the movie industry is a tiny portion of our population.
There are tens of millions of us here... how many of us do you think are involved with the movie business? Less then 100,000... much less...
As to anecdotes... that's all you've got in any case. You point at some land whale getting carted around in a midwestern wall mart and presume to label us all land whales.
That's just one of the stats and frankly that's not even the full depth of the issue.
There is a tendency for people to cite the numbers to make a point without understanding how the numbers were collected, what they mean, if there are standards across borders, if the reporting rate/system is the same, etc.
Failing to do that means your comparison is invalid. Almost NONE of the studies that make these comparisions especially the incipid newspaper articles go to the trouble to either understand the statistics or correct for these differences.
They just take the raw data, run some basic calculations and then render some ignorant conclusion.
I don't blame you for making this mistake. You've been mislead into thinking the data was treated properly and corrected to allow for these sorts of cross references.
You are however mistaken. The data is at best raw and must be heavily filtered to allow for direct cross referencing.
That is an LA times article that discusses the practice in Japan of labeling all unsolved deaths as natural causes or accidents or something other then a murder.
So for example, if I poison someone randomly in Japan... they probably won't do an autopsy... they'll just declare it natural causes. No investigation.
Now, that naturally has an impact on your crime statistics and it makes it impossible to compare foreign crime stats where countries do not do that with countries that do. How for example do you possibly figure out how many homicides were labeled natural causes? There are naturally no records that would let you determine that because the whole point is to make the numbers look good.
I think you should be familiar with this practice. We see this in many countries including the US where a given politician wants to show they're competent. So they tell the people under them... "deliver these numbers or else"... and they deliver the numbers... mostly by just writing whatever the fool wants into the database and covering up anything that says otherwise.
Look at what happened with the VA recently. They were told to improve wait times for veterans. And if they did, they'd get a bonus.
So they faked reports and made it look like they were hitting their numbers when really they weren't. They literally were deleting vets from wait lists, keeping secret wait lists, and doing all sorts of other crap to make the numbers look good.
Which means those stats are also utterly without worth.
This is a consistent problem with many statistics and its only ONE type of problem.
If you're at all open minded on the issue you'll be a good deal more humble about citing such statistics when you have no personal knowledge of how they're collected, what they mean, etc.
Would you accept my anecdote that found the two to be generally equivilent if you exempted statistical abnormalities?
There are portions of the US that do have a lot of fat people. However, not all portions of the US have lots of fat people. Go to Los Angeles for example where I live and you don't see much of it. Go to most rural communities and you also tend not to see it. Most of the fat asses exist in the mid west... and there are some further demographic break downs from there that shed further light on what is actually going on.
But what I discuss here is proper statistical analysis... something which is utterly alien to most people despite their willingness to cite statistics they don't understand and are incurious to evaluate.
As to the various differences between the populations, it would be more useful to examine differences in diet, differences in recreation, etc. From that you might glean more useful information.
If your only interset as with most is to justify a pajorative then by all means... point and say "fatty" and then giggle moronically.
This is almost entirely the point of this sort of discussion and I see no reason why any should respect the practice. However, if you want to salvage something of value from the discussion, you can look at the data and try to understand it.
Americans are not of a radically dissimilar genetic stock from the european countries. As such, the resulting differences are environmental. Examining those differences will yield the causes of any differences in weight or muscle mass... etc.
As an American, you sound like a stupid American. It is precisely this incurious attitude. This willingness to swallow anything without consideration so long as it appears popular that is so reprehensible.
Either have a mind of your own or surrender any claim to one and with that any right to an opinion what so ever.
Seriously... the whole thing exists almost entirely in the media and no where else.
Can you find land whales if you look for them? Sure... so what? That proves nothing.
This is as bogus as the "Americans don't know history/geography" line which is only true in that they don't know EUROPEAN history or geography as well as europeans. But by the same token, europeans don't know american history or american geography.
I've quizzed them on it repeatedly and they know nothing beyond what you'd get out of a few movies. Which is less then worthless.
Yet these same people will turn around and turn their noses up at americans because they don't know about some battle or war or general in 1204 or 1672 in France, Germany, Italy, England, whatever.
But ask the same people to answer something basic like what was the Bacon rebellion and they have no idea. Ask them name which original colonies were Dutch versus English... I could go on but the point is that they don't know American history.
Which is fine. I don't expect them to be as knowledgeable of our history. By the same token, its unreasonable for them to assume anyone really gives a shit about European history unless you're a European.
The japanese don't care. Ask them what the war of the Roses was and very few of them will have any clue.
I don't hear the euros bashing the Japanese for their poor grasp of history. But by the same token if the same Japanese person were to ask either an American or a European to answer some question about Meiji dynasty we'd be generally clueless.
So on and so forth.
The whole thing is bullshit. Some people need to feel superior so they'll come up with stupid reasons to feel that way and without any real evidence they'll maintain that position because its important to their fragile little egos.
The whole thing is contemptible because it reveals that people aren't thinking for themselves. It would be fine if one person came up with this notion and maintained it... he'd just be an asshole. But what we have is worse. We have lots of people believing this same asshole for no reason and repeating what he said to all their friends and just repeating it over and over again like it becomes true if you say it a thousand times.
Think for yourselves please... or its really quite justified to regard you all as mindless groupthink halfwits.
statistically germans and english are about as fat... Some years, I think they've surpassed us.
really the whole "americans are fat" thing is mostly a product of misinformation at this point.
The conditions that lead to statistical weight gain are complex. Its about economics, social dynamics, work habits, and even political considerations.
And really, I don't see why any country should be ashamed of a statistic like this... does it lead to higher incidents of heart disease? Sure... and? People chose bacon over low cholesterol... get over it.
I'll point out here that there is a lot of controversial science that is backed up almost entirely by its ability to get published.
Much of the science is not reproduced and much of it doesn't include enough information to even attempt to reproduce it.
that is something that I think would be a reasonable requirement for publication. Provide a full step by step break down of how you go from raw data to verified conclusion.
I've read a few of these papers and they don't ever seem to do that.
No you didn't. And your insistence on using ad hominem and pejorative really just renders your whole position a laughable joke.
You're a bigot. You've confessed it.
And like so many bigots you're unable to see it. Ask a white supremacist to justify his position and he'll "think" he's doing it. He'll give reasons... and then end his absurd argument with why one race is inferior to another or why his race shouldn't mix with another group of people based solely on their skin color.
He'll likely follow the whole thing up with some ugly pejorative or ad hominem like you keep doing.
And if you point out the above to him he'll say that you just don't understand his bigoted thought structure and its your fault for not grasping it.
Typical of bigots.
Now, if you'd like to have a discussion like an adult rather then a temper tantruming child... we can continue. But further attempts to use your bigotry to secure points will only be labeled as bigotry and rejected with justification.
Your choice. Regardless... should you run away from this discussion as I assume you will... most bigots are intellectual cowards that are terrified of having their illogical and hateful world view proven to be illogical and hateful. So I expect you to run away in a pathetic attempt to protect your own ego.
But should you be willing to test your thoughts against mine... I stand ready.
Attempt to defend your position or run away. The choice is yours.
While I get the distinction, any legal system that is so simplistic that it allows such things to run unchecked is unworthy of being called a justice system.
This is nothing new however... the EU has long been criticized for being heavy on the assumption of power and very light on the inherent restraints and limits of that power.
Ultimately, it is this grasping nature of the EU that will probably doom it. We're already seeing many core member nations start rebel in various ways or simply start pushing hard for outright leaving the coalition.
The EU cannot survive if its core members leave and it can't stop them from leaving unless it shows more wisdom then it has shown thus far... and it won't do that because the constituent politicians that run it are demonstrably not that wise.
Well, then whether something makes it through peer review or not should not be used as evidence that it is correct or not... merely interesting and reasonable.
... You don't need a warrant to pay attention to what people are doing.
Does a cop need a warrant to watch a street corner? Obviously not.
Anywhere in my post did I reference breaking into people's machines or compelling people to release information by court order or otherwise?
no... I did not.
So I'm talking about the sort of things you need warrants for at all.
If the NSA is getting warrants to tap the communications of people that they don't know even did anything then that's obviously wrong.
However, the NSA obviously should watch savvy computer groups to be aware of new technologies, new programs, new ideas, new threats, new talent, new names in the game, etc.
If they don't pay attention then they're going to be clueless.
Should they label people extremists simply because they have information that they might want? Obviously not.
But then this is a lot of the consequences of the patriot act which is still screwing things up. The government just labels everyone a terrorist and then gets to do whatever it wants.
... by the journal itself... investigating itself... the result will be that they don't find any wrong doing in their own journal.
And then the media will report "journal finds no wrong doing"... and then we can all go back to sleep.
Right guys?
The issue is not this one journal. Its a general lack of scrutiny in science itself. They are not being audited. The data is not being checked. The experiments are not being replicated.
your pathetic attempt to use ad hominem doesn't strengthen your argument but merely label yourself as bigot.
In my city they don't outsource road work. I've never seen that done actually anywhere in my state. In fact, they've gone to great pains to protect the state and city transit unions.
But none of that matters to you. You're a bigot... and bigots just like to hate.
we're not talking about high school volleyball. Desegregate the Olympics and professional sports.
Or give me what I want... which is the admission that you want special privileges.
And in return for that acknowledgement, I'll claim the right to veto anti discrimination claims in any area where women or any other group claims special privileges.
You get one in return for the other.
You want to be protected from competition? Fine. But then you can't claim discrimination in those areas either.
For example, lets say a women wants to join the NBA or the male Olympics or any other situation where you've carved out these rules.
The answer would be no. Join the women's league. end of discussion. This would of course extend to the military which is actually where I want to go with this argument.
Women are being tested differently then men. That amounts to a special privilege which is fine but it means we are acknowledging men are not the same as women at an official level.
And that means you can't use discrimination laws to force the military to accept women into situations they deem a poor idea.
I don't really care about professional sports of the Olympics. I care about things that are a threat to our society. And the anti discrimination laws are not good for the US Navy, Marines, Army, Army Rangers, or Airforce.
The women often are not up to the same physical standards and yet are passed through because some fucktard wants to hit some statistical number like a robot.
If they're up to the same physical challenge and can compete... then have them compete.
if they're not then they're not the same and you can't cite anti discrimination.
That's all I'm saying. I think the logic is indisputable.
Is the point to remove discrimination or to have some statistical equality?
If we're talking about a sports competition then why stop at gender... why not divide it on race as well... look at how many sports white people aren't competitive in any more... well... apparently they need their own leagues by this logic... and then we can look at ideologies or religions and possibly divide people that way too.
I'm tired of people trying to have it both ways.
Do you care about discrimination or do you want to have special privileges? Because its one or the other.
... them. They label them extremists because they need to do that to watch people. Is it fair or reasonable? No. It just how our stupid government works.
Should the NSA be watching the very savvy computer communities? Obviously. They have to do that. They can't do their jobs unless they're aware of what is going on there.
Should they label them extremists? No. But neither should they need to do that to watch someone.
This is why a lot of political groups in the US are being labeled as extremists. Because there are some people in those groups that do crazy stuff like make bombs. Practically none of them do that but one out of a million does... and they need to watch for that.
True. That said, sports shouldn't be segregated by sex in any case.
Why is it better for women to be able to say they're the best women player then being able to say they're the 200th best player in either sex?
Its the same thing.
Let them compete against the men.
They're 21st century women. They want to go into the fire... to compete... do it and be done.
Now if you're concerned about women getting hurt... that's sports. Men get hurt all the time. They get concussions. They tear ligaments. They break bones.
Might women get hurt more? Possibly... but mostly we'll just have to accept female injuries the same way we accept male injuries.
In stride. Man gets hurt doing something dangerous you had the guy a beer and tell him to tough it out. Do the same thing to the women.
Full-time law enforcement employees in 2012, including police officers: 42 (34 officers). Officers per 1,000 residents here:
2.45 Florida average:
2.45
... So if there are 2.25 officers per 1000 residents then (42/2.25)*1000=population... or 18,777
18,777/10,000=180% of the population figure I cited before as a reference.
So to compare your town with my example... (10,000/18777) * 42 = 22 police officers if your population were 10,000 assuming your local ratio.
Population of NYC 8.34 million. Size of their police force... about 35 thousand.
Assuming a ratio of 2.25 police officers per 1000 residents which is your town's ratio and apparently the ratio in florida... there would be only 18765 police officers in NYC at that ratio.
There are 35 thousand.
35,000/18765=187% as many officers per person in NYC.
Go over the math... any way you cut it. Cities are less efficient.
They have to make up for that inefficiency somewhere or they're not viable.
It is my argument that their best reason for existing was commute times and easy access to labor/employment.
I argue further that in the 21st century with transcontinental air travel and telecommuting this is probably less useful then it was in the past. After all, people can collaborate in real time from the other side of the world. And they can knock on your door in about 16-18 hours from anywhere on earth.
So... that "pro" in the pro/con chart is weaker then it was in the past.
I have just established that there are a lot of cons. Higher logistical costs. Higher property costs. Higher crime rate...
Now you say "some people like to live in cities"... fine. But then why are we subsidizing them? Let people that want to live in them pay for them. Ideally make each city individually pay for its own subsidies. if the city is so great then it should be fine. If its actually only sustained by those subsidies then it will go into decline and lose population until it reaches equilibrium.
At which point, you might be able to just drive where ever you want in town.
That's fine, but you're not addressing the cost of anything on the other side.
You're also not addressing the cost of not burning that coal.
Lets say the coal plant doesn't burn the coal... and as a result the power it would produce isn't created.
That means street lights might not be viable in some areas. It means some homes might not be able to have electricity. It means all sorts of machinery and electronics wouldn't be able to get power.
And you'd have to account for the cost of all those things not happening and weigh that against the possibility of someone getting a respiratory issue or global warming.
A similar calculation can be made with the US of DDT against mosquitoes.
On the one hand you have the fact that it causes birds to have thin egg shells that might cause some species to go extinct.
On the other hand you have the fact that it kills mosquitoes that spread deadly diseases that kill millions of people.
If you had to chose between the two... which would you choose?
We already made this choice. We chose to kill the mosquitoes.
We did not stop using DDT until we had practical alternatives.
If we had to choose between millions of OUR people dying and a few species of birds... we'd kill the birds every time. No contest.
No where are taxes higher then in the cities... I feel like I'm having this discussion with a collection of halfwits...
I wish I could say no offense but that's obviously impossible... you're saying unbelievably stupid things and its just not excusable.
If cities were more efficient then when times get tough everyone would move to the cities.
They don't. When times get tough they move to the country.
Great Depression? People were not flocking to New York city. They were going to California and various other places not blighted by the economic problem.
Look at what happened in greece recently... the greek economy fell apart and people started leaving the city and going back to the countryside.
Why? Because there were some jobs out there and you could live on very little.
In the city you could only live there so long as the subsidies lasted. That was the problem in Greece... the government went bankrupt and the subsidies stopped... and that meant people started leaving Athens.
It is the subsidies that keep the cities viable. Cut them off and you'll see exactly how inefficient they've always been.
Slashdot Mirror
the movie industry is a tiny portion of our population.
There are tens of millions of us here... how many of us do you think are involved with the movie business? Less then 100,000... much less...
As to anecdotes... that's all you've got in any case. You point at some land whale getting carted around in a midwestern wall mart and presume to label us all land whales.
Its moronic.
Exactly... zero analysis... just a citation of numbers without context.
For example, did you know that the US defines infant mortality differently then any country in europe?
This leads to infant mortality not meaning the same thing.
Allow me to open your eyes to the complexity of the situation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...
That's just one of the stats and frankly that's not even the full depth of the issue.
There is a tendency for people to cite the numbers to make a point without understanding how the numbers were collected, what they mean, if there are standards across borders, if the reporting rate/system is the same, etc.
Failing to do that means your comparison is invalid. Almost NONE of the studies that make these comparisions especially the incipid newspaper articles go to the trouble to either understand the statistics or correct for these differences.
They just take the raw data, run some basic calculations and then render some ignorant conclusion.
I don't blame you for making this mistake. You've been mislead into thinking the data was treated properly and corrected to allow for these sorts of cross references.
You are however mistaken. The data is at best raw and must be heavily filtered to allow for direct cross referencing.
Here is another example:
http://articles.latimes.com/20...
That is an LA times article that discusses the practice in Japan of labeling all unsolved deaths as natural causes or accidents or something other then a murder.
So for example, if I poison someone randomly in Japan... they probably won't do an autopsy... they'll just declare it natural causes. No investigation.
Now, that naturally has an impact on your crime statistics and it makes it impossible to compare foreign crime stats where countries do not do that with countries that do. How for example do you possibly figure out how many homicides were labeled natural causes? There are naturally no records that would let you determine that because the whole point is to make the numbers look good.
I think you should be familiar with this practice. We see this in many countries including the US where a given politician wants to show they're competent. So they tell the people under them... "deliver these numbers or else"... and they deliver the numbers... mostly by just writing whatever the fool wants into the database and covering up anything that says otherwise.
Look at what happened with the VA recently. They were told to improve wait times for veterans. And if they did, they'd get a bonus.
So they faked reports and made it look like they were hitting their numbers when really they weren't. They literally were deleting vets from wait lists, keeping secret wait lists, and doing all sorts of other crap to make the numbers look good.
Which means those stats are also utterly without worth.
This is a consistent problem with many statistics and its only ONE type of problem.
If you're at all open minded on the issue you'll be a good deal more humble about citing such statistics when you have no personal knowledge of how they're collected, what they mean, etc.
Would you accept my anecdote that found the two to be generally equivilent if you exempted statistical abnormalities?
There are portions of the US that do have a lot of fat people. However, not all portions of the US have lots of fat people. Go to Los Angeles for example where I live and you don't see much of it. Go to most rural communities and you also tend not to see it. Most of the fat asses exist in the mid west... and there are some further demographic break downs from there that shed further light on what is actually going on.
But what I discuss here is proper statistical analysis... something which is utterly alien to most people despite their willingness to cite statistics they don't understand and are incurious to evaluate.
As to the various differences between the populations, it would be more useful to examine differences in diet, differences in recreation, etc. From that you might glean more useful information.
If your only interset as with most is to justify a pajorative then by all means... point and say "fatty" and then giggle moronically.
This is almost entirely the point of this sort of discussion and I see no reason why any should respect the practice. However, if you want to salvage something of value from the discussion, you can look at the data and try to understand it.
Americans are not of a radically dissimilar genetic stock from the european countries. As such, the resulting differences are environmental. Examining those differences will yield the causes of any differences in weight or muscle mass... etc.
As an American, you sound like a stupid American. It is precisely this incurious attitude. This willingness to swallow anything without consideration so long as it appears popular that is so reprehensible.
Either have a mind of your own or surrender any claim to one and with that any right to an opinion what so ever.
How would you know?
Seriously... the whole thing exists almost entirely in the media and no where else.
Can you find land whales if you look for them? Sure... so what? That proves nothing.
This is as bogus as the "Americans don't know history/geography" line which is only true in that they don't know EUROPEAN history or geography as well as europeans. But by the same token, europeans don't know american history or american geography.
I've quizzed them on it repeatedly and they know nothing beyond what you'd get out of a few movies. Which is less then worthless.
Yet these same people will turn around and turn their noses up at americans because they don't know about some battle or war or general in 1204 or 1672 in France, Germany, Italy, England, whatever.
But ask the same people to answer something basic like what was the Bacon rebellion and they have no idea. Ask them name which original colonies were Dutch versus English... I could go on but the point is that they don't know American history.
Which is fine. I don't expect them to be as knowledgeable of our history. By the same token, its unreasonable for them to assume anyone really gives a shit about European history unless you're a European.
The japanese don't care. Ask them what the war of the Roses was and very few of them will have any clue.
I don't hear the euros bashing the Japanese for their poor grasp of history. But by the same token if the same Japanese person were to ask either an American or a European to answer some question about Meiji dynasty we'd be generally clueless.
So on and so forth.
The whole thing is bullshit. Some people need to feel superior so they'll come up with stupid reasons to feel that way and without any real evidence they'll maintain that position because its important to their fragile little egos.
The whole thing is contemptible because it reveals that people aren't thinking for themselves. It would be fine if one person came up with this notion and maintained it... he'd just be an asshole. But what we have is worse. We have lots of people believing this same asshole for no reason and repeating what he said to all their friends and just repeating it over and over again like it becomes true if you say it a thousand times.
Think for yourselves please... or its really quite justified to regard you all as mindless groupthink halfwits.
statistically germans and english are about as fat... Some years, I think they've surpassed us.
really the whole "americans are fat" thing is mostly a product of misinformation at this point.
The conditions that lead to statistical weight gain are complex. Its about economics, social dynamics, work habits, and even political considerations.
And really, I don't see why any country should be ashamed of a statistic like this... does it lead to higher incidents of heart disease? Sure... and? People chose bacon over low cholesterol... get over it.
I'll point out here that there is a lot of controversial science that is backed up almost entirely by its ability to get published.
Much of the science is not reproduced and much of it doesn't include enough information to even attempt to reproduce it.
that is something that I think would be a reasonable requirement for publication. Provide a full step by step break down of how you go from raw data to verified conclusion.
I've read a few of these papers and they don't ever seem to do that.
No you didn't. And your insistence on using ad hominem and pejorative really just renders your whole position a laughable joke.
You're a bigot. You've confessed it.
And like so many bigots you're unable to see it. Ask a white supremacist to justify his position and he'll "think" he's doing it. He'll give reasons... and then end his absurd argument with why one race is inferior to another or why his race shouldn't mix with another group of people based solely on their skin color.
He'll likely follow the whole thing up with some ugly pejorative or ad hominem like you keep doing.
And if you point out the above to him he'll say that you just don't understand his bigoted thought structure and its your fault for not grasping it.
Typical of bigots.
Now, if you'd like to have a discussion like an adult rather then a temper tantruming child... we can continue. But further attempts to use your bigotry to secure points will only be labeled as bigotry and rejected with justification.
Your choice. Regardless... should you run away from this discussion as I assume you will... most bigots are intellectual cowards that are terrified of having their illogical and hateful world view proven to be illogical and hateful. So I expect you to run away in a pathetic attempt to protect your own ego.
But should you be willing to test your thoughts against mine... I stand ready.
Attempt to defend your position or run away. The choice is yours.
While I get the distinction, any legal system that is so simplistic that it allows such things to run unchecked is unworthy of being called a justice system.
This is nothing new however... the EU has long been criticized for being heavy on the assumption of power and very light on the inherent restraints and limits of that power.
Ultimately, it is this grasping nature of the EU that will probably doom it. We're already seeing many core member nations start rebel in various ways or simply start pushing hard for outright leaving the coalition.
The EU cannot survive if its core members leave and it can't stop them from leaving unless it shows more wisdom then it has shown thus far... and it won't do that because the constituent politicians that run it are demonstrably not that wise.
agreed... the eu had a stupid ruling that is having predictably stupid consequences.
Well, then whether something makes it through peer review or not should not be used as evidence that it is correct or not... merely interesting and reasonable.
... You don't need a warrant to pay attention to what people are doing.
Does a cop need a warrant to watch a street corner? Obviously not.
Anywhere in my post did I reference breaking into people's machines or compelling people to release information by court order or otherwise?
no... I did not.
So I'm talking about the sort of things you need warrants for at all.
If the NSA is getting warrants to tap the communications of people that they don't know even did anything then that's obviously wrong.
However, the NSA obviously should watch savvy computer groups to be aware of new technologies, new programs, new ideas, new threats, new talent, new names in the game, etc.
If they don't pay attention then they're going to be clueless.
Should they label people extremists simply because they have information that they might want? Obviously not.
But then this is a lot of the consequences of the patriot act which is still screwing things up. The government just labels everyone a terrorist and then gets to do whatever it wants.
All this weird stuff relies on the subject being unaware of it.
... by the journal itself... investigating itself... the result will be that they don't find any wrong doing in their own journal.
And then the media will report "journal finds no wrong doing"... and then we can all go back to sleep.
Right guys?
The issue is not this one journal. Its a general lack of scrutiny in science itself. They are not being audited. The data is not being checked. The experiments are not being replicated.
your pathetic attempt to use ad hominem doesn't strengthen your argument but merely label yourself as bigot.
In my city they don't outsource road work. I've never seen that done actually anywhere in my state. In fact, they've gone to great pains to protect the state and city transit unions.
But none of that matters to you. You're a bigot... and bigots just like to hate.
we're not talking about high school volleyball. Desegregate the Olympics and professional sports.
Or give me what I want... which is the admission that you want special privileges.
And in return for that acknowledgement, I'll claim the right to veto anti discrimination claims in any area where women or any other group claims special privileges.
You get one in return for the other.
You want to be protected from competition? Fine. But then you can't claim discrimination in those areas either.
For example, lets say a women wants to join the NBA or the male Olympics or any other situation where you've carved out these rules.
The answer would be no. Join the women's league. end of discussion. This would of course extend to the military which is actually where I want to go with this argument.
Women are being tested differently then men. That amounts to a special privilege which is fine but it means we are acknowledging men are not the same as women at an official level.
And that means you can't use discrimination laws to force the military to accept women into situations they deem a poor idea.
I don't really care about professional sports of the Olympics. I care about things that are a threat to our society. And the anti discrimination laws are not good for the US Navy, Marines, Army, Army Rangers, or Airforce.
The women often are not up to the same physical standards and yet are passed through because some fucktard wants to hit some statistical number like a robot.
If they're up to the same physical challenge and can compete... then have them compete.
if they're not then they're not the same and you can't cite anti discrimination.
That's all I'm saying. I think the logic is indisputable.
Your point being?
Is the point to remove discrimination or to have some statistical equality?
If we're talking about a sports competition then why stop at gender... why not divide it on race as well... look at how many sports white people aren't competitive in any more... well... apparently they need their own leagues by this logic... and then we can look at ideologies or religions and possibly divide people that way too.
I'm tired of people trying to have it both ways.
Do you care about discrimination or do you want to have special privileges? Because its one or the other.
You claim both and I'm taking one of them.
You're right, private construction firms cost exactly the same as public construction firms...
Oh wait, no they don't.
... to eat people on line.
That said, maybe this guy shouldn't be a cop.
... them. They label them extremists because they need to do that to watch people. Is it fair or reasonable? No. It just how our stupid government works.
Should the NSA be watching the very savvy computer communities? Obviously. They have to do that. They can't do their jobs unless they're aware of what is going on there.
Should they label them extremists? No. But neither should they need to do that to watch someone.
This is why a lot of political groups in the US are being labeled as extremists. Because there are some people in those groups that do crazy stuff like make bombs. Practically none of them do that but one out of a million does... and they need to watch for that.
The cost would be a tiny fraction of what it is now.
True. That said, sports shouldn't be segregated by sex in any case.
Why is it better for women to be able to say they're the best women player then being able to say they're the 200th best player in either sex?
Its the same thing.
Let them compete against the men.
They're 21st century women. They want to go into the fire... to compete... do it and be done.
Now if you're concerned about women getting hurt... that's sports. Men get hurt all the time. They get concussions. They tear ligaments. They break bones.
Might women get hurt more? Possibly... but mostly we'll just have to accept female injuries the same way we accept male injuries.
In stride. Man gets hurt doing something dangerous you had the guy a beer and tell him to tough it out. Do the same thing to the women.
There is no crying in baseball.
From the page you just cited:
Full-time law enforcement employees in 2012, including police officers: 42 (34 officers).
Officers per 1,000 residents here:
2.45
Florida average:
2.45
... So if there are 2.25 officers per 1000 residents then (42/2.25)*1000=population... or 18,777
18,777/10,000=180% of the population figure I cited before as a reference.
So to compare your town with my example... (10,000/18777) * 42 = 22 police officers if your population were 10,000 assuming your local ratio.
Population of NYC 8.34 million. Size of their police force... about 35 thousand.
Assuming a ratio of 2.25 police officers per 1000 residents which is your town's ratio and apparently the ratio in florida... there would be only 18765 police officers in NYC at that ratio.
There are 35 thousand.
35,000/18765=187% as many officers per person in NYC.
Go over the math... any way you cut it. Cities are less efficient.
They have to make up for that inefficiency somewhere or they're not viable.
It is my argument that their best reason for existing was commute times and easy access to labor/employment.
I argue further that in the 21st century with transcontinental air travel and telecommuting this is probably less useful then it was in the past. After all, people can collaborate in real time from the other side of the world. And they can knock on your door in about 16-18 hours from anywhere on earth.
So... that "pro" in the pro/con chart is weaker then it was in the past.
I have just established that there are a lot of cons. Higher logistical costs. Higher property costs. Higher crime rate...
Now you say "some people like to live in cities"... fine. But then why are we subsidizing them? Let people that want to live in them pay for them. Ideally make each city individually pay for its own subsidies. if the city is so great then it should be fine. If its actually only sustained by those subsidies then it will go into decline and lose population until it reaches equilibrium.
At which point, you might be able to just drive where ever you want in town.
That's fine, but you're not addressing the cost of anything on the other side.
You're also not addressing the cost of not burning that coal.
Lets say the coal plant doesn't burn the coal... and as a result the power it would produce isn't created.
That means street lights might not be viable in some areas. It means some homes might not be able to have electricity. It means all sorts of machinery and electronics wouldn't be able to get power.
And you'd have to account for the cost of all those things not happening and weigh that against the possibility of someone getting a respiratory issue or global warming.
A similar calculation can be made with the US of DDT against mosquitoes.
On the one hand you have the fact that it causes birds to have thin egg shells that might cause some species to go extinct.
On the other hand you have the fact that it kills mosquitoes that spread deadly diseases that kill millions of people.
If you had to chose between the two... which would you choose?
We already made this choice. We chose to kill the mosquitoes.
We did not stop using DDT until we had practical alternatives.
If we had to choose between millions of OUR people dying and a few species of birds... we'd kill the birds every time. No contest.
No where are taxes higher then in the cities... I feel like I'm having this discussion with a collection of halfwits...
I wish I could say no offense but that's obviously impossible... you're saying unbelievably stupid things and its just not excusable.
If cities were more efficient then when times get tough everyone would move to the cities.
They don't. When times get tough they move to the country.
Great Depression? People were not flocking to New York city. They were going to California and various other places not blighted by the economic problem.
Look at what happened in greece recently... the greek economy fell apart and people started leaving the city and going back to the countryside.
Why? Because there were some jobs out there and you could live on very little.
In the city you could only live there so long as the subsidies lasted. That was the problem in Greece... the government went bankrupt and the subsidies stopped... and that meant people started leaving Athens.
It is the subsidies that keep the cities viable. Cut them off and you'll see exactly how inefficient they've always been.