But he and his wife are perfect Christians and would never stray like that, and their children are perfect too and will never have sex before marriage! And if the children do, then they deserve to die of an STD!!
Holy shit, that's the stupidest thing I've read all week.
From what I've seen, gay people generally make a ton of money on average, so they're doing a much better job paying their own way than all the working-class heteros.
Heroes? This isn't the Marvel Universe (or worse, the Watchmen universe). The only "heroes" in real life I can think of are firemen. And unlike politicians and CEOs, firemen have very little actual power, unless you happen to be in a burning building, so there's no real damage they can do to society. And I've never heard of firemen being described as having any sociopathic traits of lack of empathy, usually quite the opposite (they frequently rescue pets).
You're absolutely right about all the undiagnosed and untreated mental illness cases, but what's really bad is that there's a LOT of people with security clearances who have very obvious mental illness. I'm talking about politicians. They run our government, and make all kinds of sensitive decisions, yet nearly ALL of them are sociopaths, which is a mental illness. Why are these people allowed to have access to sensitive data, or even to hold office?
If someone is homosexual, how does that hurt anyone? It doesn't, assuming they only have consensual sexual relations with other adults (which is no different than hetero people).
If someone is asexual, how does that hurt anyone? They don't want sex with anyone, so there's no way for them to hurt anyone with their condition.
If someone is a pedophile, however, if they act on that impulse and molest children, obviously that's quite harmful to the child and his/her development and psychology.
If someone is a sociopath or psychopath, that's harmful because they either commit crimes (hurting the victims) and go to prison (costing the taxpayer), or they become a CEO or politician, which hurts society in general through their selfish decision-making combined with their position of power and authority.
Well for some jobs people with serious mental illnesses should never ever be placed in those positions. Like airline pilots. A crazy person's right to privacy does not trump...
What about corporate executives, who run all the large companies which run our economy? Almost all of them are sociopaths, which is a mental disorder.
What about politicians, who run our government? Almost all of them are sociopaths too.
Why are you picking on airline pilots when all the most powerful people in our society are clearly mentally ill?
Not so good for the rest of us though. Maybe if they had made him a professor, we'd have had a different President the last 7 years. Of course, it'd probably have been Hillary, so it wouldn't have been any better, probably worse in fact.
Go back a couple of messages: I'm talking about married couples here. A wife doesn't ask her husband if he's had a vasectomy, she already knows because he did it some time *after* they got married. The problem is, from what I've read, women have much less desire for a man once this has happened. So the wife, after getting her husband to get the snip so she doesn't have to worry about having another kid they don't want, now no longer wants to screw him, and then has a steamy affair with some guy from work who hasn't had the snip, and gets pregnant...
Puritans came here because they weren't allowed to force others to follow them.
Well, that's kinda what I said. A small minority group trying to be pushy and force others to follow their religion usually results in them being treated poorly (for good reason, people don't like assholes). So they needed to move someplace where they could be the majority and be assholes all they wanted.
It is a little disturbing how we romanticize the Pilgrims in our history books.
I don't care about great swathes of the world, I only care about how they are in my country. The OP made factually inaccurate claims because he assumed taxis in his country work the same everywhere, and he needs to be called out on it.
I don't see what the problem is with blaming victims.
If the victim *didn't know* they'd become a victim, then *obviously* that's not right.
But if the victim KNOWS they're going to become a victim, and they CHOOSE to become a victim, then please explain why I should feel sorry for them and not blame them.
Your examples are stupid. No normal VW customers knew that VW was cheating on the emissions tests. People commute by bike all the time; no one knows they're going to get hit that day, just like no car driver knows he's going to get into a fiery crash that day. Did you completely miss how these Oracle customers buy these companies' services specifically because they KNOW they'll become victims without them? I'm only proposing banning these companies so that anyone who buys into Oracle KNOWS they'll become a victim, and has no way to avoid it except by not becoming an Oracle customer. If you know a vendor is going to treat you like shit, then it's stupid to continue doing business with that vendor.
Do you have a valid refutation? It's all over the news now that German women have to worry about this kind of thing. We don't have this problem in America; there's no women in Times Square NYC being raped by hordes of North African men.
Consider this: A single guy in his 40's who's never married is a bachelor, a playboy, a swinger, etc. while a woman in her 40's who's never married is...a spinster. What else? Cat lady? Cougar? MILF? None of these terms have very positive overtones, and some are downright insulting.
I see some really selective stereotyping here. What about the "40-year-old virgin" guy? They made a movie about that 5 or 10 years ago. That guy definitely isn't considered a "playboy".
And how is a MILF considered "insulting"? That sounds like a compliment to me; usually older women are (were) seen as past their prime, not really someone a younger guy would want sex with. A MILF or cougar is. It's a compliment to women who aged well.
As for spinsters, I think part of the problem there might be the social circles that women are in. Who's actually calling you (or any women you know like this) a "spinster" or similar? This sounds like a problem largely of these women's own making, by voluntarily being in social circles that have these attitudes. The guy who's a 40yo virgin and hangs out with his nerdy friends doesn't have this problem because all his buddies are in the same boat; they might get shit from their parents but that's about it, and usually 40yos don't live with their parents any more. Remember also, women tend to be much more social than men, and are conditioned that way from early childhood. So older single men seem to frequently end up just living alone and being alone much of the time; they're not around anyone who's going to make up derogatory names for them and their singleness.
Also, you're absolutely wrong about a single 40yo guy being called a "swinger". A "swinger" is a married person who, together with their spouse, engages in extramarital sex. You've never heard of "swingers parties"?
But basically, you seem to be looking at George Clooney and assuming he's representative of all 40+ single men, which honestly is rather insulting because most men aren't blessed with his looks or charisma. Most 40+ men who are single are that way either because they're like the 40yo virgin guy (but not remotely as attractive as Steve Carrell; that's Hollywood for you), nerdy and/or unattractive and uninteresting to women, not because they've actively avoided marriage.
The very existence of sex dolls demonstrate that men want more than a functional release of their sexual energy but not the complete, capricious woman.
I have to disagree a bit with this one. It's quite possible sex dolls are purchased not by men who are avoiding a relationship with a real woman, but by men who can't get a relationship with a real woman (or a woman they're attracted enough to to bother with). If a man is extremely unattractive, or has a quirky personality that turns off women, then since prostitution is generally illegal, a sex doll may be the only alternative he has to masturbation.
Yeah, exactly. That sounds like it was written by someone with a personality disorder that makes them not really crave human contact (I mean besides sex, though including it as well). There's probably a DSM-IV name for it. The simple fact is: normal people want to be touched. Babies that aren't touched enough either die or develop major personality disorders when they grow up.
It's too bad there isn't some way to ban these companies outright. If someone is dumb enough to use a database from a vendor that abuses them this much, they *deserve* to pay through the nose for these audits. Obviously, this behavior isn't a surprise to the customers.
How's that different than a cab company? They treat their customers like shit too. In fact, most people (in the US) who use both Uber and cabs say that their experience with Uber is a lot better, because their experiences with cabs are so miserable.
Slashdot Mirror
That's what you get for buying Microsoft products. Maybe next time you'll think twice about buying anything from them.
But he and his wife are perfect Christians and would never stray like that, and their children are perfect too and will never have sex before marriage! And if the children do, then they deserve to die of an STD!!
Holy shit, that's the stupidest thing I've read all week.
From what I've seen, gay people generally make a ton of money on average, so they're doing a much better job paying their own way than all the working-class heteros.
Heroes? This isn't the Marvel Universe (or worse, the Watchmen universe). The only "heroes" in real life I can think of are firemen. And unlike politicians and CEOs, firemen have very little actual power, unless you happen to be in a burning building, so there's no real damage they can do to society. And I've never heard of firemen being described as having any sociopathic traits of lack of empathy, usually quite the opposite (they frequently rescue pets).
You're absolutely right about all the undiagnosed and untreated mental illness cases, but what's really bad is that there's a LOT of people with security clearances who have very obvious mental illness. I'm talking about politicians. They run our government, and make all kinds of sensitive decisions, yet nearly ALL of them are sociopaths, which is a mental illness. Why are these people allowed to have access to sensitive data, or even to hold office?
There's a big difference however.
If someone is homosexual, how does that hurt anyone? It doesn't, assuming they only have consensual sexual relations with other adults (which is no different than hetero people).
If someone is asexual, how does that hurt anyone? They don't want sex with anyone, so there's no way for them to hurt anyone with their condition.
If someone is a pedophile, however, if they act on that impulse and molest children, obviously that's quite harmful to the child and his/her development and psychology.
If someone is a sociopath or psychopath, that's harmful because they either commit crimes (hurting the victims) and go to prison (costing the taxpayer), or they become a CEO or politician, which hurts society in general through their selfish decision-making combined with their position of power and authority.
Well for some jobs people with serious mental illnesses should never ever be placed in those positions. Like airline pilots. A crazy person's right to privacy does not trump...
What about corporate executives, who run all the large companies which run our economy? Almost all of them are sociopaths, which is a mental disorder.
What about politicians, who run our government? Almost all of them are sociopaths too.
Why are you picking on airline pilots when all the most powerful people in our society are clearly mentally ill?
Not so good for the rest of us though. Maybe if they had made him a professor, we'd have had a different President the last 7 years. Of course, it'd probably have been Hillary, so it wouldn't have been any better, probably worse in fact.
Go back a couple of messages: I'm talking about married couples here. A wife doesn't ask her husband if he's had a vasectomy, she already knows because he did it some time *after* they got married. The problem is, from what I've read, women have much less desire for a man once this has happened. So the wife, after getting her husband to get the snip so she doesn't have to worry about having another kid they don't want, now no longer wants to screw him, and then has a steamy affair with some guy from work who hasn't had the snip, and gets pregnant...
Puritans came here because they weren't allowed to force others to follow them.
Well, that's kinda what I said. A small minority group trying to be pushy and force others to follow their religion usually results in them being treated poorly (for good reason, people don't like assholes). So they needed to move someplace where they could be the majority and be assholes all they wanted.
It is a little disturbing how we romanticize the Pilgrims in our history books.
You're either a fucking moron or have some kind of evil agenda.
You think Der Spiegel is "American media"?
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
http://www.spiegel.de/internat...
So the answer is NO, you *don't* have a valid refutation.
That story is all over the international news, BTW, not American.
So, DO YOU OR DO YOU NOT HAVE A VALID REFUTATION???
If not, then SHUT THE FUCK UP.
Um, it's kinda hard for spouses to not know these things about each other.
Sounds like a typical Slashdotter of today. I guess all the normally-adjusted humans have abandoned this shitty site.
I don't care about great swathes of the world, I only care about how they are in my country. The OP made factually inaccurate claims because he assumed taxis in his country work the same everywhere, and he needs to be called out on it.
I don't see what the problem is with blaming victims.
If the victim *didn't know* they'd become a victim, then *obviously* that's not right.
But if the victim KNOWS they're going to become a victim, and they CHOOSE to become a victim, then please explain why I should feel sorry for them and not blame them.
Your examples are stupid. No normal VW customers knew that VW was cheating on the emissions tests. People commute by bike all the time; no one knows they're going to get hit that day, just like no car driver knows he's going to get into a fiery crash that day. Did you completely miss how these Oracle customers buy these companies' services specifically because they KNOW they'll become victims without them? I'm only proposing banning these companies so that anyone who buys into Oracle KNOWS they'll become a victim, and has no way to avoid it except by not becoming an Oracle customer. If you know a vendor is going to treat you like shit, then it's stupid to continue doing business with that vendor.
Do you have a valid refutation? It's all over the news now that German women have to worry about this kind of thing. We don't have this problem in America; there's no women in Times Square NYC being raped by hordes of North African men.
I thought I had read that women find men less sexually appealing when they know the man has had a vasectomy.
This is to make sure the vas deferens does not re-attach itself after the procedure. Apparently, something like 1 in 5000 men have that happen.
There should be a money-back guarantee if that happens.
Consider this: A single guy in his 40's who's never married is a bachelor, a playboy, a swinger, etc. while a woman in her 40's who's never married is...a spinster. What else? Cat lady? Cougar? MILF? None of these terms have very positive overtones, and some are downright insulting.
I see some really selective stereotyping here. What about the "40-year-old virgin" guy? They made a movie about that 5 or 10 years ago. That guy definitely isn't considered a "playboy".
And how is a MILF considered "insulting"? That sounds like a compliment to me; usually older women are (were) seen as past their prime, not really someone a younger guy would want sex with. A MILF or cougar is. It's a compliment to women who aged well.
As for spinsters, I think part of the problem there might be the social circles that women are in. Who's actually calling you (or any women you know like this) a "spinster" or similar? This sounds like a problem largely of these women's own making, by voluntarily being in social circles that have these attitudes. The guy who's a 40yo virgin and hangs out with his nerdy friends doesn't have this problem because all his buddies are in the same boat; they might get shit from their parents but that's about it, and usually 40yos don't live with their parents any more. Remember also, women tend to be much more social than men, and are conditioned that way from early childhood. So older single men seem to frequently end up just living alone and being alone much of the time; they're not around anyone who's going to make up derogatory names for them and their singleness.
Also, you're absolutely wrong about a single 40yo guy being called a "swinger". A "swinger" is a married person who, together with their spouse, engages in extramarital sex. You've never heard of "swingers parties"?
But basically, you seem to be looking at George Clooney and assuming he's representative of all 40+ single men, which honestly is rather insulting because most men aren't blessed with his looks or charisma. Most 40+ men who are single are that way either because they're like the 40yo virgin guy (but not remotely as attractive as Steve Carrell; that's Hollywood for you), nerdy and/or unattractive and uninteresting to women, not because they've actively avoided marriage.
The very existence of sex dolls demonstrate that men want more than a functional release of their sexual energy but not the complete, capricious woman.
I have to disagree a bit with this one. It's quite possible sex dolls are purchased not by men who are avoiding a relationship with a real woman, but by men who can't get a relationship with a real woman (or a woman they're attracted enough to to bother with). If a man is extremely unattractive, or has a quirky personality that turns off women, then since prostitution is generally illegal, a sex doll may be the only alternative he has to masturbation.
Yeah, exactly. That sounds like it was written by someone with a personality disorder that makes them not really crave human contact (I mean besides sex, though including it as well). There's probably a DSM-IV name for it. The simple fact is: normal people want to be touched. Babies that aren't touched enough either die or develop major personality disorders when they grow up.
It's too bad there isn't some way to ban these companies outright. If someone is dumb enough to use a database from a vendor that abuses them this much, they *deserve* to pay through the nose for these audits. Obviously, this behavior isn't a surprise to the customers.
How's that different than a cab company? They treat their customers like shit too. In fact, most people (in the US) who use both Uber and cabs say that their experience with Uber is a lot better, because their experiences with cabs are so miserable.
Please explain how Uber could ever be a monopoly. If you think it's that hard to write a smartphone app, then you're on the wrong site.