>But strictly speaking Mr. Christie is correct. Nobody should be "required" to receive any injections.
That depends on the context of his use of the word "required." I believe it's different than yours. E.g. not required in order to have unfettered access to the full sphere of public spaces. But I could be wrong. Trouble is that Christie himself has been awfully mealy-mouthed about what, exactly, his position is.
Science hasn't gotten nutrition and fitness wrong.
People don't want to be told that they can't have everything they want in regards to eating, weight control and health. They don't want to accept that some delayal of gratification is necessary.
I disagree with you there. As a competitive runner through the 80's and 90's I took "science" and "delayed gratification" by cutting fat in my diet to the extreme. Because there was a good amount of science that at the time telling us that fats were bad. To this day we still live with a lot of the "low fat" mantra that resulted.
In retrospect I put myself through a lot of misery that actually probably damanged my performance significantly rather than improved it.
Don't freak out at the phrase "vaccine choice". The speaker may not mean what you assume.
First off, hepatitis can certainly be spread through non-sexual contact. So that's out the window.
It's really unclear what Paul and Christie really mean, if anyone. I think they're waffling now that public opinion is starting to swing against the anti-vax movement.
In what I think is the same Paul interview you're referring to, he said this, "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children, who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines." So we have a public figure using the media to further perpetuate nonsense that's been scientifically debunked. Using anecdotal evidence.
I was warming a bit to Paul due to some of his more rational-sounding moderate positions, but I'm pretty much done with him now.
The truth is there is indeed a biological component that drives humans that can be repressed but not eliminated. And there are dire consequences for repressing them as well. Scientific studies have proven this repeatedly but even many scientists ignore the facts because they are so unpopular.
I don't know which studies you refer to, but there are also "scientific studies" which demonstrate gender bias towards science students.
I don't know if by "you" you literally mean me, or if that's the 'royal' you. But if you mean me I was merely posing a question, not prescribing any answers. I was very careful to include all the "key words" you've identified to avoid revealing bias.
I *do* have a position on most of those, but that position likely isn't what you think it is.
a) That climate change exists. b) That climate change is caused by human behavior c) That the change might be have significant negative effects d) That altering human behavior could ameliorate c) e) That the costs of d) might exceed the benefits of d) f) That d) can be administered effectively by government(s)
Oh, I totally agree. Just pointing out that a little caution is in order. Doing the opposite of something that failed does not necessarily gaurantee success.
"We haven't found some miracle cure," Goulão says. Still, taking stock after nearly 12 years, his conclusion is, "Decriminalization hasn't made the problem worse."
True. Legalizing takes drug gangs out of the equation, lowers crime rates, and makes addiction less of a stigma and more of a treatable health problem. Take all the unemployed police, prison guards and lawyers legalization would bring and train them to be drug counselors. Turn the empty jails into factories. Then celebrate freedom of choice.
I'd hope so. I'd sign up for that. But it approaches the unicorns and rainbows plan. Legalizing also tends to make things lower cost. And when something costs less is more easily available, there are upward pessures on demand and usage. Also drugs gangs don't magically disappear with legalization. They have a vested interest in preserving market share. I'm speaking using mostly anecdotal evidence, but the drug gangs have not at all disappeared from the states that have effectively legalized marijuana. They welcome the increased demand. It's not even clear if they're actually opposed to legalization.
The fact that drugs are illegal is the true problem.
It's a problem. But making them legal trades one set of problems in for another set of problems. Countries that have tried legalization in various ways aren't what I'd call "problem-free."
And you do know that in the Snowden docs, there are actual examples of agents misusing their powers to surveil personal acquaintances and read their secrets, right? Government abuse of surveillance power to harm people is not a hypothetical concern.
But any power, government or otherwise, will be abused to some degree. Just because the government was able to self-identify some abuse, is not, in itself, particularly interesting. Because the power is given to people. The question is how much surveillance power to allow, and what process governs it. Eliminating all surveillance is pretty draconian in flipping the balance of power perhaps too far in favor of actual criminals.
The TSA has sexual perverts and predators that enjoy molesting and seeing full-body scans of everyone from babies, to young boys and girls, to grannies and grandpas in wheelchairs.
I don't know. I've yet to see a TSA employee that looks like he's enjoying anything. Appears mostly to be a grim, thankless, medium-low wage job without much upside. Arguable efficacy on top of that.
Slashdot Mirror
>But strictly speaking Mr. Christie is correct. Nobody should be "required" to receive any injections.
That depends on the context of his use of the word "required." I believe it's different than yours. E.g. not required in order to have unfettered access to the full sphere of public spaces. But I could be wrong. Trouble is that Christie himself has been awfully mealy-mouthed about what, exactly, his position is.
Science hasn't gotten nutrition and fitness wrong.
People don't want to be told that they can't have everything they want in regards to eating, weight control and health. They don't want to accept that some delayal of gratification is necessary.
I disagree with you there. As a competitive runner through the 80's and 90's I took "science" and "delayed gratification" by cutting fat in my diet to the extreme. Because there was a good amount of science that at the time telling us that fats were bad. To this day we still live with a lot of the "low fat" mantra that resulted.
In retrospect I put myself through a lot of misery that actually probably damanged my performance significantly rather than improved it.
Don't freak out at the phrase "vaccine choice". The speaker may not mean what you assume.
First off, hepatitis can certainly be spread through non-sexual contact. So that's out the window.
It's really unclear what Paul and Christie really mean, if anyone. I think they're waffling now that public opinion is starting to swing against the anti-vax movement.
In what I think is the same Paul interview you're referring to, he said this, "I've heard of many tragic cases of walking, talking, normal children, who wound up with profound mental disorders after vaccines." So we have a public figure using the media to further perpetuate nonsense that's been scientifically debunked. Using anecdotal evidence.
I was warming a bit to Paul due to some of his more rational-sounding moderate positions, but I'm pretty much done with him now.
How can an unvaccinated kid infect and kill your child if your child was vaccinated?
No vaccine is 100% effective. So "herd immunity" still marginally benefits the vaccinated.
The truth is there is indeed a biological component that drives humans that can be repressed but not eliminated. And there are dire consequences for repressing them as well. Scientific studies have proven this repeatedly but even many scientists ignore the facts because they are so unpopular.
I don't know which studies you refer to, but there are also "scientific studies" which demonstrate gender bias towards science students.
http://news.yale.edu/2012/09/2...
OK, you're up. What studies are you referring to? Game on.
Any guy that would admit to being run off of a female dominated class would rightfully be mocked and made fun of by other guys.
I don't know. I was fairly terrified of girls in grade school. I admit it.
Though I did basically teach the computer classes because the teacher was a no0b. Apple IIe days.
I don't know if by "you" you literally mean me, or if that's the 'royal' you. But if you mean me I was merely posing a question, not prescribing any answers. I was very careful to include all the "key words" you've identified to avoid revealing bias.
I *do* have a position on most of those, but that position likely isn't what you think it is.
Which part?
a) That climate change exists.
b) That climate change is caused by human behavior
c) That the change might be have significant negative effects
d) That altering human behavior could ameliorate c)
e) That the costs of d) might exceed the benefits of d)
f) That d) can be administered effectively by government(s)
Wooosh.
Or Microsoft coming out with new versions of Windows as long as the licensing revenue keeps rolling in.
Well they don't even know what a cube is, apparently.
Could it be that men tend to shop a lot less than women!?
Or maybe men are identified by the proxy billing info for porn sites.
I prefer regulated monopoly over unregulated monopoly.
Hopefully the "low staff" was intentional, and not a side effect.
The waron drugs is a colossal failure,
Oh, I totally agree. Just pointing out that a little caution is in order. Doing the opposite of something that failed does not necessarily gaurantee success.
And Portugal isn't exactly a golden model.
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
"We haven't found some miracle cure," Goulão says. Still, taking stock after nearly 12 years, his conclusion is, "Decriminalization hasn't made the problem worse."
True. Legalizing takes drug gangs out of the equation, lowers crime rates, and makes addiction less of a stigma and more of a treatable health problem. Take all the unemployed police, prison guards and lawyers legalization would bring and train them to be drug counselors. Turn the empty jails into factories. Then celebrate freedom of choice.
I'd hope so. I'd sign up for that. But it approaches the unicorns and rainbows plan. Legalizing also tends to make things lower cost. And when something costs less is more easily available, there are upward pessures on demand and usage. Also drugs gangs don't magically disappear with legalization. They have a vested interest in preserving market share. I'm speaking using mostly anecdotal evidence, but the drug gangs have not at all disappeared from the states that have effectively legalized marijuana. They welcome the increased demand. It's not even clear if they're actually opposed to legalization.
No they aren't.
That's an issue with "how," not "what."
The fact that drugs are illegal is the true problem.
It's a problem. But making them legal trades one set of problems in for another set of problems. Countries that have tried legalization in various ways aren't what I'd call "problem-free."
And you do know that in the Snowden docs, there are actual examples of agents misusing their powers to surveil personal acquaintances and read their secrets, right? Government abuse of surveillance power to harm people is not a hypothetical concern.
But any power, government or otherwise, will be abused to some degree. Just because the government was able to self-identify some abuse, is not, in itself, particularly interesting. Because the power is given to people. The question is how much surveillance power to allow, and what process governs it. Eliminating all surveillance is pretty draconian in flipping the balance of power perhaps too far in favor of actual criminals.
"Domestic enemies"
What's your definition of enemy? Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of the Constitution?
The out-gunned side takes more casualties but always wins in the end..
I think there are plenty of historical examples of the out-gunned side losing a war....most of the time.
The TSA has sexual perverts and predators that enjoy molesting and seeing full-body scans of everyone from babies, to young boys and girls, to grannies and grandpas in wheelchairs.
I don't know. I've yet to see a TSA employee that looks like he's enjoying anything. Appears mostly to be a grim, thankless, medium-low wage job without much upside. Arguable efficacy on top of that.
It is very hard to judge the quality of human labor other than by results.?
Just because something is hard to measure doesn't mean a significant difference doesn't exist.
Enough with our rational response. This is the Slashdot comment section. Only shrill, hyperbolic, melodramatic exaggeration is acceptable.
Oh, they can trade, comrade - but they must only trade approved items!
You have it backwards. There is no whitelist - almost everything is legal to trade, so that'd be silly.
There's a blacklist for things that are illegal. Effectively.