Those people who think that ALL teenagers have sex, and therefore need to have sex to be a proper teenager are the problem. Because you're basically saying "You have no self control, have sex, we adults understand, here have a HPV Vaccine"
A girl getting HPV vaccine, isn't going to prevent Girl #2 from getting HPV when her boyfriend has sex with her, because she is immune-compromised .
In the case of HPV Vaccines, the whole thing is largely preventable in ways OTHER than by Vaccine. Vaccines are the cheap easy route to keep girls from getting HPV and possible cancer, which may lead to possible death. On the otherhand, vaccines CAN and DO cause a certain number of deaths and injuries, but we're not allowed to even talk about that because "ANTI-VAXXER" !!!!!!!
Risk analysis is never used. Vaccines are "Safe" even if the risk is greater than the actual disease. Let say, that Whopping Cough kills 1:1,000,000, but the Vaccine kills 2:1,000,000, it is considered "safe" but twice as risky as not having a vaccine. The 2 don't count as "unsafe" even though it is less safe than nature. After all, vaccines are proven effective!
The problem is, NOBODY is doing the complete risk analysis to see if paying Big Pharma is worth the money being poured into Vaccines.
do homosexuals really talk to you about their sex lives more than heterosexuals?
There are two kinds of Homosexuals. Ones that are gay, and live normal quiet lives. These are fine. The others are militant and everything they are revolves around shoving it in everyone's face, and complaining when we don't want to hear about it. I call these the Charlie Sheen (straight/bi???). I don't care to know, don't want to know, don't shove it in my face.
I feel the same about the Kardashians. I don't want to know. Don't care, but it is shoved out there in our faces for no reason.
I am not an (R) because they tend to be (D) in disguise far too often, and aren't right on a number of critical issues. I am not (D), because for the most part, they are fine with using state powers to take from others. Both (R) and (D) are fine with imposing their sociological experiments upon the people without any regard to liberty (freedom).
I am a Libertarian, and support Liberty. The purpose of government is to secure liberty, but that is contrary to state power.
I am not lying to myself, and Rubio's stance isn't limited to (R). Hillary is just as bad, if not worse. But you won't hear Liberal supporters of her talking about her Security stances. Mostly because they are completely hypocritical in light of her "email" problems.
I'm not fine with it. I accept it as part of being in the Microsoft ecosystem. Kind of like Android People are okay with Google Spying on them, and Apple's Walled garden.
Life is full of compromises. If you don't want the compromise, run your own build of Linux you compiled yourself. Its the ONLY way to be sure (if you can be sure of anything)
This would be fine, if it actually worked. The Win 10 upgrade doesn't work on my system, for no other reason other than I converted from Spinning drive to SSD drive. The Win 10 Upgrade borks about half way through the install.
I don't care about what they do in the bedroom. I don't care to hear about it, anymore than I care to listen to my brother in laws masturbation stories. It isn't that interesting to me, and classless in general.
Okay, why do you think you can't talk about your religious beliefs?
Oh, I can. I have no problem if someone were to ask. Most people don't care, don't want to know. And I'd rather not teach a pig to sing.
What you can't legally do is get the government to favor your particular religion.
I can require my government to treat all religions the same. Which is why the schools can teach the Shahada in school, but not "the Lord's Prayer" or the "Shema".The fact that there are rules that seem to apply to one, and not another, create a sense entitlement and hostility (depending on which). The problem is that "establish" part of the clause was not intended to end a football coaches career for a "silent prayer" after a game. That is open hostility.
I'm not going to tell you much of anything about my sex life, and I think it's generally an annoying topic of conversation,
Exactly my point.
I think the word "homophobe" can be used legitimately, but not on you. There are people who seem to fear homosexuals, and often react violently and hatefully. I see no reason to think that describes you.
The problem is that the word is used to shut out discussion. Just like crying "hate" or "bigot" or "Rape" or whatever. It is used way too broadly and that cheapens the real times it should be used. Boy who cried "wolf" is a parable that people don't remember.
More to the point, people who are accustomed to "free" always bitch when it becomes "Non-free". Okay, almost always. First hit is free kid, after you're hooked, you'll owe me your life.
If your actions - including speech - indicate a consistent pattern of fear towards homosexuals as individuals, group or a conspiracy ("The Homosexual Agenda [wikipedia.org]") then you are a homophobe
Define "fear" and "homophobe"
I don't fear people. I fear what they do. I don't care about what people do in their bedrooms. I don't care until I am forced to listen to their crappy sex stories. It doesn't matter if they are gay or not. It is like religion to atheists, I don't want to hear about it. If they feel the need to tell me about their sex lives, then I am okay telling them all about Jesus, and how they are going to hell (example, not that I do it).
The problem is, they want it both ways. I am not allowed to talk Jesus (not that I do), while being able to advertise their sex lives.
Now, as for treating people with courtesy, that doesn't require a change in how I feel about anything. I can treat a gang banger, homosexual, asshole, boss, wife, kids, friends, neighbors all with the same courtesy, then I am not a bigot, and I don't give a shit about how you feel about me being a "homophobe", because again, I don't give a shit what they are. EVERYONE deserves respect and courtesy, until they fuck it up.
I have plenty of friends who are gay, and a brother who was. Telling me I am a homophobe because I differ in opinion is exactly what I am talking about, because the nuances of actual human dignity escapes people like you, you're all about agenda.
Libertarians side more with R only because the D are usually siding with "bigger more intrusive government". This isn't to say that L support R, because we don't, we just agree more with the small government R on more topics. The problem with most of the Rs are they are simply small D neocons, who are willing to sell out for big time money donors.
I am a Libertarian, and there are very few Ds that actually support true libertarian principles. Most of the time, these tend to be social issues like Cannabis and Free Speech. But when it comes to things like 2nd Amendments, we don't trust the D (or Bernie I types) with supporting liberty, and true support for free speech (dissenting opinions).
Or to put it a different way, many D support "Drug reforms" (Cannabis), while at the same time support restricting things like Raw milk (too dangerous!)
Living free isn't easy. Tyranny loves to make it easy (at first). But living free is much easier than living in tyranny.
As my dad used to say, "Nothing of value is easy. If it is easy, there is no value. Work for things that are hard and you'll be rewarded for your effort"
"Homophobe" is one of those "I don't like what you believe, but I can't actually debate on merit, so I'll toss an Ad Hominem attack instead" retorts. It is right up there with "Anti-Feminist" and "Racist". I tend to only see this in leftwing SJW types who are really nothing short of totalitarian socialists dressed up in faux righteous indignation.
And right to bear arms...my swords are arms. I should have a right under the Constitution to bear them.
You do not have the right to keep and bear arms. Your right only to keep preselected weapons has been restricted already. And if you carry ANY weapon, you're treated as threat to the status quo. And we can't have that, now can we?
Side story: We are in such a sad state. I work for a school district, in semi-rural area (city, surrounded by Ag and Wild), and our school was put into "Lockdown" (Code Red), because someone called the police, "Man with a gun" walking down the street. The police investigated, and couldn't find any such person, but did find a man with a cane. So, we have become so paranoid that a man with a cane, is suspicious and any hysterical person can disrupt two schools by their paranoia.
The fact of the matter is, we live in fear, and because of it, are easily manipulated into acting irrationally.
Its funny how people are for or against jury nullification (simultaneously) depending on the "law" they support (or don't). I've seen liberals say they are against Jury Nullifcation until they are show that very example, who change their mind. And conservatives the same thing (with gun laws). The problem is, they want to pick and choose the circumstances of jury nullification.
If you're only for Jury Nullification for cases where you like the outcome, then you're just a hypocrite
Hey look, the lawyers who make laws and interpret the laws don't like people being able to actually judge the merits of the law, as well as the facts of the law.
Juries are the last bastion of free men. Since we know there can be, and are, unjust laws, we MUST be able to have a jury be able to judge the merits of the law, as well as the facts in the case. Otherwise we live in judicial tyranny, where lawyers (mostly unelected) make law and decided what the laws mean.
Luckily there is a fix for this, a Constitutional Amendment mandating Jury Nullification instructions.;)
Democracy, is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. This is why we live in a Republic, which tends to be more steady than the passions whipped up by "dynamic" leaders with great oratory skills but really bad political views... like Bernie and Trump.
I like democratic process, but it too is flawed. Until people realize that democracy isn't a panacea, we're in danger of populist tyranny.;)
Liberty is fascist to people who like tyranny (and telling others how to live). I mean, how dare you want to live free, you must conform to our version of reality!
Slashdot Mirror
LOL ... perfect!
Those people who think that ALL teenagers have sex, and therefore need to have sex to be a proper teenager are the problem. Because you're basically saying "You have no self control, have sex, we adults understand, here have a HPV Vaccine"
A girl getting HPV vaccine, isn't going to prevent Girl #2 from getting HPV when her boyfriend has sex with her, because she is immune-compromised .
In the case of HPV Vaccines, the whole thing is largely preventable in ways OTHER than by Vaccine. Vaccines are the cheap easy route to keep girls from getting HPV and possible cancer, which may lead to possible death. On the otherhand, vaccines CAN and DO cause a certain number of deaths and injuries, but we're not allowed to even talk about that because "ANTI-VAXXER" !!!!!!!
"Thankfully no infants died in that case."
Risk analysis is never used. Vaccines are "Safe" even if the risk is greater than the actual disease. Let say, that Whopping Cough kills 1:1,000,000, but the Vaccine kills 2:1,000,000, it is considered "safe" but twice as risky as not having a vaccine. The 2 don't count as "unsafe" even though it is less safe than nature. After all, vaccines are proven effective!
The problem is, NOBODY is doing the complete risk analysis to see if paying Big Pharma is worth the money being poured into Vaccines.
You trusted Microsoft?
do homosexuals really talk to you about their sex lives more than heterosexuals?
There are two kinds of Homosexuals. Ones that are gay, and live normal quiet lives. These are fine. The others are militant and everything they are revolves around shoving it in everyone's face, and complaining when we don't want to hear about it. I call these the Charlie Sheen (straight/bi???). I don't care to know, don't want to know, don't shove it in my face.
I feel the same about the Kardashians. I don't want to know. Don't care, but it is shoved out there in our faces for no reason.
Thanks
I am not an (R) because they tend to be (D) in disguise far too often, and aren't right on a number of critical issues. I am not (D), because for the most part, they are fine with using state powers to take from others. Both (R) and (D) are fine with imposing their sociological experiments upon the people without any regard to liberty (freedom).
I am a Libertarian, and support Liberty. The purpose of government is to secure liberty, but that is contrary to state power.
I am not lying to myself, and Rubio's stance isn't limited to (R). Hillary is just as bad, if not worse. But you won't hear Liberal supporters of her talking about her Security stances. Mostly because they are completely hypocritical in light of her "email" problems.
I'm not fine with it. I accept it as part of being in the Microsoft ecosystem. Kind of like Android People are okay with Google Spying on them, and Apple's Walled garden.
Life is full of compromises. If you don't want the compromise, run your own build of Linux you compiled yourself. Its the ONLY way to be sure (if you can be sure of anything)
This would be fine, if it actually worked. The Win 10 upgrade doesn't work on my system, for no other reason other than I converted from Spinning drive to SSD drive. The Win 10 Upgrade borks about half way through the install.
And this is why I am not a (R).
We have plenty of government intervention into our lives. We don't need more. Americans aren't a danger to America. We are America!
I don't care about what they do in the bedroom. I don't care to hear about it, anymore than I care to listen to my brother in laws masturbation stories. It isn't that interesting to me, and classless in general.
Okay, why do you think you can't talk about your religious beliefs?
Oh, I can. I have no problem if someone were to ask. Most people don't care, don't want to know. And I'd rather not teach a pig to sing.
What you can't legally do is get the government to favor your particular religion.
I can require my government to treat all religions the same. Which is why the schools can teach the Shahada in school, but not "the Lord's Prayer" or the "Shema".The fact that there are rules that seem to apply to one, and not another, create a sense entitlement and hostility (depending on which). The problem is that "establish" part of the clause was not intended to end a football coaches career for a "silent prayer" after a game. That is open hostility.
I'm not going to tell you much of anything about my sex life, and I think it's generally an annoying topic of conversation,
Exactly my point.
I think the word "homophobe" can be used legitimately, but not on you. There are people who seem to fear homosexuals, and often react violently and hatefully. I see no reason to think that describes you.
The problem is that the word is used to shut out discussion. Just like crying "hate" or "bigot" or "Rape" or whatever. It is used way too broadly and that cheapens the real times it should be used. Boy who cried "wolf" is a parable that people don't remember.
THIS!
More to the point, people who are accustomed to "free" always bitch when it becomes "Non-free". Okay, almost always. First hit is free kid, after you're hooked, you'll owe me your life.
If your actions - including speech - indicate a consistent pattern of fear towards homosexuals as individuals, group or a conspiracy ("The Homosexual Agenda [wikipedia.org]") then you are a homophobe
Define "fear" and "homophobe"
I don't fear people. I fear what they do. I don't care about what people do in their bedrooms. I don't care until I am forced to listen to their crappy sex stories. It doesn't matter if they are gay or not. It is like religion to atheists, I don't want to hear about it. If they feel the need to tell me about their sex lives, then I am okay telling them all about Jesus, and how they are going to hell (example, not that I do it).
The problem is, they want it both ways. I am not allowed to talk Jesus (not that I do), while being able to advertise their sex lives.
Now, as for treating people with courtesy, that doesn't require a change in how I feel about anything. I can treat a gang banger, homosexual, asshole, boss, wife, kids, friends, neighbors all with the same courtesy, then I am not a bigot, and I don't give a shit about how you feel about me being a "homophobe", because again, I don't give a shit what they are. EVERYONE deserves respect and courtesy, until they fuck it up.
I have plenty of friends who are gay, and a brother who was. Telling me I am a homophobe because I differ in opinion is exactly what I am talking about, because the nuances of actual human dignity escapes people like you, you're all about agenda.
Libertarians side more with R only because the D are usually siding with "bigger more intrusive government". This isn't to say that L support R, because we don't, we just agree more with the small government R on more topics. The problem with most of the Rs are they are simply small D neocons, who are willing to sell out for big time money donors.
I am a Libertarian, and there are very few Ds that actually support true libertarian principles. Most of the time, these tend to be social issues like Cannabis and Free Speech. But when it comes to things like 2nd Amendments, we don't trust the D (or Bernie I types) with supporting liberty, and true support for free speech (dissenting opinions).
Or to put it a different way, many D support "Drug reforms" (Cannabis), while at the same time support restricting things like Raw milk (too dangerous!)
Living free isn't easy. Tyranny loves to make it easy (at first). But living free is much easier than living in tyranny.
As my dad used to say, "Nothing of value is easy. If it is easy, there is no value. Work for things that are hard and you'll be rewarded for your effort"
"Homophobe" is one of those "I don't like what you believe, but I can't actually debate on merit, so I'll toss an Ad Hominem attack instead" retorts. It is right up there with "Anti-Feminist" and "Racist". I tend to only see this in leftwing SJW types who are really nothing short of totalitarian socialists dressed up in faux righteous indignation.
And right to bear arms...my swords are arms. I should have a right under the Constitution to bear them.
You do not have the right to keep and bear arms. Your right only to keep preselected weapons has been restricted already. And if you carry ANY weapon, you're treated as threat to the status quo. And we can't have that, now can we?
Side story: We are in such a sad state. I work for a school district, in semi-rural area (city, surrounded by Ag and Wild), and our school was put into "Lockdown" (Code Red), because someone called the police, "Man with a gun" walking down the street. The police investigated, and couldn't find any such person, but did find a man with a cane. So, we have become so paranoid that a man with a cane, is suspicious and any hysterical person can disrupt two schools by their paranoia.
The fact of the matter is, we live in fear, and because of it, are easily manipulated into acting irrationally.
Feel the Bern !
Drink!
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice"
I am an extremist.
Its funny how people are for or against jury nullification (simultaneously) depending on the "law" they support (or don't). I've seen liberals say they are against Jury Nullifcation until they are show that very example, who change their mind. And conservatives the same thing (with gun laws). The problem is, they want to pick and choose the circumstances of jury nullification.
If you're only for Jury Nullification for cases where you like the outcome, then you're just a hypocrite
Hey look, the lawyers who make laws and interpret the laws don't like people being able to actually judge the merits of the law, as well as the facts of the law.
Juries are the last bastion of free men. Since we know there can be, and are, unjust laws, we MUST be able to have a jury be able to judge the merits of the law, as well as the facts in the case. Otherwise we live in judicial tyranny, where lawyers (mostly unelected) make law and decided what the laws mean.
Luckily there is a fix for this, a Constitutional Amendment mandating Jury Nullification instructions. ;)
Democracy, is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. Tyranny of the majority is still tyranny. This is why we live in a Republic, which tends to be more steady than the passions whipped up by "dynamic" leaders with great oratory skills but really bad political views ... like Bernie and Trump.
I like democratic process, but it too is flawed. Until people realize that democracy isn't a panacea, we're in danger of populist tyranny. ;)
Liberty is fascist to people who like tyranny (and telling others how to live). I mean, how dare you want to live free, you must conform to our version of reality!