I see the "Cancel Troll Moderators" are out in force today. I find it quite ironic that you're stating that a certain group uses any power they have to censor things that they don't want to be heard, and a moderator mods you Troll, doing exactly what you accuse them of, thus proving your point.

None. The headphones don't cause hearing loss. Misuse and bad practices surrounding them do.
Having this in a company producing medical devices (thus is used to incorporating clinical ethics into decision making) is a very positive thing, ethically speaking.

I suspect not, because of market forces. That constrains what the headsets will sell for.
What it may do is reduce the cost of the hearing aids, and allow some of the damage prevention mechanisms to enter the headset market early.

Actually, I suspect the opposite.
The medical device company has access to a consumer channel for audio products that they can design specifically NOT to damage ears, and have access to a market that with age will experience hearing loss, and have access to that same channel to mass produce high grade, high quality audio components at scale, so lower cost.
While not a guarantee of the Sennheiser brand carrying on being great (all my cans are Sennheiser), it's an interesting path for it to follow. I think this has potential.
They'll carry on not being cheap, but I suspect they'll carry on being very good.

In a nutshell, you didn't need to add anything past "I don't care". That indicates your mind is not open to debate, evidence, or anything else that may allow you to risk manage, or rationally evaluate the situation. You don't want to hear it. You just want to remove things that scare you because you don't understand them.
That's a perfectly normal human reaction, but I suspect history will have this marked in the same category as the luddites in time.

We have evidence that just about everything we use and exist in may end life on the planet. That's why you have risk management, so you gain perspective on how the risk fits in there, and what actually _should_ be done about it.
That's what's missing in here. People assert "It may (x)", and expect that to stand on its own. But you can say that about anything. What you need to do is weigh the cost of actually removing something, and still continuing an activity. In this case, it's a reversion to an older and far worse product. Which people will then go "This may (x)", and try to get banned. If they keep succeeding (the law does _not_ make the decision on relative harm, only on the technicalities of the law as exists), then they'll finally cancel the activity associated with something they don't like (i.e. farming, and producing food).

So, it doesn't sound that reasonable to me at all. Interestingly, what nobody's talking about in these threads are varroa mites, which are the most significant factor in hive collapses and bee mortality.

you do want to feed people, right? All commercial farming uses pesticides. Including organic farming.
Organic though, as it can't use the selective researched pesticides uses some damnably unhealthy natural ones (read about the difference between pyrethrins vs pyrethroids for example; the natural one not only kills insects, but mammals, birds and just about everything else, the manufactured version only harms insects because it omits all the other toxic crap. The natural one is marked as "better" because it doesn't last quite as long, even though it devastates the environment around it in a random fashion for no reason).
If you ban organophosphates, farming will just have to revert to an even older insecticide. Which is even more toxic and wasteful.
If you achieve your aim of having no pesticides, then commercial farming in your residential area will cease to be viable.

That's because the argument is on legal technicalities, not actual science. It's the same thing that got the cancer payouts over Roundup. Because no scientist would say absolutely that it can _never_ cause cancer (because no real scientist would do this), then the lawyers used that loophole to say "Maybe it can, there's doubt, so payout needs to be made".
The environmental lobby is currently exceptionally powerful in pushing these kinds of things, and when you're hamstrung in the debate so thoroughly (all it takes is for a claim to say there "May be harm", or "A statistical mark has been found indicating a degree of harm", then the law pushes to say "Well, this needs to be removed".
Places where neonics have been banned haven't shown a vast recovery of insects, due to other pressures they also are under, but as long as people are zealously fighting and paying lawers to get them banned, then companies have a really tough time fighting that. Someone only needs to be successful once; a defence has to be perfect every time.

No, they have a pressure on it. There are multiple other factors involved, such as average termperatures, which affect the viability of insect eggs and hatch rates, cleaning up gardens of weeds (habitat loss) and a host of others. Neonics are _not_ the smoking gun you think they are.
Pesticides are not going to go away. Not while we farm at high levels. If you don't use them, then your crop gets infested and you lose a large amount of yield, which means you need even more land (or pesticides). And of course, more land means more attraction for pests, so even less viability.

If we're going to support a large human population, then pesticides are a must. You may not care about that in your wish to get pesticides removed, but the food chain and reality certainly do. The question comes back to the simple one of "Do you want to feed people, or not". If you do, then pesticides are necessary.
If you don't, then, well, not much I can say about that.

If you read it properly, people are asserting that racism is everywhere, but never producing any valid statistics with a solid defined metric to prove this, so what you're asking me to do is disprove something that hasn't shown itself to be disprovable. In other words, there is zero evidence for it in the first place, then you snipe at me because there's no evidence or proof in the first place? *Shakes head*

The ones surrounding RMS are focusing on someone who was 17. Which is what this case is about.

So, you're saying that if someone propositions you at a conference, you're not allowed to host another conference there? Or being robbed? I've been set on a few times in various cities, and it doesn't stop me going back, as they're anomalous. Hell, things have been stolen at various workplaces, and it really doesn't stop me going in to work.
I'd also be very interested to see if you could spot the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old, which is what a lot of this is based on. Coupled with it being a very, very interesting area with respect to age of consent, considering it's right next to both Puerto Rico, and the British Virgin Islands, both of which have the age of consent as 16. In fact, it's pretty much an exception to the area, with the age of consent as 18. Anyone who happens to arrive there from neighbouring islands is most likely going to be set with an age of consent in mind of 16.
This is part of why law is great for a mass sense, but sometimes woeful in specifics. Which is what RMS pointed out (correctly in my opinion), which is what stirred this whole thing up so much.

The word "racism" is perfectly clear. As is "Racist". The use of the word outside the context while trying to utilise its shock value is a huge problem.
When you get down to it, the extend use of the word is not statistically backed, and where it's shown to exist is not where it's alleged to exist at scale. In other words, you're probably misidentifying the problem by having no prevalent baseline.

Lots. It's how the Brownshirts used to work. You seem to be asking how on earth a flash mob could ever be assembled because they must be imaginary because you can't conceive of a way this may happen.

Despite them observably being quite common, and well documented. Next.

Reading the deposition, the lady in question was 17 at the time. Where we both are, this does not constitute a child as our age of consent is 16. That's why there's a legal definition of "underage" and "child", which you are misusing, and it's what got RMS in hot water for mentioning.

You mean after he was accused of the technicality of people underage in some areas of the world sleeping with older people? Really? Given the transcripts I've read, there's not a huge thing there. And the jail time was spent (or do you advocate for convicting someone of something then never letting them do anything again, which precludes the whole concept of rehabilitation, so you may as well throw people arbitrarily in prison for life, because they'll never be different?

Oh dear. Oh dear, oh dear. This is so provably wrong in so many situations that it doesn't even hit the levels of an attempt to misdirect. It's provably false, so on to the next.

Why is that exactly? As the old adage goes "Show your working".