The problem is due to a system that encourages rote memorization, teaching to the test, and generally mindlessly obeying orders (zero tolerance policies, oversensitivity, etc.). It is difficult for most individuals to understand what education truly is when they've never experienced it to begin with.
which does have legal prescient thanks to Ronny Raygun
"It happened before, so it's 100% okay." Well, the government violated the constitution numerous times in the past, so I guess violating the constitution is now fine and dandy.
Your anytime before actual birth rule seems excessive.
Pro-choice means you want to give women the right to choose and exercise control over their own bodies. If you say that that's what you want (which is what "pro-choice" implies), then you can't just define some arbitrary cutoff date that, when passed, women become mere baby machines. It's just hypocrisy. It's her body, so let her get an abortion.
AFAIK society does not recognize a general right to choose that overrides someone else's right to life.
Self-defense, for example. This is simply another case where I think it's justified, though it isn't really self-defense (as if I need to point that out).
Are they in their because the owner let them in? If not, then they're probably an intruder, and not so innocent. If that is the case, then eliminating them may not be out of the question.
Regardless, this is about one's own body. Someone living inside your body is far different from someone merely being in your house. It's an entirely different level of intrusion.
As long as they're in the women's body, I think she should be able to get an abortion. That's a pretty clear statement. I'm saying the women's right to choose overrides the importance of the baby's life.
While it's true that Republicans tend to use proven facts and make decisions based on them (unlike liberals)
What? Anyone who votes for either party (Republican or Democrat) is voting for evil scumbags who only seek to take away our rights. They're idiots fooled into accepting a false dichotomy. The only proven fact is that both parties want to shred the constitution and our fundamental liberties, so if people truly opposed that, they wouldn't be voting for the scumbags put forth by The One Party.
Abortion should be legal up until the point we consider the fetus to be a human being, which is generally what all the arguing is about.
Women should be able to get abortions at any time during the pregnancy. People who say it's about the right to control one's own body and then want to ban it after some amount of time has passed are nothing but hypocrites, and to me, hardly better than the anti-abortion nutters.
One of the real issues is the broken justification - war against terror is a sophism. If you verify the amount of casualties in western countries, you will see that per saved life, the effort done and money wasted is totally disproportional. If we are after saving lives, we would make roads safer, obliged car checkups free, public healthcare for free, and a few more other things a civilized society would or could do, wasting less money and with higher efforts.
The 'justification' would be broken even if their actions did save many lives. Freedom is simply more important than safety.
A computer can also easily multiply several 10 digit numbers together and "remember" a list of one million items, if a human performs those feats there is a good chance they have a high intelligence.
Or maybe they just have a perfect memory and are excellent at performing such calculations. Yes, there is a different between that and intelligence. Actually innovating (for example, solving a millennium prize problem) is different from just having a good memory and multiplying large numbers.
Much better than the SAT for testing raw, innate intelligence.
That it's much better than the garbage known as the SAT isn't saying much, because better is not the same as good. I still have trouble believing that so many people think IQ equates to intelligence, when we don't even understand intelligence all that well. Yet, we can measure someone's intelligence with a simple test and the result is a simple number. It seems people's desire for simplicity gets in the way of truth.
For what it's worth, I think you're technically right. I just don't think that the whole 'Fighting for our freedoms' thing should be degraded to mean fighting wars so we don't get drafted... It's just sad that that's the situation, is all.
I don't think this current government would care if it was constitutional or not.
Fixing this would simply require an amendment to that act.
But the constitution is significantly harder to change. If we just get rid of copyright through a constitutional amendment, I suspect they'll have trouble pushing through any more nonsensical protectionist laws.
Because whether or not they would change their tune has nothing to do with their argument that unconstitutional activities are bad; it doesn't debunk it. Well, I'm not sure what your point was. Random curiosity?
So, the ethical dilemma I proposed (and this is why it's devil's advocate): what if instead of an accountant in this story, the IRS had illegally come across a multimillionaire who had cooked their books?
The government should not violate the constitution under any circumstance.
Yeah, that's a common hallmark of just simply being wrong, and unwilling to accept it...
Also, besides the blatant logical fallacy, if you're going to tell me that I'm just unwilling to accept it as if you know what I think, then I'll just say that you know I'm 100% correct in your heart of hearts. You know that being an authoritarian is wrong, but you're afraid to admit it. Accept that you're incorrect, and change for the better, scumbag!
Slashdot Mirror
High school is job prep
It really shouldn't be.
The problem is due to a system that encourages rote memorization, teaching to the test, and generally mindlessly obeying orders (zero tolerance policies, oversensitivity, etc.). It is difficult for most individuals to understand what education truly is when they've never experienced it to begin with.
which does have legal prescient thanks to Ronny Raygun
"It happened before, so it's 100% okay." Well, the government violated the constitution numerous times in the past, so I guess violating the constitution is now fine and dandy.
Your anytime before actual birth rule seems excessive.
Pro-choice means you want to give women the right to choose and exercise control over their own bodies. If you say that that's what you want (which is what "pro-choice" implies), then you can't just define some arbitrary cutoff date that, when passed, women become mere baby machines. It's just hypocrisy. It's her body, so let her get an abortion.
AFAIK society does not recognize a general right to choose that overrides someone else's right to life.
Self-defense, for example. This is simply another case where I think it's justified, though it isn't really self-defense (as if I need to point that out).
Democrats aren't much better, but at least they live in reality instead of worshipping the invisible man in the sky who doesn't actually exist.
I was not aware that all democrats are atheists. In fact, a majority of them seem to believe in a god of some sort. I guess that's not the case...
Are they in their because the owner let them in? If not, then they're probably an intruder, and not so innocent. If that is the case, then eliminating them may not be out of the question.
Regardless, this is about one's own body. Someone living inside your body is far different from someone merely being in your house. It's an entirely different level of intrusion.
As long as they're in the women's body, I think she should be able to get an abortion. That's a pretty clear statement. I'm saying the women's right to choose overrides the importance of the baby's life.
While it's true that Republicans tend to use proven facts and make decisions based on them (unlike liberals)
What? Anyone who votes for either party (Republican or Democrat) is voting for evil scumbags who only seek to take away our rights. They're idiots fooled into accepting a false dichotomy. The only proven fact is that both parties want to shred the constitution and our fundamental liberties, so if people truly opposed that, they wouldn't be voting for the scumbags put forth by The One Party.
Abortion should be legal up until the point we consider the fetus to be a human being, which is generally what all the arguing is about.
Women should be able to get abortions at any time during the pregnancy. People who say it's about the right to control one's own body and then want to ban it after some amount of time has passed are nothing but hypocrites, and to me, hardly better than the anti-abortion nutters.
all but abortion, because abortion kills an innocent person
That's in someone else's body. The government should screw off.
Better idea: Just get rid of the damn DMCA takedowns and force companies to go to court if they want something taken down.
One of the real issues is the broken justification - war against terror is a sophism. If you verify the amount of casualties in western countries, you will see that per saved life, the effort done and money wasted is totally disproportional. If we are after saving lives, we would make roads safer, obliged car checkups free, public healthcare for free, and a few more other things a civilized society would or could do, wasting less money and with higher efforts.
The 'justification' would be broken even if their actions did save many lives. Freedom is simply more important than safety.
A computer can also easily multiply several 10 digit numbers together and "remember" a list of one million items, if a human performs those feats there is a good chance they have a high intelligence.
Or maybe they just have a perfect memory and are excellent at performing such calculations. Yes, there is a different between that and intelligence. Actually innovating (for example, solving a millennium prize problem) is different from just having a good memory and multiplying large numbers.
Nope. I meant "we." Everyone else is deluding themselves.
Much better than the SAT for testing raw, innate intelligence.
That it's much better than the garbage known as the SAT isn't saying much, because better is not the same as good. I still have trouble believing that so many people think IQ equates to intelligence, when we don't even understand intelligence all that well. Yet, we can measure someone's intelligence with a simple test and the result is a simple number. It seems people's desire for simplicity gets in the way of truth.
Right you are. That's pretty much what's happening in most cases.
Well, it doesn't really take much intelligence to simply get the degree to begin with.
great, you know how to learn
Sadly, there's not even a guarantee of that. And pretty much anyone knows how to learn, anyway.
For what it's worth, I think you're technically right. I just don't think that the whole 'Fighting for our freedoms' thing should be degraded to mean fighting wars so we don't get drafted... It's just sad that that's the situation, is all.
I don't think this current government would care if it was constitutional or not.
You're probably right.
Brilliant solution. No one ever considered that!
Fixing this would simply require an amendment to that act.
But the constitution is significantly harder to change. If we just get rid of copyright through a constitutional amendment, I suspect they'll have trouble pushing through any more nonsensical protectionist laws.
You're not a bank, and apparently terrible at security.
I've heard a lot of actual banks fail at online security, too.
How is that not relevant?
Because whether or not they would change their tune has nothing to do with their argument that unconstitutional activities are bad; it doesn't debunk it. Well, I'm not sure what your point was. Random curiosity?
So, the ethical dilemma I proposed (and this is why it's devil's advocate): what if instead of an accountant in this story, the IRS had illegally come across a multimillionaire who had cooked their books?
The government should not violate the constitution under any circumstance.
Yeah, that's a common hallmark of just simply being wrong, and unwilling to accept it...
Also, besides the blatant logical fallacy, if you're going to tell me that I'm just unwilling to accept it as if you know what I think, then I'll just say that you know I'm 100% correct in your heart of hearts. You know that being an authoritarian is wrong, but you're afraid to admit it. Accept that you're incorrect, and change for the better, scumbag!