Why don't you show me some study that says poor people have a 70% higher incidence of any health problem?
A lot of your arguments about how poor people have more health risks because they do physical labor actually argue against your conclusions. Physical labor leads to much better physical conditioning for those who physically work hard than sitting at a desk does for those who work at sedentary jobs. Good physical condition, good muscle strength, less obesity, etc... lead to good health outcomes and lower health risks. And don't tell me that every sedentary worker works out so they get the same level of exercise. That's simply not true. Sedentary jobs are closely related to weight problems, along with all the related health problems.
Poor kids who go outside and play rather than sitting down to a video game or computer as more affluent kids do also have lower health risks because, once again, they are more physically fit.
I'm going to posit my own theory, that everyone is "jumping on Israel's case" because Israel is always jumping on everyone else's case. Palestine this, Lebanon that... That country is seriously fucked up, and they hide behind pure medieval racism to justify their endless wars. It's a kindergarten scuffle taken to idiotic proportions. The greatest hypocrisy is that Israel is judged differently from all the other intolerant theocracies that make the middle-east the birthplace of blind hatred. Congrats to those who emigrate and start a fruitful life elsewhere.
Let's posit this: How about every nation surrounding Israel is pledged to, or harbors organizations pledged to, Israel's destruction?
I don't know where you live, but if every country that borders yours allowed missiles to be fired into your country on a daily basis, and most were pledged to the total destruction, not of only your country, but of everyone in your country, just what would you do? Just sit back and never respond? What would you consider an appropriate response to the killing of your civilians? How many rockets a year could be fired into your country before you would consider a military response? 10? 50? 100? How many suicide bombers could cross the borders into your country before you consider searching each and every person from those neighboring country, and limiting travel, freight, etc... between the two countries?
My bet is that you won't honestly answer any of those questions you'll just attack me, because if you answer those questions honestly you'll see that there is no way you, your fellow citizens, or your country's politicians, would put up with what Israel has had done to it since its creation.
Now let's say that those people firing rockets into your country deliberately fired their rockets from the middle of civilian concentrations, such apartment buildings, churches, etc.... What would your response be? Would you refuse to respond to the attacks, or would you still go after the people firing rockets into your country?
The only reason there is a Palestinian state is because the rest of the Arabs themselves wouldn't take in the refugees. The creation of a "refugee" state was nothing but a political maneuver by the Arab nations. They wanted it simply because they could use it as a political weapon against Israel.
The Arab nations care not a whit for the suffering of the refugees. Israel has done more to help the Palestinian people than the Arab states ever have. Why? Because if the poverty and suffering went away it would be one less weapon for the Arab states to use against Israel.
With all the petro dollars the Arab nations have they could have invested in infrastructure in Palestine and done the same things for their own people that Israel has for its own. They didn't, and they won't. All they really care about is fostering hatred of Israel.
Now you have the reason why those countries are so upset. Use of fake passports by governments to commit crimes places holders of valid passports from those countries whose passports have been counterfeited at risk. Were the countries whose passports were counterfeited, actually participating in those crimes and, should any person carrying that countries passports now be suspect.
Oh, come on. Every intelligence service in the world has their agents use fake passports at one time or another. That everyone is jumping on Israel's case for doing so is nothing but hypocrisy at best, anti-semitism at worst.
So what that the Mossad, if the accusations aginst the are true, killed a terrorist? Those guys do nothing but kill innocent civilians. Terrorists spread terror, by definition. At least the Mossad targeted a bad guy and took him out without harming anyone else. The guy taken out certainly wasn't known for that. He was known for either directly, or indirectly, killing innocents, or he wouldn't have been a "known terrorist" or belonged to a terrorist organization.
If someone wants to spread terror and sponsor/support the killing of innocent civilians I have no problem whatsover with them being "taken out". They gave up their right to life the moment they started killing people who are doing nothing but going about their lives.
I just Googled leukemia and income levels. There is study after study about mortality rates and income levels for leukemia patients, but I didn't find one that addressed total incidence rates and income levels. Yes, income level has a lot to do with being able to afford treatment, and with the attitude of jackass doctors toward their patients, and so greatly affects mortality rates. But, that is a completely separate issue from total incidence rates for leukemia.
I see. So because family income and other social factors weren't accounted for in a number like 70% higher incidence it is meaningless? What do you do? Work for the power companies?
There's no way social factors alone could account for that level of increase in leukemia. So what if they accounted for even 10-20% of the increase? What's left after subtracting even 20% is a staggering number. I wouldn't want any child or grandchild of mine living under high-power lines. I wouldn't live under them either.
I don't think politician's trustworthiness is something that is doubted only in Sweden. Here in the US I haven't seen a trustworthy one in my 56 years of life.
I've considered becoming a ham radio operator a few times.
I was first exposed to ham radio by one of my grade school teachers back in the mid 60's who taught a group of a dozen of us students Morse code. I passed the initial licensing test in the 5th grade, but I never did anything more with it as that teacher moved away the next year and my parents wouldn't even consider spending that kind of money on a hobby.
I'm just not comfortable with people making judgments about motives, or slamming someone else's character based on whether or not that person voted, when they cannot have no idea as to the other person's character or motives for their actions.
You haven't studied US history very much. A lot of farmers, people living on the frontier, tradesmen, etc... never got involved in politics. However, when push came to shove they acted on what they believed in and joined the revolution. They stood up for what they believed in enough to risk their lives, they just weren't political animals. Most historians say voting rates in colonial America were low, yet the majority of the population was for independence and enough people volunteered for military service to defeat the then-greatest military on earth.
Your "cannon fodder" remark is simply stupid. The vast majority of the US rebel army was made up of volunteers. The central US government didn't even have the power of conscription, iow's draft people into the army, until the Civil War, about 100 years later.
Your reply to me pretty much tells me you believe in nothing but cynicism where your fellow man is concerned....
Correlating cowardice with not voting is a huge, and unwarranted, assumption on your part. Take a look at any revolution that has ever happened and you will find that many of the people who sacrificed their lives in the actual revolutions didn't take part in the political processes leading up to the revolutions.
Or, abstaining from voting can also be expressions of apathy or being completely discouraged due to the corruption that goes on, and on, and on, and on in political circles no matter which party is in power.
Hell, right now we have a President and ruling political party that is willing to shove something down the throats of American citizens that 2/3's of us oppose. Our forefathers, who revolted over being governed without representation, must be rolling over in their graves at this bastardization of the principles for which they fought, sacrificed their personal fortunes, and died.
BTW, the word you're looking for when you made up "abstination" is abstention: the act or practice of abstaining.
In a universe in which God has always given the rational creatures He created the right to make their own choices evil was a possibility. It had to come since there is free will. God knew it as well as we do.
So, why did He allow it? Because if God didn't allow free will what kind of relationship could He have with His creation? Without free will He would have had nothing but the worship of robots. How meaningful is that to anyone? If you had the ability to create worlds would you want to spend an eternity being "adored" by robots, or would you want to have a real relationship with the beings you created? Would you want them to love you for who you are, or because you gave them no choice in the matter? If the latter can that really be called love?
I'm posting and blowing up all my mod points because I have modded here, but thought your question was worth answering.
The answer is that God is on trial before the universe. The devil, once the #3 man in God's government and the greatest creature of His creation, has accused Him of being unfair, of not having His creation's best interest at heart, and that He rules arbitrarily for only His own benefit. Underlying those charges is the idea that the devil can rule the universe in a much more beneficial way.
So, what's the long-term solution that God chose to answer the charges that Satan leveled at Him? He has chosen to let the Devil reveal his own nature through allowing him to rule this planet. The killing, the suffering, the incredible cruelty that you see in day-to-day life here on earth is the outcome of God allowing the devil to expose his own character and allowing him freedom of action and the freedom to rule here, up to certain limits, by the principles he espouses.
That is the only way to rid the universe of sin once and for all. Only if everyone understands why the devil's way isn't good can God then put an end to sin and the devil without creating doubt in the minds of His creation that the devil actually had a point.
Looking around at this world and what goes on here I see that God is correct. Once people understand that selfishness, deception, and rule through force rather than through love and freedom of choice is a bad thing can God destroy sin and the devil and not cause His loyal subjects to doubt his goodness.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't you show me some study that says poor people have a 70% higher incidence of any health problem?
A lot of your arguments about how poor people have more health risks because they do physical labor actually argue against your conclusions. Physical labor leads to much better physical conditioning for those who physically work hard than sitting at a desk does for those who work at sedentary jobs. Good physical condition, good muscle strength, less obesity, etc... lead to good health outcomes and lower health risks. And don't tell me that every sedentary worker works out so they get the same level of exercise. That's simply not true. Sedentary jobs are closely related to weight problems, along with all the related health problems.
Poor kids who go outside and play rather than sitting down to a video game or computer as more affluent kids do also have lower health risks because, once again, they are more physically fit.
I'm going to posit my own theory, that everyone is "jumping on Israel's case" because Israel is always jumping on everyone else's case. Palestine this, Lebanon that... That country is seriously fucked up, and they hide behind pure medieval racism to justify their endless wars. It's a kindergarten scuffle taken to idiotic proportions. The greatest hypocrisy is that Israel is judged differently from all the other intolerant theocracies that make the middle-east the birthplace of blind hatred. Congrats to those who emigrate and start a fruitful life elsewhere.
Let's posit this: How about every nation surrounding Israel is pledged to, or harbors organizations pledged to, Israel's destruction?
I don't know where you live, but if every country that borders yours allowed missiles to be fired into your country on a daily basis, and most were pledged to the total destruction, not of only your country, but of everyone in your country, just what would you do? Just sit back and never respond? What would you consider an appropriate response to the killing of your civilians? How many rockets a year could be fired into your country before you would consider a military response? 10? 50? 100? How many suicide bombers could cross the borders into your country before you consider searching each and every person from those neighboring country, and limiting travel, freight, etc... between the two countries?
My bet is that you won't honestly answer any of those questions you'll just attack me, because if you answer those questions honestly you'll see that there is no way you, your fellow citizens, or your country's politicians, would put up with what Israel has had done to it since its creation.
Now let's say that those people firing rockets into your country deliberately fired their rockets from the middle of civilian concentrations, such apartment buildings, churches, etc.... What would your response be? Would you refuse to respond to the attacks, or would you still go after the people firing rockets into your country?
The only reason there is a Palestinian state is because the rest of the Arabs themselves wouldn't take in the refugees. The creation of a "refugee" state was nothing but a political maneuver by the Arab nations. They wanted it simply because they could use it as a political weapon against Israel.
The Arab nations care not a whit for the suffering of the refugees. Israel has done more to help the Palestinian people than the Arab states ever have. Why? Because if the poverty and suffering went away it would be one less weapon for the Arab states to use against Israel.
With all the petro dollars the Arab nations have they could have invested in infrastructure in Palestine and done the same things for their own people that Israel has for its own. They didn't, and they won't. All they really care about is fostering hatred of Israel.
Now you have the reason why those countries are so upset. Use of fake passports by governments to commit crimes places holders of valid passports from those countries whose passports have been counterfeited at risk. Were the countries whose passports were counterfeited, actually participating in those crimes and, should any person carrying that countries passports now be suspect.
Oh, come on. Every intelligence service in the world has their agents use fake passports at one time or another. That everyone is jumping on Israel's case for doing so is nothing but hypocrisy at best, anti-semitism at worst.
So what that the Mossad, if the accusations aginst the are true, killed a terrorist? Those guys do nothing but kill innocent civilians. Terrorists spread terror, by definition. At least the Mossad targeted a bad guy and took him out without harming anyone else. The guy taken out certainly wasn't known for that. He was known for either directly, or indirectly, killing innocents, or he wouldn't have been a "known terrorist" or belonged to a terrorist organization.
If someone wants to spread terror and sponsor/support the killing of innocent civilians I have no problem whatsover with them being "taken out". They gave up their right to life the moment they started killing people who are doing nothing but going about their lives.
I agree. That comment was very funny. It's just so obtuse many people won't recognize it.
I just Googled leukemia and income levels. There is study after study about mortality rates and income levels for leukemia patients, but I didn't find one that addressed total incidence rates and income levels. Yes, income level has a lot to do with being able to afford treatment, and with the attitude of jackass doctors toward their patients, and so greatly affects mortality rates. But, that is a completely separate issue from total incidence rates for leukemia.
Dang. I see you found a picture of the inside of the cab of my little brother's pickup.
I see. So because family income and other social factors weren't accounted for in a number like 70% higher incidence it is meaningless? What do you do? Work for the power companies?
There's no way social factors alone could account for that level of increase in leukemia. So what if they accounted for even 10-20% of the increase? What's left after subtracting even 20% is a staggering number. I wouldn't want any child or grandchild of mine living under high-power lines. I wouldn't live under them either.
I don't think politician's trustworthiness is something that is doubted only in Sweden. Here in the US I haven't seen a trustworthy one in my 56 years of life.
Yeah, it was a pun.
I've considered becoming a ham radio operator a few times.
I was first exposed to ham radio by one of my grade school teachers back in the mid 60's who taught a group of a dozen of us students Morse code. I passed the initial licensing test in the 5th grade, but I never did anything more with it as that teacher moved away the next year and my parents wouldn't even consider spending that kind of money on a hobby.
Facetious
There you go again using $3 words. How did you ever get modded up that way?
Are you really meaning to say that the stupidity displayed shouldn't horrify all of us?
Amateur radio operators have been using devices that can put out 5 to 1500 watts since the 1930s (possibly earlier)
Yeah, and look at what all that radiation has done to them. It's turned them into hams.
Damn, I wish I had mod points. That was funny.
Ummm.... Where did I say I didn't vote?
I'm just not comfortable with people making judgments about motives, or slamming someone else's character based on whether or not that person voted, when they cannot have no idea as to the other person's character or motives for their actions.
You haven't studied US history very much. A lot of farmers, people living on the frontier, tradesmen, etc... never got involved in politics. However, when push came to shove they acted on what they believed in and joined the revolution. They stood up for what they believed in enough to risk their lives, they just weren't political animals. Most historians say voting rates in colonial America were low, yet the majority of the population was for independence and enough people volunteered for military service to defeat the then-greatest military on earth.
Your "cannon fodder" remark is simply stupid. The vast majority of the US rebel army was made up of volunteers. The central US government didn't even have the power of conscription, iow's draft people into the army, until the Civil War, about 100 years later.
Your reply to me pretty much tells me you believe in nothing but cynicism where your fellow man is concerned....
Correlating cowardice with not voting is a huge, and unwarranted, assumption on your part. Take a look at any revolution that has ever happened and you will find that many of the people who sacrificed their lives in the actual revolutions didn't take part in the political processes leading up to the revolutions.
Or, abstaining from voting can also be expressions of apathy or being completely discouraged due to the corruption that goes on, and on, and on, and on in political circles no matter which party is in power.
Hell, right now we have a President and ruling political party that is willing to shove something down the throats of American citizens that 2/3's of us oppose. Our forefathers, who revolted over being governed without representation, must be rolling over in their graves at this bastardization of the principles for which they fought, sacrificed their personal fortunes, and died.
BTW, the word you're looking for when you made up "abstination" is abstention: the act or practice of abstaining.
I just want to know how we can be sure the person making the promise is a virgin, and why that person's virginity is relevant.
What seeds do you have that are so super with regard to privacy? Are they the ones that grow privacy? ;)
Yeah, it's quite an admission on his part.... He has to censor himself to keep from appearing too arrogant and stupid.
France is a nuclear power, for chrissakes. Why would they need to fear U.S. retaliation?
Because we wouldn't export any more of McDonald's french fries to them?
In a universe in which God has always given the rational creatures He created the right to make their own choices evil was a possibility. It had to come since there is free will. God knew it as well as we do.
So, why did He allow it? Because if God didn't allow free will what kind of relationship could He have with His creation? Without free will He would have had nothing but the worship of robots. How meaningful is that to anyone? If you had the ability to create worlds would you want to spend an eternity being "adored" by robots, or would you want to have a real relationship with the beings you created? Would you want them to love you for who you are, or because you gave them no choice in the matter? If the latter can that really be called love?
I'm posting and blowing up all my mod points because I have modded here, but thought your question was worth answering.
The answer is that God is on trial before the universe. The devil, once the #3 man in God's government and the greatest creature of His creation, has accused Him of being unfair, of not having His creation's best interest at heart, and that He rules arbitrarily for only His own benefit. Underlying those charges is the idea that the devil can rule the universe in a much more beneficial way.
So, what's the long-term solution that God chose to answer the charges that Satan leveled at Him? He has chosen to let the Devil reveal his own nature through allowing him to rule this planet. The killing, the suffering, the incredible cruelty that you see in day-to-day life here on earth is the outcome of God allowing the devil to expose his own character and allowing him freedom of action and the freedom to rule here, up to certain limits, by the principles he espouses.
That is the only way to rid the universe of sin once and for all. Only if everyone understands why the devil's way isn't good can God then put an end to sin and the devil without creating doubt in the minds of His creation that the devil actually had a point.
Looking around at this world and what goes on here I see that God is correct. Once people understand that selfishness, deception, and rule through force rather than through love and freedom of choice is a bad thing can God destroy sin and the devil and not cause His loyal subjects to doubt his goodness.
My bad on the Crusades bit. I somehow got the idea that some AC's post was yours. Sorry about that.