Men are treated as disposable when they are valuable human beings.
Value is relative. Ultimately we are all disposable - it's called death.
Men are at a disadvantage in relationships with women, particularly marriage, so it would be wise to avoid that.
Given that more women are graduating uni than men, and that men's traditional jobs are being automated like crazy. women are the ones who don't want marriage, since they are more likely to end up having to pay alimony. So, since you don't like marriage, be happy that women increasingly don't either.
Men are at a disadvantage in all aspects of the law, but particularly family court, so avoid that.
There's this thing called a vasectomy... if it won't damage your fragile male ego too much...
Typically, men spend most of their time chasing money and status instead of their own happiness so they can attract and keep women.
And who's fault is that? It seems that men also compete amongst themselves through money and status.
Also, you're living way in the past. Marriage has nothing to do with the awarding of child support.
Women don't like whiny men. And men nag just as much.
Don't bother. If he's still not learned the lessons of life at 45, he's too set in his ways to change. And let's face it, he's just not worth the effort.
He claims "I don't give a shit any more" but obviously he does. He doth protest too much.
I bike 50km a day, I don't break a knee when I miss a stair, I can stay out, I can drink, eat whatever I want.
Why would I date a wrinkly, out-of-shape, pre-menopausal senior citizen shut-in with no modern interest
"pre-menopausal; senior citizen?"
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Senior citizens who are pre-menopausal? That would be impressive. Also, more men break their hips than women. And "out-of-shape"? I'll probably outlive you. That's the problem with men, when the body starts failing, it fails fast and hard. Why do you think men die younger?
And androgen replacement therapy for men has risks, unlike estrogen replacement therapy for women, which protects against stroke, heart disease, bone decalcification, and muscle and strength loss, and adds 3 years on average to life span over untreated women, who already have an advantage over men. And now that HRT is no longer "as little as possible, for the shortest time possible", expect more improvements in life span.
And there are plenty of women who don't look their age, without resorting to botox or face lifts, just a healthy lifestyle.
That's still only a small fraction of human existence. Homo Sapiens remains have been found that date back to 340,000 years ago. Humans didn't live long enough then for the woman to reach menopause, or men to reach the male climacteric.
why should men have to do all the work to earn her stamp of approval? It takes men a significant amount of effort to get a date, but women pretty much just have to say yes and show up.
So what you're saying is that men are desperate and think with the wrong head.
Johnny and Sally were playing, and Johnny pulled down his shorts and said "Ha ha, I've got one of these and you don't."
>br>
Sally hiked her skirt and said "I've got one of these and my mommy says that with one of these I can get as many of those as I want."
I was replying to the poster who wondered if she had made the tweet after the fact. It has nothing to do with whether (to your obviously simplistic way of thinking) it was a possible defense, and it's an insult that anyone would think I'm that stupid. But you're welcome to try the experiment and see if you can get away with murder. I would suggest Florida - with their new education law, nothing of value will be lost.
Where is your creativity? You need a family to get time off? Develop one. Photoshop or The GIMP are your friends. With so many people shacking up, HR won't be able to rat you out.
It's not only through education. Experience is a great teacher of common sense, even among children. Hit a dog, it bites you, you don't hit a dog again. Punch someone bigger than you, they beat you up, you don't punch them again. Stick a finger in an electrical outlet, get a shock, you don't stick your finger in the outlet again unless you're Bart Simpson. The ability to develop common sense from individual experiences is innate.
Quit putting words in my mouth. It's useless to put warnings on everything if the people are too dumb to understand them or don't believe the consequences.
Totally irrelevant to the argument I was replying to, which was that she could have made up the tweet after the shooting. As I said, unless she had a time machine, not possible.
It doesn't rule out premeditation, but that's another thing entirely, and honestly, do you think either of these characters is smart enough?
Your article concludes the exact opposite - that eventually, as costs continue to decline, every item will have a tag. Also, if you ever saw the actual invoices, you'd know that the profit margin is decent (some food items have a 60% margin, very few are sold at less than 20% markup except as loss leaders, when the manufacturer eats the cost) - however, the industry calculates it's net profits, after taking every single expense they can come up with into account, including franchise fees.
Interesting reading. I too wonder how many people would be happier with a reduced income and more time to do things they want to do. Retired people are a good example - volunteering fulfills the need for social contact,relationships, and relevancy (money can't really buy none of those), as well as building a stronger sense of community in an era where it's harder than ever because of all the electronic distractions. It also can't buy the fruits of the labour of volunteers, who do it for free. And if the organizers try to charge for volunteer labour, the labour just goes elsewhere, keeping marginal labour costs at zero in a volunteer (or gift) economy.
Once most of your free time is taken up interacting with others you don't really have much need for bling to make you feel good or junk entertainment to fill in idle time.
Sounds good to me. I know the volunteering I do is more fulfilling than anything I've ever been paid to do because I can see the results in other people's lives every week, and the sense of camaraderie and unity of goals.
Not by the cops, and not by the courts, the law in general, or the penal system, so I don't know where you get that from. Adults are adults. 24-year-olds are adults. In all states except Mississippi, 19 and over (and many are 18 and over) are adults and treated as such. There's no "we cant name them because they are minors" in such cases, because they simply are not.
You always have the same complaint, ignoring all the benefits you get from publicly funded projects - roads, sidewalks, water and sewer, fire, police, food inspection, etc. Grow the f*ck up and quit your whining. It's become exceedingly tedious.
Read the rules, moron. It says nothing about having existing offspring. They're right there in the comment you replied to, both quoted and a link to the original. The only epic fail is yours. Too stupid to read before replying...
Also, why not just remove the death penalty? It costs more than lifetime imprisonment, and 20% of death penalty cases are found to be wrong convictions. Can't undo a lethal injection.
Cripes - read the rules. I didn't just post a link to them - I quoted them as well.It says nothing about being disqualified for having previous progeny. Just the necessity of you removing yourself from the gene pool by death or sterility.
CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 15 million more people would be uninsured under this legislation than under current law—primarily because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated. The increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number projected under current law would reach 19 million in 2020 and 22 million in 2026. In later years, other changes in the legislation—lower spending on Medicaid and substantially smaller average subsidies for coverage in the nongroup market—would also lead to increases in the number of people without health insurance. By 2026, among people under age 65, enrollment in Medicaid would fall by about 16 percent and an estimated 49 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.
That's 5 million less. And many of those 15 million are going to wish they had health care insurance, especially with the 6-month penalty if they sign up for coverage, and the pre-existing conditions waivers. The reason for insurance is to spread the risk pool, because it's guaranteed that some will need it, and there is no way to predict it.
And the effect will vary by state:
In the agencies’ assessment, a small fraction of the population resides in areas in which—because of this legislation, at least for some of the years after 2019—no insurers would participate in the nongroup market or insurance would be offered only with very high premiums. Some sparsely populated areas might have no nongroup insurance offered because the reductions in subsidies would lead fewer people to decide to purchase insurance—and markets with few purchasers are less profitable for insurers. Insurance covering certain services would become more expensive—in some cases, extremely expensive—in some areas because the scope of the EHBs would be narrowed through waivers affecting close to half the population, CBO and JCT expect. In addition, the agencies anticipate that all insurance in the nongroup market would become very expensive for at least a short period of time for a small fraction of the population residing in areas in which states’ implementation of waivers with major changes caused market disruption.
The areas with the poorest people will have the fewest purchasers. That means some areas will not have nongroup insurance at any price.
Under this legislation, starting in 2020, the premium for a silver plan would typically be a relatively high percentage of income for low-income people. The deductible for a plan with an actuarial value of 58 percent would be a significantly higher percentage of income—also making such a plan unattractive, but for a different reason. As a result, despite being eligible for premium tax credits, few low-income people would purchase any plan, CBO and JCT estimate.
And how about a new lifetime cap?
Out-of-pocket spending would also be affected for the people—close to half the population, CBO and JCT expect—living in states modifying the EHBs using waivers. People who used services or benefits no longer included in the EHBs would experience substantial increases in supplemental premiums or out-of-pocket spending on health care, or would choose to forgo the services. Moreover, the ACA’s ban on annual and lifetime limits on covered benefits would no longer apply to health benefits not defined as essential in a state. As a result, for some benefits that might be removed from a state’s definition of EHBs but that might not be excluded from insurance coverage altogether, some enrollees could see large increases in out-of-pocket spending because annual or lifetime limits would be allowed.
And you're a fool. I've got two kids - so much for my supposedly being childless. But I waited until my 20's and had my education and a job. That increases the chances of success - and of not being someone with so much idle time on their hands that they pull stupid stunts just to get views on youtube because they have no other prospects.
But go live like that - can't wait to see your youtube channel - oops, my life doesn't revolve around youtumbe, and I don't have a twitter account. Even the time on slashdot I count as mostly a waste, a filler between doing other, better things. It's kind of like flipping through a magazine at the checkout counter.
Actually, that's what most of the internet is. Useless shit.
These are not people who have a choice - not when premiums jump 5x or more. In the case of someone with metastatic cancer, premiums will be $140k a year. Just how many patients, already coping with severe diseases, can make that sort of coin? How are the 1.4 million in retirement homes supposed to pay? It's not like ther are jobs outside of congress and the senate for sclerotic people suffering from dementia.
Learn some basic biology - your children do not have your complete genes - they are not your clones. Once you are dead, you can not make any contributions to the gene pool. You can bitch all you want, but the Darwin Awards only talk about the death or sterility of the gene carrier - not whether incomplete copies of part of their genes are carried by others.
Slashdot Mirror
Men are treated as disposable when they are valuable human beings.
Value is relative. Ultimately we are all disposable - it's called death.
Men are at a disadvantage in relationships with women, particularly marriage, so it would be wise to avoid that.
Given that more women are graduating uni than men, and that men's traditional jobs are being automated like crazy. women are the ones who don't want marriage, since they are more likely to end up having to pay alimony. So, since you don't like marriage, be happy that women increasingly don't either.
Men are at a disadvantage in all aspects of the law, but particularly family court, so avoid that.
There's this thing called a vasectomy ... if it won't damage your fragile male ego too much ...
Typically, men spend most of their time chasing money and status instead of their own happiness so they can attract and keep women.
And who's fault is that? It seems that men also compete amongst themselves through money and status. Also, you're living way in the past. Marriage has nothing to do with the awarding of child support.
Women don't like whiny men. And men nag just as much.
The "men" checking out are too busy playing with their xbox. No woman want's a 40-year-old never-employed bro.
Don't bother. If he's still not learned the lessons of life at 45, he's too set in his ways to change. And let's face it, he's just not worth the effort.
He claims "I don't give a shit any more" but obviously he does. He doth protest too much.
I bike 50km a day, I don't break a knee when I miss a stair, I can stay out, I can drink, eat whatever I want.
Why would I date a wrinkly, out-of-shape, pre-menopausal senior citizen shut-in with no modern interest
"pre-menopausal; senior citizen?"
You obviously don't know what you're talking about. Senior citizens who are pre-menopausal? That would be impressive. Also, more men break their hips than women. And "out-of-shape"? I'll probably outlive you. That's the problem with men, when the body starts failing, it fails fast and hard. Why do you think men die younger?
And androgen replacement therapy for men has risks, unlike estrogen replacement therapy for women, which protects against stroke, heart disease, bone decalcification, and muscle and strength loss, and adds 3 years on average to life span over untreated women, who already have an advantage over men. And now that HRT is no longer "as little as possible, for the shortest time possible", expect more improvements in life span.
And there are plenty of women who don't look their age, without resorting to botox or face lifts, just a healthy lifestyle.
That's still only a small fraction of human existence. Homo Sapiens remains have been found that date back to 340,000 years ago. Humans didn't live long enough then for the woman to reach menopause, or men to reach the male climacteric.
why should men have to do all the work to earn her stamp of approval? It takes men a significant amount of effort to get a date, but women pretty much just have to say yes and show up.
So what you're saying is that men are desperate and think with the wrong head.
Johnny and Sally were playing, and Johnny pulled down his shorts and said "Ha ha, I've got one of these and you don't." >br> Sally hiked her skirt and said "I've got one of these and my mommy says that with one of these I can get as many of those as I want."
I was replying to the poster who wondered if she had made the tweet after the fact. It has nothing to do with whether (to your obviously simplistic way of thinking) it was a possible defense, and it's an insult that anyone would think I'm that stupid. But you're welcome to try the experiment and see if you can get away with murder. I would suggest Florida - with their new education law, nothing of value will be lost.
How about we skip the carbon fiber and just print the sticker? That ought to thin out the herd quicker.
Where is your creativity? You need a family to get time off? Develop one. Photoshop or The GIMP are your friends. With so many people shacking up, HR won't be able to rat you out.
No need for an award. Beating them up is its own reward.
Lets you get rid of any antisocial vibes (without guilt because they asked for it) so you can be nice to the people who deserve it.
Burning out is certainly a way to not get ahead. And eventually lose your job, and your career, and then everything else.
It's not only through education. Experience is a great teacher of common sense, even among children. Hit a dog, it bites you, you don't hit a dog again. Punch someone bigger than you, they beat you up, you don't punch them again. Stick a finger in an electrical outlet, get a shock, you don't stick your finger in the outlet again unless you're Bart Simpson. The ability to develop common sense from individual experiences is innate.
Quit putting words in my mouth. It's useless to put warnings on everything if the people are too dumb to understand them or don't believe the consequences.
Totally irrelevant to the argument I was replying to, which was that she could have made up the tweet after the shooting. As I said, unless she had a time machine, not possible.
It doesn't rule out premeditation, but that's another thing entirely, and honestly, do you think either of these characters is smart enough?
Your article concludes the exact opposite - that eventually, as costs continue to decline, every item will have a tag. Also, if you ever saw the actual invoices, you'd know that the profit margin is decent (some food items have a 60% margin, very few are sold at less than 20% markup except as loss leaders, when the manufacturer eats the cost) - however, the industry calculates it's net profits, after taking every single expense they can come up with into account, including franchise fees.
That's what everyone who makes rationalizations says :-p
Interesting reading. I too wonder how many people would be happier with a reduced income and more time to do things they want to do. Retired people are a good example - volunteering fulfills the need for social contact,relationships, and relevancy (money can't really buy none of those), as well as building a stronger sense of community in an era where it's harder than ever because of all the electronic distractions. It also can't buy the fruits of the labour of volunteers, who do it for free. And if the organizers try to charge for volunteer labour, the labour just goes elsewhere, keeping marginal labour costs at zero in a volunteer (or gift) economy.
Once most of your free time is taken up interacting with others you don't really have much need for bling to make you feel good or junk entertainment to fill in idle time.
Sounds good to me. I know the volunteering I do is more fulfilling than anything I've ever been paid to do because I can see the results in other people's lives every week, and the sense of camaraderie and unity of goals.
Not by the cops, and not by the courts, the law in general, or the penal system, so I don't know where you get that from. Adults are adults. 24-year-olds are adults. In all states except Mississippi, 19 and over (and many are 18 and over) are adults and treated as such. There's no "we cant name them because they are minors" in such cases, because they simply are not.
You always have the same complaint, ignoring all the benefits you get from publicly funded projects - roads, sidewalks, water and sewer, fire, police, food inspection, etc. Grow the f*ck up and quit your whining. It's become exceedingly tedious.
Read the rules, moron. It says nothing about having existing offspring. They're right there in the comment you replied to, both quoted and a link to the original. The only epic fail is yours. Too stupid to read before replying ...
Also, why not just remove the death penalty? It costs more than lifetime imprisonment, and 20% of death penalty cases are found to be wrong convictions. Can't undo a lethal injection.
Cripes - read the rules. I didn't just post a link to them - I quoted them as well.It says nothing about being disqualified for having previous progeny. Just the necessity of you removing yourself from the gene pool by death or sterility.
And you obviously don't realize that this is the planet Earth, where shit happens. A small likelihood, over time, grows into a near certainty.
And your numbers are off. Stop making up shit when it's so easy to go to the CBO and get the facts:
CBO and JCT estimate that, in 2018, 15 million more people would be uninsured under this legislation than under current law—primarily because the penalty for not having insurance would be eliminated. The increase in the number of uninsured people relative to the number projected under current law would reach 19 million in 2020 and 22 million in 2026. In later years, other changes in the legislation—lower spending on Medicaid and substantially smaller average subsidies for coverage in the nongroup market—would also lead to increases in the number of people without health insurance. By 2026, among people under age 65, enrollment in Medicaid would fall by about 16 percent and an estimated 49 million people would be uninsured, compared with 28 million who would lack insurance that year under current law.
That's 5 million less. And many of those 15 million are going to wish they had health care insurance, especially with the 6-month penalty if they sign up for coverage, and the pre-existing conditions waivers. The reason for insurance is to spread the risk pool, because it's guaranteed that some will need it, and there is no way to predict it.
And the effect will vary by state:
In the agencies’ assessment, a small fraction of the population resides in areas in which—because of this legislation, at least for some of the years after 2019—no insurers would participate in the nongroup market or insurance would be offered only with very high premiums. Some sparsely populated areas might have no nongroup insurance offered because the reductions in subsidies would lead fewer people to decide to purchase insurance—and markets with few purchasers are less profitable for insurers. Insurance covering certain services would become more expensive—in some cases, extremely expensive—in some areas because the scope of the EHBs would be narrowed through waivers affecting close to half the population, CBO and JCT expect. In addition, the agencies anticipate that all insurance in the nongroup market would become very expensive for at least a short period of time for a small fraction of the population residing in areas in which states’ implementation of waivers with major changes caused market disruption.
The areas with the poorest people will have the fewest purchasers. That means some areas will not have nongroup insurance at any price.
Under this legislation, starting in 2020, the premium for a silver plan would typically be a relatively high percentage of income for low-income people. The deductible for a plan with an actuarial value of 58 percent would be a significantly higher percentage of income—also making such a plan unattractive, but for a different reason. As a result, despite being eligible for premium tax credits, few low-income people would purchase any plan, CBO and JCT estimate.
And how about a new lifetime cap?
Out-of-pocket spending would also be affected for the people—close to half the population, CBO and JCT expect—living in states modifying the EHBs using waivers. People who used services or benefits no longer included in the EHBs would experience substantial increases in supplemental premiums or out-of-pocket spending on health care, or would choose to forgo the services. Moreover, the ACA’s ban on annual and lifetime limits on covered benefits would no longer apply to health benefits not defined as essential in a state. As a result, for some benefits that might be removed from a state’s definition of EHBs but that might not be excluded from insurance coverage altogether, some enrollees could see large increases in out-of-pocket spending because annual or lifetime limits would be allowed.
And you're a fool. I've got two kids - so much for my supposedly being childless. But I waited until my 20's and had my education and a job. That increases the chances of success - and of not being someone with so much idle time on their hands that they pull stupid stunts just to get views on youtube because they have no other prospects.
But go live like that - can't wait to see your youtube channel - oops, my life doesn't revolve around youtumbe, and I don't have a twitter account. Even the time on slashdot I count as mostly a waste, a filler between doing other, better things. It's kind of like flipping through a magazine at the checkout counter.
Actually, that's what most of the internet is. Useless shit.
These are not people who have a choice - not when premiums jump 5x or more. In the case of someone with metastatic cancer, premiums will be $140k a year. Just how many patients, already coping with severe diseases, can make that sort of coin? How are the 1.4 million in retirement homes supposed to pay? It's not like ther are jobs outside of congress and the senate for sclerotic people suffering from dementia.
Learn some basic biology - your children do not have your complete genes - they are not your clones. Once you are dead, you can not make any contributions to the gene pool. You can bitch all you want, but the Darwin Awards only talk about the death or sterility of the gene carrier - not whether incomplete copies of part of their genes are carried by others.
Make all the rationalizations you want - everyone knows you have a "thing" for me, and you're pissed off that I keep making fun of you for it.