Sex differences in risk seeking behaviour, emergency hospital admissions, and mortality are well documented. However, little is known about sex differences in idiotic risk taking behaviour. This paper reviews the data on winners of the Darwin Award over a 20 year period (1995-2014). Winners of the Darwin Award must eliminate themselves from the gene pool in such an idiotic manner that their action ensures one less idiot will survive. This paper reports a marked sex difference in Darwin Award winners: males are significantly more likely to receive the award than females
Agreement isn't necessary - and it makes for more interesting conversation, no? The way I figure it, anyone who agrees with everything I say is going to be both boring and wrong at least some of the time and be unable to point it out:-)
Heck, if APK had an account, I'd friend him despite the huge battles we've had - on many topics we don't see completely eye to eye but we're able to appreciate each other as human beings (I know, shock to everyone who's been here watching from the sidelines the last decade).
I'm not from or in the US. And the tradition of men playing all the roles, including those of the women, was the rule in Shakespeare's time. (Maybe that's why Romeo and Juliette couldn't marry - Jullie was a guy:-)
When you ask "Then HOW", you'll already find the answer elsewhere in this discussion. Or you can just use Goggle or Bing or Dogpile. Bigamy and polygamy are still illegal in Canada - the criminal code is federal law, not provincial, so this ruling applies across the country. Maybe at some point another provincial criminal court will render a different decision, in which case the whole thing will end up before Canada's Supreme Court.
1. Where do you think all those kids up for adoption come from? It's not same-sex marriages that failed. Many of these adoptive kids have experienced domestic violence, and foster homes are rife with child abuse and child sexual abuse. Pedophilia is a heterosexual guy's thing - just ask the Duggars.
Additionally, adopted kids are wanted kids. 50% of children born to heterosexuals are "accidents."
Recent studies reveal that 45-55% of married women and 50-60% of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their relationship (Atwood & Schwartz, 2002 - Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy)
About 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an affair at some point in some marriage "Monogamy Myth", Therapist Peggy Vaugn
Conservative infidelity statistics estimate that “60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair. These figures are even more significant when we consider the total number of marriages involved, since it's unlikely that all the men and women having affairs happen to be married to each other. If even half of the women having affairs (or 20 percent) are married to men not included in the 60 percent having affairs, then at least one partner will have an affair in approximately 80 percent of all marriages. With this many marriages affected, it's unreasonable to think affairs are due only to the failures and shortcomings of individual husbands or wives.
Note that the above adultry statistics of the prevalence of affairs were made more than a decade ago; so based on changes in society during the intervening years, the current percentage of the population who have had affairs is probably somewhat HIGHER. For instance, the continuing increase of women in the workplace and the increase of women having affairs on the Internet means that the numbers for women having affairs is probably similar to those for men—about 60%.
The finance minister was Valve's marketing guy. He's now finding out that game theory, which he boasted about, is nice in theory but not so much in practice. He's only been finance minister since January 27th, but he's managed to screw things up so badly that he had to be benched. He's a lightweight when it comes to finance, and it shows.
Stupid things like lecturing the lenders on financial theory? Hey, they've got the money - maybe he should take lessons from them instead.
What a joke. Parents who act like that won't have even a house trailer for "financial retribution." And it's not likely they'll be able to earn enough making license plates in jail to make any further contributions either.
We have a social safety net so that we can help what you call "edge cases" (which are much more frequent than you seem to think), not just to live, but where possible to fend for themselves rather than being charity cases. It's called investing in people, and it's a valid form of investment. Consider it as an insurance policy that everyone pays into that helps those that end up in need.
Or we can go your route, and some of those will "fend for themselves" - maybe by bashing your head in and taking the shirt off your back. Or car-jacking. Or burning your place of employment down after looting the food out of the cafeteria. It's happened before, and if we go your route, it will happen again (heck, it's happening now - look at the Somali pirates).
Countries that have borrowed money, payable in their own currency, cannot go bankrupt. These countries can always pay because they can print money.
Countries that are too high a credit risk cannot borrow money repayable in their own currency. Nobody will lend them except in money repayable in a hard currency.
Japan is a excellent example. Comparably Japan's debt is much larger than the United States but their borrowing costs are quite low.
Not a real comparison. First, most of Japan's debt is internal, held by the Japanese themselves. In other words, they've lent money to themselves. Second, Japan is the 3rd largest economy in the world. Greece is something like 45th or (now) 50th. Japan's per capita GDP is 75% higher than Greece's. Third, Japan is producing goods that are wanted around the world, from automobiles to electronics. Nobody's lining up to buy the Super Pony car, assuming they ever reopen the last manufacturing line that was mothballed in 1992.
"Relatively stable BitCoins?" History says BS on that one. "Sorry, Mr Finance Minister, but hackers have stolen this month's general revenues."
This is one of the problems of appointing Valve's Steam marketer as Finance Minister.
It also explains the stupidity of the current brinksmanship - Yanis Varoufakis is trying to play this out according to the Mutually Assured Destruction scenario of game theory. Problem is, if Greece leaves, the EU is no longer going to worry about having to sink even more funds into a hopeless cause.
The foreign debt is in Euros. With a rapidly depreciating drachma, running the printing press won't help because they have to find someone to sell goods to in euros. Nobody is going to horde drachmas as opposed to hard currencies. It's like counterfeit money - anyone who gets it wants to get rid of it as quickly as possible to pass the risk onto someone else.
What I find most incredible is they're saying they won't pay their debts (they'll divert those funds to maintain the pensions and excess civil servant jobs they were supposed to eliminate instead) but the want another 7 billion euros - or else! They try to say that Grexit would be more harmful to the EU than to Greece. What a joke.
Uncle Ivan can come along and lend them rubles against their drachma - then force the drachma down in value and basically own Greece. After all, if nobody else wants to trade your currency, you're at the mercy of the single lender.
On the other hand, Russia doesn't really want someone as corrupt as them. No fun splitting the "profits."
So continuing to pay unsustainable pensions, hiring back civil servants who are not needed, not going after tax fraud, etc - how long will that last either within the EU or on their own? They originally had to cook the books (and the Greek government went along with the scam) to make their economic situation better than it was because of all the corruption, tax avoidance, public employee padding, and crazy pensions. They didn't change the underlying causes, and until they do, all they'll end up doing using their own currency is to see it rapidly devalue. Down the road a wheelbarrow of drachmas for a loaf of bread isn't going to help them one bit.
They don't have to forfeit the debt. See what's happening to Argentina today, more than a decade after they defaulted. Also, Greece wouldn't be able to manage the exchange rate - if they set it unrealistically high, nobody will trade hard currencies for their drachmas. And the lower they set it, the higher the cost of imports, leaving them with a trade deficit.
Think about it - when you wrote "And my advise to LBGT people is to try understand this difference: we, heterosexual religious people, also citizens in democracies, who support LBGT civil rights", it certainly gives the impression that you believe that transsexuals and transgenders in general cannot be straight. Not that there's anything wrong for those who are gay, lesbian, or bi, but it's simply a wrong assumption.
The real issue is equal treatment. The church has a loooong history of active discrimination against LGBT, divorced people, inciting hatred of jews, etc. It's a question of public order, not religion.
The change in public views is spotlighted in how the church lost influence in the most catholic country in the west over just 20 years. Evolve or become increasingly irrelevant is the choice now - and that choice up to the church.
The simple fact is that when plover wrote "This is how organized religion dies", he had it right, even though I wouldn't necessarily have phrased it that way. I have no problem whatsoever with religion evolving to meet the current needs of people - it's something that should be encouraged. But obviously many former and current parishioners have a problem with a church that is increasingly irrelevant to them and those around them.
Come on... transsexuality has nothing to do with sex. There are transsexuals who are straight, gay, lesbian, whatever. To borrow a term from the O'Reily Perl books, it's completely orthogonal to the issue.
Also, I don't like the SJW crapola that came out of Gamergate, or the people who tried to profit from it by lying, crying wolf, and claiming they were harassed into leaving their homes when it wasn't true. I'm also against quota-based systems and other politically correct "solutions" for gender equality because they just perpetuate the stereotypical myth of women needing a leg up because we're not equally capable.
I'm NOT upset with you. Really. We probably agree on a lot of things. And since you've taken the time to engage, I'll friend you. Keep in touch, okay?
You must have a hint? How hard is it to Just look at my user name - Barbara Hudson - the same as I use in real life, in the courts, with the government, whatever. It's on every post I make:-)
And as a former believer who has returned to atheism, I don't want to be "saved" a second time. In retrospect, once was too much.
You're certainly free to believe in your own salvation, but I'm sure you'd be put off if other religions went to you and said "You believe wrong. we love you and want you to be saved."
It's why when I see the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons going door to door, I phone my neighbor so they can pretend they're not home. Why not respect other people's choices? The "great commission" in Matthew 28 isn't working any more:-)
Slashdot Mirror
not that they are incapable of logic, but emotion is their fundamental mental underpinning
Really? And that must be why there are more battered husbands shelters than battered wives shelters ... oh wait ...
And why most murders are committed by women ... darn, again not true ...
How about most recipients of the darwin awards being women? ... oops -
Sex differences in risk seeking behaviour, emergency hospital admissions, and mortality are well documented. However, little is known about sex differences in idiotic risk taking behaviour. This paper reviews the data on winners of the Darwin Award over a 20 year period (1995-2014). Winners of the Darwin Award must eliminate themselves from the gene pool in such an idiotic manner that their action ensures one less idiot will survive. This paper reports a marked sex difference in Darwin Award winners: males are significantly more likely to receive the award than females
So, women are more emotional and men are idiots?
"chemicals linked to testicular cancer and male infertility"
Get off my lawn! ... It's toxic
I've already taken the necessary precautions. Can I go back on your lawn now? Thx :-)
Agreement isn't necessary - and it makes for more interesting conversation, no? The way I figure it, anyone who agrees with everything I say is going to be both boring and wrong at least some of the time and be unable to point it out :-)
Heck, if APK had an account, I'd friend him despite the huge battles we've had - on many topics we don't see completely eye to eye but we're able to appreciate each other as human beings (I know, shock to everyone who's been here watching from the sidelines the last decade).
I'm not from or in the US. And the tradition of men playing all the roles, including those of the women, was the rule in Shakespeare's time. (Maybe that's why Romeo and Juliette couldn't marry - Jullie was a guy :-)
When you ask "Then HOW", you'll already find the answer elsewhere in this discussion. Or you can just use Goggle or Bing or Dogpile. Bigamy and polygamy are still illegal in Canada - the criminal code is federal law, not provincial, so this ruling applies across the country. Maybe at some point another provincial criminal court will render a different decision, in which case the whole thing will end up before Canada's Supreme Court.
1. Where do you think all those kids up for adoption come from? It's not same-sex marriages that failed. Many of these adoptive kids have experienced domestic violence, and foster homes are rife with child abuse and child sexual abuse. Pedophilia is a heterosexual guy's thing - just ask the Duggars.
Additionally, adopted kids are wanted kids. 50% of children born to heterosexuals are "accidents."
2, 3 Here
Recent studies reveal that 45-55% of married women and 50-60% of married men engage in extramarital sex at some time or another during their relationship (Atwood & Schwartz, 2002 - Journal of Couple & Relationship Therapy)
About 60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an affair at some point in some marriage "Monogamy Myth", Therapist Peggy Vaugn
Conservative infidelity statistics estimate that “60 percent of men and 40 percent of women will have an extramarital affair. These figures are even more significant when we consider the total number of marriages involved, since it's unlikely that all the men and women having affairs happen to be married to each other. If even half of the women having affairs (or 20 percent) are married to men not included in the 60 percent having affairs, then at least one partner will have an affair in approximately 80 percent of all marriages. With this many marriages affected, it's unreasonable to think affairs are due only to the failures and shortcomings of individual husbands or wives.
Note that the above adultry statistics of the prevalence of affairs were made more than a decade ago; so based on changes in society during the intervening years, the current percentage of the population who have had affairs is probably somewhat HIGHER. For instance, the continuing increase of women in the workplace and the increase of women having affairs on the Internet means that the numbers for women having affairs is probably similar to those for men—about 60%.
If you owe the bank $100,000,000, get ready to see your collateral seized and sold. Banks have not problems with that whatsoever.
If you're not getting paid more than the minimum, you can make that doing any soft of job, so here's some advice.
You'd probably have an easier time borrowing after because you won't have any debt.
The finance minister was Valve's marketing guy. He's now finding out that game theory, which he boasted about, is nice in theory but not so much in practice. He's only been finance minister since January 27th, but he's managed to screw things up so badly that he had to be benched. He's a lightweight when it comes to finance, and it shows.
Stupid things like lecturing the lenders on financial theory? Hey, they've got the money - maybe he should take lessons from them instead.
What a joke. Parents who act like that won't have even a house trailer for "financial retribution." And it's not likely they'll be able to earn enough making license plates in jail to make any further contributions either.
We have a social safety net so that we can help what you call "edge cases" (which are much more frequent than you seem to think), not just to live, but where possible to fend for themselves rather than being charity cases. It's called investing in people, and it's a valid form of investment. Consider it as an insurance policy that everyone pays into that helps those that end up in need.
Or we can go your route, and some of those will "fend for themselves" - maybe by bashing your head in and taking the shirt off your back. Or car-jacking. Or burning your place of employment down after looting the food out of the cafeteria. It's happened before, and if we go your route, it will happen again (heck, it's happening now - look at the Somali pirates).
Countries that have borrowed money, payable in their own currency, cannot go bankrupt. These countries can always pay because they can print money.
Countries that are too high a credit risk cannot borrow money repayable in their own currency. Nobody will lend them except in money repayable in a hard currency.
Japan is a excellent example. Comparably Japan's debt is much larger than the United States but their borrowing costs are quite low.
Not a real comparison. First, most of Japan's debt is internal, held by the Japanese themselves. In other words, they've lent money to themselves. Second, Japan is the 3rd largest economy in the world. Greece is something like 45th or (now) 50th. Japan's per capita GDP is 75% higher than Greece's. Third, Japan is producing goods that are wanted around the world, from automobiles to electronics. Nobody's lining up to buy the Super Pony car, assuming they ever reopen the last manufacturing line that was mothballed in 1992.
This is one of the problems of appointing Valve's Steam marketer as Finance Minister.
It also explains the stupidity of the current brinksmanship - Yanis Varoufakis is trying to play this out according to the Mutually Assured Destruction scenario of game theory. Problem is, if Greece leaves, the EU is no longer going to worry about having to sink even more funds into a hopeless cause.
No - companies (and all taxpayers) should try to pay as little as legally possible. Good luck getting that to happen in Greece.
The Greeks have made it obvious they're not going to get their money back anyway. So what's your point again?
The foreign debt is in Euros. With a rapidly depreciating drachma, running the printing press won't help because they have to find someone to sell goods to in euros. Nobody is going to horde drachmas as opposed to hard currencies. It's like counterfeit money - anyone who gets it wants to get rid of it as quickly as possible to pass the risk onto someone else.
What I find most incredible is they're saying they won't pay their debts (they'll divert those funds to maintain the pensions and excess civil servant jobs they were supposed to eliminate instead) but the want another 7 billion euros - or else! They try to say that Grexit would be more harmful to the EU than to Greece. What a joke.
Uncle Ivan can come along and lend them rubles against their drachma - then force the drachma down in value and basically own Greece. After all, if nobody else wants to trade your currency, you're at the mercy of the single lender.
On the other hand, Russia doesn't really want someone as corrupt as them. No fun splitting the "profits."
So continuing to pay unsustainable pensions, hiring back civil servants who are not needed, not going after tax fraud, etc - how long will that last either within the EU or on their own? They originally had to cook the books (and the Greek government went along with the scam) to make their economic situation better than it was because of all the corruption, tax avoidance, public employee padding, and crazy pensions. They didn't change the underlying causes, and until they do, all they'll end up doing using their own currency is to see it rapidly devalue. Down the road a wheelbarrow of drachmas for a loaf of bread isn't going to help them one bit.
They don't have to forfeit the debt. See what's happening to Argentina today, more than a decade after they defaulted. Also, Greece wouldn't be able to manage the exchange rate - if they set it unrealistically high, nobody will trade hard currencies for their drachmas. And the lower they set it, the higher the cost of imports, leaving them with a trade deficit.
You really should look at what happened to Argentina when they defaulted in 2002. It's still causing problems today.
Sounds like a plan to me, even if I choose not to take your advice wrt LGBT rights :-)
Fair enough. As I said, I don't hate you because of your beliefs.
Think about it - when you wrote "And my advise to LBGT people is to try understand this difference: we, heterosexual religious people, also citizens in democracies, who support LBGT civil rights", it certainly gives the impression that you believe that transsexuals and transgenders in general cannot be straight. Not that there's anything wrong for those who are gay, lesbian, or bi, but it's simply a wrong assumption.
The real issue is equal treatment. The church has a loooong history of active discrimination against LGBT, divorced people, inciting hatred of jews, etc. It's a question of public order, not religion.
The change in public views is spotlighted in how the church lost influence in the most catholic country in the west over just 20 years. Evolve or become increasingly irrelevant is the choice now - and that choice up to the church.
The simple fact is that when plover wrote "This is how organized religion dies", he had it right, even though I wouldn't necessarily have phrased it that way. I have no problem whatsoever with religion evolving to meet the current needs of people - it's something that should be encouraged. But obviously many former and current parishioners have a problem with a church that is increasingly irrelevant to them and those around them.
Come on ... transsexuality has nothing to do with sex. There are transsexuals who are straight, gay, lesbian, whatever. To borrow a term from the O'Reily Perl books, it's completely orthogonal to the issue.
Also, I don't like the SJW crapola that came out of Gamergate, or the people who tried to profit from it by lying, crying wolf, and claiming they were harassed into leaving their homes when it wasn't true. I'm also against quota-based systems and other politically correct "solutions" for gender equality because they just perpetuate the stereotypical myth of women needing a leg up because we're not equally capable.
I'm NOT upset with you. Really. We probably agree on a lot of things. And since you've taken the time to engage, I'll friend you. Keep in touch, okay?
You must have a hint? How hard is it to Just look at my user name - Barbara Hudson - the same as I use in real life, in the courts, with the government, whatever. It's on every post I make :-)
And as a former believer who has returned to atheism, I don't want to be "saved" a second time. In retrospect, once was too much.
You're certainly free to believe in your own salvation, but I'm sure you'd be put off if other religions went to you and said "You believe wrong. we love you and want you to be saved."
It's why when I see the Jehovah's Witnesses or Mormons going door to door, I phone my neighbor so they can pretend they're not home. Why not respect other people's choices? The "great commission" in Matthew 28 isn't working any more :-)