The certainty of current harm is worse than the possibility of future harm. Let them be fostered by same-sex couples if you want the best assurance for their safety.
your argument goes PUFFFFFF. Disappears. Nothing is left. +1 to -1, 0.
You suck at math. You left out the fact that both the buyer and the seller are getting something they want. The seller (worker) is getting money, and the buyer (business) is getting work done. Each is better off than they would have been before. It's called a win-win situation. Each one comes out ahead. If they didn't, there would be no deal (unless we go back to slave labour).
An irrational belief (for example, in god), is not a reason to do something fundamentally evil such as discriminate against people based on religion, sex, or sexual identity - it's just an excuse.
Parents know when their kids are giving excuses rather than reasons.
As land ice melts, it dilutes the sea water on the surface (it's lighter, so it floats on top). So, a thinner but larger area of sea ice (which melts rather than accumulating over the years) is exactly what you would expect if the polar ice was melting - and we're seeing this at both the north and south poles.
There's always the option of starting a nuclear war to both cause nuclear winter and reduce the population (2 birds with 1 bomb). In the end, it may come down to that as nations fight over the dwindling resources.
Sea ice will expand as land ice melts because the land ice melts, it dilutes the salty sea water, raising the freezing point (also keep in mind that since salt water is denser, that freshwater melt floats atop the sea water). It's why we have a larger, but thinner, area of sea ice in the arctic - the polar cap is also melting.
Of course, during the local summer, that thinner ice melts earlier, allowing the underlying water to pick up more solar energy because water has a lower albedo than ice. And since we're past the tipping point, the process is not just going to continue, but accelerate.
/. recently published a story about a research article in which it was prove there is a gender bias in the hiring of academic faculty in the sciences...the bias was against male candidates. If women want to be treated as equals then stop demanding special treatment. Little wonder male children seek to change their birth gender in alarmingly high numbers these days. You rarely hear of women opting to become men through "gender reassignment" surgery and testosterone therapy.
Sure you hear about it all the time - you just haven't been listening. Searching for "female-to-male transsexual" or "male-to-female transsexual" yield about the same number of results.
Nobody goes for gender assignment to assume the privileges of the other gender - not with all the hassles, stigma, and damage to relationships and employment - this video ("Where's the dress") to the contrary
Also, your link only refers to what scholars believed. It even acknowledges that this probably wasn't the prevailing view among the peons:
there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now)
And there were others who thought Atlas held it up, or that it was on the back of a turtle, or an elephant on a tortoise.
Doesn't matter how many believed it - it was wrong.
Most of the cases where compensation was paid were settled without any finding of fact. The reasons cited, if you had bothered to read, were that it was sometimes cheaper to settle, sometimes both parties wanted to eliminate the risk of court, sometimes it was the fair thing to do.
Also, you have the figure for the number of uncompensated people if you read the rest of the link. My bet is you didn't read any of it.
There's your problem - point one. No, it doesn't take a reason (in the sense of a fact) for the majority to believe something.
The majority believed in slavery. They had their reasons (the bible, prejudice, personal profit, etc) to believe that slavery was justified. Didn't make them right. Same the the majority believing that the Earth was the center of the universe. Same as the majority believed that the housing boom wouldn't end ("this time it's different").
If the "reason" or premise is false, any conclusions are highly suspect.
There's a HUGE difference between a reason with no underlying rationale and a good reason. We call the first an excuse, or when it's really lame, a poor excuse, not a reason. Same as someone doing something "because everyone is is doing it, and everyone else can't be wrong."
if you can dismiss long standing religious objections to vaccinations on various grounds then there truly is little left that is sacred to religious liberty.
You say that like it's a bad thing:-)
First, I'm not in your country. Second, here we provide free vaccination for childhood diseases, so cost is not a barrier or an excuse. Third, if you really believed in separation of church and state, the distorting effect of the religious right would not be a factor in your politics or your social policies.
Look around you. How many trillions of dollars has the US spent in the last 15 years to fight wars that, are caused or fueled by religious hatred. Without them, the US deficit would be declining.
You say that with a smile on your face? What is this county coming to? If history is any indication of what happens when attitudes like this one of yours pervade society, it won't be good.
Other posters have pointed out your flawed reasoning. However, here we go again, this time with the actual numbers.
Of 2,236,678,735 vaccines administered during the period, only 1,709 received compensation for adverse effects. That translates to less than 1 in 1.3 million.
The annual booster shots for dogs is greed. So is the leptospirosis vaccine, and heartworm treatments for anything bigger than a squirrel. The leptospirosis vaccine only protects against 6 of the more than 150 types, and it's transferred by wild infected animals pissing on your dog's food. For heartworm, just keep the mosquito population down, the same as you should be doing to prevent the transmission of West Nile disease in humans. It's not like dogs can catch it from each other.
Shouldn't it be your choice to harm your child? Not the government's?
If we lose freedom of choice we have no constitution. Freedom is what created America, don't you understand that?
Do you really believe that you have the constitutional right to harm ANY child? The days when women and children were chattels is long gone, but feel free to go to your nearest police station and start abusing your kid - they'll be better of in someone else's custody:-)
Just look in the real world. The people getting measles are very, very disproportionally those who didn't get vaccinated, even though they're a smallish subset of the population.
if you can dismiss long standing religious objections to vaccinations on various grounds then there truly is little left that is sacred to religious liberty.
You say that like it's a bad thing:-)
How about this - we quarantine everyone who refuses to get vaccinated, same as we do with other people who are disease carriers and put the population at risk. You'll mostly die out from some bug or other, but hey - you're free to do so.
When the corporation is buying labour, they are the customer. The corporation, aka the customer, is the one creating the job. Customers always create the jobs, even in the case of buying labour (they're certainly not SELLING labour to their employees).
Fortunately atheism is the fastest growing religious belief
...again, you express confusion. Atheism is not a religious belief; it is the very antithesis of such.
Wrong - a religious belief is a belief about religion, not necessarily IN religion. It can be pro or con, same as a belief in or against the death penalty.
Some of us place more value on reality than on wishful thinking. He has already demonstrated that he wants to find a work-around so he can wrongfully misappropriate what isn't his. Lack of ethics and good judgment. Either fire him or make him CEO.
Slashdot Mirror
The certainty of current harm is worse than the possibility of future harm. Let them be fostered by same-sex couples if you want the best assurance for their safety.
your argument goes PUFFFFFF. Disappears. Nothing is left. +1 to -1, 0.
You suck at math. You left out the fact that both the buyer and the seller are getting something they want. The seller (worker) is getting money, and the buyer (business) is getting work done. Each is better off than they would have been before. It's called a win-win situation. Each one comes out ahead. If they didn't, there would be no deal (unless we go back to slave labour).
And you have no reason to believe they didn't - but it was your citation, not mine. You made your bed by picking it - so sleep in it.
An irrational belief (for example, in god), is not a reason to do something fundamentally evil such as discriminate against people based on religion, sex, or sexual identity - it's just an excuse.
Parents know when their kids are giving excuses rather than reasons.
As land ice melts, it dilutes the sea water on the surface (it's lighter, so it floats on top). So, a thinner but larger area of sea ice (which melts rather than accumulating over the years) is exactly what you would expect if the polar ice was melting - and we're seeing this at both the north and south poles.
There's always the option of starting a nuclear war to both cause nuclear winter and reduce the population (2 birds with 1 bomb). In the end, it may come down to that as nations fight over the dwindling resources.
Sea ice will expand as land ice melts because the land ice melts, it dilutes the salty sea water, raising the freezing point (also keep in mind that since salt water is denser, that freshwater melt floats atop the sea water). It's why we have a larger, but thinner, area of sea ice in the arctic - the polar cap is also melting.
Of course, during the local summer, that thinner ice melts earlier, allowing the underlying water to pick up more solar energy because water has a lower albedo than ice. And since we're past the tipping point, the process is not just going to continue, but accelerate.
And during that time we've had 5 extinction periods. The ghosts of the dinosaurs are saying "Do you feel lucky, punk?"
/. recently published a story about a research article in which it was prove there is a gender bias in the hiring of academic faculty in the sciences...the bias was against male candidates. If women want to be treated as equals then stop demanding special treatment. Little wonder male children seek to change their birth gender in alarmingly high numbers these days. You rarely hear of women opting to become men through "gender reassignment" surgery and testosterone therapy.
Sure you hear about it all the time - you just haven't been listening. Searching for "female-to-male transsexual" or "male-to-female transsexual" yield about the same number of results.
Nobody goes for gender assignment to assume the privileges of the other gender - not with all the hassles, stigma, and damage to relationships and employment - this video ("Where's the dress") to the contrary
I guess some enterprising lawyer will also use it to troll for clients whose spouses have spied on them.
there never was a period of 'flat earth darkness' among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now)
And there were others who thought Atlas held it up, or that it was on the back of a turtle, or an elephant on a tortoise.
Doesn't matter how many believed it - it was wrong.
Most of the cases where compensation was paid were settled without any finding of fact. The reasons cited, if you had bothered to read, were that it was sometimes cheaper to settle, sometimes both parties wanted to eliminate the risk of court, sometimes it was the fair thing to do.
Also, you have the figure for the number of uncompensated people if you read the rest of the link. My bet is you didn't read any of it.
There's your problem - point one. No, it doesn't take a reason (in the sense of a fact) for the majority to believe something.
The majority believed in slavery. They had their reasons (the bible, prejudice, personal profit, etc) to believe that slavery was justified. Didn't make them right. Same the the majority believing that the Earth was the center of the universe. Same as the majority believed that the housing boom wouldn't end ("this time it's different").
If the "reason" or premise is false, any conclusions are highly suspect.
There's a HUGE difference between a reason with no underlying rationale and a good reason. We call the first an excuse, or when it's really lame, a poor excuse, not a reason. Same as someone doing something "because everyone is is doing it, and everyone else can't be wrong."
if you can dismiss long standing religious objections to vaccinations on various grounds then there truly is little left that is sacred to religious liberty.
You say that like it's a bad thing :-)
First, I'm not in your country. Second, here we provide free vaccination for childhood diseases, so cost is not a barrier or an excuse. Third, if you really believed in separation of church and state, the distorting effect of the religious right would not be a factor in your politics or your social policies.
Look around you. How many trillions of dollars has the US spent in the last 15 years to fight wars that, are caused or fueled by religious hatred. Without them, the US deficit would be declining.
You say that with a smile on your face? What is this county coming to? If history is any indication of what happens when attitudes like this one of yours pervade society, it won't be good.
Other posters have pointed out your flawed reasoning. However, here we go again, this time with the actual numbers.
Of 2,236,678,735 vaccines administered during the period, only 1,709 received compensation for adverse effects. That translates to less than 1 in 1.3 million.
Contrast that with the death rate for measles in the US of 3 per 1000 infections. Compare that to death rates of up to 28% who die in the underdeveloped world.
Dead is dead.
The annual booster shots for dogs is greed. So is the leptospirosis vaccine, and heartworm treatments for anything bigger than a squirrel. The leptospirosis vaccine only protects against 6 of the more than 150 types, and it's transferred by wild infected animals pissing on your dog's food. For heartworm, just keep the mosquito population down, the same as you should be doing to prevent the transmission of West Nile disease in humans. It's not like dogs can catch it from each other.
Shouldn't it be your choice to harm your child? Not the government's? If we lose freedom of choice we have no constitution. Freedom is what created America, don't you understand that?
Do you really believe that you have the constitutional right to harm ANY child? The days when women and children were chattels is long gone, but feel free to go to your nearest police station and start abusing your kid - they'll be better of in someone else's custody :-)
Just look in the real world. The people getting measles are very, very disproportionally those who didn't get vaccinated, even though they're a smallish subset of the population.
That's a pretty good real-world experiment.
if you can dismiss long standing religious objections to vaccinations on various grounds then there truly is little left that is sacred to religious liberty.
You say that like it's a bad thing :-)
How about this - we quarantine everyone who refuses to get vaccinated, same as we do with other people who are disease carriers and put the population at risk. You'll mostly die out from some bug or other, but hey - you're free to do so.
My religion says I can rape and murder members of other religions. In fact its a sacrament.
So you're either a fanatic Christian terrorist or a fanatic Muslim terrorist or a fanatic what?
I would just ask all these anti-Vaxxers to show were in their holy book is vaccine banned. Problem solved.
1. Find big valuable diamond.
2. Smash into 100 smaller diamonds.
3. ($500,000.00) PROFIT.
When the corporation is buying labour, they are the customer. The corporation, aka the customer, is the one creating the job. Customers always create the jobs, even in the case of buying labour (they're certainly not SELLING labour to their employees).
Fortunately atheism is the fastest growing religious belief
...again, you express confusion. Atheism is not a religious belief; it is the very antithesis of such.
Wrong - a religious belief is a belief about religion, not necessarily IN religion. It can be pro or con, same as a belief in or against the death penalty.
Some of us place more value on reality than on wishful thinking. He has already demonstrated that he wants to find a work-around so he can wrongfully misappropriate what isn't his. Lack of ethics and good judgment. Either fire him or make him CEO.
This Fortune article from last month says that the tax man disagrees with you.
Want to try again? :-)
Mind you, I thing all churches should pay taxes ...