PhilMcGraw

Not sure how that's relevant when I'm responding to a comment about urinals. People with penises/tools to pee standing up can also stand up at toilets. People without those options also won't find a usage for a urinal and sitting on a toilet is the only option without doing some form of toilet gymnastics.

Generally the only physical difference between gendered public toilets and unisex is the availability of urinals.

Personally if the toilet is visually clean I'm happy to sit down, if your expectations are higher than that unisex or gendered is irrelevant. I'd carry around something small to clean public toilets quickly before use if that bothered me and I was likely to need to sit down on one.

Do you have a urinal at your home, or do you piss on the wall?

Thanks, I was 99% sure the feet were wrong (duck feet) but I couldn't remember the last time I saw a platypus.

Honestly it sucks that happened to you, but using that as a reason to decide that a whole form of transport is akin to shooting an AK-47 in a dark room (or whatever it was) or beating a child is ridiculous. People get hurt every day from all kinds of vehicles and all kinds of objects.

Sometimes you can just be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

More poke the insane person and see what fun thing they come up with.

I'm not against the law you mentioned, in my opinion everyone should be driving/riding defensively and crashes are often a failure of both parties to some extent. Even if you're technically at fault often the other party could have done something to avoid or minimise the accident.

The insane part was the comparison to scenarios where a party is clearly at fault. How is beating the shit out of a child anywhere near equivalent to hitting a cyclist that has blindly ridden in front of your car with no chance to have predicted it?

Out of mostly amusement to see what you come up with at this point, what makes cyclists not also a bullet for pedestrians in this scenario? Less heavy but can still be deadly to pedestrians.

Again, insane comparisons, driving a heavy vehicle is in no way similar to intentionally assaulting someone. A more appropriate comparison might be if your lover was punching a punching bag and you dove in front of it mid hard swing, and they had no time to avoid hitting you. Is that your fault or theirs?

If a cyclist runs over a child, who was not visible at all until they ran into their path with no time to stop, on a path designated for bicycles where a pedestrian has no right to be, is the cyclist at fault?

Anyway I think I might be responding to a crazy person, so I'm probably wasting my time, but I'm interested in how deep it goes.

A cyclist us never to blame for a car hitting a cyclist. It is always always always the drivers fault, because they chose to drive a car.

That's an insane take, right? If I as a cyclist blindly ride across a road directly in front of a heavy vehicle, surely it's on me. In what way would that be the heavy vehicle drivers fault?

How do they justify that? I mean I can see why people would be against aborting viable fetuses, but a fetus that will never live seems absurd.

I guess we also force dying people to wait it out, so maybe it's on trend.

Same, always used Google Meet, was forced to use teams. It took me a second to find the right button while rambling about it. Being a Mac I also needed to enable the permission and restart.

I haven't used Zoom in a while either, it would probably take me a second as well if it's not obvious.

I wonder if it was more an assumption that the rules only applied to viable pregnancies.

I mean I'm pro-choice but I'd assume anyone pushing to ban abortion is aiming to prevent viable pregnancies from being terminated while still allowing medically necessary or unviable pregnancies to be terminated.