You want to remove racism from criminal justice decisions? Then stop telling AI the criminal is white or black.
You want to remove gender bias from hiring decisions? Then stop telling AI the candidate is male or female.
This doesn't really seem like a hard problem to solve if the entity making a decision does not have factors programmed in that create influence and define discrimination. Common Sense.
For me, what I find most interesting is the amount of attention at least two of those entities have paid to trying to convince people that they're not for gutting the rules, yet are waging huge campaigns with their own money to do exactly that.
There's nothing interesting with organizations demonstrating just how fucking stupid and ignorant the average consumer really is.
Yes. The human presence has been destructive... like a virus...
Now note that viruses (virii?) adapt. A big problem in the medical field.
And people adapt. You may have heard that we are becoming aware of our environmental impact. You may have heard that it is a matter of great concern in some circles. You may know that many people in many diverse fields of science and government and the private sector are taking vigorous action to correct our ignorant mistakes of the past.
Knowing about something, and fucking doing something about it, are worlds apart. Greed doesn't give a fuck about anything but Greed. Those "circles" will not be heard no matter what. The continued poisoning of our planet, and governments who would rather support Greed above everything else, prove this.
The human species will ultimately learn. Unfortunately, it will be the hard way.
Since this is all about habitat loss, which is mainly caused by people clearing land to make way for farmland, we already have a well known proven effective solution to minimize the need for all of that: GMO.
There's another solution: Population control.
That solution is already in place and is being improved on every single day. One only has to look at our exiting laws to blatantly see that.
Think governments care about preventing death? Fuck no. The legal status of a product like tobacco that kills over 400,000 Americans every year, ten times more than all other illegal products, paints a clear fucking picture as to its role in population control. Same goes for alcohol.
Think we're really doing something about the obesity epidemic? Fuck no. We're merely treating it with perpetual revenue streams that won't actually cure obesity or prevent death. Yet another form of population control.
Think governments won't legalize marijuana because it's dangerous and deadly? Fuck no. They won't legalize it because it's not deadly enough, and would compete against products that are actually deadly. Sorry, but weed doesn't support the agenda of population control.
We ensure the largest killers in society remain legal. We don't cure anything deadly anymore. We create perpetual revenue streams from pointless treatments designed to keep you alive long enough to ensure every penny is medically extracted from your ass. Then you simply die, which is population control.
Ultimately, it's about resource control. We've carved this planet up into countries, which governments have to manage a finite amount of resources within the lines drawn. Population control is merely a component of that responsibility. No one wants to acknowledge that death is ultimately being manufactured, but our laws make it very clear. And it's being improved on all the time.
Earth will survive. If we are dumb enough to destroy everything, then maybe a more intelligent lifeform will thrive. Or if we do not get entirely extinct, Darwinism will be the rule once again. Only the best will survive. Only those who can adapt.
If mankind is stupid enough to incite World War III, we may remove the planets ability to heal itself for a long damn time.
Only in science fiction movies do we find a post-nuclear holocaust that includes life beyond a cockroach.
>Now, it's practically fashionable and socially acceptable to have this trait, probably because of the obscene profits made by treating this thing we now call ADHD, along with the popularity of abusing Ritalin as a fucking "study aid".
First, I'm not sure it's that bad, and second, don't be too quick to judge on ADHD. While there may be over-diagnosis of the younger and abuse by the older...
Gosh, I can't imagine why I would have been quick to judge. Yes, perhaps you're right. Let's give Peac, er I mean Profits a Chance. After all, billionaires haven't become trillionaires yet.
>TL; DR - The intelligent mind is never truly bored. Those who find themselves bored quite often, are likely idiots.
Now that's complete bullshit.
Not if you actually think about it. FYI, this belief predates computers by at least a few decades, and long before social media narcissism and internet addiction warped the very fabric of society.
>As opposed to all those other people who attended lectures before them without laptops and where able to concentrate and do well in the class. Moron.
Distraction issues due to boredom predate computers in the classroom and have always been an issue with student's learning efficiency...computers give us something to keep us from returning focus to the lecture after we've already drifted away.
Teaching intervals of 30 minutes used to be an efficient length of time to absorb information.
Computers have managed to decimate that 30-minute attention span to about 3 minutes. It's fucking pathetic how quickly people drift away these days. In any other time in history, this lack of an ability to focus and pay attention would have been classified as some form of mental retardation. Now, it's practically fashionable and socially acceptable to have this trait, probably because of the obscene profits made by treating this thing we now call ADHD, along with the popularity of abusing Ritalin as a fucking "study aid".
TL; DR - The intelligent mind is never truly bored. Those who find themselves bored quite often, are likely idiots.
We have the last 1,000+ years of human learning as evidence to validate how false this statement truly is.
Today? I'd turn on voice recognition for the notes, maybe even video the lecture, and sit back and concentrate on the information without having to even think about typing it.
Today? You'll speak to the lawyer representing the person you wish to record, along with reviewing your student handbook regarding the rules of audio or video recordings. You should think about how consent and copyright laws work.
I'm sure some billion dollar social media companies will be able to quietly cast doubt on these "absurd" and "backward" conclusions.
This would be like standing on top of the bar, ranting to a room full of drinkers about how alcohol is bad for you. This study was pointless. No one gives a shit anymore. Employers don't give a flying fuck about your cum laude standing. They're only looking to see if you managed to focus just enough to fucking graduate and can therefore check a box on an application.
It's the President who is choosing to communicate via social media channels, we're not making that choice for him, so unfortunately we do have to recognize that the President of the United States is using a "fucking Twitter account" as a form of communication.
Until he stops, that's how it is. When the next fad means of communication comes out, if he's using it, it's a form of communication. Sorry.
The President of the United States doesn't use a cell phone bought off eBay. Those responsible for securing and controlling the communications of POTUS make that choice for him. THAT is how it is, and not properly mitigating risk associated with using Twitter is exactly why he needs to stop.
Those serving as POTUS need to understand that some of their rights disappear while acting in that role, and for valid reasons.
It's the President who is choosing to communicate via social media channels, we're not making that choice for him, so unfortunately we do have to recognize that the President of the United States is using a "fucking Twitter account" as a form of communication.
Until he stops, that's how it is. When the next fad means of communication comes out, if he's using it, it's a form of communication. Sorry.
Much like POTUS using a cell phone bought off eBay, there's a valid reason he should not be using a communications medium that has not been hardened or is under the direct control of those responsible for securing POTUS communications.
The impact of someone hacking Trumps Twitter account is considerable. It is wise to mitigate risk based on potential impact and damage, and as unstable as things are in the world (North Korea for example), it may not take but a single tweet to create a very shitty situation.
"But experts warn that the two studies...do not show that drinking coffee was behind the overall lower risk, pointing out that it could be that coffee drinkers are healthier in various ways or that those who are unwell drink less coffee."
Did they just...debunk their own damn study?!?
It could be that people addicted to a stimulant might be healthier in various ways, or that those who are unwell drink shitty soft drinks in order to ingest the same addictive drug.
But hey, let's attribute the benefits to coffee anyway. It's not we're gonna find this study was bought and paid for by those who would profit the most from the product being studied. I mean, that never happens, right?
@realDonaldTrump IS NOT a public forum. Is the personal Twitter account of Mr. Donald J. Trump.
@POTUS is a public forum, as is the account of the President Of The United States.
The lawsuit soud be about Mr. Donald J. Trump using his PERSONAL twitter Account to conduct matters of state and public interest...
I have a better idea. Let's stop trying to recognize a fucking Twitter account as a form of communication for the President of the United States.
His position entitles him to take over the entire spectrum of public transmission in order to broadcast a message to the masses if necessary. And I'm pretty sure the US Government budget can swing the costs of their own domain name. Perhaps we should stop pretending his ability to communicate to an entire country is somehow reliant on cheesy social media freeware.
Apple, you want to charge more for your product, because you feel constrained as to what you can do with a phone? The last time you felt constrained you removed the headphone jack. And that's but one "feature" (out of dozens) users never asked for.
Hundreds of billions sitting in offshore tax havens, already obscene profit margins, and you feel the need to charge even more. This flavor of Greed is only matched by the stupidity of customers willing to pay that much for your product. Sadly, I'm certain the lines will be longer than ever on release day.
The biggest surprise here is that this loophole hadn't been closed down years ago.
Since the concept of connecting to a private network and alt-routing around infrastructure has existed since the days of dial-up concentrators, I'd say this delay is more political than anything.
How the fuck is fighting in bullshit wars a contributon to society?
So a "peaceful" pacifist nation that does not get involved is what you desire? Had your mentality been infectious during World War II, we would likely be speaking German. Would you prefer that version of a society to live in, or the one you have now? Would you have survived to see that society, or would you have been one of the millions of innocent lives exterminated to ensure only a "pure" race thrives on this planet?
Be careful what you wish for. No matter how we may dream about World Peace, the human race has proven it will never happen. I agree that conflicts are not always justified, but unfortunately the society we have today wasn't free. Many fought and died for it.
How long has it been since the government forced people to smoke?
People can join the military at 18, but not smoke or drink until 21, and not rent a car until 25, and not run for President until 35. I only agree with one of these restrictions.
The military age has to do with physicality.The 18-year old body stands a better chance of handling military physical conditioning than the 21-year old body. This becomes even more obvious as we look at the obesity epidemic.
Making other decisions like drinking or smoking is better reserved for a 21-year old mind that can hopefully make a smarter decision when it comes to stupid activities. This age restriction follows the same logic as reserving those who would rent a car, or run an entire country. An older, more experienced human has gathered wisdom to make smarter decisions. Plain and simple logic, and thus I fail to see a fault in any of the age restrictions.
Will it also be illegal to send those under 21 off to die in wars?
It's been over 40 years since the US Military imposed a forced draft on any citizen, so drop the drama. Those entering the military today are doing so voluntarily, and hopefully scored high enough on the ASVAB test to understand what that activity could entail. I'd say it's pretty damn clear when job training includes a shooting range and hand-to-hand combat.
ASVAB, when I was young, was a joke. I scored in the 98 percentile, which had every recruiter calling me for months, until I fell for the spiel of a Navy recruiter and joined, I don't regret that decision, but as far as the test goes I didn't even "try" as I took it to get out of a couple of classes I didn't care for in high school. It did NOTHING to prepare "me" for what was to come though.
The purpose of the ASVAB has nothing to do with preparing *you* for military service, and has everything to do with determining what jobs you would be qualified to perform.
Needless to say, those scoring in the 50th percentile are not going to be handed some advanced engineering job...
I think the point is......if you are old enough to decide to possibly die in a war, you're old enough to possibly die from smoking.
The same argument is easily made for the drinking age.
Possible conclusions...
Raise the age to sign up for military service to 21.
Lower the age to drink and buy cigarettes to 18.
Anything else is not consistent, logically.
You really need to understand and grasp the fact that the military age of enlistment has to do with physicality, not wisdom. The 18-year old body is better prepared for military conditioning than the 21-year old body. This is unfortunately becoming more and more validated when you take into account the obesity epidemic, and a young adults capability to pass a physical exam and drug screening by the time they reach 21.
Given what we understand about the average 18-year old mind to make fucking stupid decisions, most other things that offer little or no benefit whatsoever (such as smoking and drinking) should be reserved for a more mature 21-year old mind. THAT is simple logic, those viewing it as "not fair" will soon wise up and understand that life isn't fucking fair.
Yeah, but all male citizens are still required to sign their Selective Services card when they turn 18, and then, if I'm not mistaken, you're eligible to be called up until you're 45.
Wouldn't take much, (an act of Congress would do it,) to reimpose a draft. There's one senator, (forget his name,) who puts up a bill to do just that, every year.
Given the obesity epidemic in our country, I'd say there's a fat fucking chance of any draft actually working.
Perhaps Senator whats-his-name can wake up to that fact before bringing it up next year.
Smoking isn't costly to society - it actually saves money, since it kills people off before they get age related degenerative diseases that are rally costly to treat.
What a load of shit.
There are many reasons tobacco is a legal product today, but one of the main ones is because it's fucking profitable for the Medical Industrial Complex. There is nothing cheap about treating tobacco-related ailments.
But why can't the same 18 y.o. person who can sign their life away in the military not be deemed responsible enough to decide whether or not to smoke a cigarette?
Again, let's drop the drama. Those entering the military these days are doing so voluntarily for employment, so let's stop painting it like it's a guaranteed suicide mission where you stand a 50/50 chance of not making it out alive. You probably stand a greater chance being killed in a car commuting to a Military job than you do being killed on a battlefield.
And serving in the military provides many benefits for a person. There's not a single fucking benefit provided with a smoking habit. And taking up smoking is not a wise decision at any age, but perhaps it's a decision better reserved for the 21-year old mind vs. the 18-year old mind (kind of like alcohol). The main reason we allow people to enter the military at a younger age has to do with physicality, not wisdom.
Heart disease kills more people than smoking so we should ban bacon right?
Yes this is a logical fallacy, however, the fact is that unless you want to control EVERYTING a person does or consumes you are making subjective decision on what to ban.
as long as it is not effecting you DIRECTLY you have no right to tell anyone else what to do or consume.
It is obesity that is now our #1 killer, not heart disease. And since smoking can cause heart disease, it's rather hard to fully understand just how much of an impact smoking has on other killers.
Regarding making tobacco illegal, I was speaking towards the fact that the government will try and claim we have "epidemics" surrounding opiods, heroin, or even marijuana, while turning a blind eye to the 400,000 deaths tobacco causes every year, ten times more than all other drugs combined. Where is the tobacco epidemic? By comparison to illegal drugs, tell me again why tobacco should be legal?
As far as your personal freedoms, laws tell people what they can and cannot do all the damn time. And secondhand smoke is not some myth, so it does impact people DIRECTLY, which is why we now have so many laws against smoking indoors and other public places. My point is by comparison there's not a damn reason it should be legal. It is only legal because of Greed.
Disclaimer: I did smoke, but managed to quit 13 years ago. I do know what the drug does to you and your thought processes.
So are you wilfully ignoring that knowledge, or what? Smoking addicts are typically poor; your solution is to fuck them over even more?
If cocaine were sold at 10 bucks a pound, we would probably have a hell of a lot more addicts. One of the largest deterrents is the cost of doing a drug. The problem with tobacco is I can't count how many times I've heard a smoker claim "I'm gonna quit if the price hits X dollars a pack!", and then never quit. Perhaps the best solution is to essentially make it financially impossible to continue to do a drug. And quite honestly, smokers are not poor. if they can afford to smoke these days. By comparison, that's a "hobby" that consumes hundreds of dollars every month.
Imagine if we treated addicts of any other hard drug by trying to wring more money out of them.
Uh, we do wring more money out of them. You think drug treatment facilities are free? There's a reason alcoholism was turned into a "disease" half a century ago; so treatment costs could be recognized and subsidized by medical insurance plans.
Slashdot Mirror
You want to remove racism from criminal justice decisions? Then stop telling AI the criminal is white or black.
You want to remove gender bias from hiring decisions? Then stop telling AI the candidate is male or female.
This doesn't really seem like a hard problem to solve if the entity making a decision does not have factors programmed in that create influence and define discrimination. Common Sense.
For me, what I find most interesting is the amount of attention at least two of those entities have paid to trying to convince people that they're not for gutting the rules, yet are waging huge campaigns with their own money to do exactly that.
There's nothing interesting with organizations demonstrating just how fucking stupid and ignorant the average consumer really is.
It's actually rather sad and pathetic.
Yes. The human presence has been destructive ... like a virus ...
Now note that viruses (virii?) adapt. A big problem in the medical field.
And people adapt. You may have heard that we are becoming aware of our environmental impact. You may have heard that it is a matter of great concern in some circles. You may know that many people in many diverse fields of science and government and the private sector are taking vigorous action to correct our ignorant mistakes of the past.
Knowing about something, and fucking doing something about it, are worlds apart. Greed doesn't give a fuck about anything but Greed. Those "circles" will not be heard no matter what. The continued poisoning of our planet, and governments who would rather support Greed above everything else, prove this.
The human species will ultimately learn. Unfortunately, it will be the hard way.
Since this is all about habitat loss, which is mainly caused by people clearing land to make way for farmland, we already have a well known proven effective solution to minimize the need for all of that: GMO.
There's another solution: Population control.
That solution is already in place and is being improved on every single day. One only has to look at our exiting laws to blatantly see that.
Think governments care about preventing death? Fuck no. The legal status of a product like tobacco that kills over 400,000 Americans every year, ten times more than all other illegal products, paints a clear fucking picture as to its role in population control. Same goes for alcohol.
Think we're really doing something about the obesity epidemic? Fuck no. We're merely treating it with perpetual revenue streams that won't actually cure obesity or prevent death. Yet another form of population control.
Think governments won't legalize marijuana because it's dangerous and deadly? Fuck no. They won't legalize it because it's not deadly enough, and would compete against products that are actually deadly. Sorry, but weed doesn't support the agenda of population control.
We ensure the largest killers in society remain legal. We don't cure anything deadly anymore. We create perpetual revenue streams from pointless treatments designed to keep you alive long enough to ensure every penny is medically extracted from your ass. Then you simply die, which is population control.
Ultimately, it's about resource control. We've carved this planet up into countries, which governments have to manage a finite amount of resources within the lines drawn. Population control is merely a component of that responsibility. No one wants to acknowledge that death is ultimately being manufactured, but our laws make it very clear. And it's being improved on all the time.
Earth will survive. If we are dumb enough to destroy everything, then maybe a more intelligent lifeform will thrive. Or if we do not get entirely extinct, Darwinism will be the rule once again. Only the best will survive. Only those who can adapt.
If mankind is stupid enough to incite World War III, we may remove the planets ability to heal itself for a long damn time.
Only in science fiction movies do we find a post-nuclear holocaust that includes life beyond a cockroach.
>Now, it's practically fashionable and socially acceptable to have this trait, probably because of the obscene profits made by treating this thing we now call ADHD, along with the popularity of abusing Ritalin as a fucking "study aid".
First, I'm not sure it's that bad, and second, don't be too quick to judge on ADHD. While there may be over-diagnosis of the younger and abuse by the older...
Gosh, I can't imagine why I would have been quick to judge. Yes, perhaps you're right. Let's give Peac, er I mean Profits a Chance. After all, billionaires haven't become trillionaires yet.
>TL; DR - The intelligent mind is never truly bored. Those who find themselves bored quite often, are likely idiots.
Now that's complete bullshit.
Not if you actually think about it. FYI, this belief predates computers by at least a few decades, and long before social media narcissism and internet addiction warped the very fabric of society.
>As opposed to all those other people who attended lectures before them without laptops and where able to concentrate and do well in the class. Moron.
Distraction issues due to boredom predate computers in the classroom and have always been an issue with student's learning efficiency...computers give us something to keep us from returning focus to the lecture after we've already drifted away.
Teaching intervals of 30 minutes used to be an efficient length of time to absorb information.
Computers have managed to decimate that 30-minute attention span to about 3 minutes. It's fucking pathetic how quickly people drift away these days. In any other time in history, this lack of an ability to focus and pay attention would have been classified as some form of mental retardation. Now, it's practically fashionable and socially acceptable to have this trait, probably because of the obscene profits made by treating this thing we now call ADHD, along with the popularity of abusing Ritalin as a fucking "study aid".
TL; DR - The intelligent mind is never truly bored. Those who find themselves bored quite often, are likely idiots.
Not everyone learns with paper and pen.
We have the last 1,000+ years of human learning as evidence to validate how false this statement truly is.
Today? I'd turn on voice recognition for the notes, maybe even video the lecture, and sit back and concentrate on the information without having to even think about typing it.
Today? You'll speak to the lawyer representing the person you wish to record, along with reviewing your student handbook regarding the rules of audio or video recordings. You should think about how consent and copyright laws work.
The rush to add tables,laptops etc into classrooms is one of the biggest mistakes in educational history.
The rush to add HFCS, antibiotics, growth hormones, etc. into our food supply is one of the biggest mistakes in medical history.
In both examples provided here, someone is making a fucking obscene profit off those decisions, regardless of the overall impact.
Just another case of the disease of Greed destroying ethics and morals. FUCK doing the right thing. It's all about doing the profitable thing.
I'm sure some billion dollar social media companies will be able to quietly cast doubt on these "absurd" and "backward" conclusions.
This would be like standing on top of the bar, ranting to a room full of drinkers about how alcohol is bad for you. This study was pointless. No one gives a shit anymore. Employers don't give a flying fuck about your cum laude standing. They're only looking to see if you managed to focus just enough to fucking graduate and can therefore check a box on an application.
It's the President who is choosing to communicate via social media channels, we're not making that choice for him, so unfortunately we do have to recognize that the President of the United States is using a "fucking Twitter account" as a form of communication.
Until he stops, that's how it is. When the next fad means of communication comes out, if he's using it, it's a form of communication. Sorry.
The President of the United States doesn't use a cell phone bought off eBay. Those responsible for securing and controlling the communications of POTUS make that choice for him. THAT is how it is, and not properly mitigating risk associated with using Twitter is exactly why he needs to stop.
Those serving as POTUS need to understand that some of their rights disappear while acting in that role, and for valid reasons.
It's the President who is choosing to communicate via social media channels, we're not making that choice for him, so unfortunately we do have to recognize that the President of the United States is using a "fucking Twitter account" as a form of communication.
Until he stops, that's how it is. When the next fad means of communication comes out, if he's using it, it's a form of communication. Sorry.
Much like POTUS using a cell phone bought off eBay, there's a valid reason he should not be using a communications medium that has not been hardened or is under the direct control of those responsible for securing POTUS communications.
The impact of someone hacking Trumps Twitter account is considerable. It is wise to mitigate risk based on potential impact and damage, and as unstable as things are in the world (North Korea for example), it may not take but a single tweet to create a very shitty situation.
"But experts warn that the two studies...do not show that drinking coffee was behind the overall lower risk, pointing out that it could be that coffee drinkers are healthier in various ways or that those who are unwell drink less coffee."
Did they just...debunk their own damn study?!?
It could be that people addicted to a stimulant might be healthier in various ways, or that those who are unwell drink shitty soft drinks in order to ingest the same addictive drug.
But hey, let's attribute the benefits to coffee anyway. It's not we're gonna find this study was bought and paid for by those who would profit the most from the product being studied. I mean, that never happens, right?
@realDonaldTrump IS NOT a public forum. Is the personal Twitter account of Mr. Donald J. Trump.
@POTUS is a public forum, as is the account of the President Of The United States.
The lawsuit soud be about Mr. Donald J. Trump using his PERSONAL twitter Account to conduct matters of state and public interest...
I have a better idea. Let's stop trying to recognize a fucking Twitter account as a form of communication for the President of the United States.
His position entitles him to take over the entire spectrum of public transmission in order to broadcast a message to the masses if necessary. And I'm pretty sure the US Government budget can swing the costs of their own domain name. Perhaps we should stop pretending his ability to communicate to an entire country is somehow reliant on cheesy social media freeware.
Apple, you want to charge more for your product, because you feel constrained as to what you can do with a phone? The last time you felt constrained you removed the headphone jack. And that's but one "feature" (out of dozens) users never asked for.
Hundreds of billions sitting in offshore tax havens, already obscene profit margins, and you feel the need to charge even more. This flavor of Greed is only matched by the stupidity of customers willing to pay that much for your product. Sadly, I'm certain the lines will be longer than ever on release day.
The biggest surprise here is that this loophole hadn't been closed down years ago.
Since the concept of connecting to a private network and alt-routing around infrastructure has existed since the days of dial-up concentrators, I'd say this delay is more political than anything.
How the fuck is fighting in bullshit wars a contributon to society?
So a "peaceful" pacifist nation that does not get involved is what you desire? Had your mentality been infectious during World War II, we would likely be speaking German. Would you prefer that version of a society to live in, or the one you have now? Would you have survived to see that society, or would you have been one of the millions of innocent lives exterminated to ensure only a "pure" race thrives on this planet?
Be careful what you wish for. No matter how we may dream about World Peace, the human race has proven it will never happen. I agree that conflicts are not always justified, but unfortunately the society we have today wasn't free. Many fought and died for it.
How long has it been since the government forced people to smoke? People can join the military at 18, but not smoke or drink until 21, and not rent a car until 25, and not run for President until 35. I only agree with one of these restrictions.
The military age has to do with physicality.The 18-year old body stands a better chance of handling military physical conditioning than the 21-year old body. This becomes even more obvious as we look at the obesity epidemic.
Making other decisions like drinking or smoking is better reserved for a 21-year old mind that can hopefully make a smarter decision when it comes to stupid activities. This age restriction follows the same logic as reserving those who would rent a car, or run an entire country. An older, more experienced human has gathered wisdom to make smarter decisions. Plain and simple logic, and thus I fail to see a fault in any of the age restrictions.
Will it also be illegal to send those under 21 off to die in wars?
It's been over 40 years since the US Military imposed a forced draft on any citizen, so drop the drama. Those entering the military today are doing so voluntarily, and hopefully scored high enough on the ASVAB test to understand what that activity could entail. I'd say it's pretty damn clear when job training includes a shooting range and hand-to-hand combat.
ASVAB, when I was young, was a joke. I scored in the 98 percentile, which had every recruiter calling me for months, until I fell for the spiel of a Navy recruiter and joined, I don't regret that decision, but as far as the test goes I didn't even "try" as I took it to get out of a couple of classes I didn't care for in high school. It did NOTHING to prepare "me" for what was to come though.
The purpose of the ASVAB has nothing to do with preparing *you* for military service, and has everything to do with determining what jobs you would be qualified to perform.
Needless to say, those scoring in the 50th percentile are not going to be handed some advanced engineering job...
I think the point is... ...if you are old enough to decide to possibly die in a war, you're old enough to possibly die from smoking.
The same argument is easily made for the drinking age.
Possible conclusions...
Raise the age to sign up for military service to 21.
Lower the age to drink and buy cigarettes to 18.
Anything else is not consistent, logically.
You really need to understand and grasp the fact that the military age of enlistment has to do with physicality, not wisdom. The 18-year old body is better prepared for military conditioning than the 21-year old body. This is unfortunately becoming more and more validated when you take into account the obesity epidemic, and a young adults capability to pass a physical exam and drug screening by the time they reach 21.
Given what we understand about the average 18-year old mind to make fucking stupid decisions, most other things that offer little or no benefit whatsoever (such as smoking and drinking) should be reserved for a more mature 21-year old mind. THAT is simple logic, those viewing it as "not fair" will soon wise up and understand that life isn't fucking fair.
Yeah, but all male citizens are still required to sign their Selective Services card when they turn 18, and then, if I'm not mistaken, you're eligible to be called up until you're 45.
Wouldn't take much, (an act of Congress would do it,) to reimpose a draft. There's one senator, (forget his name,) who puts up a bill to do just that, every year.
Given the obesity epidemic in our country, I'd say there's a fat fucking chance of any draft actually working.
Perhaps Senator whats-his-name can wake up to that fact before bringing it up next year.
Smoking isn't costly to society - it actually saves money, since it kills people off before they get age related degenerative diseases that are rally costly to treat.
What a load of shit.
There are many reasons tobacco is a legal product today, but one of the main ones is because it's fucking profitable for the Medical Industrial Complex. There is nothing cheap about treating tobacco-related ailments.
But why can't the same 18 y.o. person who can sign their life away in the military not be deemed responsible enough to decide whether or not to smoke a cigarette?
Again, let's drop the drama. Those entering the military these days are doing so voluntarily for employment, so let's stop painting it like it's a guaranteed suicide mission where you stand a 50/50 chance of not making it out alive. You probably stand a greater chance being killed in a car commuting to a Military job than you do being killed on a battlefield.
And serving in the military provides many benefits for a person. There's not a single fucking benefit provided with a smoking habit. And taking up smoking is not a wise decision at any age, but perhaps it's a decision better reserved for the 21-year old mind vs. the 18-year old mind (kind of like alcohol). The main reason we allow people to enter the military at a younger age has to do with physicality, not wisdom.
Disclaimer: I am an ex smoker.
Heart disease kills more people than smoking so we should ban bacon right?
Yes this is a logical fallacy, however, the fact is that unless you want to control EVERYTING a person does or consumes you are making subjective decision on what to ban.
as long as it is not effecting you DIRECTLY you have no right to tell anyone else what to do or consume.
It is obesity that is now our #1 killer, not heart disease. And since smoking can cause heart disease, it's rather hard to fully understand just how much of an impact smoking has on other killers.
Regarding making tobacco illegal, I was speaking towards the fact that the government will try and claim we have "epidemics" surrounding opiods, heroin, or even marijuana, while turning a blind eye to the 400,000 deaths tobacco causes every year, ten times more than all other drugs combined. Where is the tobacco epidemic? By comparison to illegal drugs, tell me again why tobacco should be legal?
As far as your personal freedoms, laws tell people what they can and cannot do all the damn time. And secondhand smoke is not some myth, so it does impact people DIRECTLY, which is why we now have so many laws against smoking indoors and other public places. My point is by comparison there's not a damn reason it should be legal. It is only legal because of Greed.
Disclaimer: I did smoke, but managed to quit 13 years ago. I do know what the drug does to you and your thought processes.
So are you wilfully ignoring that knowledge, or what? Smoking addicts are typically poor; your solution is to fuck them over even more?
If cocaine were sold at 10 bucks a pound, we would probably have a hell of a lot more addicts. One of the largest deterrents is the cost of doing a drug. The problem with tobacco is I can't count how many times I've heard a smoker claim "I'm gonna quit if the price hits X dollars a pack!", and then never quit. Perhaps the best solution is to essentially make it financially impossible to continue to do a drug. And quite honestly, smokers are not poor. if they can afford to smoke these days. By comparison, that's a "hobby" that consumes hundreds of dollars every month.
Imagine if we treated addicts of any other hard drug by trying to wring more money out of them.
Uh, we do wring more money out of them. You think drug treatment facilities are free? There's a reason alcoholism was turned into a "disease" half a century ago; so treatment costs could be recognized and subsidized by medical insurance plans.