There's a lot of words being put in my mouth here.
"More rights to criminals" means civil tort law that gives a criminal a right to sue his/her victim for defending themselves. It's happened before, and will continue to happen. Why should the crook worry about the criminal courts when he can make a mint in civil court?
Crime is at its lowest point in recorded history? I wonder which recorded history you are looking at (also, I don't watch Fox News, very rarely use their stories as a source, and when I do it's only in passing reference).
I mentioned going to school being the exception.
I think it reasonable that if criminals weren't as bold as they are today (or even as bold as they were in my neighborhood, which had crack needles every where and a police bust at least once a weekend), parents would feel safer with telling little Timmy and Susie to go out and ride their bikes all day. Even in my area (small-ish rural county) I can't feel safe letting my nephew out unattended (so someone goes out with him, no big deal when you have a few extra people in the home who are family) because of the fear of kidnappings (which have happened in the county) and other crimes (drugs mostly).
Your refutations are bogus because they are based on assumptions as well as ignoring the rest of my statement which put most of the blame squarely on parents being too lazy to go out with their kids (which is the case many times). Even living in the ghetto, I wasn't too far from a park or something I could go to to play while one of my parents watched.
What chip? Just listing reasons why kids don't get out anymore as they once did.
My own up-bringing wasn't much different then today (I lived in the center of a gang-infested, drug ridden ghetto). If it wasn't for having a backyard or grandparents and an uncle who lived in a near by suburban city, I would have been indoors from the time I got home from school until I went back to school.
The Xboxes, our society giving more rights to criminals, gun control laws that embolden said criminals, lack of police power. There is enough blame to go around but it starts out with parents not wanting to at least keep an eye on their kids and send them outside.
Yes, there is a lot of work to running a house, no one has to tell me this, but don't blame the XBox or Playstation or Wii when your kid gets fat from sitting in the house all day.
No, it doesn't. My nephew is fairly typical of toddlers (size, strength, etc.) and they do not have the strength to destroy cast iron, though plastic isn't as rugged as many think it is.:p
Check out your local Wal*Mart like store for stuff like this Fisher-Price edu-toy. My nephew has something a little less complex (and more appropriate, possibly, for your situation) but I cannot remember the name of it, only that it's from Fisher-Price. (:
and none of which we have evidence for or against. It's almost 2,000 years ago. Paper doesn't last very long, even if kept in ideal conditions (look at the state of the Dead Sea Scrolls (just because it's a well known example of papyrus (I believe) scrolls from a very long time ago)).
Yes, there are no records so we shouldn't assume that there are any, but we also shouldn't assume they never existed. Or that they hadn't done a study.
I would imagine even back then, giving a kid beer wasn't a regular thing to do, given it's intoxicating effects and the dominant religions of the day view on alcohol (not assuming these Nubian's were one religion or another, just saying). I do know that beer is a good way to store the nutrients in the grain, but the alcoholic effects (intoxication) probably wouldn't have been seen as beneficial, especially to kids who were expected to work from a young age.
whether or not it was of antibiotics or whatever, if they found that moldy grain made beer that could help with disease, would that not be empirical knowledge?
No, the elitism is saying "this isn't evidence, the antibiotic was found in high concentrations in the soil around the bones" which isn't evidence in itself (have you never spilled your beverage) either.
And how long before "science" were people employing this remedy because it works?
Just because no one puts antibiotics in beer any more (or give beer to kids) doesn't invalidate what these people found to work. So because Nubians weren't Caucasians or Europeans their accidental discovery is somehow invalidated? Psht.
I don't know and I don't know. I don't see how welded-in seats would have been any better. Anyone determined enough (such as the gentleman in question) could just torch them right out (and possibly in the process damage the aircraft to a point where it's unsafe (not that not having seats is safe)).
Slashdot Mirror
I also don't endorse what the "heartless libertarian" suggested. Bad ideas are a bad idea no matter how you dress it up.
There's a lot of words being put in my mouth here.
"More rights to criminals" means civil tort law that gives a criminal a right to sue his/her victim for defending themselves. It's happened before, and will continue to happen. Why should the crook worry about the criminal courts when he can make a mint in civil court?
Crime is at its lowest point in recorded history? I wonder which recorded history you are looking at (also, I don't watch Fox News, very rarely use their stories as a source, and when I do it's only in passing reference).
I mentioned going to school being the exception.
I think it reasonable that if criminals weren't as bold as they are today (or even as bold as they were in my neighborhood, which had crack needles every where and a police bust at least once a weekend), parents would feel safer with telling little Timmy and Susie to go out and ride their bikes all day. Even in my area (small-ish rural county) I can't feel safe letting my nephew out unattended (so someone goes out with him, no big deal when you have a few extra people in the home who are family) because of the fear of kidnappings (which have happened in the county) and other crimes (drugs mostly).
Your refutations are bogus because they are based on assumptions as well as ignoring the rest of my statement which put most of the blame squarely on parents being too lazy to go out with their kids (which is the case many times). Even living in the ghetto, I wasn't too far from a park or something I could go to to play while one of my parents watched.
That wasn't meant to be an exhaustive list.
I know I sure didn't.
I said stuff like this. My nephew (who was 2 when it was bought for him) has one with parts so big you couldn't put them anyplace they don't belong.
Obviously parental discretion is key here, as with any purchase for a child.
A huge leap of faith to assume that true machine intelligence will be created.
I loved using Hotbot back in the day. Found it's results better, in general, then anyone else's including Yahoo's.
Most school lunch programs aren't as healthy as you think they are.
What chip? Just listing reasons why kids don't get out anymore as they once did.
My own up-bringing wasn't much different then today (I lived in the center of a gang-infested, drug ridden ghetto). If it wasn't for having a backyard or grandparents and an uncle who lived in a near by suburban city, I would have been indoors from the time I got home from school until I went back to school.
Corporatism.
The Xboxes, our society giving more rights to criminals, gun control laws that embolden said criminals, lack of police power. There is enough blame to go around but it starts out with parents not wanting to at least keep an eye on their kids and send them outside.
Yes, there is a lot of work to running a house, no one has to tell me this, but don't blame the XBox or Playstation or Wii when your kid gets fat from sitting in the house all day.
Check your Google search preferences. Also, the meta-search I use does that by default. That does not make the results any better.
I remember Altavista. Horrible results.
No, it doesn't. My nephew is fairly typical of toddlers (size, strength, etc.) and they do not have the strength to destroy cast iron, though plastic isn't as rugged as many think it is. :p
Check out your local Wal*Mart like store for stuff like this Fisher-Price edu-toy. My nephew has something a little less complex (and more appropriate, possibly, for your situation) but I cannot remember the name of it, only that it's from Fisher-Price. (:
This might be helpful, too.
Actually I did, and then I read the manifesto. I lost brain cells when I did that.
So did Ingrid Newkirk. She had herself voluntarily sterilized in her 20s.
But he took over the Discovery HQ! Think of the sharks!
Ingrid Newkirk first. :p
I thought shark week was over.
Every last one. ;)
and none of which we have evidence for or against. It's almost 2,000 years ago. Paper doesn't last very long, even if kept in ideal conditions (look at the state of the Dead Sea Scrolls (just because it's a well known example of papyrus (I believe) scrolls from a very long time ago)).
Yes, there are no records so we shouldn't assume that there are any, but we also shouldn't assume they never existed. Or that they hadn't done a study.
I would imagine even back then, giving a kid beer wasn't a regular thing to do, given it's intoxicating effects and the dominant religions of the day view on alcohol (not assuming these Nubian's were one religion or another, just saying). I do know that beer is a good way to store the nutrients in the grain, but the alcoholic effects (intoxication) probably wouldn't have been seen as beneficial, especially to kids who were expected to work from a young age.
whether or not it was of antibiotics or whatever, if they found that moldy grain made beer that could help with disease, would that not be empirical knowledge?
No, the elitism is saying "this isn't evidence, the antibiotic was found in high concentrations in the soil around the bones" which isn't evidence in itself (have you never spilled your beverage) either.
And how long before "science" were people employing this remedy because it works?
Just because no one puts antibiotics in beer any more (or give beer to kids) doesn't invalidate what these people found to work. So because Nubians weren't Caucasians or Europeans their accidental discovery is somehow invalidated? Psht.
I don't know and I don't know. I don't see how welded-in seats would have been any better. Anyone determined enough (such as the gentleman in question) could just torch them right out (and possibly in the process damage the aircraft to a point where it's unsafe (not that not having seats is safe)).