So all we have to do to remove rights from groups of people is stick them with arbitrary labels?
It's not an "arbitrary label" if you call yourself a Nazi, carry a Nazi flag, wear Nazi armbands and give the Nazi salute. It then becomes a very specific label, and a voluntary one.
OK, fine, but they still have rights, whether you like it or not. The exact same rights, as a matter of fact, as you, me, and every other person within the borders of the United States.
"We fought a war over this"
No, our grandparents fought a war over something with a similar name but different ideologies. Conflating the two only gives the bastards power.
For lower-skill jobs like bookkeepers and assembly-line workers,
OK, so you cherry-pick medium-skill jobs that typically pay above-minimum-wages and have already lost tons of ground to automation (in the case of factory workers, the job losses stretch back 40 years) as an admonition against raising the minimum wage?
Lesson learned, that's a fine way to run a flawed study.
I could call myself Mary, Queen of Scots, but that doesn't make it so.
This pretty tiara and my massive land holdings, however, do.
What's my point? Anybody can name anything whatever they want, and it doesn't matter - what matters is the actions that are committed on behalf of the name.
The fact that some women have side effects and some women find the side effect useful doesn't negate my point. Heck in the study they were doing on the male pill some of the men were perfectly content no side effects and no issues.
So then, the premise (upon which this entire discussion is based) that male birth control won't take off because [insert generalization about men] is patently false.
Hence, I shall consider this topic Flamebait, and discuss it no further.
It would be terrible because it would hurt the economy. Well, Zuck's own personal economy, anyway. He'd have to go from making 100 times what the average American makes to only 99 times as much.
The assumption that the manufacturer knows the mind of the customer has no place in a legal setting.
In fact, I'll argue that assumption period does not belong in a courtroom. Legal ramifications should be based on fact and the preponderance of evidence, not opinion and speculation.
There are cases in women where starting birth control helped balance out their natural cycles.
Men do not have such natural cycles, and thus, there would be no chance for positive benefit (outside the 'no babies' part).
That said, back when my then-girlfriend-now-wife was uninsured, I wished I could have been the one to take the pill. Would have saved us a crapton of money when we needed it the most (early 20's, just starting out in adulthood).
Take that parallel construction and shove it! Do you know what it describes? Do you understand that using it without a proper context and without any reason you sound like a conspiracy nut without a clue?
Waited a while before posting the above. I'll not change anything as I stand by it but you shouldn't necessarily take it 100% seriously...
Slashdot Mirror
It's not an "arbitrary label" if you call yourself a Nazi, carry a Nazi flag, wear Nazi armbands and give the Nazi salute. It then becomes a very specific label, and a voluntary one.
OK, fine, but they still have rights, whether you like it or not. The exact same rights, as a matter of fact, as you, me, and every other person within the borders of the United States.
"We fought a war over this"
No, our grandparents fought a war over something with a similar name but different ideologies. Conflating the two only gives the bastards power.
From TFS:
For lower-skill jobs like bookkeepers and assembly-line workers,
OK, so you cherry-pick medium-skill jobs that typically pay above-minimum-wages and have already lost tons of ground to automation (in the case of factory workers, the job losses stretch back 40 years) as an admonition against raising the minimum wage?
Lesson learned, that's a fine way to run a flawed study.
Thanks to identity politics, race and ideology are often considered the same thing these days.
I watched a good portion of the events live. What I saw were 2 groups of people doing their best to prove the negative stereotypes about themselves.
So all we have to do to remove rights from groups of people is stick them with arbitrary labels?
Neat. I can see no possible downside.
How about you, Mr. Neimoller?
They're a racial group, and race is a protected class.
Might actually have a case here, the dirty haters...
I could call myself Mary, Queen of Scots, but that doesn't make it so.
This pretty tiara and my massive land holdings, however, do.
What's my point? Anybody can name anything whatever they want, and it doesn't matter - what matters is the actions that are committed on behalf of the name.
No one needs to hear any "dialogue". Just do your work.
I'm guessing no where you've ever worked has let you get anywhere close to a management position.
Sounds like an EEOC case just waiting to happen.
So... standing up for what you think is right, despite knowing there may be negative consequences, shows "a staggering lack of good judgement?"
So MLK wasn't a civil rights leader, he was just some angry, ranting guy with bad judgement?
Fuck if I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
That's a fairly well established phenomenon, backed up with studies and copious evidence.
... that you couldn't be bothered to cite.
But we can totally take your word for it, right?
Is it just me, or does this summary seem very one-sided and accusatory?
I'd like to hear Apple's rationale - too often, security is sacrificed in the name of "safety"
Missouri here, right at $5/pack for Marlboros.
I switched to a pipe about 5 years ago, spend maybe $10/wk on tobacco.
Petrol is simply too volatile a fuel to control this with.
Not in liquid form. Hell, I know old mechanics who use cans of gasoline to put out cigarettes.
... and what if I need to regularly make trips of 500+ miles?
Things can get pretty spread out here in the Midwest.
Twitter users.
Look ma!
Reductio ad absurdum!
The fact that some women have side effects and some women find the side effect useful doesn't negate my point. Heck in the study they were doing on the male pill some of the men were perfectly content no side effects and no issues.
So then, the premise (upon which this entire discussion is based) that male birth control won't take off because [insert generalization about men] is patently false.
Hence, I shall consider this topic Flamebait, and discuss it no further.
It would be terrible because it would hurt the economy. Well, Zuck's own personal economy, anyway. He'd have to go from making 100 times what the average American makes to only 99 times as much.
Hey now, that's the future POTUS you're talking about, better watch yourself.
At least, that's what Zuck the Shmuck would like us to think.
The assumption that the manufacturer knows the mind of the customer has no place in a legal setting.
In fact, I'll argue that assumption period does not belong in a courtroom. Legal ramifications should be based on fact and the preponderance of evidence, not opinion and speculation.
There are cases in women where starting birth control helped balance out their natural cycles.
Men do not have such natural cycles, and thus, there would be no chance for positive benefit (outside the 'no babies' part).
That said, back when my then-girlfriend-now-wife was uninsured, I wished I could have been the one to take the pill. Would have saved us a crapton of money when we needed it the most (early 20's, just starting out in adulthood).
As stated by an AC, criminal charges in the US are public information, unless the person charged is under the age of 18.
So if he was charged with a crime, that information should be accessible by anyone.
Take that parallel construction and shove it! Do you know what it describes? Do you understand that using it without a proper context and without any reason you sound like a conspiracy nut without a clue?
Waited a while before posting the above. I'll not change anything as I stand by it but you shouldn't necessarily take it 100% seriously...
Meth is a hell of a drug.
Hey look, the guy too busy being offended to get the point!
ANYONE can make a sand and charcoal water filter, assuming they have access to silica and wood.
Genetic modification will only be available to the richest of the rich, and there's no natural substitute.
Maybe if you weren't so focused on your own hubris, you'd get into less idiotic arguments via misunderstanding.
This is the same corporation who was (and likely still is) running secret social experiments on the people using their network, correct?
I'm certain we can trust them to not use this as another experiment...
-1 Overrated
Get it? :D