Truthfully, it’s far from relevant that the kid is autistic.

If you drag a child by the ankle, especially as a teacher, you’re a 100% piece of shit.

I’m unfamiliar with the mineral rights treaty specifics, but I remember it being said that it was a pretty shite deal for Ukraine anyway, and that it likely wouldn’t have been signed anyway

I only went back to read the comment because you told me you upvoted it. I wanted to make sure it was worthy.

!it was!<

While in principle, I don’t disagree. If you’re impaired, you shouldn’t drive. I lost a parent after they were hit by a drunk driver.

However, there are monstrously different amounts of impairment. You have reaction times and motor skills, decision making and judgement, awareness and attention.

Implying any type of impairment to be an unequivocal “no” to driving is short sighted, in my opinion. It’s the easy argument to point at any mind-altering substance: caffeine, tobacco, or antidepressants could be classified an impaired driver.

It’s also worth pointing out that even different emotions could dramatically alter driving performance. Not that we would ever think about restrictions on crying while driving.

It’s just a population map

What’s amusing to me is that they referred to the job interviewer having similar reliability, but didn’t say whether it was good or not. Purely let the bias of the article imply that they were highly reliable.