Generally speaking, when someone says "I don't need X telling me Y", they are suggesting that X has no business expressing Y in the first place. It is exacerbated by the fact that she quite specifically defines X to be a subset of white males, which technically makes the remark both sexist and racist. It treats one aspect of sex or race as being worthy of less respect in a particular matter than another, which is marginalisation of that demographic. If that's not what Ms Larson meant, then I think she better clarify what she intended, because that's sure as hell how it looks to a whole lot of people.
I did not make a claim that the OP was intending to be sexist. I said, quite explicitly, assuming that the poster did *NOT* intend to sound misogynist...
I merely acknowledged the concept because I don't honestly know what the OP's intent was... and I frankly couldn't care less. Why in the hell does the fact that I happened to mention it at all seem to bother you so much?
And hell, it wasn't even the point of my original comment... I gave you the benefit of the doubt as well, assuming you didn't follow what I was getting at, and weren't actually trying to drag me off topic, but hey... you did.
I assume you misunderstand me because you seem to be asserting that my conclusion, which is that cures cannot be profitably sustainable, is somehow logically false, when it clearly is not. There are many diseases or conditions for which a cure could not possibly reduce the incidence rate, and therefore the demand for the cure would not diminish with its availability, meaning that a cure can continue to be profitable.
The article itself even acknowledges this, by suggesting that cures for some conditions, such as cancer, would *NOT* adversely affect profitability because their incidence rate remains high, even as some people can and do get cured, when the condition is caught early enough.
You are the one that created this "misogynist" conversation by shitting...
No, I did not... I opened with a statement to the effect of that I was assuming that the poster was *NOT* intending to sound like a misogynist... and went on to make my point.
And for some reason that is completely inexplicable to me, the fact that I had said this has somehow become a super huge deal with you.... I wasn't the one to blow things out of proportion here. I was quite willing to give the poster the benefit of the doubt, and not make any assumption about intent. I was only acknowledging what to me seemed entirely obvious that the above quoted comment could be taken as originating *WITH* some intent to be derogatory towards women. Whether this was the actual underlying intent or not was entirely irrelevant.
It seems somewhat ironic that my casual mention of the possibility that the original remark might be construed as offensive has in fact itself become very obviously offensive to you.
What you are failing to distinguish is the difference between whether something was intended to be derogatory towards women and whether it might SOUND like it is being derogatory towards women.
You obviously can't go around factually stating that men and women in general are actually of equal physical strength, but neither should one go around saying that one is inferior to the other in even that single respect, regardless of any scientific data they might have to support it, without realizing that it's got some non-zero chance of coming across as sexist, even if that wasn't the intent.
My point is that the notion that diseases cannot be profitably cured is false. Many diseases exist for which the availability of a cure would not actually diminish the incidence of the onset of that disease (and in some cases, not even necessarily diminish the possibility of recurrence), and therefore not diminish the demand for the cure, thereby allowing a cure to be profitably sustainable. A cure is not necessarily the same thing as a universal preventative measure, it is simply a treatment that eradicates some condition from the patient that is treated. Also, by curing people outright, the patient does not become a burden on society through prolonged treatment, which itself could indirectly adversely affect profitability.
No... I had to go with simply pointing out the *fact* that any comparison of women to men and which says that women are less capable than men in some aspect can *SOUND* misogynistic, and it is why I brought up the point. This can happen regardless of any intent or lack thereof.
I started by disclaiming that it might be the case that this was not intended... but then again, I don't know the poster and maybe it was. I thought that the possibility was high enough that it was worth pointing out in passing, but I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and quickly move past it to focus on the main point which was that any notion of what we think the real world is like has no bearing on what happens in a movie about a comic book superhero.
And yet, you chose to spend the majority of your reply ignoring what should have clearly been my main point and instead focus on my use of a single word that for some inexplicable reason seems to offend you.
What Ms. Larson fails to grasp is that even if she feels like she doesn't need a "40 year old white dude" telling her what didn't work about the film, that person has every right to say what he thinks, and she has precisely zero authority to prohibit such an expression.
The producer of the film, by way... is a white dude. He's about a decade past 40 though.... does that mean he gets a pass?
The CRTC, not the federal government, is actually responsible for banning cell phone locking in Canada. Which federal party has a majority at any given time is irrelevant.
The current or a future federal government could, hypothetically, try to restrict the CRTC's ability to govern in this area, but that might be an uphill climb for any party, even the most staunch pro-corporate ones.
They could appeal to the CRTC, but they would have to make a case for how the notion actually protects consumers (hint: it doesn't... it only protects the provider from fraud, not the legitimate consumer). At best, they might allow phones to be distributed locked from the manufacturer, but since the provider still has to provide unlocking on request free of charge as soon as the phone is provided to the customer, I'm not sure if having it locked between the manufacturer and provider would make any difference. A would-be criminal can request that their new phone be unlocked just as readily as an honest consumer. Providers that don't unlock phones they provide can be fined.
If a person buys an unlocked phone on day 1, they are a lot more likely to find a new carrier that they want to use and switch right away.
So why should that be a customer's problem? How does locking the phone for 60 days protect customers from identity theft or fraud? It's obvious how it might help to protect a revenue stream for the provider, but it's not obvious at all how it supposedly protects the customer.
Someone else has already pointed out that in Canada, although it's a fairly recent law, locking cell phones to a provider is expressly disallowed. It's sad that apparently there is no similar law south of the 49th parallel.
Except the "subset of x" isn't that small. I can't refute the existence of conditions where curing a disease does not turn out to be profitable in the long run because you run out of people to cure, but the incidence rate of many diseases and conditions would not be affected in the slightest by the availability of a cure, only the incidence of people that suffer from it.
The example given, only shows that it is possible that a cure can be unsustainable when as you cure people of some types of contagious conditions, you also reduce the likelihood of it being aquired by anyone else in the first place, eventually reducing its incidence rate below profitable levels.
Not all diseases or conditions are like that. Many conditions can even be reacquired anew after someone has been cured.
Not necessarily.... a person that develops a cure for something could potentially sustain it indefinitely if they do not ever run out of people to cure.
Note, there are an awful lot of people in the world, and the population is growing.
Do you think that a procedure or medical treatment, after which the treated patient no longer has a particular condition, does not actually constitute a cure? Are you using some other definition for "cure" here? Because that's the only way I can see anyone thinking that what I'm saying is somehow idiotic.
My point is that cures for many things exist today, so the argument that cures cannot possibly be as sustainable as treating the condition flies in the face of simple reality. Why would such cures continue to be readily available if it were not sustainable to provide them?
It often can be the case that people who ally with a particular party tend towards the views of the party, so even a free vote can reflect party values.
However, as I said, the matter of right to repair is an issue that spans party lines. Anyone, regardless of political affiliation, has the potential to be adversely affected by corporate abuse in these regards, and there is a not insigificant chance that even many Conservative party members may have personally felt its sting, as this Liberal MPP did, so I'd not be at all surprised if this passes.
Members voting not along party lines? In Canada? Where have you been for the past couple of decades? That simply doesn't happen. Ever.
Sure it does. You simply haven't been paying attention if you think otherwise.
Not all parties advocate free votes, but the Conservatives in Ontario definitely do. Officially, their position reads as "The only whipped vote will be on the budget. Otherwise MPPs will always be allowed free votes."
While the Conservative party might be pro-business, as you say, it is still ultimately made up of individuals that may individually see the merit behind such legislation. Since the Conservative party typically permits its members to vote with their conscience, rather than according to any official line set by the party leaders, I would give this legislation better odds than 50-50 of going through.
Because nothing about curing a disease or condition in one person necessarily means that it will not happen to someone else, or possibly even to the same person again at a later time, since not all conditions or diseases render a person entirely immune once they have acquired it once.
Slashdot Mirror
Generally speaking, when someone says "I don't need X telling me Y", they are suggesting that X has no business expressing Y in the first place. It is exacerbated by the fact that she quite specifically defines X to be a subset of white males, which technically makes the remark both sexist and racist. It treats one aspect of sex or race as being worthy of less respect in a particular matter than another, which is marginalisation of that demographic. If that's not what Ms Larson meant, then I think she better clarify what she intended, because that's sure as hell how it looks to a whole lot of people.
Saying that she doesn't need someone else telling her X is basically suggesting that the person doesn't have any right to say X.
I did not make a claim that the OP was intending to be sexist. I said, quite explicitly, assuming that the poster did *NOT* intend to sound misogynist...
I merely acknowledged the concept because I don't honestly know what the OP's intent was... and I frankly couldn't care less. Why in the hell does the fact that I happened to mention it at all seem to bother you so much?
And hell, it wasn't even the point of my original comment... I gave you the benefit of the doubt as well, assuming you didn't follow what I was getting at, and weren't actually trying to drag me off topic, but hey... you did.
Kudos.
The article itself even acknowledges this, by suggesting that cures for some conditions, such as cancer, would *NOT* adversely affect profitability because their incidence rate remains high, even as some people can and do get cured, when the condition is caught early enough.
Uh...
Looks that way to me.
No, I did not... I opened with a statement to the effect of that I was assuming that the poster was *NOT* intending to sound like a misogynist... and went on to make my point.
And for some reason that is completely inexplicable to me, the fact that I had said this has somehow become a super huge deal with you.... I wasn't the one to blow things out of proportion here. I was quite willing to give the poster the benefit of the doubt, and not make any assumption about intent. I was only acknowledging what to me seemed entirely obvious that the above quoted comment could be taken as originating *WITH* some intent to be derogatory towards women. Whether this was the actual underlying intent or not was entirely irrelevant.
It seems somewhat ironic that my casual mention of the possibility that the original remark might be construed as offensive has in fact itself become very obviously offensive to you.
Get a life.
What you are failing to distinguish is the difference between whether something was intended to be derogatory towards women and whether it might SOUND like it is being derogatory towards women.
You obviously can't go around factually stating that men and women in general are actually of equal physical strength, but neither should one go around saying that one is inferior to the other in even that single respect, regardless of any scientific data they might have to support it, without realizing that it's got some non-zero chance of coming across as sexist, even if that wasn't the intent.
My point is that the notion that diseases cannot be profitably cured is false. Many diseases exist for which the availability of a cure would not actually diminish the incidence of the onset of that disease (and in some cases, not even necessarily diminish the possibility of recurrence), and therefore not diminish the demand for the cure, thereby allowing a cure to be profitably sustainable. A cure is not necessarily the same thing as a universal preventative measure, it is simply a treatment that eradicates some condition from the patient that is treated. Also, by curing people outright, the patient does not become a burden on society through prolonged treatment, which itself could indirectly adversely affect profitability.
No... I had to go with simply pointing out the *fact* that any comparison of women to men and which says that women are less capable than men in some aspect can *SOUND* misogynistic, and it is why I brought up the point. This can happen regardless of any intent or lack thereof.
I started by disclaiming that it might be the case that this was not intended... but then again, I don't know the poster and maybe it was. I thought that the possibility was high enough that it was worth pointing out in passing, but I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and quickly move past it to focus on the main point which was that any notion of what we think the real world is like has no bearing on what happens in a movie about a comic book superhero.
And yet, you chose to spend the majority of your reply ignoring what should have clearly been my main point and instead focus on my use of a single word that for some inexplicable reason seems to offend you.
What Ms. Larson fails to grasp is that even if she feels like she doesn't need a "40 year old white dude" telling her what didn't work about the film, that person has every right to say what he thinks, and she has precisely zero authority to prohibit such an expression.
The producer of the film, by way... is a white dude. He's about a decade past 40 though.... does that mean he gets a pass?
"Women in general are not physiologically strong. .... The reality is ... "
Assuming you didn't deliberately intend to sound like a misogynist, you know this is a movie about a comic book superhero, right?
The CRTC, not the federal government, is actually responsible for banning cell phone locking in Canada. Which federal party has a majority at any given time is irrelevant.
The current or a future federal government could, hypothetically, try to restrict the CRTC's ability to govern in this area, but that might be an uphill climb for any party, even the most staunch pro-corporate ones.
They could appeal to the CRTC, but they would have to make a case for how the notion actually protects consumers (hint: it doesn't... it only protects the provider from fraud, not the legitimate consumer). At best, they might allow phones to be distributed locked from the manufacturer, but since the provider still has to provide unlocking on request free of charge as soon as the phone is provided to the customer, I'm not sure if having it locked between the manufacturer and provider would make any difference. A would-be criminal can request that their new phone be unlocked just as readily as an honest consumer. Providers that don't unlock phones they provide can be fined.
They won't be able to do that here... there are express laws forbidding it now.
So why should that be a customer's problem? How does locking the phone for 60 days protect customers from identity theft or fraud? It's obvious how it might help to protect a revenue stream for the provider, but it's not obvious at all how it supposedly protects the customer.
Someone else has already pointed out that in Canada, although it's a fairly recent law, locking cell phones to a provider is expressly disallowed. It's sad that apparently there is no similar law south of the 49th parallel.
Except the "subset of x" isn't that small. I can't refute the existence of conditions where curing a disease does not turn out to be profitable in the long run because you run out of people to cure, but the incidence rate of many diseases and conditions would not be affected in the slightest by the availability of a cure, only the incidence of people that suffer from it.
The example given, only shows that it is possible that a cure can be unsustainable when as you cure people of some types of contagious conditions, you also reduce the likelihood of it being aquired by anyone else in the first place, eventually reducing its incidence rate below profitable levels.
Not all diseases or conditions are like that. Many conditions can even be reacquired anew after someone has been cured.
Except for the channels whose authors actually interact with the comments, and proceed to post followup videos based on those comments.
Not necessarily.... a person that develops a cure for something could potentially sustain it indefinitely if they do not ever run out of people to cure.
Note, there are an awful lot of people in the world, and the population is growing.
Deleting the individual comment would make the most sense... banning the user entirely could open up another can of worms.
Do you think that a procedure or medical treatment, after which the treated patient no longer has a particular condition, does not actually constitute a cure? Are you using some other definition for "cure" here? Because that's the only way I can see anyone thinking that what I'm saying is somehow idiotic.
My point is that cures for many things exist today, so the argument that cures cannot possibly be as sustainable as treating the condition flies in the face of simple reality. Why would such cures continue to be readily available if it were not sustainable to provide them?
It often can be the case that people who ally with a particular party tend towards the views of the party, so even a free vote can reflect party values.
However, as I said, the matter of right to repair is an issue that spans party lines. Anyone, regardless of political affiliation, has the potential to be adversely affected by corporate abuse in these regards, and there is a not insigificant chance that even many Conservative party members may have personally felt its sting, as this Liberal MPP did, so I'd not be at all surprised if this passes.
Sure it does. You simply haven't been paying attention if you think otherwise.
Not all parties advocate free votes, but the Conservatives in Ontario definitely do. Officially, their position reads as "The only whipped vote will be on the budget. Otherwise MPPs will always be allowed free votes."
While the Conservative party might be pro-business, as you say, it is still ultimately made up of individuals that may individually see the merit behind such legislation. Since the Conservative party typically permits its members to vote with their conscience, rather than according to any official line set by the party leaders, I would give this legislation better odds than 50-50 of going through.
Pot, meet kettle.
Because nothing about curing a disease or condition in one person necessarily means that it will not happen to someone else, or possibly even to the same person again at a later time, since not all conditions or diseases render a person entirely immune once they have acquired it once.
It is more likely, in fact, that you will simply tend towards mediocrity.
Entropy increases in any closed system, including social networks.