I'm really interested in your perspective. In America you probably know that we are constantly saying negative things about how bad our schools are. But you are saying that they are actually worse -- much worse -- elsewhere? That... uh... nice to hear I guess?
I think I'm with your friend on this one. Wishing to live in a better world does not obligate you to ignore that you actually live in this one.
If there were no rules against littering, then I probably still wouldn't, because that is such a minor action. But just because I think we should do away with, say, tax credits for children doesn't mean I don't take my child tax credits. I can think of many many such examples and I don't blame your friend for doing what was legal and in his financial interests -- I save my blame for the law. Change that law.
To me, socialism means that the workers are government employees and the hospitals are build on government property. If it means something different to you then I think we have no disagreement other than that word. We would hardly be the first people who disagree about what is socialism.
Here's what my dictionary says:
"a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
That supports your use of the word because healthcare is "regulated" by the government. I would not accept that use as proper, however, because it is too broad; everything is regulated by the government. To me, the means of production must be actually owned by the government.
I was a child in the 1980s. I've seen (at least one or maybe more of) those movies but would never have been able to name the bar from some scenes that I barely remember, if at all.
"Seriously: who or what interest does the state imagine it is "protecting" with this license?"
I am not saying that I agree with this rationale, but the legal reasoning is that barenaked women rubbing body fluids onto questionably nude men (or, change genders as you see fit) poses a public disease risk. Remember in the past there was widespread incidence of diseases transmitted in similar ways, notably syphilis.
An ancillary rationale is that licensing strippers reduces the incidence of strippers becoming prostitutes. I bet that you and I agree that this rationale is stupid because neither of us think that prostitution should be outright illegal -- but it is illegal, and a majority of people support that, so it is what it is.
Clearly no one would bother the Almighty just to say "I approve of how you plan to have all things develop, keep up the good work"
I'm not a believer at all, and I know you are joking, and I find the joke funny, but if you ask some believers I think you'll find that they quite often make almost exactly that prayer. They call it "giving thanks" or "counting blessings" or somesuch.
I too give thanks and count "blessings", I just don't claim there is anything supernatural about it.
Perhaps, but that is legally irrelevant. He wants information from the government and applied for it under FOIA. It matters whether the information is super private, but not what he wants to do with it. If it's legal to release the information then he can wank to it -- oops I mean, pray about it if he wants to.
I strongly support your suggestion -- that by law we decree most health care services to be non-profit. I think that would improve the health care system substantially. I think the same thing about some limited other industries -- notably education.
But socialism is when the government directly controls the means of production -- so, socialized medicine is when doctors are government employees. For instance, the military has socialized medicine for both active and retired military personnel.
Would socialized medicine be better than privatized medicine? I'm not convinced that 100% socialized medicine is a great idea, but I think it might be worth trying a mixed market. You could either go see a socialized doctor, or you could take the same amount of money (as a voucher) to a private doctor. If the government docs suck then nobody would visit them, so there would be no problem with lack of competition.
But I totally get what you are saying and, yes, my primary critique of Obamacare is that it is too conservative and not liberal enough. We'll get there, I think. Nationalized health care is now the policy of America and that might change somewhat but it's hard to see that going away altogether.
One last thing: the Republicans do have a plan for the health care crisis, and that plan is "do nothing". They prefer to have the crisis rather than solve it using government. That is consistent with their general preference to have problems rather than solve them with government action (except for war, where solving problems with government action is for some reason totally awesome). You probably agree with me that that is stupid, but it's not hypocritical or dishonest.
Exactly. It's the modern equivalent of sitting down in front of a TV and flipping around just to see what's on. It's a little better than that, though, in that FB requires you to make active choices; it's not just 'on', you have to take action to make it 'work'.
The internet was specifically designed to be impossible to segment. It's not impossible to cut off some of the 'net for some people some of the time, but in general the packets will get through if anyone wants them to.
I'm pretty happy with government. I certainly have a lot of issues I'm unhappy with (surveillance, constant foreign war, too-low taxes, imprudent corporate priorities, insufficient transfer payments to the poor) but those are nitpicks compared to the things I'm fully satisfied with: domestic peace, prosperity, transportation, validity of vote counts, fading homophobia, fading racism.
America has a lot of problems but we're doing a lot more right than wrong. I don't actually have a strong opinion on regulating internet providers but my general assumption would be whatever the industry opposes is the best thing for America. So whatever side that puts me on, I'm on that side of that issue.
I don't disagree with you, but what you described also sounds like the airline industry: uniform service (seats on a plane) which interface with third parties (airports), used to get to something else we want (destinations). I don't really think of airlines as utilities, though.
For me that's all a theoretical argument and I'm much more of a real-world guy. Will regulating broadband internet as a "utility" make the world a better place? If so, then I support it -- and it will, so I support it. I don't mind the theoretical arguments but to me they are subsequent to the real-world argument of what policy leads to the best human lives.
Religion doesn't actually make people stupid but it does attract stupid people and it does cause smarter people to think less. There are nuggets of wisdom in religion but they are hidden inside piles of elephant crap, and the same wisdom is available elsewhere without the crap.
You quoted a law that says exactly what I said, and I appreciate you looking it up to show how exactly right I was.
My words: "America can and has made it a crime to travel to another country for the purpose of having sex with children"
The law you quoted: "Federal law prohibits an American citizen or resident to travel to a foreign country with intent to engage in any form of sexual conduct with a minor"
Thank you. I was right. If you have any objections to my rightness, then either you are wrong or you didn't understand what I was saying. Note that the law you quoted doesn't make it a crime in America to have sex with a child in Thailand.
Again, thank you, I won't be engaging you any more on this topic because I am totally satisfied that you will see how right I was now that you yourself went through the trouble of finding the exact law that proves it.
It does compute. If you have sex with a boy in Thailand, that crime happened in Thailand. If you sit in a chair in Chicago and hack a computer in New York, that crime happened in New York. I didn't make this up, this is how the law has evolved with technology.
The law being an ass is a fair judgement but it's just a personal opinion. The law is what it is, ass or not.
If there is no group status for Muslims then it is not possible to talk about Muslims as a group (by definition). If that is your position then I can respectfully disagree with that; I think Muslims have group status, but it's not a point I'm interested in debating. If you reject the notion that Muslims are a coherent group which can be discussed as a whole, then all of my discussion of Muslims as a group cannot be relevant to you, and the rest of what you said makes sense. We simply disagree about a premise.
Jeez do we still not have multicast? I studied how multicast would revolutionize internet video way way back in 2001 in college. Back then streaming video was fingernail-sized 16-color 4-frames-per-second animated GIFs. I thought we'd have multicast all deployed and ready by 2005 but I stopped paying attention.
And how's that IPv6 thing going? Are we don't with that yet? Oh, here, let me go back into my hole for another decade.
You comment is reasonable and moderate, thank you. I accept your commentary.
My main response is that the right to divorce or own property is like the exceptions to the rule of women's rights. Can most Muslim women get an equal education, wear pants and join the job market like men? Can they drive, go out of the house without a man, enjoy sexual freedom and run for public office?
The Muslim world is diverse and heterogeneous like all huge communities but when you look at the broad values, they are even worse values (in my opinion) than found in other places where there are bad values (in my opinion).
Slashdot Mirror
These Indian students should come to America. Over here we call it "freedom of speech" to cheat on things. Elections, mostly.
I'm really interested in your perspective. In America you probably know that we are constantly saying negative things about how bad our schools are. But you are saying that they are actually worse -- much worse -- elsewhere? That... uh... nice to hear I guess?
I think I'm with your friend on this one. Wishing to live in a better world does not obligate you to ignore that you actually live in this one.
If there were no rules against littering, then I probably still wouldn't, because that is such a minor action. But just because I think we should do away with, say, tax credits for children doesn't mean I don't take my child tax credits. I can think of many many such examples and I don't blame your friend for doing what was legal and in his financial interests -- I save my blame for the law. Change that law.
To me, socialism means that the workers are government employees and the hospitals are build on government property. If it means something different to you then I think we have no disagreement other than that word. We would hardly be the first people who disagree about what is socialism.
Here's what my dictionary says:
"a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
That supports your use of the word because healthcare is "regulated" by the government. I would not accept that use as proper, however, because it is too broad; everything is regulated by the government. To me, the means of production must be actually owned by the government.
I had to look it up, but we can probably both agree that we are happy that Colorado, like Washington, has both gay marriage and legal weed since all of 31 days ago.
Cheers! Pass to the left. Who wet the tip?
This is the reference, in case any of you didn't get it like I didn't.
I was a child in the 1980s. I've seen (at least one or maybe more of) those movies but would never have been able to name the bar from some scenes that I barely remember, if at all.
Law: "affront or alarm"
You "not... shock or intimidation"
I think it is quite reasonable to equate "affront" with "shock" and "alarm" with "intimidation". Those are synonyms or near-synonyms to me.
"Seriously: who or what interest does the state imagine it is "protecting" with this license?"
I am not saying that I agree with this rationale, but the legal reasoning is that barenaked women rubbing body fluids onto questionably nude men (or, change genders as you see fit) poses a public disease risk. Remember in the past there was widespread incidence of diseases transmitted in similar ways, notably syphilis.
An ancillary rationale is that licensing strippers reduces the incidence of strippers becoming prostitutes. I bet that you and I agree that this rationale is stupid because neither of us think that prostitution should be outright illegal -- but it is illegal, and a majority of people support that, so it is what it is.
Clearly no one would bother the Almighty just to say "I approve of how you plan to have all things develop, keep up the good work"
I'm not a believer at all, and I know you are joking, and I find the joke funny, but if you ask some believers I think you'll find that they quite often make almost exactly that prayer. They call it "giving thanks" or "counting blessings" or somesuch.
I too give thanks and count "blessings", I just don't claim there is anything supernatural about it.
Perhaps, but that is legally irrelevant. He wants information from the government and applied for it under FOIA. It matters whether the information is super private, but not what he wants to do with it. If it's legal to release the information then he can wank to it -- oops I mean, pray about it if he wants to.
+1 Well played. It's a jest I myself would have missed.
It made the service worse and the prices lower. I am not sure which one of those is more significant but I do downright hate the shitty service.
I strongly support your suggestion -- that by law we decree most health care services to be non-profit. I think that would improve the health care system substantially. I think the same thing about some limited other industries -- notably education.
But socialism is when the government directly controls the means of production -- so, socialized medicine is when doctors are government employees. For instance, the military has socialized medicine for both active and retired military personnel.
Would socialized medicine be better than privatized medicine? I'm not convinced that 100% socialized medicine is a great idea, but I think it might be worth trying a mixed market. You could either go see a socialized doctor, or you could take the same amount of money (as a voucher) to a private doctor. If the government docs suck then nobody would visit them, so there would be no problem with lack of competition.
But I totally get what you are saying and, yes, my primary critique of Obamacare is that it is too conservative and not liberal enough. We'll get there, I think. Nationalized health care is now the policy of America and that might change somewhat but it's hard to see that going away altogether.
One last thing: the Republicans do have a plan for the health care crisis, and that plan is "do nothing". They prefer to have the crisis rather than solve it using government. That is consistent with their general preference to have problems rather than solve them with government action (except for war, where solving problems with government action is for some reason totally awesome). You probably agree with me that that is stupid, but it's not hypocritical or dishonest.
Toonces?
Not to be personal, but is your last name Mearls?
Exactly. It's the modern equivalent of sitting down in front of a TV and flipping around just to see what's on. It's a little better than that, though, in that FB requires you to make active choices; it's not just 'on', you have to take action to make it 'work'.
I neither hate nor love Facebook.
/shrug/
The internet was specifically designed to be impossible to segment. It's not impossible to cut off some of the 'net for some people some of the time, but in general the packets will get through if anyone wants them to.
I'm pretty happy with government. I certainly have a lot of issues I'm unhappy with (surveillance, constant foreign war, too-low taxes, imprudent corporate priorities, insufficient transfer payments to the poor) but those are nitpicks compared to the things I'm fully satisfied with: domestic peace, prosperity, transportation, validity of vote counts, fading homophobia, fading racism.
America has a lot of problems but we're doing a lot more right than wrong. I don't actually have a strong opinion on regulating internet providers but my general assumption would be whatever the industry opposes is the best thing for America. So whatever side that puts me on, I'm on that side of that issue.
I don't disagree with you, but what you described also sounds like the airline industry: uniform service (seats on a plane) which interface with third parties (airports), used to get to something else we want (destinations). I don't really think of airlines as utilities, though.
For me that's all a theoretical argument and I'm much more of a real-world guy. Will regulating broadband internet as a "utility" make the world a better place? If so, then I support it -- and it will, so I support it. I don't mind the theoretical arguments but to me they are subsequent to the real-world argument of what policy leads to the best human lives.
Came here to say this.
Religion doesn't actually make people stupid but it does attract stupid people and it does cause smarter people to think less. There are nuggets of wisdom in religion but they are hidden inside piles of elephant crap, and the same wisdom is available elsewhere without the crap.
You quoted a law that says exactly what I said, and I appreciate you looking it up to show how exactly right I was.
My words: "America can and has made it a crime to travel to another country for the purpose of having sex with children"
The law you quoted: "Federal law prohibits an American citizen or resident to travel to a foreign country with intent to engage in any form of sexual conduct with a minor"
Thank you. I was right. If you have any objections to my rightness, then either you are wrong or you didn't understand what I was saying. Note that the law you quoted doesn't make it a crime in America to have sex with a child in Thailand.
Again, thank you, I won't be engaging you any more on this topic because I am totally satisfied that you will see how right I was now that you yourself went through the trouble of finding the exact law that proves it.
It does compute. If you have sex with a boy in Thailand, that crime happened in Thailand. If you sit in a chair in Chicago and hack a computer in New York, that crime happened in New York. I didn't make this up, this is how the law has evolved with technology.
The law being an ass is a fair judgement but it's just a personal opinion. The law is what it is, ass or not.
If there is no group status for Muslims then it is not possible to talk about Muslims as a group (by definition). If that is your position then I can respectfully disagree with that; I think Muslims have group status, but it's not a point I'm interested in debating. If you reject the notion that Muslims are a coherent group which can be discussed as a whole, then all of my discussion of Muslims as a group cannot be relevant to you, and the rest of what you said makes sense. We simply disagree about a premise.
Jeez do we still not have multicast? I studied how multicast would revolutionize internet video way way back in 2001 in college. Back then streaming video was fingernail-sized 16-color 4-frames-per-second animated GIFs. I thought we'd have multicast all deployed and ready by 2005 but I stopped paying attention.
And how's that IPv6 thing going? Are we don't with that yet? Oh, here, let me go back into my hole for another decade.
You comment is reasonable and moderate, thank you. I accept your commentary.
My main response is that the right to divorce or own property is like the exceptions to the rule of women's rights. Can most Muslim women get an equal education, wear pants and join the job market like men? Can they drive, go out of the house without a man, enjoy sexual freedom and run for public office?
The Muslim world is diverse and heterogeneous like all huge communities but when you look at the broad values, they are even worse values (in my opinion) than found in other places where there are bad values (in my opinion).
Hi yeah this isn't the only one but here is one poll. Other polls have had more issue-by-issue breakdowns.