anchor
stringlengths 100
28k
| negative
stringlengths 105
28k
|
|---|---|
You could go talk to the sheriff, the police, the mounties, or whatever the law enforcement is calling themselves where you live. The point I'm making is that you should be prepared for whatever happens to your brother in the legal system. He could have a record which could make it harder for him to get a job because of it. Just because your the victim that doesn't give you any power to lessen the severity of his punishment. So while getting the police involved is probably the most effective way of getting the puppy back, you should just know that once you get the puppy back, the story for your brother just begins.
In other words if you're not willing to see your brother in jail over this then think twice about calling the police because once you call them, you can't stop them from going after you're brother. | I'm going to tackle this one based on the wording of the CMV. So you say that whether or not it's morally right, it should still be legal? But the entire argument for why it's morally wrong gives a solid reason for it's illegality. The primary argument against abortion is that you are literally murdering a child. Anti-abortion activists make the claim that life starts at conception, now whether or not this is true doesn't matter. What matters is that for abortion to be morally wrong, life would have to begin at conception and therefore abortion would be murder. By that token, if abortion is morally wrong it should definitely be illegal. I personally believe that abortion is morally right and not murder, but if life begins at conception then abortion is murder. |
but trying to use one word to describe two problems will make the argument weaker overall, people with an interest in stoping change (lobbyists etc.) could use this as a way to undermine the issue. change the argument from the easy to disprove "climate change is fake" to the easy to prove "littering is pollution but does not cause climate change" | If the rich parents did not have to pay taxes for the children of the poor to go to school they would have more to spend on their children. A lot spent on education is not to improve the skills of students but to show that they are of better quality, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics) |
>You were the one that said I know better than you because I'm a biker.
Please quote where I said that. Please. Go quote it. I'd love you to.
On to the rest of your post. The "stupid thing where you lay down" is a recumbent bike, which are known for being able to go faster than your normal bikes. That may be an issue, that the lane doesn't work well with recumbents. I don't know. It does in fact look like a nice bike lane, and I would certainly use it, assuming again there weren't obstacles.
Just to be sure though, you are talking about when someone is heading with the flow of traffic right? I notice that on the other side of the road there isn't a lane, and in that case the cyclists should be in the all traffic lane.
Also, you may want to check your measurements. If that suicide lane is in fact 8 feet, the other lanes look to be at most slightly larger from the above view. 10 feet, which is the norm here though that is a larger road than we have around my area, seems to match the measurements well.
That bike lane looks about as big as the suicide lane, which is nice. I wish we had an 8-10 foot lane, as I said I would use it all the time.
So I guess in summary:
1) I'd like you to quote where I said that.
2) That lane looks good, I would use it.
3) I still hold that there's a reason the cyclists don't use it, a reason I don't care about as I don't experience it and you don't know. It may be stupid, but like I've said to play with the sharks that are terrible motorists must be some reason.
4) Assuming the suicide lane is 8 feet, the normal lane looks to fit the 10 foot profile pretty well. | > So I shouldn't call the officer from the SVU?
No. You are being investigated for a crime. There is no way you are going to talk yourself out of an arrest. There are all kinds of ways you can talk yourself into one.
>I want to comply with the police, as I feel that I have not done anything wrong here.
I understand the impulse, and the police do to. But don't act on it (I'm assuming you live in the USA) you can't get in trouble for not talking, but you can talk yourself into a world of trouble. There are plenty of innocent people in jail.
>The hearing is on tuesday morning, it is friday night.. idk if lawyers will answer work on weekends, or will answer any calls for the next 2 days.
First thing Monday is probably soon enough, use the weekend to do research- if you have friends in the law, or friends who have used attorneys they trust in the past, reach out to them for a referral, the best way to find an attorney is by referral. If police contact you in the meantime, just tell them you are hiring an attorney and will contact them once you have.
|
I have asked the owner of the former company for a year for the money but no luck?
I asked for a 6k a month repayment but no joy.
I suppose now I have option but to contact a solicitor. The owner says he is trying to get the money but I don't believe him, as he keeps coming up with new stories.
Edit: I am based in the Rep of Ireland. | Scotland:
Primary School (P1-P7) is for ages 4/5 to 11/12
High School (S1-S6) is ages 12/13 to 17/18. S1 to S4 is compulsory, S5 is optional as is S6. You can leave school when you are 16.
You have exams in S4, S5 and S6. These consist of Prelim exams at Christmas time then the final exams in May. |
I've told this story before, but it bears repeating occasionally.
I used to work for a large legal publisher. Part of the marketing team's job was to create cute little direct mail flyers for law firms to get them to buy more books, sign up for more access to the case law files, etc.
Every year, the marketing team has this huge party to pat themselves on the back for a great year. They routinely invite the head honchos from the various big firms to speak at round table events to boast about how awesome the company is so we can pat ourselves on the back and go home happy.
Well, at one of these round tables, one of the attorneys rolls in a fairly large suitcase. He rolls the suitcase to the middle of the stage unzips and pours out all of the direct mail flyers he's received over the past 6 months. It covered a large portion of the stage and without any irony he says,
"This is the amount of mail I get from you people in six months. This is shameful and made worse because it actually makes me less likely to buy your products when I'm inundated with this kind of stuff on a daily basis."
A few days after the party, I still remember the memo proclaiming the company was going "green" and would no longer pursue direct mail and how much it better it would be for the environment. I must have laughed in my cube for an hour after reading that one. | Take the company to small claims court. A written contract is ideal for this sort of work, and I would strongly encourage you to consult with an attorney to develop a boilerplate contract to prevent this from happening in the future.
Still, even without a specific written contract, this is clearly an agreement. They agreed to your terms, you performed the work. You communicated with someone on a company email address and acted in all good faith with the belief that this person was a representative of the company. They owe you the money, their dispute with the employee is a separate matter. If they want to later sue the employee to get their money back, they are free to do so.
You should probably just take them to small claims court. You have a paper trail. Additionally, I would suggest you gather any other documentation you can. Perhaps take dated screen shots of the website in question showing that your work is in use in case they later remove your content and try to claim they never used it.
Also, you might enjoy this video dealing with very similar issues as you. It's called [Fuck You, Pay Me](http://creativemornings.com/talks/mike-monteiro--2/1) |
I mean wouldn't you feel a little perturbed if a man just walked up to this girl and was like "I'm going to fuck you in the throat after I smash your mothers face into a curb and rip out her hair while making you watch and I can't wait to do the same to you". Would you just shrug it off and be like "hey live and let live"? Me personally I woudln't fucking stand for that.
Not to mention after looking through your post history a little bit you've posted to depression a while ago and it looks like you were (are) on SSRI's? I think that makes it a lot easier for you to detach yourself from these things. | I know man, it might be cheaper but it's not necessarily "safer" (as safe as any drug habit can be). Had a few friends OD because their shit was cut with fentanyl or some other garbage shit. Please be careful, only takes one time, you know?
But I have a feeling even if she did trade off roxys or whatever her preferred poison is for heroin she still wouldn't feed her kid. If she feeds her a couple pieces of toast all day while she's fucked up on pills, I don't think she's going to suddenly get her nod on and decide to start making egg scrambles in the morning.
From what OP has said, it doesn't sound like the reason the kid goes hungry is the cost of mom's habit, but more mom not giving a damn about anything other than feeding her addiction. I know plenty of addicts aren't like that, but some are, and it's fucking awful. |
First, the vast majority of LDS missionaries have no formal theological training outside of what they learned in Sunday School (an hour each Sunday with other kids their age) and Seminary (an non-mandatory hour each day of scripture study for 4 years of high school).
If you're interested in the real differences, I'd recommend picking up the book "How Wide the Divide". It's written by a Mormon and Evangelical theologian and take turns debating and discussing a variety of Mormon theological issues. It isn't perfect but it is a concise piece that will give you a good starting point for the contrast. | Romans 1:26-27
1 Corinthians 6:9-10
1 Timothy 1:9-10
I don't care if <PERSON> is or isn't God, he wrote as an Apostle with righteous conviction. You can't just hand-wave away what he wrote. He didn't mention this in the context you seem to want it to be in and I don't see why I should trust your interpretation of his motives more than the words he wrote (which simply seem to reinforce some of the Old Testament laws).
It's not only not surprising that <PERSON> was homophobic, it also isn't remotely surprising that <PERSON> made no mention of the abomination of homosexuality because he preached as a Jew to Jews and they all knew that homosexuality was an abomination. |
It was pretty clearly a bike lane, there was a divet there from it being used. Also, I don't blame him for not wanting to bike in it one bit, I wouldn't either. The difference is, I wouldn't then be an asshole and bike in the car lane - I'd just go someone else to bike. The road was literally just to go to and from a park, I'm assuming he was only using it because he liked the challenge of the incline. | It was still his company, his hardware, his data at the time he tried take a copy. You actually had no legal right to stop him. Also - did you have a lawyer involved? There a lot of good arguments for why you'd only buy a business through just purchasing the assets (physical as well as others), instead of purchasing the company. |
Fucking hell. Although I must admit if mine look particularly odd, I'll smell them. Could be worse, I heard a family on the bus tell their daughter "don't pick your nose, if god didn't want you to have them, he wouldn't have put them there". You're supposed to get rid of the damn things, not keep them. | This. The highs from MDMA are fucking awesome, but the lows that come with them can be dangerous, especially when you're suffering from depression. A friend of mine who suffered from depression took far more MDMA than would be advisable. One night the lows took him and he jumped from the top of a car park. I'm never touching that shit again. Not worth it, I'm happy sticking with pot. |
It is really interesting that this exists. In 1993, a paid phone line was invented in Uruguay that you could literally call and ask whatever you wanted, and they will provide you the info. Lotto results, how to obtain something, biographies, what was playing on the cinema, etc. Whatever you wanted, they would reply, and if they didn't have the info in less than a minute, they would give you a code and ask you to phone later so they can reach such information.
Then Google was invented and the bussines wasn't profitable anymore, yet it still exists as it gives work to several people. | We could also deport all the elderly people over 80, which would surely result in financial benefits as our social security coffers would refill, but we don't, because that would be immoral. Morality should be more important than finances.
Punishing children with deportation for the crimes of their parents is highly immoral. That goes for any person. On top of that, these kids are culturally American and know no other way of life, so deportation makes for an extra level of cruelty.
On top of that, remember that illegal immigration is a legal fiction, just like the idea that corporations are people or that the time should roll back or move forward an hour for daylight savings time. It is a legal definition composed of arbitrary rules and procedures in order to accomplish certain goals.(Note that some of those goals are real [old-timey racist stuff](https://immigration.procon.org/view.timeline.php?timelineID=000023#1900-1949). Check out the Chinese Exclusion Act, the eugenics movement, and the mess of other laws and ideologies from that weird early 1900s time period.)
Illegal immigration is not some kind of immutable crime that transcends time and place, like murder or theft. It is subject to the whims of the era and can be modified as we see fit, as our moral sensibilities change, and as more evidence pours in. |
I'll give you the same answer; talk to a professional (psychiatrist or psychologist, or even a therapist).
It might help you to be on anti-anxiety meds like xanax, it might be, that with someone to talk to, you can deal with it without any medication at all.
No one on reddit can help you through this. And you are talking about a very specific thing, your "social anxieties that often inhibit my happiness without the help of substances". That's something that you can get help for. I urge you to do so.
also: no one "wants" to be an addict/alcoholic; no one sets out to shove a needle in their arm for years, or spend thousands on overseas meds, or doctor-shops with phantom or real 'pain' or 'anxiety', yet it happens all. the. time.
If you are serious about finding a way to be happy, or to feel free of the anxiety at a club without the use of substances, then talk to someone.
also also: you don't have to stick to the first one you pick. Most therapists offer a free consultation, so keep looking until you find the one you click with.
Good luck
(pm me if you want, I'm always here.) | In my opinion, there aren't even good or bad people. Just people who commited a crime, something that society decided was bad and against their morals. And yes, I agree with you, they need rehabilitation, so they can reenter society and behave properly according to morals.
But my point is: besides getting help, they *also* need to be punished. Not so much for themselves, but for society's sake. If society says that murder is wrong, but then a murderer only gets a slap in the wrist and a mandatory rehabilitation, then the whole society will think "well, murder isn't so bad. maybe I'll murder my asshole boss tomorrow and then take this rehab thing".
So, indeed, the punishment can't be death, or torture. Prisons should be better equipped to avoid violence and rape. This isn't about personal vengeance, or 'an eye for an eye'. But prisons need to exist. And restricting someone's freedom is a very strong punishment. I recommend the book Discipline and Punish, by <PERSON>, if you want to learn more about how this punishment serves society way more than it serves the individual. |
Humanism is not a belief that everything is equal, it's a belief that ethics should be based on what is best for humans rather than an imaginary god.
You're also completely wrong about what evolution is. You shouldn't spout off when you don;t know what you're talking about. Why don't you go pray to your sky fairy for a better argument. | The notion that it's undesirable and degrading all depends on your point of view. If you personally don't find it degrading, then who cares.
In a world where there's a basic income it would be a situation where people do sex work have an easy way to get out of sex work and weren't forced into it. |
Ahh yeah Within Temptation are good too, that also reminded me of Lacuna Coil! They're a little different but have the same effect, like imagine Nightwish but instead of the operatic sound, it's a trance inducing sound. I also want to mention t.A.T.u but I don't want to end up going on a tangent about general bands I listen to. xD
Where are you seeing Nightwish next year? | [It doesn't like like I want it to, but I'm a bit out of practice.](http://abload.de/img/img003s2k87.jpg) I swear it looks less shabby normally!
Oh and about your flair, I recently discovered cocoa powder that's not sweetened or has added flavours, it's so damn chocolatey! I barely drink coffee nowadays because I'll always go for the cocoa. :D |
I work in a deli.
By all means stay on your phone when you're in line- that part doesn't really matter- but **GOD HELP YOU** if you don't hang up before it's your turn.
Because then the first thing you (usually rudely) ask for will be in the back and you'll be waiting for ten minutes while I check my messages and take a bathroom break. | It's raining, I had to go to the dentist, I'm really tired, and I had an accident when my car spun out and got stuck in a ditch.
I want to go to bed but I can't because it's only seven o'clock and worst of all I may have screwed over my roommate by staying up until 5 playing factorio.
Today is a bad day :( |
Do you also believe that humans should not consume the meat of other animals, like cattle or (especially, given their intelligence) pigs? Generally speaking, it's accepted that humans have the right to end the life of animals they own, provided it's done humanely and without torture. Although pets like cats and dogs tend to have more sentimental value, why should we give them special treatment when they become a burden in our lives when we don't give other meat animals similar treatment? | What if your organs are, for whatever reason, damaged goods? There are perfectly good reasons for people to choose not to donate organs. For example, if I have HIV, it's probably for the greater good that my infected organs would die along with me. Does protecting potential recipients from my disease mean I shouldn't be provided with treatment that would allow me to live? |
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/20070536/ns/politics-decision_08/t/obama-says-he-might-send-troops-pakistan/
Just as we can are shooting missiles into Pakistan without calling it a war, so can also send troops. There's precedent for this, as you recall- the whole "<PERSON>" thing. We wouldn't be looking to topple Pakistan's government, we'd be doing exactly what we are now- perusing militant groups in the areas the government doesn't have full control over.
And assuming Pakistan would resort to the nuclear option in response to an invasion is nothing short of foolish. This isn't a game of civ. | >If they don't want to people to think they're from the US, why shouldn't they just clarify North American, or South American, or even just Mexican/Canadian/Brazilian/etc?
Because that's what we do- go by our nationality, as our continental name is taken.
Again- see the example of Europeans. If only France could call itself Europe, you would have a significant amount of the continental population blocked off.
>This sort of already happens on other continents. If someone was asked to name an Asian country off the top of their head, chances are it would be something like China/Japan/Korea and not Malaysia or Uzbekistan. Same with European and UK/France/Germany/Italy. I dont think that when someone says the're European they expect people to know they're specifically from Latvia.
In a way, yes- in another no.
When someone refers to themselves as a European, you can expect that their culture/nationality will be different from the last European you talked to. Because of this, when we say "European" our mind does not directly go to a Spaniard no more than it goes to a Croatian.
Same with Asia- sure, there are places that are left out of the term- Uzbekistan being one you mentioned- but being called Asian is not linked to a specific nationality the same way America is.
>Plus the names of the countries and continents are already well established and it just doesn't seem worth the time or effort to most people to assign a new name to them. Canadian isn't even more syllables to say than American.
Personally I wouldn't say change is necessary, but it can be problematic in certain situations- especially ones with language barriers while traveling- when you are assumed to be a nationality you aren't due to one nation's domination of the term. |
I love how you were pretty much up in arms earlier about how you should always tip bartenders even though it is ok to not tip others.
If you are that serious about keeping a steady stream of booze, perhaps you should attend an AA meeting. Either that or you come from a long line of bartenders, a "thankless" and more importantly degree-less occupation. Have fun with that alcoholism or salary ceiling. | First off, are they expecting you to pay cash? If so, you may want to be careful walking around with that much on you. You might wind up getting robbed if this is a scammer.
Secondly, verify their identity. Make sure they are the actual owners or have the authority to rent the space to you.
Lastly, take pics of every page of any contract you sign. Many people are "promised" a copy later and then start getting screwed when the LL tries holding them to unknown contract terms. They are not required to give you a copy and probably won't when you ask. |
Hold on - I was asking *you* the question, not *me*.
But... if you insist...
You can't assume that the world started to exist about 6,000 years ago simply because that's about the time that [recorded history starts](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorded_history). The invention of writing is not the same as the creation of the world!
Archaeological evidence shows that humans were [beginning to farm about 12,000 years ago](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_agriculture#Neolithic_era). Archaeology also shows that we [started making art and clothes and other "modern" artefacts about 50,000 years ago](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Modern_humans_and_the_.22Great_Leap_Forward.22_debate).
Fossil evidence shows we were [using stone tools about 2,000,000 years ago](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution#Stone_tools).
| The lawyer in me says that I agree with most of the responses here - no legal effects, but not enough to get a restraining order... yet.
The mischievous prick in me says to get evidence of his representations and sue him for child support. THEN get the restraining order.
Just to be clear, don't do that. |
That can't be fun. I'm really sorry to hear about all of this. A lot of friends I made my first semester in college stopped talking to me by the time my second year started. It really sucked. One friend even went out of her way to tell me that she didn't want to be my friend anymore.
As cliche as it sounds, I found out that these people weren't really my friends and that I couldn't rely on them. I've since made amends with some of them, but I have learned that I can't put too much into my friendships with them.
I've made a couple of new friends in my second and third years of college, and I've found a lot of comfort in them. I trust them only because they have not given me a reason not to.
Just know that if you ever need to talk, we can always chat :) | Personally, how do you let yourself take risks? I wondered before if I had some form of social anxiety, but I have no problem talking to strangers. Like, at all.
The thing is, I was always afraid of saying something that would get me bullied. I've heard horror stories about things like that. Personally, it hasn't happened to me, but I've heard about it happening a lot, even in college. |
>re-anchor them for the purposes of the count
That's an option. I'm more fond of trying to make it so that the strength-of-preference information actually means something.
What lets us escape ranking, the theoretical reason we can insist that strength of preference is real, is Bayesian decision theory. In principle, people might lie all sorts of ways about their reasons for making the choices they do. They might even delude themselves, coming up with self-serving rationalizations. But their choices are (in principle) observable. People face choices under conditions of uncertainty all the time. Those choices are observable too, and in order to make them coherently people have to have a set of guesses about how likely things are and a set of preferences. The set of preferences has to include strengths, not just rankings, if a person is to make coherent choices that weigh the odds of various outcomes. So bringing in randomness somehow, choosing officeholders by lot from among those qualified by the voters or whatever, might be useful.
Here's yet another option, while I'm in brainstorming mode: each district gets one vote in the legislature, but a district can have multiple representatives in its delegation, deciding among themselves how to cast that vote. Every candidate who gets over 50% approval is on the delegation.
>One might also augment this system with the requirement that a winner get >50% average approval, but I haven't worked through the consequences of that.
Neither have I, but I like the idea at first glance, anyway. | I've always thought of this version of <PERSON> as <PERSON>'s version of <PERSON>'s <PERSON>. He's madness and chaos, and he has an inexplicable obsession with trying to get the hero, <PERSON> to fail in some way. But not just fail. He wants <PERSON> to suffer in his failure. He wants him to feel that he wasn't quite smart enough to beat <PERSON>'s game.
I'm not saying that character is for everyone, but it's certainly a character that can and has worked well with the other "world's greatest detective". I don't think <PERSON> needs to be multidimensional in the way you're thinking. I think the added dimension is the unknown with him. |
I used to go to a place in Orlando called DIY records. Local shit bands mostly, but fun all the same. And you guys have slightly different taste in music, so maybe some local start-up bands might meld things or be different enough for you both to discover something new. | Yes, but it will increase everyone's rates. OP's HO insurance will have to get the funds somewhere.
It's just I live in Florida and worked as an electrician for a while. And the number of people working without a license or insurance is staggering. And it makes it hard for legitimate trades people because they have to compete with these yahoos when bidding for jobs. |
Oh thats fairly common here. People refuse to accept any reward (cash or kind) if they have done you a good deed.
It is the belief in the Karmic system that drives this behaviour - you do a good deed, somebody else will repay you (something like the Mexican family helping out a Redditor story), and that to accept money cancels the effect of the good deed (Karmically speaking of course). | Its not a punishment. We dont do it in order to punish him at all, but in order to save the people he caused to be threatened. Similarly how the police can kill someone who is threatening people, even in countries where death penalty is illegal (and death by shooting would be considered cruel and unusual punishment, if it was administered as punishment and not from necessity, in order to save other people).
Honestly I find it pretty disturbing that someone would be OK with allowing people to die (a permanent harm), in order to save someone from temporary inconvenience (forced blood transfusion) - especially in the case when the one with the needed blood caused the situation in the first place. |
> You cannot use the n-word without negative connotations. You can discuss it academically, as you can with everything, but you cannot use it to refer to black people in a neutral way, even if the context is nice. The word itself turns it into a negative context, because of its connotations.
That's the thing about mentioning "context" when discussing issues like this. Context doesn't just mean _immediate_ context, it also means the _broader_ context. Both the immediate and the broad context should be considered when deciding what to say and how to say it. | __PART 2__
> It is exactly this objectification of humans that necessitates the rejection of capitalist ideology and the acceptance of communism.
I'm not objectifying anyone. I'm just talking about things as they actually are, _in reality_. Reality is a harsh place, but we all live in it regardless of whether we're aware of it. Our preferences or ideals do not _affect_ reality. You eat chocolate because you _enjoy_ it, and you meet your friends because you _enjoy_ their company.
> Not all communist theory is the same. Take this essay for instance.
Don't just slap me with a wall of text. I can't be bothered to read and try to "understand" something I'm almost certain won't even make sense.
> It is only through communism and the rejection of capitalist modes of production that we can achieve our fullest self-interests.
Explain. What does this mean. What does it refer to?
> Not that I necessarily agree with it
Oh? So you don't even agree with the article you linked to me, as if it were somehow relevant to the discussion? Nice..
&<PERSON>; just that to reject one communist theoretical line and assume it covers everyone on the radical left is either ignorant or stupid
If all forms of Communism adhere to the idea that the means of production should be collectively owned, then I can dismiss all forms of Communism as unrealistic, based on what I explained before.
> Oh, also "human nature" doesn't exist, at least not in the way you mean it.
I've only been referring to _selfishness_. Do you claim humans are not selfish?
> There's pretty much no anthropological or sociological evidence to suggest it at all.
_I_ don't need "evidence" to suggest that I'm selfish. I _know_ myself to be selfish, and I've observed others to be selfish too. If you want to insist on providing evidence for something, how about providing evidence that we're _not_ biologically wired to be selfish?
> It's funny because you're pretty much describing capitalism right here.
It's funny that you consider _voluntary_ employment equal to taking our money at gunpoint. A job is voluntary, and if you're unhappy with one job, you're _free to switch to another_. Try not paying taxes.
> Realistic? Not in the slightest.
I've claimed that AnCap is realistic precisely because it's based on the pursuit of personal gain: voluntary exchanges of goods and services, and voluntary contracts between people. This _is_ very realistic, because it's aligned with our inherent selfishness, as I explained. You need to refute this idea somehow, not just declare it invalid.
> Or rather, the world won't be radically changed and will only be superficially different.
Oh? So _are_ you denying that AnCap is realistic, after all? It's kind of difficult to tell. But as for differences, I would consider _not_ being a life-long tax-slave a _huge_ fucking difference. Explain how say, 80 years of slavery is _not_ massively different from _zero_ years of slavery.
> Prosperity for whom?
Everyone? _Anyone_ could trade freely with others, and pursue personal gain without any burdens like wealth-confiscation, bullshit regulation, accounting, licenses/permits, and so on. Do you want to drive a taxi? How about _not_ having to pay for a $600 000 "license" [1] in order to be _allowed to_ transport people in exchange for money? That sound nice?
> Prosperity for those already wealthy.
Sure, they're prosperous by definition.
> During the very first generation of some tabula rasa AnCap society maybe the people who do work the hardest/smartest/whatever will be those who are rewarded
Ha! Yes, indeed.
> but after that with private property it no longer becomes a competition between people on equal footing and moves to an accumulated advantage over others in competition.
There's nothing wrong with amassing even massive wealth, as long as you don't cause harm to others. <PERSON> was a billionaire, and he just sold computers to people. I bet he wasn't interested in say, mass-murdering potential customers. Sure, Apple is in an advantageous position in the market, but it's certainly earned it, and nothing prevents some small business from making computers and getting by anyway.
[1] http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/05/30/us-usa-taxis-idUSN3040666220070530
|
>At any rate, cultural acceptability does not seem like a strong argument to permit non therapeutic medical procedures on children in general.
Why not? Are children not a part of the culture they are born into? You can reject your culture but you can never eliminate it entirely, because it is wired into the core of your mind from birth through learning.
>Respect for (future) autonomy and the interests of the child, I think, would suggest that it would be better to allow the child to select to engage that cultural norm or religious practice when they have the competence to make such decisions?
Children do not have autonomy though, they do not get to determine whether they get braces or not, which is for the most part purely cosmetic and rife with complications of its own.
Parents have certain rights over their children, and that includes rights to certain cultural traditions. There is risk inherent in every human activity and if you ignore certain cultural activities you are committing cultural imperialism and asserting an objective morality on those outside of your own group. | >If you agree that killing animal populations that need to be controlled, then the most moral thing to do with the carcass is to use it as efficiently as possible to include the meat. Therefor, eating meat is not immoral.
I still don't think that would be a morally acceptable option but it would be the best option under those specific circumstances, although in reality the vast majority of meat being consumed is not coming from those circumstances, that's my fault for not being more specific with my view though.
>Because animal over-population is dangerous to drivers and destroy crops. That means teenage children dying in car accidents and food shortages in rural communities, explicitly. Humans are the most fit species on the planet according to <PERSON>'s theory, to the point of being able to change our own environment. While it is a responsibility that shouldn't be taken lightly, we have the right to prioritize our own well-being over that of other species.
I agree with everything here.
|
Redistricting eliminated two seats in Ohio; Republicans control Ohio; they drew a new district to put two liberal democrats into the same race. Do you really need a conspiracy to explain that? It's just partisan politics.
You think that <PERSON> has ever really caused anyone any problems? You might be vastly overestimating the influence of <PERSON>. | Do you have any source for your belief that welfare *is* more than minimum wage? Random assertions aren't very convincing; I want to see how precisely that fact is determined.
By what mechanism would tax cuts lead to a decrease in unemployment? People like to assert that businesses would create a ton of jobs if not for their taxes, and I don't understand how that follows. |
It means that within that 20 year period the day of the implosion was 8 Ahau. It would take some time, but you could figure out which long count dates fell on 8 Ahau.
But I'm curious as to the years you give for 8 Ahau. The [Wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayapan) article mentions a vessel containing the glyph of 8 Ahau which may indicate when the city fell, but the dates for that are listed as 1441-1461. What's this implosion you are talking about? | For those that don't know, making consist noise while hiking in bear country is recommended by park authorities. If you are in a group, they recommend talking loudly. By yourself, occasionally clap or sing or something like that, especially before coming around a corner. In Glacier National Park the ranger we walked around with liked to say "heeey bear!" loudly about every minute.
A startled bear is a dangerous bear. But if they know you're coming they are much more likely to mind their own business. |
> If the fetus or zygote even, is considered 'life' then legally it should have it's own legal say.... but it doesn't. The mother/parents would/should still have legal guardianship over it and would still have the authority to make that choice in it's best interest.
That logic would apply to most humans up to the age of 18. | > men should have a right to never see or support their existing children. Women don't have that right. Why should men? It doesn't make it equal.
*Neither men nor women* should be forced into parenthood against their will. If you don't want to be a parent, you shouldn't have parental responsibilities forced onto you... and this should apply equally to men and women.
Bringing the whole abortion issue into it is completely missing the bigger picture. Even if abortion didn't exist, the argument still stands independently. |
Do you simply not know your history?
The Japanese would have fought, tooth and nail, to the last man woman and child for every inch of their island. We found islands in the Pacific that still had Japanese soldiers based on them in the 1960's.
The death toll in invading Japan would have been far higher if conventional weapons were the only ones used. In the millions higher. Do you have any idea of how the Japanese fought?
How the hell would we tell people about a bomb that they had never seen before? | A lot of countries have done some very bad things. The Japanese during the first half of the 20th century. The Chinese to their own people in 1960's. The Americans to the Filipinos and Native Americans. The British to the Zulus. The Aussies to the aboriginals. The Russians to themselves during the Soviet Era. And, of course, the Germans to the Jews and Poles.
You would be hard pressed to find a rich successful group of people or nation in the world that hasn't at one time or another shit on someone else.
The Germans are unique in the amount at which they have taken responsibility for their actions and effectively purged or "changed".
Most nations and their peoples around the world generally ignore their darkest moments and glorify their triumphs. |
Exactly. And also, basically the entire premise of Christianity is "convert or be tortured forever", but we're somehow supposed to be surprised that the book contains *additional* stories of cruelty and violence toward non-believers? Christianity is based on threats and fear, so *of course* the holy book will be filled with violence. | Right, because "vs" means that the focus must be a physical fight and not the obvious ideological and moral one *that the entire trailer focused on*. And apparently you've never heard of holding back in a fight, perhaps because winning the fight might not be the best thing for you. |
Sorry, I'm on an antiquted phone, so I will just mention your points by number go from there if that's cool. So for your first point. How and why did he create the universe? That's more of the issue at hand.
Second, for a being whom supposedly took six days to create just our world (according to the bible which is supposed to be his word). It seems like he would fall under our same time constraints. I know Cathllicism has a more liberal interpretation of tthe bible but I'm sure you will not deny that the bible is supposed tobe tof word of god. This would imply that he does fall under the same time spectrum.
Third, I'm an Agnostic-Atheist, ex-Catholic with twelve year of Catholic school education (which I'm extremely proud and privelaged to have had this opportunity). This isn't meant to brag, just my background.
Fourth, why does he punish us for not being able to understand? I have already had the opportunity to try and understand him, but to me, he doesn't realistically make sense. With this, according to the Catholic church, I am damned for enternity in hell, if I continue on my specific path of spiritual exploration and do not revert. Doesn't sound like a very just or fair God to me. Essentially his idealogy is, "You can't understand me even though I'm outside the possibility to be understood? To hell with you!"
| Woops, to misread/miss an very important part of a sentence sucks. Sorry. But to keep conversation going for the sake of it I do wonder if that still might even be the case. A lot of people would say the issues with same sex relations is due to religion. Although at the same time it is a pretty new for it to be in such a forefront limelight. I wonder if it might be an issue just because it's not the norm.
There's an interesting movie called pleasant valley that kind of goes on this subject when it comes to sex. Two kids get put into a TV show world and teach the other kids about sex. Well in that world it is taboo and causes issues despite no religion being present, that I remember. Although the movie itself does imply some small religious aspects. |
1. This does not speak for anywhere but the U.S. 2. U getting $3 an hour or however u are paid in ur area to put shit in a take out order is already covered and not providing service for waiting on no one does not entitle u anything. I say that as a former server. | If the children only receive instruction in the language one class per day how do you expect them to become fluent? If they have no use of fhe language outside the class it will be just another item which is learned for the class and then promptly forgotten. To effective learn a language one needs to be able to converse in it with others and do so often and for many Americans they don't have that opportunity. |
Let's see...Better Call Saul, Scorpion (barely watchable, it's a guilty pleasure), Gotham, Agent's of S.H.I.E.L.D. is back on this week, though I was watching Agent Carter in the meantime, The Flash, Arrow, Workaholics, Suits, Regular Show...and that's about it. Just finished Constantine, and I need to catch up on Parks and Rec.
Oh, and I've been watching Kitchen Confidential this weekend, and I'm just about done. | My acne is pretty mild nowadays, and usually only around my period, but I use Aveeno Clear Complexion foaming face wash daily, followed by moisturizing with CeraVe (in the tub). Once a week (sometimes twice in the summer) I use an exfoliating face wash...usually the green tea scrub from St. Ives.
Check out /r/SkincareAddiction. Disclaimer for my routine, I'm pretty sure the folks over at /r/SkincareAddiction frown upon St. Ives scrubs, especially the apricot one, but that's what I like using anyway. |
Well if there is an omni-god, by definition he is good. What greater definition of good is there than the will of an omni-god? However that does not mean its definition of good is the same as our definition of good or loving as humans typically use. Good would likely have a different definition even among different species if they were as intelligent as humans. | Many people have all sorts of weird ideas, but logically, if something cannot be known, then even an omniscient being would not know it. This compares to that famous old paradox which asks if God can create a stone which is so heavy the He cannot lift it. No matter which answer you give, yes or no, it negates the idea that God is omnipotent. However it is not really a paradox, because even an omnipotent being cannot do things that are impossible to do, just as even an omniscient being cannot know things that are impossible to know. |
One would tentatively suggest that a public debating forum seems an unwise choice of venue for discussion with nothing but respect, as the practice inherently requires some parties to disagree and hold opposing views. Someone who claims to both disagree with you but still respect your beliefs is either a liar or guilty of condescension, and much more so than someone who is attempting to be honest with you. [/gentlemanly]
Back the topic at hand, I've never found any reason to even take the claims of religions seriously, let alone deliberate over their truth. Observation of social dynamics and world news leads me to the conclusion that the net benefit of religion is negative. I also perceive any personal spirituality that someone may find in a religion to be something they could accomplish alone (and to an even greater degree). Any one of these factors is reason enough for me to oppose religion; combined, they just make me hold my stance even more strongly. | Of the four responses I've seen thus far, I've been very disappointed. None of them address the question and all make appeals to proscriptive moral judgements with hardly any attempt to support them. Despite the fact that I ultimately agree with first opinion, I think the debate is quite a bit more nuanced than questions of equality. In what follows, I'll attempt to do the other side justice, and I would appreciate any followups from actual supporters with stronger arguments or clarifications.
From what I can tell there are at least two different directions for arguments against a gender-blind draft.
The most compelling comes from a pragmatic political viewpoint. Here, under America's two party system (I assume this because you mention it in your initial opinion), both parties have no clear incentive and *many* disincentives to push this change. The Democratic political base would easily view this as an expansion of the draft, and an increase in the reach and power of the military-industrial complex. On the other hand, the Republican base tends to have more conservative views on family values and gender roles making this opinion equally toxic to them. Since it would be a liability to any politician to include this position in his/her platform, there is simply no reason to risk addressing it (unless you go the route of the abolishment of the draft, though it's worth noting that even the Democratic party is divided on this issue. Remember that the draft does not exist at the present time, and the current argument centers around the infrastructure needed to institute it should the need ever arise).
The second and historical reason is due to a perceived difference in genders. Some of these points are nearly impossible to defend (in my opinion--feel free to interject or add), but some still carry weight. The most tenable to me is that despite great strides in gender equality, present cultural norms still have men treating women differently and/or behaving differently in their presence. As long as this prevails, men are liable to behave dangerously or foolishly in the presence of women. While this behavior can be addressed through training and education, in the event of a draft, this may be an investment of time the military is not willing to take.
Once again, I'd appreciate comment from people who actually support the opposing view. I've half convinced myself along the way (funny how that works), but I still think it'd be better from the horse's mouth. |
Here are two drastically different options: [De Lux - It All Works All The Time](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATcxZYqE50E) and [Doubting Paris - Cold](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1kSUCWgVHg). Both are some of my favourite songs. And obviously, you can't go wrong with some [AC/DC](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZtxPuq3XFA). Bonus that it's actually a clip of the scene. Gives me chills every time. | I agree with you and the OP. So, obviously, can't make a top level comment. But it's actually a pet peeve of mine that so many things have the word 'man' added to the front to somehow differentiate them from the premise of the word.
I don't see it as helping to end sexism as it's just adding to the issue by creating new sexist terms. Also, in some cases, it's just plain stupid. Like 'man bun'. I know it's not quite in the same vein as 'mansplaining', but it still based in the same root. The 'need' to somehow make it a gender-specific thing when it's inherently not. It's a fucking *bun*. It doesn't matter if it's on a man or woman or dog, for that matter!
And things like OP fall into this same category for me. There's really no reason to add 'man' in order to somehow gender the the item or action. The item or action is *still* just the item or action regardless of the gender of the person using it/doing it.
Someone being condescending is someone being condescending. If it's a man who's always condescending to women only - well then, he's sexist. If it's a woman who is always condescending to men only - well then, she's sexist. It goes both ways. And adding a gender to it doesn't help in eradicating the behaviors. It only adds more sexism to the table. |
I just had the mental image of this going to the Supreme Court and him being infamous. Super unrealistic, but was fun to imagine for a moment.
I honestly don't think it's unconstitutional while the case plays out. The court doesn't really know what's going on yet, so. But you've definitely given me food for thought and we'll see if the First Amendment does become relevant later. | **This is a very, very broad area to talk about. So you'll have to forgive me if I'm being a little vague. I'll do my best to answer, though, primarily using one of my books on American history (specifically pre-Civil War), a journal article, and two dissertations I've read on the subject.**
The Bible Belt, for those who are unaware or unclear on it, is a region in the United States South, which is often referenced but not clarified specifically with boundaries. The common consensus is that the phrase was coined in 1920 by <PERSON>, "...to designate those parts of the country in which the literal accuracy of the Bible is credited and clergymen who preach it have public influence." The name stuck, primarily because it seemed fairly accurate to all who saw it. <PERSON> never gave a specific location, though: <PERSON> argues in "Viewing the Bible Belt" what he believes the boundaries to be, and they roughly conform to [this map](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/BibleBelt.png).
How it came to be is still a question in and of itself, now that we've attempted to define this very vague region (many journal articles don't even define it, despite talking about features it contains: that's how vague it really is). Generally, it has its roots to some degree in the lifestyle held by Southerners even before the Civil War. The rural lifestyle, greater focus on honor, and different culture in the South when compared to the North helped create an area ripe for religious influence and living. Talking about the growth of evangelicalism in the United States in the early 1800s, <PERSON> notes in *Becoming America* that:
>The spread of religious enthusiasm in rural America was not confined to a single denomination. Baptist communities, which were less centrally organized than their Methodist counterparts, flourished in many of the same rural areas..."However they were organized or defined, American evangelical communities tended to emphasize broad themes of conversion and rebirth rather than finer points of theological doctrine. The spread of this kind of evangelical Christianity initiated a pattern in American religious life that remains visible today. The part of the country frequently referred to as the Bible Belt is the area that was influenced most powerfully by evangelical campaigns in the first quarter of the nineteenth century. This development was not the result of the cultural isolation of southern communities, but rather the opposite: Evangelicals in the South and the trans-Appalachian West were connected to growing networks of religious preaching and communication.
This growing religious movement would translate into a larger and larger religious fervor in the South which would eventually come to be associated with the area we know as the Bible Belt. When the onslaughts of modernity hit around the early 1900s, the churches of the South were invigorated once again. <PERSON>, in "Making the Bible Belt", notes that:
>Although evangelical Texans protested the onslaughts of modernity, and declared in a great chorus voice their weakness and vulnerability, their confrontations with the modern world only bolstered their political and cultural power. To put it another way, they prospered because of, and not in spite of, their confrontation with the modern world.
To drive this point home, the feeling of a fight against the "corrupted" modern society of the time was clear. People now felt that religion and "God's Kingdom" as a whole was under attack, beleaguered, and only increased participation in the Church and in religious activities could revitalize morality in the world. Clergymen also took the opportunity to promote themselves as the fighters against immorality and corruption: as society's saviors. Things like liquor, now viewed as immoral, were fought as well by the Church. "'In fighting the liquor traffic,' <PERSON>
wrote in 1916, 'I have learned what it means to combat the most gigantic and soul-less corrupting agency this land has ever known.'"
As many have documented, there is a "rally-round-the-flag" effect. The feeling that Southern religion was under attack, as I've noted already, played a big part in bringing about the Bible Belt and increasing focus on it. New clerical champions, so to speak, paved the way for a revival of religion in the despairing religious communities of the late 19th century, which had effectively lost their way. They picked up on the paths blazed by the circuit riders through rural communities (not literally, metaphorically they picked up on them) and reinspired the populace to follow. This was easier in the less-industrial (and thus less-modernized, by many accounts) South, which had always placed a greater focus on religion anyways. Again, an example of this feeling of monumental struggle:
>"A crisis in the history of our country is certainly upon us," <PERSON> freely admitted, but he asked "How shall we meet it? The opportunity of a lifetime is before us. How shall we use it?"
Clericalism helped "save" the South from the corruption of the modern world, and that helped Southerners take more active positions in the clergy. The spiritual pallor was realized and fought, rather than succumbed to, when the Church realized it had a crop of young, new leadership who could, in fiery passion, whip up the populace. The cause of fighting for Prohibition would help: the long-standing belief of honor in self-restraint that had been prominent in Southern society (think anti-masturbatory campaigns in pre-Civil War America, the teetotallers and prohibitionists, etc.) would serve to once more be inflamed and inspired through the giving of purpose, a purpose against liquor that would help move the entire religious movement as well. Baptist preacher <PERSON> effectively argued that "...if the church 'clothe[d] herself with zeal,' it would be saved".
Eventually, the religious zeal would be self-perpetuating, as academics even in the South would write of the religious fervor of their region. It built on itself, and it inserted itself into many, many aspects of Southern society. The South began to be viewed as fundamentalist, especially due to lower education rates, as literacy was poorer in the South around the early 1900s by far.
>In 1914, <PERSON>,
writing in the World’s Work, claimed that the 1910 census “showed that in North
Carolina alone there were 122,189 grown white people who could neither read nor write.
As mentioned in "Building the Bible Belt" by <PERSON>:
>Almost as soon as the journalistic accounts of the fundamentalists
turned from unbiased to negative, the reporters, columnists, and editors equated the South
with fundamentalism. The success of the anti-evolution campaign in the South only
served to reinforce this already extant belief, and the Scopes Trial in 1925 was merely
another example to non-Southem observers that the region was a natural home for
fundamentalism. The location of fundamentalism in the South allowed proponents of
modernism to contain a religious threat within a single area o f the country, and it allowed
them to explain how such a movement could have arisen. It also led opponents of
fundamentalism to believe, wrongly, that the movement was a passing phase which
education could ameliorate.
This is a condensed version of the growth of fundamentalism, and the belief that the South was fundamentalist, that led to the term "Bible Belt". The roots can be traced back very far, as with most things, but this is effectively a crash course in the subject that I hope can help you understand how the early focus on religion which persisted left the South ripe for religious awakening. When, in the North, there was a fear that morality was being foregone, it didn't turn to the Church nearly as much because the Church never figured as prominently into Northern life. The South had always been more religious, circuit riders and prominent use of religious spread among rural communities by evangelicals, and the turning to the Church when there was fear of moral corruption in the South made it perfect for the "Bible Belt" name, and it lived up to it to a fairly obvious degree by most accounts.
**Sources:**
<PERSON>, <PERSON> Becoming America. New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2014. Print.
<PERSON>, J. (2012). Making the bible belt: Preachers, prohibition, and the politicization of southern religion, 1877-1918. (Order No. 3534223, Rice University).
<PERSON>, <PERSON> (2002). Building the bible belt: How america came to view the south as fundamentalist. (Order No. 3056843, University of Virginia).
<PERSON>, <PERSON>Viewing the Bible Belt." The Journal of Popular Culture XI.4 (1978): 865-76. Web. |
Paying your debt doesn't make you automatically trustworthy. I'm not saying flat out deny them benefits, but I am saying it should be conditional. If the person continues to fall into old habits they shouldn't be given the money to continue to doing it.
Hell, give people a few chances. You test positive once and you are given a retest. You test positive again and you have to go into a treatment program. Test positive again and your benefits are suspended for a certain amount of time. Test positive a fourth time and you lose your benefits completely.
Give people chances, but after a certain amount of time enough is enough. Making a mistake is one thing. After a while it is a pattern and a lifestyle. | I used to work at a retail store for a major phone company. I was the sales guy that would give this level of attention to all the customers and not try to over sell them at all. People would come in to see me and would wait if I was busy. You know those surveys you fill out? With 5 or so questions that you give a 1-5 star rating? Well if you give a 4 on just one of them the whole thing is a fail, 0%. I had an average of 98% and won an award for having the highest customer service rating in the region.
I also was constantly in fear of losing my job because I barely hit my quota each month. I found another job and got out of there before I was fired for it. It was usually the accessory sales that I didn't hit. Also often the home services too. |
You're already legally protected from assault and discrimination, and being a lesbian isn't illegal (you wont be arrested, harassed, or anything by the government). You can even hold a gay wedding and you wont be raided or bothered by the government--you'll be protected, actually.
These lawsuits are exactly what the lobbyists and lawyers are after in the same-sex rights movement, and as soon as its over, homosexuals will be blamed for having cried wolf and will be perceived as taking advantage of everybody. Your orientation is about to become a disfavorable political position.
You'll know you've been used real soon when the public produces a term like "the race card" for gays. | As women have the right to abort, I think that men have the second best--if they are unwilling to have a child, they should be able to withdraw all support prior to the child's birth, in exchange for not being present in the child's life in any way.
The argument is always for the welfare of the child--but I think the government has the responsibility to financially support the child and his or her mother. If this is problematic, institute better programming to help avoid such situations, like better sex education and access to contraceptives.
If the father decides to enter the child's life in the future, he should be liable for back payments made by the government, provided the mother allows this in the first place.
I don't understand how it is fair for one person to terminate without the consent of both parties (and I do believe this should be the case), but for another person to have no say in what happens after.
I know that there are situations where abortion is difficult, for medical or geographical reasons. Doesn't change the fact that the father would not be in the picture anyway, and the government should foot the bill, because in a civilised society we take care of people who need it as a society. |
I don't see a particular association with fertility. The earliest significant text with a fox in the spotlight is [*Van den vos Reynaerde*](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/<PERSON>). He's a trickster, and a rather vicious one, not shy of using violence or killing people. He also manages to bed the wives of other animals on various occasions, that's the one reference to sexuality. Nowadays the viciousness has receded and the fox is mostly associated with trickstership and cleverness per se, the malign aspect is gone.
The animal traditionally associated with fertility is the hare (breeding like a rabbit, <PERSON>, ...). | The reason I don't mention religion was that we were talking about his personal motivations, and he does not appear to be a particularly devout christian. <PERSON> made his own religion, a strange mishmash of Germanic tribal myths, racial pseudoscience, Indian symbols, christian traditions, workers rights, puritanism and social darwinism. He called this religion "Nationalsozialismus" and followed it sincerely and fanatically.
The Jews were not the only group he loathed, he also hated for example gypsies, blacks, the disabled and homosexuals. The inclusion of Jews and homosexuals in this list matches the actions of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, inclusion of the disabled does not, it matches the social darwinism aspect.
So I would say that traditional religions supplied some entries on <PERSON> laundry list of people to hate, but it was not the only source, and more importantly, not the reason for him to have such a list in the first place. Some people just cannot be blamed for their own mistakes, they *need* somebody to hate.
Also interesting in this regard is the Konkordat, a treaty with the Vatican, the first international treaty <PERSON> signed. It gave him an early boost in international recognition and domestic political support among christians. This makes his appeal to christianity appear as a tactical decision.
Nevertheless, I do agree with you, that a strict catholic upbringing must be influential in one way or another. However I'd attribute other aspects to it, his puritanism, the vegetarianism, non-smoking, loathing of hedonistic pleasures, his search for a cause. Christianity is based on the premise that humans are sinful, and that this sin needs to be cleansed through piety. That is the psychological core and appeal of this religion, this odd combination of self-loathing sinners made from dust and self-righteousness chosen people of god. |
Once you become aware that litigation/charges are likely, you are no longer free to destroy things that may be evidence.
It's not "destroying evidence" if you up-and-decide to flush an ounce of cocaine down your toilet.
It is a crime if you do this while the cops are busting in your front door with a warrant to search for cocaine. | Yes and no.
Marijuana possession and distribution are also crimes under federal law. Every single person in WA or CO who is involved in distribution is violating federal law and could be arrested and tried for it at the whim of the DOJ.
We can't have *reliable* state-level reform unless the feds either turn a blind eye to it and refuse to enforce the federal laws, or unless the federal laws are repealed or substantially modified. |
> Out of curiosity, how old are you and do you have kids?
Thats personal and irrelevant.
> Why is it so hard for you to believe that children will never be in this person's future?
I never said it was. I seem to have to state every comment that we are talking about the WANT for kids. Im not sure how you seem to forget every single time.
> I had sterilization surgery 7 years ago and never had any regrets!
Cool. That is not relevenat but I am glad its worked out.
You seem to be making this far too complicated. It has NOTHING to do with children.
I will make it simple
1) Do you believe that you have knowledge of the future (yes or no, please answer)
2) If no, why do you think you have knowledge of your future mindset if you have admitted to not having knowledge of the future. | I'll bite.
Your rambling is like the OP but with a poorer understanding of grammatical rules and spelling.
Why dont YOU ask yourself those same questions? Is it because you are afraid that there might be and end to your life. An eternity without you?
> And I'm tired of stating that all you do is judge yourself and that I'd use your own words and show you how hypocritical you are, beat you more with your own words.... boooring.
Show he is a hypocrite. I dare you. You say it would be boring but I guarantee you would struggle. All you would do his highlight your own ignorance and hypocrisy. |
There's a middle ground between increasing it so much that the goalie doesn't have a chance (and thus turning it into a shoot-out), and increasing it just enough such that the goalie isn't nearly always guaranteed a save. The strategies would be the same, it would just increase the probability of goals. | On #1, why would you want an afterlife? I've never seen a description of it that I'd want. Basically it seems to work out to either not being completely perfect (in which case an eternity would eventually become unbearable), or a loss of personality (in which case it's not me in there, so why would I care?)
|
The signal of when to act is the price. Entrepreneurs and investors use prices to gauge when to act. If the price of oil and gas are not very high relative to alternatives, then it means that it's probably not worth investing time, labor, and capital into those alternatives.
We'll know when to invest because the price will rise, signalling that it's better to divert resources into making a profit by selling an alternative that's cheaper. | Yes, there's a hierarchy of laws. Maintaining the flow of traffic is more important than staying under the speed limit. You could be ticketed for going too slow even if you're going over the speed limit if you're obstructing traffic by not going as fast as the rest of traffic. |
Considering it's written based off interviews with members of the <PERSON> White House, I think including some accounts that are bullshit would be difficult to avoid. Hence why the author gave that heads up.
It's been a real treat to watch all of <PERSON>'s fanboys lose their minds over it though. | A shit hand is being attracted to kids. The shit decision that seriously harms the kids involved is looking at CP.
I'm simply saying <PERSON> can't help the fact that he's attracted to kids, and it's shitty for that to happen to him. But I agree, it absolutely doesn't excuse the even shittier decisions he made. Besides, <PERSON>'s life is about to fall completely apart really fast. And I mean seriously fall apart. His arrest will be in the newspapers. It will be the first result when you google his name. I'm just leaving it on the justice system and his therapist to fully educate him on the reality of the repercussions of his decisions.
But that still doesn't change the fact that as human beings we simply don't have control over who or what we are attracted to, and it's worth at least taking a fraction of a second to thank the fact that who or what *you* are attracted to is legal. |
this just in, young children can never be in the same room never ever ever because they might get preggernant.
Really they'd only have to focus on keeping the teens apart. It's gonna happen, sure. But it happens in schools. It happens in neighborhoods. It happens whether we tell them to or not. BSA isn't just another avenue because at least when kids are in the BSA, they'll be doing other tasks along the way as distraction instead of a classic "Hey mom, I'm going to <PERSON>'s" and sneaking off to some movie theater to give a handjob through a bucket of popcorn. | > If a student's English paper is written in AAVE and they are given a high grade,
So I've been googling pretty much since I started this conversation because there's fuck-all to do today work-wise 'cause everyone's on vacation; here is the closest thing to this I've found that's actually happened:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_Ebonics_resolution
If you read that, it states that ONE school district voted to recognize AAVE as a legitimate *African* language. They increased funding for and salaray to teachers who were proficient in AAVE and English to help let those teachers use AAVE as a bridge into teaching GAE. This also happened like 20 years ago.
If you're talking about something else, I'm going to need to see some specific sources because I see no evidence of what you're claiming being an actual problem in the real world. |
Very tue. I have friends who are picky eaters and are not rude about it at all. If we go to a restaurant they don't know they'll either decline the invite or come and, at worse, order something plain off the main (you can alway get some form of potatoes, rice or pasta in restaurants and ask for it plain). If they are invited to someone's house they'll make an effort or, like OP said, push the food around and discreetly get rid of it afterwards.
There's not excuse for being a rude asshole. | It could be that the other guy came in as soon as they opened and was able to go visit his dog, where he sees your dog, asks for a moment with his dog, pulls out a pocket knife and stabs him.
It completely possible that the staff wasn't aware the two dogs fought each other if they didn't came in at the same time and that a guy would cary a pocket knife. |
So either mind exists as a separate substance independent of matter, which then means free will is real, or mind is not independent of matter, therefore thoughts are simply chemical reactions and free will isn't real.
If you're a dualist and believe that mind and matter are separate then this conversation doesn't matter at all.
If you believe that mind is not separate, then thoughts are just input-output reactions in a chemical system. This means that thoughts and choices are no different than any other chemical reaction such as your engine running or your sugar dissolving in a cup of coffee. | No, that was simply the use of the transitive property and a contradiction.
If A implies B and B implies C then A implies C.
So being a Christian implies listening and imitating <PERSON> and imitating <PERSON> means being loving, then being a Christian means being loving.
But if I am a hateful person I am not being loving, and therefore I can not be a Christian since that contradicts the fact that I would have to be loving.
In first-order logic terms that would be:
A->B
B->C
Therefore A->C
Not C -> Not A |
> Americans believe that rights are somehow inalienable.
This is the problem. Everyone *believes* they're inalienable, but no one seems willing to see it so. This is why half of our country is begging the federal government to make them "safer" by continuing the erosion of our second amendment rights. I think this situation adequately shows how worthless "belief" is compared to understanding. I don't believe my rights are inalienable. I understand my rights to be a matter of precedent which must remain established.
Frankly, I've lost all confidence in our nation, and it is my opinion that the US will wither further into distopia until a precipitous point at which people are reminded that *they* are the ones responsible for their fate and take back that responsibility. People today couldn't be bothered to stand for what they believe in if it means missing an episode of American Idol.
>Atheist is able to argue that rights are really absolute.
They're not absolute. They're just a social contract. As with any contract, one must maintain leverage to see it respected. The people who wrote the bill of rights knew exactly how "inalienable" our rights are, that's why we have the second amendment. | > I think that as a society, expecting all members of that society to pay an equitable amount of money for the preservation of the fundamentals of what that society believes in is moral.
You're generalizing here. You're assuming the entire society values the same things as you, but that's simply not true. I believe people should decide what they value themselves, and act upon those values. If you value helping homeless people, help a homeless person find a job and earn money. Or donate what you can to a homeless shelter.
Forcing me to fund what you value is an inherent moral flaw. Even if 99% of the population values helping the homeless, if I don't value that, or don't have the money to help fund your efforts, it's immoral for you to force me, the 1% minority, to do so.
What is a moral tax, I ask you? That seems to be where you are directing the conversation. And what is a moral tax rate? If say, 100% taxation is immoral, (also known as "slavery"), when does taxing become morally permissible?
Some may argue 25%, some 10%, some 50%. But that still means a portion of the money I earn is not actually mine to keep. I don't agree with that. So, I believe the tax rate is most moral at 0%. |
I hate this response. I'm only 27 and had to grow some mighty facial hair to stop being asked how school was. I've come up with several different replies but their throwback is always an apology and "You'll enjoy it when you're older."
I'm not happy with it now, I doubt I'll be happy with it in the future. If my looks were all I care about in life when I get older then god I feel sorry for future me.
Even with the beard I still look under 21.
tl;dr I feel your pain | With me it did. High school was by far the worst time of my life. I'm 24 now and I'm happy every day. After HS I had the freedom to do many things that changed me as a person for the better, I understand who I really am and generally get to do whatever I want.
I rarely get anxious (used to almost black out from stress when I was younger,) hardly get depression and since I know myself I know what to do right away to reduce the feeling. |
I do not use twitter often, but how about...
"@AmericanAir manager refuses to take my government ID, literally calls me a "terrorist," refuses to let me on my flight."
That'd still leave 22 characters for a link to a screenshot of his fully story. Or maybe just go directly to the point...
"@AmericanAir manager calls me a "terrorist" to my face. His stated reason? I'm an Arab refugee. I was never allowed onto my plane."
I'm assuming he's an Arab, of course, I'd be surprised if an African or Asian refugee was called a terrorist. Or we could focus a bit more on a customer service angle.
"@AmericanAir mgr makes a mistake, causing me to miss my flight. I was okay with that until he called me a terrorist just because I'm Arab."
I'm assuming he's Arab here, could be wrong. Just some thoughts. | A very, very popular opinion I see stated, such as on a video of <PERSON> addressing the LGBT community I saw recently, is that people should "put down their phones and cameras" so they can "actually" experience life instead of just "watching it."
These posts usually get tons of thumbs up. With the <PERSON> video, I thought that, at the very least, was out of place simply because that was <PERSON> speaking, it's only natural that many people would record it because you can actually make money off of selling that footage if you have the best quality and angle. But it's obviously something that shows up commonly in other places. I remember it showing up on <PERSON> blog from Sherlock where apparently, <PERSON> from <PERSON> said that he wishes people would experience life instead of recording it. Doesn't sound too much like our detective who sits in a chair most of his time, but according to <PERSON>, he totally, definitely said that.
Firstly, **I don't think there's as big a detriment as people seem to imply with recording something.** There's this shame that comes with taking lots of pictures and videos, apparently, because it damages your ability to "experience life." I have trouble even determining what that means, which is probably my biggest problem here. I don't take a lot of videos or pictures either, so I guess that makes me unable to have any personal experience with how it might stop me from experiencing life.
But really, can it be that big a deal that everyone so strongly agrees on this "issue" whenever someone brings it up? What makes the techless lifestyle so superior? Sometimes shit happens and you wanna have proof when it does. First contact could happen right now in my room and I would be really pissed if I forgot to get an alien selfie, I promise you.
**It just seems like it's easy for me to think of all the pros of recording things and it's difficult for me to think of cons.**
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* |
You could consider under what circumstances that your definition is not true, and if it's not true under those circumstances, what other definitions could instead replace it to become more accurate.
Which is the point I'm attempting to arrive at: That your definition is limiting. Because your definition is limiting, any logic that flows from it is subsequently limiting. That's why you're generally having a hard time convincing anyone of your argument. I'm not trying to make your world come crashing down. I'm trying to help you improve your argument.
Namely, there is no real connection between the *fact* that animals reproduce and the *notion* that reproduction is an animal's purpose. It's a non sequiter. You need to bridge the gap if you want to make a more convincing argument.
For example, you could fill the gap by saying, "<PERSON> declared that reproduction is an animals purpose", but now you've gotta deal with explaining God, which I don't recommend. You could go with, "If an animal does not follow its purpose of reproduction, it will die out", which is a tiny bit better except it makes a kind of post hoc ergo proctor hoc by assuming that reproduction is *the* of purpose to begin with. It also goes against some insect species like Ants and Bees.
Most ants and bees in each colony will never engage in the act of reproduction. Most live and die as workers in service to **the one** who does the reproduction. One could then argue that the *purpose* of these worker ants and bees differs from their queens. "*Their purpose is to live and die so that their queen may reproduce*." So now we've got two distinct creatures whose purposes differ from your claim.
Well, in response you could argue that while individual roles may differ, the purpose of the *species as a whole* is to reproduce. This would be a different claim than the one you're making now. It may be a slightly stronger claim because you can argue that Worker Bees and Ants work to extend the reproductive life of their queen, despite never engaging in reproduction themselves.
But then you come in to the problem of defining what is purpose.
What do you define purpose to be? I've defined it to be "A Will, An Act, A behavior chosen in conscious pursuit of a thing". What is your definition? | No one is suggesting you accept a falsehood. If the ticket is for something you didn't do, you should fight it.
But that's not what everyone here is talking about. They're suggesting that even *if* it's a completely nonsensical ticket, the place to argue that is the courtroom, not the side of the road. Arguing that the cop is wrong isn't going to change the cop's mind. If he wants to write you a ticket, he will. Even if it's not a fair ticket.
If you're sure you'd have won, you're free to go ahead and take it to court. Arguing on the side of the road accomplishes nothing. By all means, don't *admit* to anything, but being handed a ticket is not "acceptance of a falsehood". |
If you consider the compromise to be a contract, making this significant of a change should open the contract for renegotiation. It doesn’t matter if it’s been 250 years. I can’t imagine relitigating the unification of the states (with 50 states instead of 13) would have a favorable outcome. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I feel like it would cause a second civil war. | I feel like when you’re rich enough to own a company that exploits the labor of others, that could be a fair threshold. Although I do see your point, I mean this question as more of a hypothetical, moral one, rather than a firm belief that we should all loot stores. If that makes sense. |
If I might ask, what is your understanding of the difference between an opt-out and opt-in system? As far as I see it the only difference is that the checkbox on your driver's license (or other ID) would say "In the event of an emergency do you choose to opt-out of donating your organs" instead of the current "do you choose to opt-in?" system. No additional regulations, no fewer than there are in place now. You may be operating on a more complex or alternate definition of the differences in programs.
In my limited understanding, hospitals are not required to test each and every organ that is a match, but that they do so because it is always in the best interest of the hospital and its patients to do so. Am I wrong? Is it currently the law that every hospital must test every available organ? Because if it is then my entire argument is null.
If it is a legal imperative to test every organ that can be donated, then I pretty much agree with what you're saying, but see no reason that law couldn't be changed along with the opt-out system.
I do see where you run into problems with pass-along economics. If the hospital, bound by the hippocratic oath, must test and distributes every available organ whether or not it is economically feasible, and the cost is driven up significantly by people who can't afford the organs, then I see the need for the opt-in system.
The only difference (to me) between the opt-in and opt-out system in this case is that the opt-in system keeps the numbers within a manageable range for hospitals to deal with, in which case I would argue that the system is broken and needs fixing. A really successful campaign for more people to be organ donors could do the same damage as switching from opt-in to opt-out if the issue is a simple as maintaining organ availability at a manageable level.
What do you think? The #1 question I have for you is: What forces a hospital to test each and every organ they can. I think the crux of our disagreements is that I don't see any law or rule that forces the hospital to take that action in every case. Is there a law I'm not aware of that requires that hospitals take advantage of every organ donor? Do they do so because they are bound by the hippocratic oath to put every organ to good use? Is there a moral imperative to do so? Why does increasing the pool of organ donors mean they *have* to process more organs than they do now? | Sorry, I should clarify. The notice was filed by my LL against the non-existent tenant. The people I talked to in the office were the ones that were confused. I think there's probably someone higher up the chain, but if there is I have never directly interacted with them.
LL is a company, rather than an individual, so it might get caught up in paperwork.
As far as the court date goes: although I am not mentioned by name, my position (current occupant) is. Am I required to show up on that date, as it currently stands? I'm working under the assumption that I am. |
Movie rental is not a necessity, so instead of a chore it feels a treat to get out of the house to pick up a movie.
Of course if you have the movie at home you're going to just put it on, but that a more convenient option exists does not erase the positive memories of the old way. | Sure, and I'm all for that, but having children's media depict homosexuality regularly will lead to them thinking they live in a world where it's waaaay more common than it actually is. For those of us who are straight it doesn't make a big difference if there are gay characters or not, but having lots of them begins to represent a world other than the one we live in, and I really think that negatively impacts the immersion and effectiveness of the storytelling.
Also having them shoehorned in does more harm than good if you ask me. |
Yes I do. I am also aware of the second amendment. Are you aware that amendments can be changed or negated? I don't care if you have all your permits. That has no bearing on the fact that your gun could get stolen. You can still get robbed even if you are properly trained. You are missing the point entirely. | If you are debating people that are calling you racist for simply supporting conservative policies, you are debating the wrong people. That being said, your point is irrelevant to the cmv entirely because OP was discussing the difference between calling the recent demonstrators Nazis or otherwise. They were literally Nazis. No one was just calling them that. They literally identified as them with symbolism and attire. You are doing nothing more than lumping yourself in with those people when you whine about not being able to participate in political discourse because some stupid liberals have called you Nazi before. |
Had they made any civilians clean the camp up, they definitely would have been Germans--the American army had not advanced into Polish territory. Also considering that the Polish population was itself subjected to the Holocaust (and the Polish Underground had alerted the Allies to the camps numerous times throughout the War) it would have made no sense to lay guilt on the Poles for the camps that they suffered from (and in fact many Poles living near concentration camps risked imprisonment and death to deliver aid to those inside). | The rank does still exist. Looking at the British Army specifically, figures such as Sir <PERSON>, <PERSON>, <PERSON>, <PERSON>, <PERSON>, <PERSON> and <PERSON> were Field Marshals during the Second World War--so the rank was held by most of the big figures. The reason it's descended into obscurity since then is that there hasn't been a large enough war since 1945. The Second World War involved armies and army groups--very few wars since have involved more than divisional-sized forces. There are still Field Marshals but they are either been Chiefs of the General Staff, who are customarily promoted to that rank, or honorary appointments, so we don't hear as much about them as we did about the men orchestrating the huge clashes of the World Wars. The full list of British Field Marshals can be found [here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_marshal_(United_Kingdom\)#List_of_Field_Marshals). |
In addition to all the other advice, I just wanted to say that you shouldn't worry about how you are going to afford University. Take care of the more important stuff first.
Once you are ready to come back to it, make an appointment with a financial aid adviser at your school. It is highly likely that you will be able to receive enough in grants and loans to continue your studies. You might also be eligible for scholarships.
Take care of yourself. Most schools have a free (or very inexpensive) counseling center. | This is pretty solid gender discrimination. They are just assuming that only boys would bring weapons to school.
Definitely talk to your principal about it. Remain calm, but firm. Show that you have done your research. If that fails, contact your local ACLU, because they often take up these issues on behalf of students. |
Well I'm sorry I disagree.
If entity X creates entity Y with the full knowledge of what Y will do in it's existence then entity X is just as responsible as Y for those behaviors.
The same would be true if we created AI. We would be responsible for it's existence and behavior. Now in that case, we as humans do not have perfect knowledge of past, present, and future so unintended consequences are a possibility. God however would not have that excuse. | I disagree. Though I believe in divine intervention, I believe that God has given all men and women free will to choose good or evil. If he put his ya d into all parts of our life then he would be essentially be taken away our agency to choose for ourselves. He loves us enough to give us the ability to choose and learn from those choices. |
Well you need to talk with your parents and just ask them if the cat would be allowed. Why would they invite you to come back and live with them knowing you have a cat? Do they even know you have a cat?
The "no pet policy" was instituted 9 years ago when everything was new, it's not now, is he really going to be that strict on it now? Has the cat showed signs of being malicious towards your furniture that would give him concern that the behavior would carry over to your parents place?
Lastly, if moving back with the P's can't work out, consider looking for a less expensive first home. Don't know where you live, but I'm a single guy and just bought my first home last year in the north burbs of Chicago, 3 bedroom, finished basement, detached garage, good size yard for 125K. Half the purchase price should translate to half the time spent saving. Start looking to see what places under 200K could get ya. | Since this is a common shared area and you knew about your dogs aggressive behavior, it's very unlikely the daughter is at fault.
Matter of fact it is negligent of you to leave your dog unsecured and unsupervised in a common area.
My opinion, I wouldn't seek reimbursement for the vet bills and you should try to smooth things over the best you can with your landlord because they have a better case for litigation than you do.
Nonetheless. You should talk to a lawyer right away because this could lead to you losing your dog and/or no longer having a place to live. |
> they could just terminate an account, and say 'you violated the TOU' without any grounds or evidence, and they don't have to justify it
Not to you personally, no. In court, sure, like any other contract, but not personally to you. Unless they specifically promised you they would. | > I think they're trying to look for flaws in my statement.
I can't imagine an insurance company paying a claim without first getting a statement from the claimant. If you refuse to talk to them, they will simply deny the claim and you'll have to sue them for the money. If you sue them, they'll certainly call you to testify and you can make the statement there. Even if you win, you'll have to pay your own costs, since their denial was perfectly reasonable. |
> its the wrong opinion
Well, it's an opinion. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean that others have to bend over to *your* opinion.
If you wanted to do an in depth morality assessment of this then as others have said before it's not black and white. Nothing is. Your argument here is that they have no other option besides to poach, why is that? Why are there no other options? | > Keep then shorter than hers.
That just seems kind of childish to me.
Talk like a normal person. If she responds then she responds. If she doesn't then she doesn't. The point is to get to know someone not to trick them into thinking you're too busy for her or something. |
> It is then strongly suggested that the man does it because he is speaking to a woman, however it is really outdated to think that women are less intelligent than men.
Who currently does that in western culture ?
Lots of people.
Look for examples in /r/talesfromtechsupport in which a male client refuses to accept assistance from a female support agent. | > It is claimed that one in four women are raped at college whether you agree with this or not it seems that something has to change. There are two statements that I feel support my idea.
It's simply not true.
> It has been claimed that 90% of rapes at American colleges involved both parties drinking alcohol.
Wouldn't surprise me.
> It has been claimed that women can't consent if they've been drinking.
Both parties must have similar levels of awareness, competence and understanding of what they're doing to consent. Alcohol is pretty much a non-factor.
> a) drinking dangerously alters students' sense of morality.
dafuq?
> b) In order for women to make an informed decision about sex they should be sober.
Sex is not something that men do to women. It's something that men do with women, women do with women, and men do with men. Both parties must consent to sex.
> The fairest way to reduce these issues would be to ban students from drinking whilst at college.
I think this would make it worse. Students are going to drink anyways, they may as well do it on campus where it's safe. It just means that they're going to hide it, and that's has all sorts of consequences. People not going to the hospital if they need to, not reporting violence to the police, etc. |
Sue you for what?
You can file a lawsuit for any reason, but if there's not a winnable case there no lawyer will touch it. If they bring a ridiculous suit anyways then the court can order them to pay your legal bills.
Don't worry about potential frivolous lawsuits. But, I do agree with some other commenters that having a therapist testify in support of your argument would strengthen the case considerably. Not only does it help you deal with what happened but it also will develop evidence that will help the police investigate properly. | Yea maybe I should've worded it a little more generally. There are plenty of cases where the least expensive option is Amazon or some other online outlet.
Still, if you're purchasing something worth more than a few hundred dollars it's worthwhile to at least talk to the sales staff. Especially near the end of the month. |
So, uncritically accept the claims of certain people and books (and only those people and books), or go traipsing through the tulips disregarding all forms of critical and moral thought?
Those are really the only two options you see? That's kind of sad...someone's worked your head over good. Google "false dilemma" someday.
It might be better for those of lower moral ability to blindly follow a finite set of written rules. And I suppose of you tell them the rules come from God they're less likely to grumble or question.
Doesn't matter, you still must make a choice to follow unquestioningly. It's still based on human knowledge. | I have had more time than 30 seconds to read it. It's not that long, doesn't contain that much information...certainly not more than we've already been exposed to.
<PERSON>'s theory is a nice philosophical argument. It gets people thinking and talking. But, it makes no demonstration of its claim. Any attributes being assigned to this "cause" is nothing more than man's desire to fill the gaps of knowledge, even if it's filled with garbage.
Whatever caused the universe to exist is not something we are currently able to know. We may never know, but to claim that we do...to force others to live their lives based on this assumption...is completely unacceptable. |
Decreased risk of endometrial cancer (less cell turnover), slightly increased risk of breast cancer, but not any more than from taking normal birth control.
The pill originally wasn’t even supposed to have a placebo week. It was formulated to prevent all periods. But the creator was Catholic, and thought that if it mimicked natural cycles, the Catholic Church would accept it. He was, of course, extremely wrong about that, but the placebo week stayed.
My gyno was the one who put me on the regimen, and she assured me that all the current research says it’s perfectly healthy to do, and can help prevent anemia. | If it’s curable, there’s nothing to support him through. Tell him to get medicine. Drive him to the doctor. It isn’t a big deal. And if he thinks it is, he’s being dramatic.
If it’s uncurable, most aren’t going to change his life much. HPV or herpes will just show up like annoying sores.
HIV he might feel understandably crappy about. Just be there for him. Don’t treat him differently and tell him that there’s meds that will help him live a normal life. Soon, taking his meds will be like brushing his teeth, just part of his every day routine. |
>I know that. I was offering a synonym for those who don't know what colorless means. If I didn't know any better, why would I have said colorless to begin with?
You'd have to be pretty silly not to understand what colourless means.
>Besides, colorless and clear are the same thing. Colorless is just the technical term while clear is the layperson term.
No. Colorless means colorless, clear means transparent.
>Sure, you could be pedantic and say that colorless means the absence of color while clear means see-through. If you want to go that route, fine. Both terms apply, and in everyday usage, people use clear to mean colorless.
Right, but they're not as precise, which is why I clarified. | >If you're charging a cop head on with a knife, theres probably a good chance you have a mental disability.
What does that have to do with how a police officer should respond?
>Reguardless, I think arrest is preferable to a dead person any day.
Of course. What's your effective response to that situation? I think it's been thoroughly explained how a taser and baton might not work. |
False. Fit is good, a lot of times skinny is malnourished. Even if people don't think/know that they are malnourished. You'd be surprised to know how many 'skinny' people find out from a thorough visit with a doctor that aren't much healthier than the overweight. While they may not be bordering on heart failure, there are organs that fail due to lack of sustenance.
Skinny is the sister shadow to obese. | The current post on GeoHot made me look at his wikipedia page and from that, I saw an immediate connection to something in my own past.
It stated that he was an alumnus of the John's Hopkins Center for Talented Youth. I, remember qualifying with a high enough SAT score to be admitted, but without parents that could afford it. [Public schools select 'gifted and talented youths' to take the SAT test at age 12-13 (8th grade). Passing scores qualify, very high ones can get scholarships. I was ~1280/1600. Probably could have done better if I actually studied, but I was a 12-year-old kid and didn't really get the gravity of it. *shrug* [If you aren't familiar basically the program is GED immediately (as a pre-teen) and get a Bachelor's as a Teenager; in a short list of core programs they organize specifically for teens (Mathematics, Biology; core STEM stuff).] In a small class size of just the teens kept away from the adult students most the time. [This is how you have (the real world equivalent of) <PERSON> and <PERSON> who have their doctorates at 21-22; get into that program, get bachelors at 16-17, etc.]
Wonder where I'd be now if I'd either worked enough then to get a scholarship or my parents could afford it. Hah. Probably would have met GeoHot, since we were born less than 2 years apart. You know I've been through crap and haven't really been up to my potential; but I didn't stop being a brilliant kid, just because I've had a bad hand since. I just need to find my way and know I'll get there; I think.
Sorry; this kinda is about my depression issues and regrets; but it's a lot more hopeful tone than the stories I usually tell from that perspective; so I think it fits here.
If you're wondering I got my bachelors in game development (high level programming and 3D art degree, primarily) at 22 and am unemployed at 24, currently. I think I now realize that a lot of why I haven't found anything in field (or at all) is...in High School I was an A student without trying. In college, I was a B student, while spending most my energy on... "extracurricular activities" at no point in that did I need the discipline to actual work at something to get what I wanted immediately. Also, for another realism point. I move back with my parents at 22...and never really sent out portfolios and resumes because (judging myself); what I had wasn't good enough for me and I therefore assumed no one else would like it either. Yet, I know people that weren't "as good as" me when we were in college are already Internship -> 60K+ annual permanent position by now. So it's stupid to think I can't at least do that.
Sometimes though; I still have that childlike "meant for greater" thought. Well, I'm getting it more and more now that I'm getting myself to work on better portfolio stuff. Finally fighting and winning against ~5 years of depression (yes some of those were in college; yes I kinda used "partying" as a way to hide my pain like f***ing <PERSON> at like 20...so what?)
Sorry. Feel free to answer the original question or respond to the story. |
Yeah, this is a rare occurrence on this sub, too. Normally it's a tenant trying to get back a deposit he has every right to get back.
In this case, I believe OP is right. He can keep the deposit. It's only $200. The tenant failed to give proper notice to vacate. | What County?
If the judge is also a lawyer (many are not) you can file a complaint with the attorney grievance commitee for that County (actually Appellate Division).
Whether he is a lawyer or not, you should also file a complaint with the NYS Committee on Judicial Conduct. They will investigate.
If the judge's decision was wrong, appeal it. I'm curious, though... What damages were awarded? It sounds like he didn't have any. |
It really was. Great people as well (other than the actors).
But it was also very very boring at times. When something went wrong all hell broke lose and you were stressed as fuck but when it was going well, you sometimes stood around, waiting and doing nothing for hours. No talking (since it's on set) and no sitting down. | To be honest, that's kinda what I'd do also. I might write a letter to them first, but after that, it's up to them. Cover your bases so in case they DO decide to sue or even call the police, you are covered.
Of course I'd also put away the payment every month for when they come after it. Because, at some point, you'll need to pay for it (or return the car). |
I guess I look at it a little differently. The reason that salaries are so low in the US (and probably other developed nations) is that corporations are allowed to manufacture products in countries with less labor and environmental standards. If we made it less than profitable for corporations to exploit the people of these countries, I think we would get a lot closer to reasonable salaries. | I think this is a good answer consistent with libertarianism. Any organization or institution that receives a significant amount of funding through tax dollars means the government gets to dictate standards that qualify that institution for tax funding. "Private" schools being funded with tax dollars means that the government will have even more control over private schools. This seems like it could become an example of "crony capitalism," which libertarians usually claim to be staunchly opposed to. |
There is also a moral and legal distinction between allowing a death to occur through inaction and actively killing another person.
The only curcumstances where a person is legally allowed to actively kill another person are the conduct of war, self defense or defense of others, and death penalty for heinous crimes for which one is duely convicted.
Even the current case law around abortion denies that the unborn is a person with rights. | I know that our justice system knows and is aware that it is possible to convict innocent men. I know that this is why we have a certain burden of proof for a conviction of a crime.
I cannot think of any way to increase the conviction rate of a certain type of criminal beyond what science, evidence, and the law allows, unless we lower how much is needed to convict someone, just because it's a particularly grievous offense.
If you can think of a way to increase convictions for rapes or sexual assaults that doesn't involve moving the amount of proof required to a level lower than every other crime, I'm all ears. |
I'm not a gnostic atheist, but it depends on what you mean by "knowledge."
If you mean "knowledge" in the ordinary sense--like the type of knowledge sufficient to where you'd be confident in wagering money on your atheism (i.e. you'd be willing to take the bet where if God exists you win $100, if God doesn't exist you lose $100)--then it makes sense for most atheists to call themselves gnostic.
If you're talking about some other type of "knowledge," like indisputable knowledge, that's a bit of an unusual conception of knowledge. We don't normally demand that sort of knowledge to describe ourselves as knowing something doesn't exist, even something vague. Why would the question of theism be different? | If the <PERSON> and <PERSON> story is a symbolic depiction of the human condition, then it's still a depiction of the human condition--just not a literal one.
If I say, "I'm drowning in debt," and you recognize that as a metaphor, you don't conclude that I don't actually have debt. You conclude that "drowning" is a metaphorical description of my relation to my debt.
Likewise, if we have a symbolic depiction of humanity's captivity to sin, we don't assume that the symbolism means there's no sin. The story of the fall might be a metaphor, but it's a metaphor *for* something, and that something would be our fallenness and captivity to sin. |
> Is it wrong to judge people of the past by modern standards?
I wouldn't say Yes, but at the same time I wouldn't say No. It's a bit of grey area. In particular, you need to truly understand the cultural context of the time and place before casting judgement of an entire group of people. Your view of the world and its history is exceptionally black and white though. | > Why does it not matter? At what point is the belief disproportional among the culture?
In order to be disproportional you need to have a point of reference and compare it to something. Black single family home rates are disproportional to other demographics in America. This is just splitting hairs and you're getting down to the nitty gritty semantics of things. If you want to get technical, we'll say a 15-20% discrepancy is disproportional. |
I have mentioned elsewhere that I'm simply playing devil's advocate to entertain myself here (I feel that most things should be legal but restricted, in this case you would need to have background checks, psych evals, training, etc to be licensed for different classes of gun ownership up to military grade weapons). Most spree killers are not experienced with weapons and as such it takes them some time to reload, and anytime between bursts of fire is good (<PERSON> was disarmed while reloading). Lower magazine capacity also helps after the fact, it allows courts to determine the state the shooter was in (assuming it is not a spree killing) by simply checking how many times the shooter reloaded. Of course that comes more into effect in judging law enforcement officers after a shooting. | In the past I would have agreed with you, and if we had full access to the mentality of the offender I would agree with you now. In a purely theoretical argument, where the intentions and thought processes are fully known and debatable your argument works.
The problem with attempting to deal with intentions and thought process in the real world shows up quickly in practice. For one thing, this system heavily punishes honest people that share their intentions while not punishing sociopath tendencies enough.
The biggest problem is that the exact same permanent action of murder/homicide/manslaughter (for example) is dealt with so variably. If someone isn't paying attention and runs over a kid they are unpunished even though their actions caused the death of another. An angry person who fires "into a building" commits attempted murder even if he purposefully avoided shooting people - and may be punished very harshly.
To the victim (whom society is acting to protect by law) the intention is meaningless.
Take car accidents for instance. The VAST majority of these are fully avoidable. But by viewing these through the eyes of "intention" we have this as a leading cause of death by injury. There must be consequence to shape peoples behavior. Killing someone with a vehicle should result in punishment even if it was accidental.
For the most part, our laws reflect these principles. You take the action (theft, murder, rape) as the starting point of classification. Then these classifications are broken down into degrees (felony degree, misdemeanor degree, petty offense) based on circumstances. Motivating factors and intentions can cause enhancements or constitute other crimes.
If intending fully to kill someone is the same crime as actually causing a death there are moral problems with that as well (until such time as we can truly see the mentality such as in minority report). Unfortunately we as a society are sliding towards this for some things, choosing to arrest and prosecute people who "are planning" some sort of mass shooting. A stupid twitter comment and the system comes down on them. Then when we have clear as day guilty people such as <PERSON> we deal with a farce of a trial procedure in order to determine his "mindset" and "intentions."
|
That's a horrible idea; not what you're wanting to do but asking a stranger to photoshop personal documents for you.
Just learn it yourself. Photoshop is pretty simple, and you can get unlimited free trials from adobe themselves. It'll maybe take a week-two tops if you are a slow learner.
As far as fraud goes, I don't know how seriously a gym would take this if they found out. | You must be a hypochondriac or just making icky jokes; either way it's dumb. It's the public, you won't die. Harden up.
Edit: I'm not saying obesity is normal or healthy, I'm saying you guys have an irrational fear of even putting a hand on their shoulder. Downvote all you want, but there are many nasty things in life, in public; you don't need to immediately go running with your contaminated hand held far away from your body to go wash off the fat germs. |
Because you should not make a claim you cannot support. Instead, you should report your subjective belief. "I *believe* there is no deity" is a statement which needs no defense because it applies only to you. On the other hand, "There is no deity" makes an objective claim which, if true, impacts your audience. You should not throw out such a claim if you cannot support it.
Then there are these authorities cited by blackstar9000 in another comment:
>From Principles of Logic:
>>usually one who makes an assertion must assume the responsibility of defending it. If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed.
>From [Philosophical Writing: an introduction](:
>>Roughly, the person who asserts or otherwise relies upon the truth of a proposition for the cogency of his position bears the burden [of proof].
>From Logic, Theoretical and Practical:
>>Much has been said about the burden of proof resting on one side or another. And it is often stated as an axiom that the burden of proof rests with "the affirmative" side of a question. But, in fact and in theory this is nothing. Anyone who undertakes to prove what is not assented to, assumes the burden of proof or the duty and necessity of proving whatever he undertakes to assert.
If you want to persuade others that your position is correct, then you should be prepared to support it with reason and/or evidence. If you do not intend to support it, then you should not assert it as an objective claim.
| >Nor can you make god exist, simply by willing it.
? Sure. God was not willed into existence by any creature.
>Untrue, completely untrue.
No, it is true. The Church derives any spiritual power from God. Those in power within the Church receive their power only from God, but they don't "decide" truth either. They cannot magically will error or heresy into being the truth. This is why those in Church will freely point out when the Church lacks the authority to change one dogma or another. Plain and simple. I think you are just unfamiliar with Christianity in general.
At any rate, "will" and truth are two different things altogether.
>I understand very little that is within the Christian context.
I can tell. You can look up Christianity on wikipedia if you want for a start. Personally I think most people, when they say "So-and-so did such of his own free will" they don't mean magically bending the rules of the universe. If that is a part of you understanding of "free will" then so be it. But what I see all too often (very often) is atheists who twist the definition of "free will" and then try to re-jam it into a Christian context in lieu of an argument.
>Do we? Do we really? If that is the case why is religion so regionally based? If you are christian, in all likelihood you were born in a christian family in a christian community. Likewise with muslims, buddhist, hindus, et al.
"Free will" doesn't exclude being introduced into some decision by a family member, a friend, a neighbor, a missionary, etc. External situations can make conversion to Christianity (or deversion to atheism) easier or more difficult. This is a non-argument, and a desperate one. I am freely typiing this post to you, even though I was born in a computer-owning family/
That being said, I know that in the US for example, half of all people are a different religion than their parents. Even if you claim Christianity, its not true that you assent to the entire faith. |
i just have my belief that all life is very valuable, even in the womb. like i said i would be happy if it was only done in extreme circumstance such as the mothers health. hypothetically speaking, if it was illegal i guess the punishment would be a misdemeanor, community service or something minor, i think it would be better to go after the clinics or the doctors performing them. if a doctor was found performing an illegal surgery such as killing a fetus purposefully, he would have to go to a board and possibly have his license revoked and the clinic could lose their accreditation. | It would still be a bad idea because it would be breaking up metro areas and even counties into multiple states. California has ~38 million people, so each state would have roughly 6.3 million people. LA county alone has around 10 million. This would have a negative effect on businesses and people in this area. |
... are you kidding me?
So for every guy that she isn't interested in she should work up a facade to make herself less attractive them them so that *they* reject *her*?
Actually you could be on to something.. I've got it! She can ignore them! It's perfect.. guys hate that, it'll make her seem unattractive and they'll move on.
Good talk buddy. | Sorry I'm confused.. Technically putting your dick in her is taking both your virginities. I'm not sure how you know you didn't "pop her cherry". If you think this because she didn't bleed or it wasn't painful then you're wrong. A girls hymen can be broken *while* she's a virgin through a number of different ways, most including physical activity. If she uses tampons for her period this very much could've broken her hymen before you came along.
The *real* questions people should be asking here are, 1) did you use protection 2) is she on the pill 3) did you ejaculate inside her.
If you used protection correctly or she's on the pill you should be fine. If you came inside her and you didn't use any form of contraception there's a much bigger chance she's pregnant. If you didn't ejaculate inside her but you still didn't use protection she could become pregnant from pre-cum.
Since she's been stressing out about having sex and that she could be pregnant she may have just missed her period because of stress. Either way, I would have her go to her local drug store and take a pregnancy test just to be safe.
What you want to do at this point is urge her to take a pregnancy test right away because the longer you wait the less options you'll have. Once you find out if she is in fact pregnant you need to tell her you'll support whatever decision she makes, then ask what she thinks is best. If you're early enough you could still be able to terminate the pregnancy. If she wants to keep the baby you'll need to prepare for that, I would also bring up the option of adoption. See what she says about all this and go from there.
Best of luck to you, my boyfriends best friend just got his girlfriend pregnant and they're in a very similar situation. PM me if you have any more questions or just need to talk about it. I'm 23 and from the U.S. so it's a little different but I'm here if you need help. |
Any black and white statement will be wrong. Some are doing that and some aren't.
If you get a low skill/low pay job to have your cancer treated then you are moving to milk the benefits. Not that I would ever blame somebody for trying to survive as best they can. I wish my country were more supportive of migrants in general. The narrative that we can't afford to help each other is usually false and can be reworded to indicate that we are unwilling to part with luxury in order to help each other. | You could use this argument with respect to any minority and it would always be wrong. If you bring visibility to a label in order to belittle the position of someone then you are doing it to make them feel bad. When would you call someone retarded to their face without the aim of belittling them? |
"since in humor you can find and express truth that you sometimes cannot express in any other way" If I were a troll, I'd ask for sources. however, I'm not. That's an excellent reason to justify mockery/ridicule, or laughter as you call it. Yes, sometimes it brings levity to the situation. No, I'm not opposed to laughter. Again, please don't assume you know me through the internet. You have no idea how much I laugh and make others laugh. Often times at myself.
We both know the kind of laughter you're referring to is much different than the mockery/ridicule that I'm referring to. We in fact do not hold different opinions on laughter as I agree with much of what you have written. You confuse my definition of laughter with mockery/ridicule which is meant to be hurtful, cruel, and does nothing toward changing a person's mind. It's bullying with words rather than with fists or weapons. Is it sometimes necessary? Perhaps it is. My point was being hurtful with words leads to being hurtful through your actions. You won't prevent anyone from hurting me if they chose to go further than mockery/ridicule. Thanks for your honesty. Then you say you would remedy that by allowing more free speech. What?
| I've had quite a life, so I can often guess how people are feeling/what they are thinking. Try to watch some movies or TV shows where people say no when it's right.
Think of it this way. You can't help them. You are doing them a kindness by not leading them on. Someday, when you have means and security, you can reach out. Also, those people will find others after you've said no. They won't lose as much sleep over it as you're probably imagining. Most of all, by not leading them on, you're being a good, kind person.
Don't have to shoulder off. Just say "Sorry. I can't help you, right now." or "Sorry. I'm a little busy."
|
I use singular "they" and "them" to refer to a person who prefers those pronouns, just to respect their wishes, but I just can't get over how awkward it sounds. It also doesn't help that as a child, my teachers always corrected me when using singular "they" in an essay or report, and told me to replace it with "he or she." It was so heavily ingrained that using "they" as a singular pronoun was wrong, it's uncomfortable for me to purposely speak that way, even though I know times have changed.
I wish it was socially acceptable to use "it" to refer to people, because it has always been a singular gender neutral pronoun. But we can't, because people have collectively decided that it's dehumanizing. | My cousin recently started getting serious with a girl, his first "serious" girlfriend. He blatantly said that he really didn't need to worry if he didn't wear a condom, because the chances of getting pregnant were 1 in a million. He explained that because there were a million sperm, and only 1 needed to get through, the odds were 1 in a million.
His father is trying to get in contact with the school's sex ed teachers. |
What you are doing is called "moving the goalposts."
The comments were that welfare was being abused. <PERSON>'s post clearly refuted that, so now you're saying "OK, maybe it's not, but *this other thing* is!" - as if there were some connection between the two.
You might have a valid point. Maybe we should impose stricter requirements for disability (although since a medical diagnosis is already required, I'm not sure what you'd suggest) but that has nothing to do with the topic at hand. | Concerning ad hoc arguments, I heartily agree that they should be avoided by Christian and non-Christian alike.
But I don't see how the authors of the article commit that fallacy (i.e. by arbitrarily postulating "super-redemption"), as you accuse them. You refer to <PERSON> being crucified before you were born. How, specifically, does this remove your moral accountability? |
As I've posted to someone else's comment, [definition of Lady.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady) I believe that if a man said he would like to be treated as a gentleman, that he is not implying that he would like to be treated a certain way *because* he is male, but because he would like that respect.
> So there is no room for sarcasm, farce, or satire? Got it.
As yes, you're sarcasm is taken loud and clear. Perhaps I wrote without thinking. I meant to say that any work that has the intention seriously by others that is sexist makes it's creator sexist. For example, <PERSON> is not really a cannibal because he is obviously using satire. However MTV's Super Sweet Sixteen showing bratty girls and having us laugh at them is anti-feminist, thereby making it's creator anti-feminist. | I think your language could be more precise. Also, I will not be arguing that addiction *is* a disease - not conclusively, anyhow. Apologies for possibly seeming like an absolutist; friend of mine pointed it out for me, thankfully.
**What do you really want, anyway? To get other people out of drug addiction?**
> An addict choses many things to create an addiction. They 1st chose to use drugs and they chose a drug that is known for addiction.
I assume we're simply using the everyday meaning, that they just won't stop because of the pleasures and some sort of longing.
>They choose to continue to use even after the pleas from family and friends. They chose to refuse help, or they chose to relapse after seeking help.
Assuming you know people who don't "*seek help*": how can you help those who think they are perfectly fine? They cannot see what is wrong. You must first somehow convince them that there is something wrong with them - a rational argument would swiftly lead to a discussion regarding their (presently bleak) future. An emotional one would be to show them their families being devastated.
The most powerful method of getting someone off the track, that I can think of, is to make them believe *on their own* that the addiction *is* a disease. But if addiction is not a disease, then it is a choice. If addiction happens only without their consent, then the decision to maintain drug consumption is clearly a choice, and never was an addiction to begin with.
>[...] they **chose** a drug that is known for addiction. They **choose to continue to use** [...]
Of course, it is hard to tell when this choice is actually influenced by the drug.
My parents thought I had some sort of addiction. Personally, I've found it to be a symptom instead. I've had some long-lasting problems during my childhood, and my escape from the bitterness was to enter a world entirely different from our own. I saw things I would never have previously imagined. I thought things I could not possibly have come up with on my own - imagine a new color. That's difficult, right? And I did this for many years, never stopping. I spent much of my life escaping the bitterness that could otherwise have made me a terrible human. I escaped into worlds where I was inspired to take the decision to become a better human.
My drug was just video-games, but it could have been books instead. Or painting. Or watching movies, cartoons.
Drug "addiction" can be many things. An temporary escape from the bitter reality of your life, a fleeting pleasure passing by. But addiction that is fully independent of a person's conscious thoughts and desires, will seem like a disease - even by your measures. |
Must accept the major theological points (The divine did not intentionally create the world, but humanity has a link to the divine despite this). Must have an interest in pursuing Gnosis.
One more: do people who say they adhere, but don't devalue your beliefs?
No, but its highly annoying because it makes it difficult to explain my religion, calling myself 'Gnostic' brings up different ideas to different people.
Edit: On the discordian half, you're a Pope if you want to be or not, suck it up. | Correct, but in my opinion, a discussion on such a level is useless. Once you agree that a change of definition is possible, you strip the term 'God' of any meaning. This is like searching for something in your room without knowing what that something is. You could picj up any object and claim to have found what you were looking for.
Additionally, these weak definitions lack important, although subjective, properties most people associate with a proper god: It should be worthy of worship, it should answer prayers, and it should provide reasons to hope for something (justice, eternal life, etc.).
Such weak definitions provide nothing of that sort, and therefore, shouldn't be called God. |
Suppose you had a choice between drinking coffee and tea. Further suppose that you hate tea. Given the choice, you'd pick coffee, right? That's what you'd do if you're free to choose. This is admittedly just a semantics issue, but wouldn't it make sense that if you had free will, you'd pick coffee? Maybe if you had some particular reason to choose tea, like that you want to prove free will exists and you're just being argumentative, but all else being equal you'd use your freedom to pick coffee. And yet, it's a completely deterministic decision. Not just in the sense that you're made of atoms which obey the laws of physics, but in the sense that it's a really simple decision and it's obvious that that's what you'd pick. | If you're asking why I value happiness or health as good, that's a fair question. However, I think we will come down to axioms like life is generally preferable to death. Health and happiness are generally preferable to sickness and suffering. Thus they are valued. They are also measurable. Or at least theoretically measurable. Thus giving us a method of actually weighing actions as better or worse than each other. I'm not sure your definition affords any such things. My point is that grounding the definition in objectively measurable terms does give us a real point of reference when we make statements about actors and actions.
If I define health and happiness promotors as good then I can look at an action and actually assess its goodness. I can also look at an actor and do the same. If you say God is good based on my definition then that means God promotes health and happiness. I'm not using the term good to define health and happiness as good. I'm starting from a place of comparison. That way I can avoid the tautologies you point out. |
DotA2 is hard :)
I think a lot of people play in around the 2k-3k range, maybe a little bit more. I don't think there's anything wrong with that, but finding improvement is always satisfying regardless of what you are doing anyway.
Any memorable games lately? My friend paid MotPax to cast a 2-hour Techies game that we were in xD | I'm starting to think that committing to reply to every person here was a bad idea, this is getting overwhelming and there are only like 10 replies here xD is replying to everyone something that Redditors do?
While sure, I may be a mild case in terms of disability, I don't think "not able to live independently" would necessarily mean "don't want to live". I know many people with far more severe Autism than I, people who need constant support, but those people are just as proud of who they are as I am. I doubt they would want to be aborted given the choice either.
Lets be honest here, who is ever ready to raise a child, normal or not? Like you say, there would be many challenges in raising a disabled child and possibly many rewards too, but that is the same for a normal child as well; I think if a mother feels ready to raise a normal child, they would be capable of raising a disabled child as well, though they may need support. (also, lack of access to such necessary support would I think be a legitimate reason to abort; it should be emphasised the reasons I'm talking about where an abortion shouldn't be allowed really are in the minority here)
The problem I have is, ultimately, a lot of mothers may want to have a child, right up until they find out the child may be different from what they expect. Thats less of aborting an unwanted child, and more a mother deciding what their child should be. I don't think a mother has a right to decide what their child is; its similar to cases where mothers have an abortion because they find out its a girl and not a boy. |
Or, you could stop being a shitty parent and instill them with a good work ethic, like a good parent should be doing, instead of just writing them off as 'lazy' and thinking of pulling stunts like leaving 'pamphlets' around that will only piss them off at your arrogance. A good work ethic is one of the best things you can instill in your children, and if they don't have one it's mostly the failing of the parents. | Don't forget about how wanting a family means you're going to be out for weeks at a time giving birth and so the company will probably pass you over for promotions because it's cheaper for them to hire someone else than to find a replacement for you a few times a year, and like 8 times a month when one of your spawn is sick. |
No one has ever implemented a quantum calculator that outperforms regular computers. And the things that D-Wave sell as "quantum computers" are not what physicists talk about when they talk about quantum computing.
The theory is probably solid, but as an engineer, I don't trust a theory without an implementation. I am on the fence, so I want to believe, but a part of my brain refuses to think that the universe would be so generous to make a few atoms able to outperform huge supercomputers.
I am also suspicious that if such a thing was possible, we should be observing some quantum computations in nature.
So, you know, wait and see. I also have worked with people involved in quantum computing, on the theoretical side, and they do say that the implementation of their theories will really be non trivial and may have some show-stoppers. | Nobody is "tossing" education at people. It is an option. Even if it were made free, it will still require a great deal of merit and aptitude and qualifications to get into a good higher education program.
There is this pervasive notion that education is like candy being sold - and the only reason people are not buying candy is because it is expensive candy - and that if it was made cheaper, people would be "hoarding" or freeloading on candy.
That is an utterly bizarre way to look at something fundamental like education. The purpose of education is to help you maximize your potential and interests and pursuits. It is to equip you with the tools and grounding and platform to help you succeed in your life pursuit.
Why would we not want that as a society?? Let's take another analogy. Say there are infants who are suffering from chronic malnutrition. Why would we not want them to be healthy so they can grow up with a fighting chance to become productive or even transformative members of society? I'm not even saying this from an emotional POV - just saying it from a practical standpoint. |
When we hear about someone "giving up his rights," it often comes up out of a mistaken belief that a parent can avoid owing child support.
That isn't the way things work, generally. He's the father and he pays like a father. You might agree now to let him off the hook, but if you were to change your mind later, that agreement would be meaningless. Moreover, if you were ever to receive state or federal aid, the gov't will go after him anyway.
That can change, if another person/future spouse chooses to adopt the child in his stead.
If he wants to give up parenting duties, like taking custody in the event you are unable to care for the child, he already can do that by just refusing and letting the child go into foster care. You can be damned sure he'll pay for *that*.
My point is that it sounds like you don't think you can rely on him to be a parent or to behave like a responsible adult. There are a lot of ways that men can justify in their minds the idea of escaping the responsibilities of being a biological parents: It's unfair to men, the mother trapped me, I'm not going to be on the hook for life over a short-term fling, it's the woman's job to take care of birth control, you caused this by not getting an abortion.
Some women go along with that nonsense. The law does not. We occasionally get men posting here with some theory of how they can avoid this by signing a contract where the woman promises to let them off the hook. But the legal system places the needs of the child ahead of all those considerations.
Sorry if this comes off as ranty. None of this is in reproach of you or your situation.
Fair or not, having a child changes both parents' lives. If you believe this guy can't or won't step up and be a grown-up, him "giving up his rights" doesn't change anything. | I don't see *<PERSON>* as particularly persuasive.
First, it is well established, and was at the time of *<PERSON>,* that driving drunk and causing someone to die = manslaughter. Plus, drunk driving is its own crime, as well as opening up a potential reckless endangerment charge.
Not vaccinating your kids on the other hand has not been established as a criminal act in any way. I don't know of any successful negligence or child abuse charges brought under that thesis, for instance. If you can point me to such caselaw, that might get you a delta.
As to the doctor telling the patient they should do something, the reality of the situation differs from a court. The orders of a court have authority that doctors do not. A court's order is binding; a doctor's order is merely persuasive.
*<PERSON>* also brought murder charges under the "depraved heart" theory, which is a fairly well established mechanism by which an extremely egregious reckless act (one showing a depraved indifference towards human life) can be punished as a murder. No such pre-exisiting legal theory exists here, unless you want to point one out.
Moreover, manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide are *very* well defined laws. If you want to change their meaning to encompass this behavior, you've just made a lot more things criminal. And OP specified at the end that they didn't want to do a straight-up vaccine mandate. So I understood OP to mean that deaths like this could be charged under existing manslaughter / criminally negligent homicide laws, without adding a special new law. And I don't think that's true. |
If you look at the work of <PERSON>, he was largely a sociologist who was commenting on how he thought the political systems of the world would eventually shift. He believed that we would progress from a feudalist, to a capitalist, to a socialist, to a communist state. He acknowledged that no system could produce technological advances like that of capitalism (barring a slave state) and viewed capitalism as a necessary step in eventual socialism. In tandem with the tyrannical forces at play, it becomes obvious to see why war torn states with little infrastructure like the USSR and Maoist-China were never going to be able to successfully follow this evolution.
If you look at the way that modern society is headed in relation to robotics, machine learning, AI, and automation, it seems inevitable that this evolution into socialism then communism will occur. That all of these massive changes in a technological revolution will completely change the landscape so that a large majority of the work sector isn't done by humans. I believe that once this happens, the idea of class will slowly cease to be and we will become a communist state largely maintained by self-sustaining machinery.
_____
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!* | Setting aside some of the more novel theories of physics that allow for an infinite singular universe, I think the bigger issue that some people have with the KCA (especially with the way that <PERSON> and others utilize the argument) is the assertion that, if the argument is accepted (I personally don't, but that's irrelevant), it requires a timeless mind which is usually claimed as a theistic God. Given that the best current understanding of what minds are is entirely dependent on physical processes within living temporal beings, the idea that there must be a mind which is entirely unrelated to any physical temporal process is an unjustified assertion.
The only actual conclusion of the KCA, if it is true, is that something didn't begin to exist. The idea that the something implied by the argument is a mind unbound to the physical processes by which we understand that minds exist is a leap that is usually only post hoc justified by the personal beliefs of the person making the claim. |
I don't personally see a reason to disbelieve it. No one would care if he drank, and his brother did have a problem from my understanding so the facts all fit. I don't think anyone credible has said they've seen him drink. So he'd have to be pounding vodka in private or something, and usually people who do that have public problems with it. | I'm sure being more responsible and careful could significantly reduce the frequency of gun accidents. What I'm less sure of if it's anything you can legislate. You can make a law that you have to keep your gun locked up, and lots of people who wouldn't have otherwise would follow it. But if you make a law to always keep your gun pointed in a safe direction, it's not going to matter because people do that because they're not thinking. |
>Unemployment at lowest levels in recorded history, Stock market highest jump in a single year ever, tax cuts implemented
>
>More business-savvy leaders would be just fine imo. Not long ago reddit would have agreed that the more political experience someone has the worse they are. It's weird how well it's going but reddit still did a 180 on it
Glad I'm not the only one who noticed | First
>My opinion on this is based more on the consumer side of things
>If there are no low waged individuals, who is going to buy the goods or services?
is a great critique as it forces us to consider that our current economic model will need reworked. Things like negative income tax, basic income, or a citizens dividend have been proposed and are currently gaining popularity as possible solutions.
But altogether I think the most important question to ask to decide whether we think automation will be comprehensive in taking over jobs of various industries is basically "Which method of decision making uses the least amount of resources, human executive function, or machine learning?"
I think computers will ultimately be more efficient at making decisions which is why I'd personally expect nearly all work to be automated at some point or another. |
How much do you hate yourself for not getting on the gravy train when you could have? Life is a series of regrets and sometimes you don't even have to experience them for them to be seriously heartbreaking, that's how this one is for me. Sounds to me like there is still a chance, buddy. Get after her now! | You are in for a longer fall than you think if you ever lose the support system you're taking for granted right now. Struggling to stay alive and struggling to attain a luxury are not the same thing at all. I'll bet all that "extra" money would have been gone pretty quick if nobody was there to feed you. Good luck being spoiled, you have achieved nothing on your own. |
I'm sorry, I don't know. It's correct that your name is on the eviction notice because otherwise the sheriff wouldn't be able to remove you. I presume that is the information that goes into databases, so maybe you do need to contest it once you're settled again somewhere else. Good luck. | You should just be aware that it's not creating the safety net you think. You could be fired because you aren't a vegetarian or because they decide you're unreliable or because they don't think the two of you can get along and choose her over you. This could help you collect unemployment, but legally it is very unlikely to save your job. |
In response to your debate feedback request, here are my thoughts:
> We are going toward living in a "police state" where the government has complete surveillance on us.
A causal connection must be established between the collection of phone records and the government having "complete surveillance" on us; otherwise, this would be a slippery slope fallacy. How exactly is it going to *cause* the government to have complete surveillance on us?
> They can turn on anyone of the cameras on your computer, phone, TV, or even your new XBOX and look in on you.
A source would strengthen this argument. Also, what would they have to do to be able to do this? Do they need a warrant? What are the requirements to obtain this warrant?
If it comes down to needing to cross many barriers to obtain a warrant, this would discredit the "complete surveillance" argument because we could similarly argue that we are going toward living in a state where the government executes us all (because it does execute a relative few).
| Okay, let me try this again:
-The OP's view is not "lifting the embargo will be easy."
-The OP's view is not "lifting the embargo will be profitable for America."
-The OP's view *IS* "the embargo should be lifted."
In my mind, that statement is true. It *should* be done, in the same way that poverty *should* be eradicated; whether or not its politically and economically *easy* is a different matter. |
> My mother could never count on anyone in her family to babysit or whatever.
I get that. My son had a babysitter exactly once in his life. I got sent out of the country on business and his grandma stepped up. But otherwise, he had his driver's license before he'd ever spent a night away from his parents.
> But I would be so pissed if my sis took away my nephew's phone and left me the inconvenience of dealing with delays and emergencies.
Sure. And sis should be handling her own kids and not expecting you to do it.
| > How can they cut this woman out of their life and not have the fear that she will intervene anymore?
They stop talking to her or communicating with her. They stop taking her money. They tell her to leave them alone. If she doesn't, they call the police. |
I think I agree that she was unfairly critical of him, but I don't think it is unfair to leave him. If some major aspect of a relationship doesn't appeal to you, you have every right to leave. He did not find her body attractive, and suggested some things that might improve the situation. He's not wrong for being honest about it and suggesting those things, but she's not wrong if she decides that's not for her and ends the relationship amicably. | I think you're conflating this with toxic relationships. You've given examples of a toxic relationship with an ex as well as a bad relationship with parents. Nothing about OP's post necessarily means that the relationship was toxic. It's possible to feel the way he does after a relationship that he thought was going well.
Everyone asks the question of what motivates them and why, and everyone answers it differently. On the surface, perhaps his reasons seem to be just about that ex, but if you think about it a step further, making her feel dumb would make himself feel proud. |
What's the "correct" ratio of civilian to military in the DOD workforce? There's an argument to made that we spend too much having military doing jobs that are better suited to civilians, who cost less and can provide stability and continuity that could actually reduce wasteful spending. The amount of times that programs are started and then abandoned when command changes hands 2-3 yrs is astounding. | So many churches make the primary focus converting people, so without a reason/need to convert people there's no reason for church. I disagree with that approach to religion. I think churches/religious institutions should be at the forefront of loving others and making their communities and the world a better place to live, not teaching people how to hand out Bible tracts. |
I don't see why, nor do I imagine them even caring if you did call to do that. Legally obtained marijuana is legal in Washington. It's illegally federally, but I doubt even more that the DEA would care about residual marijuana smell from a single apartment during a landlord post-move out inspection.
Are you looking for ways to get this person into trouble? | You should look at drug stops. People of color are significantly more likely to be stopped and searched than white people, and are less likely to be found with drugs. Those that do have drugs are more likely to go to trial, more likely to be found guilty, and more likely to receive jail time.
I'm shifting the goalposts here away from slaying by cops, but I think it's pretty obvious and evident that minorities are not treated by police the same as white people. |
Never had a girl message you after playing some good coop? Maybe my avatar is just sexy as fuck... But somehow we started flirting and next thing you know she's sending messages of her moaning and playing asking me to comply. That was the first and probably the last. Went on for a few days until I could no longer feed the beast. I was losing sleep over it and my xtime was being taken over.
Edit: yea I'll keep it to myself next time so u guys don't get jealous and start hatin. | Had conversation with my SO about t about a month in. Said I didn't want to be a father yet, she said she would carry to term. I stuck around and was extra extra careful... condom plus pull out. If that didn't work than oh well. But it did and 9 years later still no kid.
We did eventually try for kids but it hasn't worked, funny enough. Neither of us has gone to a doctor about it but it would be a little ironic if we can't make a baby together. So many years and money wasted on condoms... |
Subsets and Splits