There is a difference between an 18 year old HS student deciding to have sex and a 14 year old HS student deciding to have sex. Only one of them is of the legal age of consent in most western countries.
Sure there's a legal difference. There's a legal difference between going 69 and 71 on the freeway too. Not that it makes a bit of difference in reality.
Furthermore, my wife lost her virginity at 14 and said she felt it was a huge mistake
The problem here isn't the sex, it's that she regrets it. She regrets it because she's been lied to and told that sex is bad. We need a society that celebrates and encourages sex, then people would have more sex and fewer regrets and everyone would be happier.
Anarchy is undemocratic, because for practical purposes, in an anarchic state, the strong rule the weak
No one rules anyone under Anarchy, by definition. ("an archos"). What you really mean to say here is that what most people call Anarchy is not, and would be better described as Warlordism.
I've been blaming Republicans for fucking this up since last fall. You're right though, Democrats should have gone all the way(single payer) from the beginning. But there are motherfuckers like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman to deal with.
Oh, I'm sure one or two of you did. But why are they making so much more noise today? So many people today are claiming to care about freedom. Very few people spoke out for freedom when they were criminalizing marijuana. The only reason I can come up with is that most of those people are being disingenuous about their motives. They do not care about freedom. In fact, if you check, I bet you'll find that most of the people crying out about freedom today, supported Bush and all his abuses. They don't give a shit about freedom.
If you're an honest advocate of freedom, you should carefully consider who you ally yourself with.
Competition requires a level legal "playing field" which cannot exist when one of the "competitors" is a branch of the government
Somehow UPS and FedEx don't have a problem competing against the US government.
Besides, if you think insurance-industry lobbyists have too much influence over Congress now, just wait until they've been merged into a single organization
A non-profit organization with the welfare of the American people as its goal? I'll take that over the present situation any day.
Anyone who really wants a "public option" is free to form a medical insurance co-op.
An insurance co-op only becomes viable when it has enough members to negotiate rates with health care providers. Mom and Pop can't compete with a mega corporation. If you can think of a way to start non-governmental insurance co-ops without this problem, I'd love to hear it.
Seriously, think about this. Last week, you could easily be denied life saving treatment because you had the audacity to move to a different county. And you're telling me you're less free now?
Yeah, you might pay a little more. But a very large number of Americans are actually, in reality, more free now, because they don't have to live in fear of insurance getting canceled.
What I want to know is where all these freedom loving Americans were when they were prohibiting marijuana, prostitution, gambling, and a host of other activities a free person might choose to engage in? Somehow you all have no problem spending Billions of dollars imprisoning people who have more fun than you. But when you're *saving* Billions of dollars and helping people at the same time, all of a sudden your freedom is at risk?
If the government wasn't able to compete with private insurers, the public option would be irrelevant because no one would buy it. There was a plan that would have provided a public option completely funded by premiums (no tax dollars). That would eliminate any unfair advantage a government plan would have.
So, if you honestly believe that the government couldn't run a public plan well, there's no reason to oppose it. It wouldn't cost you anything, and it wouldn't hurt the private plans who could out compete it. The only reason to oppose such a plan is because it *can* out compete private insurers.
You are of course correct. Also, Lehman Bros. Especially Lehman Bros. Their failure was the straw that broke the camels back. And yes, they knew what they were doing. They were so clever about what they were doing that they came up with ways to hide liability that no one ever thought of before. String em all up I say.
Oh that's easy enough, one exists, one doesn't. You can be the victim of rude behavior, but that doesn't mean it should be a crime. So that's a crime-less victim.
Victimless crimes on the other hand don't exist. Or rather any behavior that does not produce a victim should not be a crime.
If you find this concept quaint then why are vinyl sales slowly rising?
Hipsters. This is the same crowd that has sequin sweater parties. Somehow in their mind vinyl (and sequin sweaters) are better *because* they're crappy.
Sure it can. It just usually isn't. The dynamic range of vinyl is less than that of CDs, so if you had an uncompressed (dynamic range) digital music file, you'd have to compress it more to put it on vinyl than on a CD. If you chose to compress it even further, you could do it on either vinyl or CDs.
Just because their brains are different doesn't mean they're defective. I've read that article, and in fact was thinking of it when I made that post. This quote in particular is key:
ABIGAIL BAIRD: What we found is they actually use their frontal cortex, the cognitive part of their brains. They are actually trying to think about this. They are trying to reason about this and it is not automatic. It is very labored for them.
Teenagers actually think. Adults just react.
I like how you assume that I'm a child, BTW. I'm not. I have a fully developed brain. I remember being a teenager, and honestly I was a more thoughtful person then. I'm able to do more now, because I can set a lot of things on autopilot. But one thing I'm less able to do is to recognize my own biases, and fairly entertain ideas that oppose my own preconceptions. I don't know if you've ever spent time talking with teenagers about anything in depth (science, philosophy, etc) but they ask more and better questions and come up with more unique ideas than adults do. This is something to be valued.
Slashdot Mirror
This is what cell phones, mp3 players, and portable video game consoles are for.
There is a difference between an 18 year old HS student deciding to have sex and a 14 year old HS student deciding to have sex. Only one of them is of the legal age of consent in most western countries.
Sure there's a legal difference. There's a legal difference between going 69 and 71 on the freeway too. Not that it makes a bit of difference in reality.
Furthermore, my wife lost her virginity at 14 and said she felt it was a huge mistake
The problem here isn't the sex, it's that she regrets it. She regrets it because she's been lied to and told that sex is bad. We need a society that celebrates and encourages sex, then people would have more sex and fewer regrets and everyone would be happier.
This is worse than shareware. Shareware was free until you wanted the whole thing.
The terrifying conclusion of this research is that when you randomly assign normal people to positions of power, they become psychopaths.
Anarchy is undemocratic, because for practical purposes, in an anarchic state, the strong rule the weak
No one rules anyone under Anarchy, by definition. ("an archos"). What you really mean to say here is that what most people call Anarchy is not, and would be better described as Warlordism.
Yes, the system worked as intended. It lined the pockets of major corporations, and allowed politicians to pander to their base.
I've been blaming Republicans for fucking this up since last fall. You're right though, Democrats should have gone all the way(single payer) from the beginning. But there are motherfuckers like Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman to deal with.
Oh, I'm sure one or two of you did. But why are they making so much more noise today? So many people today are claiming to care about freedom. Very few people spoke out for freedom when they were criminalizing marijuana. The only reason I can come up with is that most of those people are being disingenuous about their motives. They do not care about freedom. In fact, if you check, I bet you'll find that most of the people crying out about freedom today, supported Bush and all his abuses. They don't give a shit about freedom.
If you're an honest advocate of freedom, you should carefully consider who you ally yourself with.
Competition requires a level legal "playing field" which cannot exist when one of the "competitors" is a branch of the government
Somehow UPS and FedEx don't have a problem competing against the US government.
Besides, if you think insurance-industry lobbyists have too much influence over Congress now, just wait until they've been merged into a single organization
A non-profit organization with the welfare of the American people as its goal? I'll take that over the present situation any day.
Anyone who really wants a "public option" is free to form a medical insurance co-op.
An insurance co-op only becomes viable when it has enough members to negotiate rates with health care providers. Mom and Pop can't compete with a mega corporation. If you can think of a way to start non-governmental insurance co-ops without this problem, I'd love to hear it.
They do it for the pussy. Why leave your basement when you can have young Italian girls delivered to you any time you want?
Seriously, think about this. Last week, you could easily be denied life saving treatment because you had the audacity to move to a different county. And you're telling me you're less free now?
Yeah, you might pay a little more. But a very large number of Americans are actually, in reality, more free now, because they don't have to live in fear of insurance getting canceled.
What I want to know is where all these freedom loving Americans were when they were prohibiting marijuana, prostitution, gambling, and a host of other activities a free person might choose to engage in? Somehow you all have no problem spending Billions of dollars imprisoning people who have more fun than you. But when you're *saving* Billions of dollars and helping people at the same time, all of a sudden your freedom is at risk?
Please.
If the government wasn't able to compete with private insurers, the public option would be irrelevant because no one would buy it. There was a plan that would have provided a public option completely funded by premiums (no tax dollars). That would eliminate any unfair advantage a government plan would have.
So, if you honestly believe that the government couldn't run a public plan well, there's no reason to oppose it. It wouldn't cost you anything, and it wouldn't hurt the private plans who could out compete it. The only reason to oppose such a plan is because it *can* out compete private insurers.
It is indeed a glorious day for the Socialist Republic of America.
That's exactly why we needed a public option. If your costs go up, blame the Republicans who killed it.
You are of course correct. Also, Lehman Bros. Especially Lehman Bros. Their failure was the straw that broke the camels back. And yes, they knew what they were doing. They were so clever about what they were doing that they came up with ways to hide liability that no one ever thought of before. String em all up I say.
Wake me up when someone at AIG gets indicted.
Everyone always underestimates how long anything non-trivial is going to take.
That's Hofstadter's law. "It always takes longer than you expect, even when you take into account Hofstadter's Law."
Oh that's easy enough, one exists, one doesn't. You can be the victim of rude behavior, but that doesn't mean it should be a crime. So that's a crime-less victim.
Victimless crimes on the other hand don't exist. Or rather any behavior that does not produce a victim should not be a crime.
If you find this concept quaint then why are vinyl sales slowly rising?
Hipsters. This is the same crowd that has sequin sweater parties. Somehow in their mind vinyl (and sequin sweaters) are better *because* they're crappy.
Sure it can. It just usually isn't. The dynamic range of vinyl is less than that of CDs, so if you had an uncompressed (dynamic range) digital music file, you'd have to compress it more to put it on vinyl than on a CD. If you chose to compress it even further, you could do it on either vinyl or CDs.
Whose side are you on?!
That's easy enough to avoid. Just prefix your post with "I know I'll get modded down for this, but..."
So many girls are raped because a guy says, "do it for me" or other pressures.
That's not rape. Rape is when the guy says "do it for me", she says "no", and he does it anyway.
Just because their brains are different doesn't mean they're defective. I've read that article, and in fact was thinking of it when I made that post. This quote in particular is key:
Teenagers actually think. Adults just react.
I like how you assume that I'm a child, BTW. I'm not. I have a fully developed brain. I remember being a teenager, and honestly I was a more thoughtful person then. I'm able to do more now, because I can set a lot of things on autopilot. But one thing I'm less able to do is to recognize my own biases, and fairly entertain ideas that oppose my own preconceptions. I don't know if you've ever spent time talking with teenagers about anything in depth (science, philosophy, etc) but they ask more and better questions and come up with more unique ideas than adults do. This is something to be valued.