More knowledge that Snowden has apparently revealed to the world. It's a shame he got rid of all that subtlety and mature compromise and all those shades of grey that filled US politics before.
they are called whole foods for a reason. The sugar in fruit is just as bad as any sugar, unless you counter it with the fiber from the fruit. Table salt is made of two compounds, either of which is deadly on its own. Coca leaves cause very few health problems, even with chronic use. We informed potheads also get very grumpy when a study blasts marijuana using results obtained by dosing subjects with huge amounts of synthetic THC.
Hippies and "natural foods" folks are easy to mock, but they have a point -- at least for the moment, it's foolish to assume we understand all the nutritional benefits of every food and how all its components interact with each other and our bodies. That doesn't mean all synthesized compounds are dangerous (e.g: salicylic acid, aspirin, does okay and is more effective than its natural source, willow bark). But just introducing random beneficial compounds into our body in isolation is like sticking a pan of flour in the oven and being surprised when it doesn't bake into a loaf of bread.
If you get the deluxe model it can also be a transmogrifier =)
(I'm on your side. Kids act out to get attention or to feel more in control. The former requires actual loving care, but certainly the latter can be minimized by eliminating any non-essential rules.)
anymore! Now that I know their poverty is caused by deep-seated personal flaws, and not a deeply flawed and racist system, I can feel secure in my superiority and "earned" success. Hooray!
I'm actually of the opinion that the only model for a just society is to make it small enough that everyone knows each other, so social accountability is more of a motivation than legality. Laws are never exactly right, only asymptotically right, and the legal system is not based around things like intent or exceptions, so there are always going to be people getting screwed on way or the other.
Many phenomena in many spheres (especially social) can be modelled using the pattern of an infectious disease. That doesn't have any bearing on their quality, good or bad. I guess it's okay that OP chose such biased phrasing since it's not one of those big, important issues. But it still bugs me.
This is very hard-line. Despite what the reddit atheist crowd thinks, there are a lot of religious people who understand that there is no scientific basis for their beliefs. These people, like us seculars, are able to distinguish faith from reason, but they choose to partake of both.
I also have a problem with scientific reasoning when it is overapplied. Sometime, stuff is hard to measure -- for example, social phenomena and things like how prejudices play out in different situations. Saying "but there's no scientific proof!" is used as an easy way to dismiss any of these more abstract ideas, regardless of merit. When a teacher keeps a student after class and verbally abuses them, there may not be proof, but there are at least concrete actions to point to. But teachers don't usually do that -- if they don't like a kid, it's all subtle, it's all "the way they said it", it's all disputable. If you can find a way to measure those things at all, it's usually ingenious, because there's no formula for stuff like that. Science is also frequently invoked, incorrectly, to explain differences that are the results of circumstance (an extreme example would be saying that black people in the US are less successful because they lack intelligence... but a more subtle and insidious example could be saying that women are better shoppers because they have a gatherer instinct). Evolutionary psychology is infamous for being misapplied in this way. And I will say, this kind of reasoning is particularly prevalent among young students in STEM fields who don't understand the limitations of scientific research. Aka about 60% of the slashdot crowd.
As a member of the PC brigade, I'm not ashamed of myself. I'm ashamed of you. People who have never experienced racism who talk about how "they're just words". People who have never experiences sexism who talk about "I was just flirting". Just because you can't be prosecuted for saying something doesn't make it okay to say. (The example in this threadis not particularly egregious, but then, I don't think we're talking about that example anymore, are we?). If one person will be annoyed that they don't get to say a certain word, and someone else will feel afraid, unwelcome, and worthless if they say that word? Then shut the fuck up. Your right to say words is not more important than being kind to other people.
Dude, losing battle. People around here believe it's their god-given right to say the n-word whenever they want, because if you're offended or hurt by it, IT'S YOUR FAULT FREE SPEECH I DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF MY ACTIONS.
Okay, wait, wait. You believe the Republican party is better on voting than the left? For real? Remember those GOP-sponsored "voter ID" laws that were ruled unconstitutional because they disenfranchised minorities, poor, and the elderly? I do, because I went door to door distributing lists of acceptable ID documents (you needed a copy of the rules written down, you see, because they were too complicated to remember). The conservative wing were the folks who challenged the Voting Rights Act, and after that got neutered, there were voter-ID and other voter-suppression bills going into effect inside twenty-four hours. All by Republican politicians, in conservative areas.
Hmm, other stuff. Labor rights, well I can't comment on the American left, but the actual philosophical left is strongly opposed to abuses of the working class and extremely pro-union. (Frankly I'm surprised you mentioned it; seems like "union" is a dirty word to people on the right). Though given that our country is ruled by the rich with zero accountability to anyone else, unions right now are a joke (hey, I bet we agree on this part!). Although actually you also seem to be arguing that unions have too MUCH power, given that they can mandate you join a union if you want to work at a particular place or in a particular capacity. This strikes me as very much unrelated to government, probably because it is a mechanic of how unions function.
Educational rights... you mean private schools? Yeah, I mean, I guess I value equal education for everyone more than I value the rights of rich parents to send their kids to fancy schools? I don't know, that one's iffy, but the people with advantages to tend to send their kids to private schools to avoid being affected by our current educational crisis, and that's not sustainable. (By the way, I also taught in a public school, and for all the money the city was supposedly pouring into the system, we didn't see a dime).
The abortion issue has been widely discussed and religious groups are allowed to opt out of paying for contraceptives for exactly this reason. The "rights" issue with abortion, however, is about whether people are permitted to have them (and if so, to have actual access to them) in the first place. That is a much larger scale issue with huge human and human rights implications. I'm also going to go ahead and point out that most of planned parenthood is mammograms, pap smears, and other crucial preventive care unrelated to sex. Just in case you were talking about that.
Healthcare I'm not going to defend anyone on. I feel like Obama may have had something with the single-payer option, but when that went down, so did most of the real good the ACA could've done. As an actual liberal, I believe in socialized medicine, and even if you don't I think we can all agree that our current system is a price-gouging, patient-neglecting, claim-denying, unnecessary-test-prescribing, big-pharma-driven, loophole-using, corporate-sponsored and generally clawing-kicking-biting-and-hairpulling cash grab. Seriously, fuck our healthcare system. Fuck it entirely.
There are some rather funny statistics on terrorism. Like, IIRC, you are more likely to be killed by a piece of furniture falling on you than a terrorist. There's a psychological thing at work though, of course, where we rationalize and mentally minimize familiar dangers, but sensationalize and freak out over new, exotic health or safety risks. A classic example is that many times more people have died because they decided to drive rather than fly (in the years following 9/11) than the people who died on the actual planes. Because terrorists and planes are weird, but cars are normal and every day, so they're basically safe.
And yet, a lot of conservatives still hate Snowden. I'm sort of scratching my head over that one. Everybody's glad they know what he told us, but half the US still hates him for telling us.
The American left is opposed to too many economic freedoms and pro social freedoms. The American right, largely, is opposed to social freedoms and pro economic freedoms. Don't reduce everything to one issue, please. When it comes to abortion and gay marriage, it's conservatives who want more government in our lives, not liberals. Please look into the "political compass" for more.
At the same time, can't you apply that argument in the other direction? "If your only reason for not giving people nuclear weapons is that some bad apples will misuse them, that's no argument at all!" Right? So obviously there's a line somewhere in the middle where you give people every freedom except for the ones that cause a whole lot of people to harm each other. I mean, government IS supposed to keep people from harming each other. Kind of its raison d'etre.
Slashdot Mirror
The government is now outsourcing the reporting of crime to the public. And it's working. Hooray?
and not a single comment opposing the pipeline for environmental reasons.
Slashdot is so liberal you guys!
Wow. Predatory!
More knowledge that Snowden has apparently revealed to the world. It's a shame he got rid of all that subtlety and mature compromise and all those shades of grey that filled US politics before.
they are called whole foods for a reason. The sugar in fruit is just as bad as any sugar, unless you counter it with the fiber from the fruit. Table salt is made of two compounds, either of which is deadly on its own. Coca leaves cause very few health problems, even with chronic use. We informed potheads also get very grumpy when a study blasts marijuana using results obtained by dosing subjects with huge amounts of synthetic THC.
Hippies and "natural foods" folks are easy to mock, but they have a point -- at least for the moment, it's foolish to assume we understand all the nutritional benefits of every food and how all its components interact with each other and our bodies. That doesn't mean all synthesized compounds are dangerous (e.g: salicylic acid, aspirin, does okay and is more effective than its natural source, willow bark). But just introducing random beneficial compounds into our body in isolation is like sticking a pan of flour in the oven and being surprised when it doesn't bake into a loaf of bread.
If you get the deluxe model it can also be a transmogrifier =)
(I'm on your side. Kids act out to get attention or to feel more in control. The former requires actual loving care, but certainly the latter can be minimized by eliminating any non-essential rules.)
anymore! Now that I know their poverty is caused by deep-seated personal flaws, and not a deeply flawed and racist system, I can feel secure in my superiority and "earned" success. Hooray!
There is gonna be a LOT of feminism hatred in this comments section, isn't there?
I'm actually of the opinion that the only model for a just society is to make it small enough that everyone knows each other, so social accountability is more of a motivation than legality. Laws are never exactly right, only asymptotically right, and the legal system is not based around things like intent or exceptions, so there are always going to be people getting screwed on way or the other.
I think the idea here is that one helps accomplish the other...
Many phenomena in many spheres (especially social) can be modelled using the pattern of an infectious disease. That doesn't have any bearing on their quality, good or bad. I guess it's okay that OP chose such biased phrasing since it's not one of those big, important issues. But it still bugs me.
A group that is marginalized or discriminated against in a given culture based on characteristics not of their choosing.
This is very hard-line. Despite what the reddit atheist crowd thinks, there are a lot of religious people who understand that there is no scientific basis for their beliefs. These people, like us seculars, are able to distinguish faith from reason, but they choose to partake of both.
I also have a problem with scientific reasoning when it is overapplied. Sometime, stuff is hard to measure -- for example, social phenomena and things like how prejudices play out in different situations. Saying "but there's no scientific proof!" is used as an easy way to dismiss any of these more abstract ideas, regardless of merit. When a teacher keeps a student after class and verbally abuses them, there may not be proof, but there are at least concrete actions to point to. But teachers don't usually do that -- if they don't like a kid, it's all subtle, it's all "the way they said it", it's all disputable. If you can find a way to measure those things at all, it's usually ingenious, because there's no formula for stuff like that. Science is also frequently invoked, incorrectly, to explain differences that are the results of circumstance (an extreme example would be saying that black people in the US are less successful because they lack intelligence... but a more subtle and insidious example could be saying that women are better shoppers because they have a gatherer instinct). Evolutionary psychology is infamous for being misapplied in this way. And I will say, this kind of reasoning is particularly prevalent among young students in STEM fields who don't understand the limitations of scientific research. Aka about 60% of the slashdot crowd.
It's relevant to the extend that it can help us stop the practice.
As a member of the PC brigade, I'm not ashamed of myself. I'm ashamed of you. People who have never experienced racism who talk about how "they're just words". People who have never experiences sexism who talk about "I was just flirting". Just because you can't be prosecuted for saying something doesn't make it okay to say. (The example in this threadis not particularly egregious, but then, I don't think we're talking about that example anymore, are we?). If one person will be annoyed that they don't get to say a certain word, and someone else will feel afraid, unwelcome, and worthless if they say that word? Then shut the fuck up. Your right to say words is not more important than being kind to other people.
Dude, losing battle. People around here believe it's their god-given right to say the n-word whenever they want, because if you're offended or hurt by it, IT'S YOUR FAULT FREE SPEECH I DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF MY ACTIONS.
I don't think you understood my comment. I'm saying the word has two definitions in two different contexts. Like "theory". Or "significant".
Okay, wait, wait. You believe the Republican party is better on voting than the left? For real? Remember those GOP-sponsored "voter ID" laws that were ruled unconstitutional because they disenfranchised minorities, poor, and the elderly? I do, because I went door to door distributing lists of acceptable ID documents (you needed a copy of the rules written down, you see, because they were too complicated to remember). The conservative wing were the folks who challenged the Voting Rights Act, and after that got neutered, there were voter-ID and other voter-suppression bills going into effect inside twenty-four hours. All by Republican politicians, in conservative areas.
Hmm, other stuff. Labor rights, well I can't comment on the American left, but the actual philosophical left is strongly opposed to abuses of the working class and extremely pro-union. (Frankly I'm surprised you mentioned it; seems like "union" is a dirty word to people on the right). Though given that our country is ruled by the rich with zero accountability to anyone else, unions right now are a joke (hey, I bet we agree on this part!). Although actually you also seem to be arguing that unions have too MUCH power, given that they can mandate you join a union if you want to work at a particular place or in a particular capacity. This strikes me as very much unrelated to government, probably because it is a mechanic of how unions function.
Educational rights... you mean private schools? Yeah, I mean, I guess I value equal education for everyone more than I value the rights of rich parents to send their kids to fancy schools? I don't know, that one's iffy, but the people with advantages to tend to send their kids to private schools to avoid being affected by our current educational crisis, and that's not sustainable. (By the way, I also taught in a public school, and for all the money the city was supposedly pouring into the system, we didn't see a dime).
The abortion issue has been widely discussed and religious groups are allowed to opt out of paying for contraceptives for exactly this reason. The "rights" issue with abortion, however, is about whether people are permitted to have them (and if so, to have actual access to them) in the first place. That is a much larger scale issue with huge human and human rights implications. I'm also going to go ahead and point out that most of planned parenthood is mammograms, pap smears, and other crucial preventive care unrelated to sex. Just in case you were talking about that.
Healthcare I'm not going to defend anyone on. I feel like Obama may have had something with the single-payer option, but when that went down, so did most of the real good the ACA could've done. As an actual liberal, I believe in socialized medicine, and even if you don't I think we can all agree that our current system is a price-gouging, patient-neglecting, claim-denying, unnecessary-test-prescribing, big-pharma-driven, loophole-using, corporate-sponsored and generally clawing-kicking-biting-and-hairpulling cash grab. Seriously, fuck our healthcare system. Fuck it entirely.
There are some rather funny statistics on terrorism. Like, IIRC, you are more likely to be killed by a piece of furniture falling on you than a terrorist. There's a psychological thing at work though, of course, where we rationalize and mentally minimize familiar dangers, but sensationalize and freak out over new, exotic health or safety risks. A classic example is that many times more people have died because they decided to drive rather than fly (in the years following 9/11) than the people who died on the actual planes. Because terrorists and planes are weird, but cars are normal and every day, so they're basically safe.
And yet, a lot of conservatives still hate Snowden. I'm sort of scratching my head over that one. Everybody's glad they know what he told us, but half the US still hates him for telling us.
The American left is opposed to too many economic freedoms and pro social freedoms. The American right, largely, is opposed to social freedoms and pro economic freedoms. Don't reduce everything to one issue, please. When it comes to abortion and gay marriage, it's conservatives who want more government in our lives, not liberals. Please look into the "political compass" for more.
I have one quibble with you. I wouldn't call Democrats "the left". We have a right-wing party, and a centrist party. And third parties, god bless 'em.
At the same time, can't you apply that argument in the other direction? "If your only reason for not giving people nuclear weapons is that some bad apples will misuse them, that's no argument at all!" Right? So obviously there's a line somewhere in the middle where you give people every freedom except for the ones that cause a whole lot of people to harm each other. I mean, government IS supposed to keep people from harming each other. Kind of its raison d'etre.
This must be why we believe aliens want to anally probe us: we're projecting.
Oh, but P.S. the posted article doesn't provide any evidence for or against my position. I'm not asserting that it does.