But if I had not done that stretch of logic, we would not have been entertained by the kneejerk reaction to any criticism of the USA insurance dominated Health Care Profit Machine*.
Ahh, you were trolling. Good to know. Perhaps it's time to add you to my foe list...
The author is attacking the American Lung Association for their agenda. But what's the author's agenda?
Does it matter? Do you or do you not believe that e-cigs are a better alternative to regular smokes? Yes or no? If the answer is 'yes', then you agree with the author. End of story.
If the answer is 'no', I would ask, 'why'? Because it seems blatantly obvious that a device which provides a reduced-harm alternative to smoking for those unable to quit is still a hell of a lot better than them continuing to smoke regular cigarettes.
As long as you continue to feed your nicotine addiction, you will never be able to break yourself away from these crutches.
Uhuh.
So?
Honestly, I don't get American culture. There's this utterly ridiculous obsession with drug dependence, even when the drugs are completely harmless. Hell, even patients undergoing end-of-life palliative care sometimes refuse to take pain killers for fear of dependence. It's ridiculous!
Honestly, *who cares* if these people are addicted to some drug, so long as the drug itself causes no negative health effects? Does it make them less productive members of society? No. Does it create an undo burden on the healthcare system? No. Does it hurt them in any way, save that they blow a little extra money to maintain the addiction? No! So who gives a shit?
The only reason to oppose devices like this is because you believe you have some higher moral standard that other people should aspire to. And quite frankly? You can shove that standard straight up your ass, because it's none of your damn business what these people choose to put in their bodies.
While they may be less bad than traditional smoked tobacco, they still aren't good for your lungs. Our lungs are, after all, living tissue that is tasked with gas exchange. That is a fairly complicated job to begin with, and if you start intoducting airborne solids into the mixture you are only making the job that much more difficult.
So I suppose you're saying the inhaled corticosteroid I use for asthma, not to mention the short-acting bronchodilator, is bad for my lungs because they're both delivered as an "airborne solid"?
Quite frankly, you sound like you're just making shit up. Unless you can identify a specific compound in these devices that damages the lungs, I see no reason to assume they're any worse than any other inhaled drug preparation (of which there are many).
it can still be used to set up tiered insurance charges so that people who don't have the genes will only pay a little more for insurance than they do now (doing business as it has always been done), while people who have the genes will be in a different risk group and will be required by law to pay much higher premiums than anyone has ever had to pay before
Buh? They didn't sequence the genes of cancer patients. They sequenced the genes of the tumours themselves.
What the hell kind of idiot is posting this? When at work you should be working. If you mean actually sitting there and pushing buttons to create code that then is compiled and will remain as part of the code? 15 hours. If you mean all the required steps to create an actually half useful piece of code? FORTY HOURS A FRIGEN WEEK.
Don't be absurd. Even burger flippers at McDonald's get paid breaks. Expecting software developers to work at peak capacity 40 hours a week while still producing high quality code, documentation, etc, is ridiculous.
And speaking of complexity of software: if programmers wrote programs the way lawyers make laws, a... would be written as a 20 pages of code, at least.
Sure. And if the English language were as precise and unambiguous as a programming language, laws could be written much more simply.
I don't know, I don't really understand killing people neither, but apparently some do it.
But that's precisely my point. I honestly believe that a large percentage of the pedophiles out there simply have deviant sexual preferences. ie, these individuals, like you, are simply incapable of raping or murdering someone because they don't have it in them, just as you don't have it in you to murder. Such individuals wouldn't be enticed by CP to rape because they still have a functioning set of morals, they're simply possessed with deviant sexual preferences.
Of course, like normal individuals out there, there is some percentage of pedophiles out there that are *also* violent sadists. Those individuals would rape, regardless of the presence of absence of CP, and so again, CP makes no difference.
There are though, I don't know how much or if it is even vaguely common, but if there weren't, there wouldn't be any laws regarding statutory rape.
The laws for statutory rape are invariably applied in cases where a legal adult is having consensual sex with a *teenager*, not a prepubescent child. And adults having sex with teens is *not* pedophilia.
Pedophilia involves sexual attraction to prepubescent children, and I strongly suspect your average prepubescent child isn't willing to engage in *consensual* sex, and so no, statutory rape laws are infrequently applied to cases involving (actual, clinical) pedophiles.
I see your point. I'm not competent in this area, is there no possibility that rape be about relieving oneself from urges and not about power?
Honestly, no. That's why mammals masturbate.
Or do you *really* think that a normal person could have sufficiently powerful sexual urges that they would violate someone simply to satiate that need?
In particular considering statutory rape, when the other person seemingly agrees to the acts?
But that's not at all comparable. Statutory "rape" isn't a violent act. In fact, I would claim the term "rape" is a terrible misnomer, as actual rape is a completely different thing.
Now, I'm not aware of any pedophiles engaging in consensual sex with prepubescent children. As far as I'm aware, those incidents overwhelmingly involve violent acts of rape. And, again, those acts aren't about satiating need. They're about violence.
Heh, I just made my own. A buddy of mine kept a couple pairs of glasses and I just cut the right lens out of one, the left lens out of the other, and grafted the left lens into the other pair. It's ugly as heck, but it does the job.
You're right, I haven't proved anything. My point was to the GGP, just because people view porn and cause no harm doesn't mean anything, because the situation is hugely different, as the sex depicted in regular porn is legal, and someone can just go out and do it
Well, no, that's not really true. If that were the sole determinant of whether or not someone chose to rape someone else, you'd see large numbers of porn-watching, overweight, ugly, old, or introverted people running around raping people.
But they don't, because, as has been pointed out many times, rape isn't about sex, it's about power. Why people will accept that idea when it comes to adults raping adults, but not adults raping children, I don't know. If you can admit that about pedos, then it should be clear that CP doesn't increase the odds of abuse, because, again, it's not about sexual gratification, it's about sadism and power.
One was the anticipation I mentioned in my first post; the other wasn't somehow speeding up body functions pretty dependent on laws of physics, it was which part of the brain handled the "decision" and the orders to move.
Heavily trained sportsmen have basically programmed firmware, a slashdotter might say; the tactical level of see-aim-move is handled by the part of the brain near the bottom, down close to the stem, whose name I've managed to forget. They don't order their body around move-by-move any more than a pianist thinks out each finger press. It takes thousands of repetitions to develop, near-daily practice to maintain, though.
Uhh, isn't that the very definition of "reflex"?:) ie, the ability to rapidly act without having to consciously make a decision. Sounds to me like the documentary backs up the GP's point.
I'm sure he has better physical reaction time, for things related to racing.
Agreed. As a rather odd example, I started juggling in my teenaged years. And while I'd say I'm just competent, it noticeably improved my reflexes when it comes to reacting to and catching falling objects... which is rather handy when you're a bit of a klutz otherwise.
People would look at child porn and would want to have sex with a child, which is generally not legally possible. So if they act upon this desire, it would be at least statutory rape (assuming the child is willing)
Yes it would be. Good for you, you just defined what statutory rape is.
But you still have absolutely no proof that viewing CP increases the rate at which pedophiles molest. You're just assuming that's the case.
So you'd do it for free, then? Better not tell your boss...:)
My point is, choosing to be paid less to continue to do something you like doesn't prove you do your job *only* because you love it. It just proves that the pay those others jobs offered doesn't overcome the loss you would incur in terms of day-to-day job satisfaction. But something tells me, if your boss gave you the choice of quitting or taking a massive pay cut so you could keep doing what you are doing, you'd probably start polling your friends to see what the job market was like.
Well, see, that's why we're in this mess today... because short-term thinking has become the norm, rather than the exception.
Dude. They're fucking *kids*.
Expecting a grade 2 student to think about their future when deciding whether to read a book or go outside and play tag with their friends is completely idiotic.
Let's not split hairs. It is still the same ones taking pleasure from children and who will eventually cross barriers.
You have absolutely no proof that they will "eventually cross barriers".
Millions of people every year view porn, yet no one assumes that viewers of porn will inevitably rape someone. So why would you assume that to be the case of pedophiles? In fact, I would be very surprised if the opposite weren't, in fact, true.
"Click it or Ticket", "Over the limit, Under arrest", and its ilk irritate me to no end. I *loathe* being talked down to like a child, with these cutesy slogans
Well, if people didn't act like irresponsible children, it wouldn't be necessary to talk down to them, now would it?
This anti-cellphone jihad really makes no sense to me.
Huh? I saw nothing about anyone being "anti-cellphone". Anti-don't-be-a-fucking-idiot-while-driving, sure, but not anti-cellphone. Where'd you get that stupid idea?
If we're going to waste money on "educating" people about the dangers of cell phones, why don't we educate them on the dangers of distracted driving in general?
Good idea! We probably should! On the other hand, cellphones seem to have caused a very drastic increase in the number of distracted drivers on the road, and so it makes sense to target that one issue specifically, due to how widespread it is.
You know what I did to keep myself awake and alert? Whipped out the phone and talked to someone.
Here's a better idea: Pull over to the side of the road and take a quick nap. As it is, you just ended up trading one irresponsible behaviour for another. Kinda like a child.
Huh? Which parts of life-or-death determination are "historical"? I mean, maybe I'm exposing my ignorance, here, but doesn't it come down to whether you can form two eyes with a group? Granted, there are a few complicated cases, like seki and double ko (a good page covering them is here), but none of them are "historical", and fall out straight from the basic ruleset.
Slashdot Mirror
But if I had not done that stretch of logic, we would not have been entertained by the kneejerk reaction to any criticism of the USA insurance dominated Health Care Profit Machine*.
Ahh, you were trolling. Good to know. Perhaps it's time to add you to my foe list...
Correct, it does have an LD50: source. It's just so damned high that it's incredibly unlikely any normal LSD user would ever die from an overdoes.
The author is attacking the American Lung Association for their agenda. But what's the author's agenda?
Does it matter? Do you or do you not believe that e-cigs are a better alternative to regular smokes? Yes or no? If the answer is 'yes', then you agree with the author. End of story.
If the answer is 'no', I would ask, 'why'? Because it seems blatantly obvious that a device which provides a reduced-harm alternative to smoking for those unable to quit is still a hell of a lot better than them continuing to smoke regular cigarettes.
addiction... while nicotine is not that dangerous on its own, it is still hellishly addictive.
Uhuh.
So?
As long as you continue to feed your nicotine addiction, you will never be able to break yourself away from these crutches.
Uhuh.
So?
Honestly, I don't get American culture. There's this utterly ridiculous obsession with drug dependence, even when the drugs are completely harmless. Hell, even patients undergoing end-of-life palliative care sometimes refuse to take pain killers for fear of dependence. It's ridiculous!
Honestly, *who cares* if these people are addicted to some drug, so long as the drug itself causes no negative health effects? Does it make them less productive members of society? No. Does it create an undo burden on the healthcare system? No. Does it hurt them in any way, save that they blow a little extra money to maintain the addiction? No! So who gives a shit?
The only reason to oppose devices like this is because you believe you have some higher moral standard that other people should aspire to. And quite frankly? You can shove that standard straight up your ass, because it's none of your damn business what these people choose to put in their bodies.
While they may be less bad than traditional smoked tobacco, they still aren't good for your lungs. Our lungs are, after all, living tissue that is tasked with gas exchange. That is a fairly complicated job to begin with, and if you start intoducting airborne solids into the mixture you are only making the job that much more difficult.
So I suppose you're saying the inhaled corticosteroid I use for asthma, not to mention the short-acting bronchodilator, is bad for my lungs because they're both delivered as an "airborne solid"?
Quite frankly, you sound like you're just making shit up. Unless you can identify a specific compound in these devices that damages the lungs, I see no reason to assume they're any worse than any other inhaled drug preparation (of which there are many).
it can still be used to set up tiered insurance charges so that people who don't have the genes will only pay a little more for insurance than they do now (doing business as it has always been done), while people who have the genes will be in a different risk group and will be required by law to pay much higher premiums than anyone has ever had to pay before
Buh? They didn't sequence the genes of cancer patients. They sequenced the genes of the tumours themselves.
What the hell kind of idiot is posting this? When at work you should be working. If you mean actually sitting there and pushing buttons to create code that then is compiled and will remain as part of the code? 15 hours. If you mean all the required steps to create an actually half useful piece of code? FORTY HOURS A FRIGEN WEEK.
Don't be absurd. Even burger flippers at McDonald's get paid breaks. Expecting software developers to work at peak capacity 40 hours a week while still producing high quality code, documentation, etc, is ridiculous.
And speaking of complexity of software: if programmers wrote programs the way lawyers make laws, a ... would be written as a 20 pages of code, at least.
Sure. And if the English language were as precise and unambiguous as a programming language, laws could be written much more simply.
I don't know, I don't really understand killing people neither, but apparently some do it.
But that's precisely my point. I honestly believe that a large percentage of the pedophiles out there simply have deviant sexual preferences. ie, these individuals, like you, are simply incapable of raping or murdering someone because they don't have it in them, just as you don't have it in you to murder. Such individuals wouldn't be enticed by CP to rape because they still have a functioning set of morals, they're simply possessed with deviant sexual preferences.
Of course, like normal individuals out there, there is some percentage of pedophiles out there that are *also* violent sadists. Those individuals would rape, regardless of the presence of absence of CP, and so again, CP makes no difference.
There are though, I don't know how much or if it is even vaguely common, but if there weren't, there wouldn't be any laws regarding statutory rape.
The laws for statutory rape are invariably applied in cases where a legal adult is having consensual sex with a *teenager*, not a prepubescent child. And adults having sex with teens is *not* pedophilia.
Pedophilia involves sexual attraction to prepubescent children, and I strongly suspect your average prepubescent child isn't willing to engage in *consensual* sex, and so no, statutory rape laws are infrequently applied to cases involving (actual, clinical) pedophiles.
That's it, you're going on my foe list... :)
Is Chess a sport? What about Go?
If you said yes to both of those questions, why not any other game of strategy/tactics?
I see your point. I'm not competent in this area, is there no possibility that rape be about relieving oneself from urges and not about power?
Honestly, no. That's why mammals masturbate.
Or do you *really* think that a normal person could have sufficiently powerful sexual urges that they would violate someone simply to satiate that need?
In particular considering statutory rape, when the other person seemingly agrees to the acts?
But that's not at all comparable. Statutory "rape" isn't a violent act. In fact, I would claim the term "rape" is a terrible misnomer, as actual rape is a completely different thing.
Now, I'm not aware of any pedophiles engaging in consensual sex with prepubescent children. As far as I'm aware, those incidents overwhelmingly involve violent acts of rape. And, again, those acts aren't about satiating need. They're about violence.
Heh, I just made my own. A buddy of mine kept a couple pairs of glasses and I just cut the right lens out of one, the left lens out of the other, and grafted the left lens into the other pair. It's ugly as heck, but it does the job.
You're right, I haven't proved anything. My point was to the GGP, just because people view porn and cause no harm doesn't mean anything, because the situation is hugely different, as the sex depicted in regular porn is legal, and someone can just go out and do it
Well, no, that's not really true. If that were the sole determinant of whether or not someone chose to rape someone else, you'd see large numbers of porn-watching, overweight, ugly, old, or introverted people running around raping people.
But they don't, because, as has been pointed out many times, rape isn't about sex, it's about power. Why people will accept that idea when it comes to adults raping adults, but not adults raping children, I don't know. If you can admit that about pedos, then it should be clear that CP doesn't increase the odds of abuse, because, again, it's not about sexual gratification, it's about sadism and power.
One was the anticipation I mentioned in my first post; the other wasn't somehow speeding up body functions pretty dependent on laws of physics, it was which part of the brain handled the "decision" and the orders to move.
Heavily trained sportsmen have basically programmed firmware, a slashdotter might say; the tactical level of see-aim-move is handled by the part of the brain near the bottom, down close to the stem, whose name I've managed to forget. They don't order their body around move-by-move any more than a pianist thinks out each finger press. It takes thousands of repetitions to develop, near-daily practice to maintain, though.
Uhh, isn't that the very definition of "reflex"? :) ie, the ability to rapidly act without having to consciously make a decision. Sounds to me like the documentary backs up the GP's point.
I'm sure he has better physical reaction time, for things related to racing.
Agreed. As a rather odd example, I started juggling in my teenaged years. And while I'd say I'm just competent, it noticeably improved my reflexes when it comes to reacting to and catching falling objects... which is rather handy when you're a bit of a klutz otherwise.
Meh, we've *always* had adults who only understand short-term thinking. At least now some of them might come out of school functionally literate.
People would look at child porn and would want to have sex with a child, which is generally not legally possible. So if they act upon this desire, it would be at least statutory rape (assuming the child is willing)
Yes it would be. Good for you, you just defined what statutory rape is.
But you still have absolutely no proof that viewing CP increases the rate at which pedophiles molest. You're just assuming that's the case.
I do my job because I love it.
So you'd do it for free, then? Better not tell your boss... :)
My point is, choosing to be paid less to continue to do something you like doesn't prove you do your job *only* because you love it. It just proves that the pay those others jobs offered doesn't overcome the loss you would incur in terms of day-to-day job satisfaction. But something tells me, if your boss gave you the choice of quitting or taking a massive pay cut so you could keep doing what you are doing, you'd probably start polling your friends to see what the job market was like.
Well, see, that's why we're in this mess today... because short-term thinking has become the norm, rather than the exception.
Dude. They're fucking *kids*.
Expecting a grade 2 student to think about their future when deciding whether to read a book or go outside and play tag with their friends is completely idiotic.
Let's not split hairs. It is still the same ones taking pleasure from children and who will eventually cross barriers.
You have absolutely no proof that they will "eventually cross barriers".
Millions of people every year view porn, yet no one assumes that viewers of porn will inevitably rape someone. So why would you assume that to be the case of pedophiles? In fact, I would be very surprised if the opposite weren't, in fact, true.
"Click it or Ticket", "Over the limit, Under arrest", and its ilk irritate me to no end. I *loathe* being talked down to like a child, with these cutesy slogans
Well, if people didn't act like irresponsible children, it wouldn't be necessary to talk down to them, now would it?
This anti-cellphone jihad really makes no sense to me.
Huh? I saw nothing about anyone being "anti-cellphone". Anti-don't-be-a-fucking-idiot-while-driving, sure, but not anti-cellphone. Where'd you get that stupid idea?
If we're going to waste money on "educating" people about the dangers of cell phones, why don't we educate them on the dangers of distracted driving in general?
Good idea! We probably should! On the other hand, cellphones seem to have caused a very drastic increase in the number of distracted drivers on the road, and so it makes sense to target that one issue specifically, due to how widespread it is.
You know what I did to keep myself awake and alert? Whipped out the phone and talked to someone.
Here's a better idea: Pull over to the side of the road and take a quick nap. As it is, you just ended up trading one irresponsible behaviour for another. Kinda like a child.
Not to mention ageism...
Huh? Which parts of life-or-death determination are "historical"? I mean, maybe I'm exposing my ignorance, here, but doesn't it come down to whether you can form two eyes with a group? Granted, there are a few complicated cases, like seki and double ko (a good page covering them is here), but none of them are "historical", and fall out straight from the basic ruleset.