Well, I speak as a male survivor of domestic violence. I got plenty of support from feminists... men (and especially MRAs) mostly called me a "pussy" and a "cuck'.
>1. Young people are not the only refugees But they are the majority. The VAST Majority - people who are not able-bodied rarely survive the crossing (or even attempt it).
>2. What guarantee thatthe terrorists arn't mixed in with the refugees Who gives a fuck ? How many could there be who gets through the extremely strenuous UN refugee vetting process AND the local country vetting processes ? Seriously - it's not WORTH it for the terrorists to try - it takes years, why do that when you can just recruit locals already IN those countries - who aren't getting vetted because nobody vets natural-born citizens. So let's say a few get in, how many people could they realistically kill ? 20 ? 50 ? Lets assume all of them are as successful as the most successful attacks in Europe have been (the vast majority are nowhere near that)... 500 ? A thousand ? Do you know what the name is for somebody who would kill millions of people to save a thousand ? A fucking terrorist. Do you know what you call somebody who would kill millions of people just for looking different (or believing in a different religion) to save a thousand who looks like himself ? A fucking NAZI terrorist. That's what you are advocating for. NAZI terrorism. You have a few insane people who are actively working to commit genocide on their own people... and you are advocating that we actually HELP them do that because you're scared if we don't they may get a few of ours as well. Fuck that shit. That is not something any sane person would do.
>3. What guarantee that the refugees will look for honest work . Every economic study ever. The history of every large migration in history. They always do. These people are fleeing for their lives, they are not coming on a fucking welfare holiday. They are not even economic migrants. They are skilled, mostly highly educated, people fleeing for their lives. In fact, if anything, the odds are BETTER than usual. You know why ? BECAUSE THEY ARE REFUGEES ! They are the people who were able to get OUT of those warzones, a process that takes more than just ingenuity... it costs money, LOTS of money. These are the people who, in their home countries, had high-paying skilled jobs. You really think these doctors, lawyers and engineers are going to get to Europe and choose to live on a welfare allowance a single day longer than they have to ? It's amazing how the same people who complain about "stealing our jobs" can SIMULTANEOUSLY believe that people of foreign descent are too lazy to work... There has NEVER been a case in HISTORY where migration was not a nett economic gain for the host country. Migrants also do not take jobs - on average, by every measurable metric, every migrant CREATES 4 to 6 jobs.
If declaring your inauguration day a "national day of patriotic devotion" was not seriously out of the ordinary then the US would have had one of those for 300 years.
Could you GET a more Banana Republic move ? All he is missing is the Khaki-Uniform with the dozens of medals and the beret. He already has the cigars.
It is a defining attribute of the authoritarian that they will, soon enough, try to define reality itself by their words. Literature is filled with authors reminding us of just how common this is. In Orwell's 1984 Winston Smith remarks that "Freedom is being able to say that 2 and 2 make 4" and, later, as he is being tortured the party officer declares that "2 and 2 is 5 if we say it is". A not dissimilar scene in Star Trek The Next Generation had Picard being tortured by Cardassian Madred, who would, constantly, show him 4 blinking lights and insist that Picard say there are 5, promising to end his torture when Picard denies reality. At the end of the episode, as the rescued Picard stumbles away, he cannot help but turn back toward his torturer and defiantly declare: "There are 4 lights!". So this is the context in which we should see Donald Trump starting his term with flagrantly lying about a number everybody can see is wrong - insisting that the populace accept the truth to be, whatever he desires it to be. This is not just a dishonest politician lying - this is a politician who has declared war on truth itself, and there is no more authoritarian thing than that. This is what dictatorship looks like.
>which only referred to the "ban" on sharing scientific data
Because that's the only thing coming out of those things that er... matters ? If they stop tweeting you may feel inconvenienced but you can't say you're being robbed. If they refuse to share with you, the results of science you paid for, that's a major civil rights issue.
Austrians say that, I'm unconvinced. Frankly - if it exists it can be studied scientifically. Because it's a human-science it, like for example psychology, does not yield absolute laws with no exceptions - so all economic policy comes with some risk of failure- and the more data you have the less likely such failures become. Ironically the Austrians are MORE prone to oversimplified absolute rules - so the very reason they refuse to be empirical leads them to be FURTHER removed from reality - as opposed to somehow compensating for it. In the end though - the scientific method is still the best way to tell good from bad - and they reject that mostly because it consistently shows their cult up as bullshit. The most recent example is the great recession. The news cycle was filled with Austrians pronouncing the imminent collapse of the dollar into hyper-inflation as a result of quantitative easing. The Keynesians on the other hand were saying "a recession is a liquidity trap - it is a situation where the cash-flow in the economy is smaller than the productive capacity, so printing money in a recession does not cause inflation, at most it can avoid deflation". QE was done, America did not have hyperinflation, hell America had trouble maintaining any inflation at all. Exactly what the Keynesians predicted, Austrians are STILL predicting the hyperinflation that never happened. Another example from the same period. Much of the world embraced austerity policies at the time - under influence from Austrian economics. And we got a nice experiment. Where-ever austerity was embraced in the recession - the debts got higher. Where it was avoided - the debts got smaller. Exactly as Keynesians predict (Keynesian economics includes a proof that austerity cuts in a recession will always lead to an income loss greater than the spending savings) and exactly the opposite of what Austrians predict. Keynesians will tell you that, if you are concerned about debt or deficits - then the TIME to embrace austerity is in a boom cycle. When the market is flush with cash - that's when you can reduce government's spending and have a chance to have the savings be more than the resulting loss of government income. And making the jump from "another school of economics" to "pseudo-science cult" Austrians then refuse to refine their ideas in light of these failures (and this was just the most recent one - we can find the same proof in every recession in history, including the great depression). They just double-down. Empirical data does not exist to them.
But it all begins with an astoundingly stupid way of doing things. Because they reject empirical data as a valid way to test theories, they don't test it. Instead they write a bunch of axioms and draw conclusions from those. More like a mathematical proof than a science. Now, perhaps, there could have been some merrit to that- provided the axioms at least were real-world truths and the process of drawing conclusions were strictly adherent to the laws of logic and done using a proper formal-logic approach. Instead they use a verbal approach which is... fuzzy, ambiguity abounds and they exploit this to draw the conclusions they want and ignore the ones they don't. Austrian economics turns out to be nothing more than a massive propaganda piece for libertarian politics.
Here is just one example of the terrible logic that abounds in Austrian economics. The definition of "inflation" is "a reduction in the purchasing power of money". This is important because inflation has many, many causes - excessive inequality causes inflation (in fact - it caused hyperinflation in the Spanish empire leading to it's collapse - something Austrians hold should be impossible because the Spaniards were on the gold standard) many forces can raise or lower it, the money supply is just one of them and not always the most important one. Austrians however, redefine inflation as "an increase in the money supply" - then argue that anytime the government prints new money
>Also, your parenthetical is a really weird strawman that takes away from the rest of your comment.
Have you SEEN what MRAs actually advocate ? How is it a strawman to make a joke like that, about people who have actually advocated that rape should be legal ?!?!?! If anything, it was euphemistic. The worst thing you can say about it, is that it was a bit off-topic for the post - but not for current events.
Cant find the article... but I swear it exists and sure you can do nothing to verify its veracity but just trust me okay... and the dozens of other studies showing a link, imcluding with other cancers are just a weird and lucky coincidence. No really. Trust me.
For the ones he can't shut down himself, he'll do exactly what he did with violence against women act: he'll simply slash their budgets till all they can afford to consist of is one old lady sitting in a chair somewhere earning minimum wage to make herself a cup of tea every few hours and talking to herself about the days when the office was bustling with busy scientists and analysts.
Trump has already made clear he won't censor them - he is simply shutting them down, any department that has consistently been saying things he doesn't want to be true (like NASA's earth science division) is for the chopping block.
Government data is a collective noun for reports from hundreds of different organisations, some run by people obsessed with clerical accuracy and some run by people obsessed with partisan propaganda who are happy to massage a number. All of them under two houses of congress and a white house which changes its stance on what numbers they wish were different and how on a biannual basis.
The result is that you simply cannot ANSWER the question "is government data reliable" - there's just no single answer. A lot of it is reliable and, in fact, the best data available on some topics. A lot of it is flagrant bullshit, or at least deliberately presented in a way to deceive. And then there is data where it's more ambiguous. A lot of Austrian economists disagree with the inflation rate - and claim it's much higher by doing a different calculation from the raw data to substantiate this - while a Keynesian mainstream economists generally agree that the official figure is a decent representation of the number. It may not always accurately reflect price shifts (and it's always a bit behind the times) but for economic policy decisions it gives the information that is needed to make decisions like "should we raise interest rates, are we in a liquidity trap that demands quantitative easing or are we in a boom-cycle where that will cause a disaster ?" Who is right, will largely depend on whether you think Austrian economics is a cult divorced from any usefulness by it's refusal to accept empirical data as evidence and thus happy willingness to reject the constant failures of it's policies to have the right results as evidence against those policies... or see Keynesianism as a rampant scam designed to give government the power to decide what money is worth and control everybody's lives (I subscribe to the "The version of economics best supported by empirical data and historic ability of it's predictions to have expected outcomes is the most scientific" school - which is Keynesian through and through).
Some government data is the result of strenuous scientific study which is highly unlikely to be false, fabricated or manipulated (and almost impossible to apply to do this with), a lot are from softer human sciences which is more susceptible to this.
There is no answer to the question of "is government data reliable" - but you CAN answer "is *this piece* of government data reliable".
It's interesting how the Donald seems dead-set to pursue his agenda not by altering government data (particularly the scientific type) but by eradicating it - defunding or abolishing government research agencies that produce data on topics he would rather pretend is different or non-existent. As is climate change will stop happening if he defunds NASA's earth-science division so they can't tell us about it anymore. Sure this will weaken science over-all by removing a valuable source of data on how fast things are happening, but it won't make them stop happening. That gives you a clear view on the difference between easy-propaganda-data and scientific-data. Trump is well aware that he cannot pressure NASA to start reporting denier-friendly results, they are too well scrutinized by other scientists outside the agency, and if they suddenly stopped publishing raw data it would look too suspicious - so his best answer to keep his claims from being challenged by his own agency is to silence the agency.
It wouldn't matter anyway, since condom use has zero impact on HPV rates. HPV can be spread without sexual intercourse (and mostly is) and condoms do not prevent it or even reduce the risk. Even sexual activity rates don't affect HPV rates - it spreads way to easily and in way too many different ways. That's one reason we give the vaccine in childhood. The younger the better with this one.
>The virus that causes cervical cancer is transmitted as the result of habitual unprotected sex. Falsehood one. HPV can be, and most often is, spread by non-sexual contact.
Most women who get hysterectomies don't get it for cervical cancer. Cancer of the womb or ovaries are the usual reasons, that's why not all hysterectomies even remove the cervix. What this correction does is to take out of the calculation those women who, to prevent/treat a womb cancer had, had a procedure which also removed their risk of cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is often not detected in time for surgical responses, and when responded to surgically is usually not done with a hysterectomy. Why remove the entire womb (making it a much bigger and riskier operation) when you only need to remove the cervix to get the cancer out ?
Since the HPV virus can be spread by non-sexual contact (and usually is - that's why the vaccine is given in childhood) I can't see why there would be any stigma around it (and STD stigmas are idiotic anyway). But the thing is: vaccines ARE preventative medicine so the prevalence of the virus is, itself, indicative of the availability of preventative medicine.
Make no mistake, HPV vaccinations are good for men to get too - even though they don't have cervices because the virus has been linked to other cancers - including throat and tongue cancer. Even if you argue those links are not really definitive yet, getting the vaccine prevents the risk of becoming a carrier and acting like a cervical cancer typhoid-Mary (now watch as the MRA's start demanding men not get the HPV vaccine because men shouldn't be expected to NOT kill women they have sex with).
>The problem with UBI is if we replace food stamps and medicaid with UBI and the people just blow it on drugs and are then starving on the streets and filling up emergency rooms what do you do?
Well it's a good thing that the hundreds of UBI long-term experiments world-wide has never shown that happening, and infact, consistently showed healthcare outcomes improving and healthcare costs going DOWN as a result. In fact, there was a British experiment that gave 2000 pounds each to a bunch of homeless alcoholics and drug addicts, just a one time dump of cash on a bunch of hobos. A year later they looked in on them... and nearly all of them had gotten completely clean, most had jobs, several were in trade schools... these people got the funding for the biggest bender in history, all of them were already addicts who had lost everything to their habits... and nearly all of them used that money to clean up and rebuild their lives.
Your hypothetical problem, luckily, is entirely hypothetical and fully disproven by empirical data.
Finnland isn't the first to try it, there have been huge long-term experiments with this in the past, Canada's Mincome for example. They all showed massively positive results (and zero negative outcomes).
They just didn't become law. Perhaps the most ridiculous one happened during Nixon's time. Nixon presided over the period when the results of a 10-year experiment from the war on poverty came in. The results were fantastic - the cities and towns where the basic income had been provided had seen their economies blossom, entrepeneurship went up, crime went down, employment rates skyrocketed, healthcare outcomes improved... it was all fantastic. Nixon was about to sign this into a national law... then some senator noticed that divorce rates had gone up hugely. The idea was dead there and then. Now think about that, what the senators and the president believed - what the divorce rates went up because UBI allowed battered women to kick no-good husbands to the curb... and they couldn't let THAT happen.
The greatest irony of all - the divorce rates had not, in fact, gone up at all. The reported increase was a clerical error -literally a typo by the guy who typed up the report for the senate ! By the time the scientists learned what happened and protested the bill was already dead... and has been all but forgotten.
There has been so many experiments with UBI -they've all been remarkable successes, but never yet has one gone from "excellent test" to "implemented", mostly because the rich people tend to get stroppy at the thought of not being allowed to be QUITE such big assholes. After all, if you measure your worth by how rich you are- you only HAVE worth if the poor are REALLY poor.
Interesting side-note: if Uber drivers are contracted sub-businesses, why are they taxed like employees ? Uber drivers pay taxes, and have to cover expenses out of what's left - like salaried employees. They do not get money, pay expenses and are then taxed only on what's left - like businesses are.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I speak as a male survivor of domestic violence. I got plenty of support from feminists... men (and especially MRAs) mostly called me a "pussy" and a "cuck'.
Yes we're resisting Trump. That's what you do with fascists. You don't yield. You punch the fucking nazis in the face.
So the oath by republicans to resist Obama at every turn "to make him a one-term president" never happened according to you ?
>1. Young people are not the only refugees
But they are the majority. The VAST Majority - people who are not able-bodied rarely survive the crossing (or even attempt it).
>2. What guarantee thatthe terrorists arn't mixed in with the refugees
Who gives a fuck ? How many could there be who gets through the extremely strenuous UN refugee vetting process AND the local country vetting processes ? Seriously - it's not WORTH it for the terrorists to try - it takes years, why do that when you can just recruit locals already IN those countries - who aren't getting vetted because nobody vets natural-born citizens. So let's say a few get in, how many people could they realistically kill ? 20 ? 50 ? Lets assume all of them are as successful as the most successful attacks in Europe have been (the vast majority are nowhere near that)... 500 ? A thousand ? Do you know what the name is for somebody who would kill millions of people to save a thousand ? A fucking terrorist. Do you know what you call somebody who would kill millions of people just for looking different (or believing in a different religion) to save a thousand who looks like himself ? A fucking NAZI terrorist. That's what you are advocating for. NAZI terrorism. You have a few insane people who are actively working to commit genocide on their own people... and you are advocating that we actually HELP them do that because you're scared if we don't they may get a few of ours as well. Fuck that shit. That is not something any sane person would do.
>3. What guarantee that the refugees will look for honest work .
Every economic study ever. The history of every large migration in history. They always do. These people are fleeing for their lives, they are not coming on a fucking welfare holiday. They are not even economic migrants. They are skilled, mostly highly educated, people fleeing for their lives. In fact, if anything, the odds are BETTER than usual. You know why ? BECAUSE THEY ARE REFUGEES ! They are the people who were able to get OUT of those warzones, a process that takes more than just ingenuity... it costs money, LOTS of money. These are the people who, in their home countries, had high-paying skilled jobs. You really think these doctors, lawyers and engineers are going to get to Europe and choose to live on a welfare allowance a single day longer than they have to ? It's amazing how the same people who complain about "stealing our jobs" can SIMULTANEOUSLY believe that people of foreign descent are too lazy to work... There has NEVER been a case in HISTORY where migration was not a nett economic gain for the host country. Migrants also do not take jobs - on average, by every measurable metric, every migrant CREATES 4 to 6 jobs.
If declaring your inauguration day a "national day of patriotic devotion" was not seriously out of the ordinary then the US would have had one of those for 300 years.
Could you GET a more Banana Republic move ? All he is missing is the Khaki-Uniform with the dozens of medals and the beret. He already has the cigars.
It is a defining attribute of the authoritarian that they will, soon enough, try to define reality itself by their words. Literature is filled with authors reminding us of just how common this is. In Orwell's 1984 Winston Smith remarks that "Freedom is being able to say that 2 and 2 make 4" and, later, as he is being tortured the party officer declares that "2 and 2 is 5 if we say it is". A not dissimilar scene in Star Trek The Next Generation had Picard being tortured by Cardassian Madred, who would, constantly, show him 4 blinking lights and insist that Picard say there are 5, promising to end his torture when Picard denies reality. At the end of the episode, as the rescued Picard stumbles away, he cannot help but turn back toward his torturer and defiantly declare: "There are 4 lights!".
So this is the context in which we should see Donald Trump starting his term with flagrantly lying about a number everybody can see is wrong - insisting that the populace accept the truth to be, whatever he desires it to be.
This is not just a dishonest politician lying - this is a politician who has declared war on truth itself, and there is no more authoritarian thing than that. This is what dictatorship looks like.
>which only referred to the "ban" on sharing scientific data
Because that's the only thing coming out of those things that er... matters ? If they stop tweeting you may feel inconvenienced but you can't say you're being robbed. If they refuse to share with you, the results of science you paid for, that's a major civil rights issue.
or does that "clarification" bear all the hallmarks of an ass-covering exercise ?
>Economics is NOT a science
Austrians say that, I'm unconvinced. Frankly - if it exists it can be studied scientifically. Because it's a human-science it, like for example psychology, does not yield absolute laws with no exceptions - so all economic policy comes with some risk of failure- and the more data you have the less likely such failures become.
Ironically the Austrians are MORE prone to oversimplified absolute rules - so the very reason they refuse to be empirical leads them to be FURTHER removed from reality - as opposed to somehow compensating for it.
In the end though - the scientific method is still the best way to tell good from bad - and they reject that mostly because it consistently shows their cult up as bullshit. The most recent example is the great recession. The news cycle was filled with Austrians pronouncing the imminent collapse of the dollar into hyper-inflation as a result of quantitative easing. The Keynesians on the other hand were saying "a recession is a liquidity trap - it is a situation where the cash-flow in the economy is smaller than the productive capacity, so printing money in a recession does not cause inflation, at most it can avoid deflation". QE was done, America did not have hyperinflation, hell America had trouble maintaining any inflation at all. Exactly what the Keynesians predicted, Austrians are STILL predicting the hyperinflation that never happened.
Another example from the same period. Much of the world embraced austerity policies at the time - under influence from Austrian economics. And we got a nice experiment. Where-ever austerity was embraced in the recession - the debts got higher. Where it was avoided - the debts got smaller. Exactly as Keynesians predict (Keynesian economics includes a proof that austerity cuts in a recession will always lead to an income loss greater than the spending savings) and exactly the opposite of what Austrians predict. Keynesians will tell you that, if you are concerned about debt or deficits - then the TIME to embrace austerity is in a boom cycle. When the market is flush with cash - that's when you can reduce government's spending and have a chance to have the savings be more than the resulting loss of government income.
And making the jump from "another school of economics" to "pseudo-science cult" Austrians then refuse to refine their ideas in light of these failures (and this was just the most recent one - we can find the same proof in every recession in history, including the great depression). They just double-down. Empirical data does not exist to them.
But it all begins with an astoundingly stupid way of doing things. Because they reject empirical data as a valid way to test theories, they don't test it. Instead they write a bunch of axioms and draw conclusions from those. More like a mathematical proof than a science. Now, perhaps, there could have been some merrit to that- provided the axioms at least were real-world truths and the process of drawing conclusions were strictly adherent to the laws of logic and done using a proper formal-logic approach.
Instead they use a verbal approach which is... fuzzy, ambiguity abounds and they exploit this to draw the conclusions they want and ignore the ones they don't. Austrian economics turns out to be nothing more than a massive propaganda piece for libertarian politics.
Here is just one example of the terrible logic that abounds in Austrian economics. The definition of "inflation" is "a reduction in the purchasing power of money". This is important because inflation has many, many causes - excessive inequality causes inflation (in fact - it caused hyperinflation in the Spanish empire leading to it's collapse - something Austrians hold should be impossible because the Spaniards were on the gold standard) many forces can raise or lower it, the money supply is just one of them and not always the most important one.
Austrians however, redefine inflation as "an increase in the money supply" - then argue that anytime the government prints new money
Well seeing as what the "reasonable" ones advocate for... are things feminists also advocate for, well I'll keep calling myself a feminist I think.
>Also, your parenthetical is a really weird strawman that takes away from the rest of your comment.
Have you SEEN what MRAs actually advocate ? How is it a strawman to make a joke like that, about people who have actually advocated that rape should be legal ?!?!?! If anything, it was euphemistic. The worst thing you can say about it, is that it was a bit off-topic for the post - but not for current events.
Cant find the article... but I swear it exists and sure you can do nothing to verify its veracity but just trust me okay... and the dozens of other studies showing a link, imcluding with other cancers are just a weird and lucky coincidence. No really. Trust me.
For the ones he can't shut down himself, he'll do exactly what he did with violence against women act: he'll simply slash their budgets till all they can afford to consist of is one old lady sitting in a chair somewhere earning minimum wage to make herself a cup of tea every few hours and talking to herself about the days when the office was bustling with busy scientists and analysts.
Really ? It took me all of thirty seconds to find this: http://www.chronicle.com/blogs...
Trump has already made clear he won't censor them - he is simply shutting them down, any department that has consistently been saying things he doesn't want to be true (like NASA's earth science division) is for the chopping block.
Government data is a collective noun for reports from hundreds of different organisations, some run by people obsessed with clerical accuracy and some run by people obsessed with partisan propaganda who are happy to massage a number. All of them under two houses of congress and a white house which changes its stance on what numbers they wish were different and how on a biannual basis.
The result is that you simply cannot ANSWER the question "is government data reliable" - there's just no single answer. A lot of it is reliable and, in fact, the best data available on some topics. A lot of it is flagrant bullshit, or at least deliberately presented in a way to deceive. And then there is data where it's more ambiguous. A lot of Austrian economists disagree with the inflation rate - and claim it's much higher by doing a different calculation from the raw data to substantiate this - while a Keynesian mainstream economists generally agree that the official figure is a decent representation of the number. It may not always accurately reflect price shifts (and it's always a bit behind the times) but for economic policy decisions it gives the information that is needed to make decisions like "should we raise interest rates, are we in a liquidity trap that demands quantitative easing or are we in a boom-cycle where that will cause a disaster ?"
Who is right, will largely depend on whether you think Austrian economics is a cult divorced from any usefulness by it's refusal to accept empirical data as evidence and thus happy willingness to reject the constant failures of it's policies to have the right results as evidence against those policies... or see Keynesianism as a rampant scam designed to give government the power to decide what money is worth and control everybody's lives (I subscribe to the "The version of economics best supported by empirical data and historic ability of it's predictions to have expected outcomes is the most scientific" school - which is Keynesian through and through).
Some government data is the result of strenuous scientific study which is highly unlikely to be false, fabricated or manipulated (and almost impossible to apply to do this with), a lot are from softer human sciences which is more susceptible to this.
There is no answer to the question of "is government data reliable" - but you CAN answer "is *this piece* of government data reliable".
It's interesting how the Donald seems dead-set to pursue his agenda not by altering government data (particularly the scientific type) but by eradicating it - defunding or abolishing government research agencies that produce data on topics he would rather pretend is different or non-existent. As is climate change will stop happening if he defunds NASA's earth-science division so they can't tell us about it anymore. Sure this will weaken science over-all by removing a valuable source of data on how fast things are happening, but it won't make them stop happening. That gives you a clear view on the difference between easy-propaganda-data and scientific-data. Trump is well aware that he cannot pressure NASA to start reporting denier-friendly results, they are too well scrutinized by other scientists outside the agency, and if they suddenly stopped publishing raw data it would look too suspicious - so his best answer to keep his claims from being challenged by his own agency is to silence the agency.
The US just elected to the presidency somebody who is clearly both.
It wouldn't matter anyway, since condom use has zero impact on HPV rates. HPV can be spread without sexual intercourse (and mostly is) and condoms do not prevent it or even reduce the risk. Even sexual activity rates don't affect HPV rates - it spreads way to easily and in way too many different ways. That's one reason we give the vaccine in childhood. The younger the better with this one.
>The virus that causes cervical cancer is transmitted as the result of habitual unprotected sex.
Falsehood one. HPV can be, and most often is, spread by non-sexual contact.
Most women who get hysterectomies don't get it for cervical cancer. Cancer of the womb or ovaries are the usual reasons, that's why not all hysterectomies even remove the cervix. What this correction does is to take out of the calculation those women who, to prevent/treat a womb cancer had, had a procedure which also removed their risk of cervical cancer. Cervical cancer is often not detected in time for surgical responses, and when responded to surgically is usually not done with a hysterectomy. Why remove the entire womb (making it a much bigger and riskier operation) when you only need to remove the cervix to get the cancer out ?
Since the HPV virus can be spread by non-sexual contact (and usually is - that's why the vaccine is given in childhood) I can't see why there would be any stigma around it (and STD stigmas are idiotic anyway).
But the thing is: vaccines ARE preventative medicine so the prevalence of the virus is, itself, indicative of the availability of preventative medicine.
Make no mistake, HPV vaccinations are good for men to get too - even though they don't have cervices because the virus has been linked to other cancers - including throat and tongue cancer. Even if you argue those links are not really definitive yet, getting the vaccine prevents the risk of becoming a carrier and acting like a cervical cancer typhoid-Mary (now watch as the MRA's start demanding men not get the HPV vaccine because men shouldn't be expected to NOT kill women they have sex with).
>The problem with UBI is if we replace food stamps and medicaid with UBI and the people just blow it on drugs and are then starving on the streets and filling up emergency rooms what do you do?
Well it's a good thing that the hundreds of UBI long-term experiments world-wide has never shown that happening, and infact, consistently showed healthcare outcomes improving and healthcare costs going DOWN as a result.
In fact, there was a British experiment that gave 2000 pounds each to a bunch of homeless alcoholics and drug addicts, just a one time dump of cash on a bunch of hobos. A year later they looked in on them... and nearly all of them had gotten completely clean, most had jobs, several were in trade schools... these people got the funding for the biggest bender in history, all of them were already addicts who had lost everything to their habits... and nearly all of them used that money to clean up and rebuild their lives.
Your hypothetical problem, luckily, is entirely hypothetical and fully disproven by empirical data.
Finnland isn't the first to try it, there have been huge long-term experiments with this in the past, Canada's Mincome for example. They all showed massively positive results (and zero negative outcomes).
They just didn't become law. Perhaps the most ridiculous one happened during Nixon's time. Nixon presided over the period when the results of a 10-year experiment from the war on poverty came in. The results were fantastic - the cities and towns where the basic income had been provided had seen their economies blossom, entrepeneurship went up, crime went down, employment rates skyrocketed, healthcare outcomes improved... it was all fantastic. Nixon was about to sign this into a national law... then some senator noticed that divorce rates had gone up hugely.
The idea was dead there and then. Now think about that, what the senators and the president believed - what the divorce rates went up because UBI allowed battered women to kick no-good husbands to the curb... and they couldn't let THAT happen.
The greatest irony of all - the divorce rates had not, in fact, gone up at all. The reported increase was a clerical error -literally a typo by the guy who typed up the report for the senate ! By the time the scientists learned what happened and protested the bill was already dead... and has been all but forgotten.
There has been so many experiments with UBI -they've all been remarkable successes, but never yet has one gone from "excellent test" to "implemented", mostly because the rich people tend to get stroppy at the thought of not being allowed to be QUITE such big assholes. After all, if you measure your worth by how rich you are- you only HAVE worth if the poor are REALLY poor.
Interesting side-note: if Uber drivers are contracted sub-businesses, why are they taxed like employees ? Uber drivers pay taxes, and have to cover expenses out of what's left - like salaried employees. They do not get money, pay expenses and are then taxed only on what's left - like businesses are.