That makes no sense whatsoever. AMD could quickly get a foothold in Linux by having an OSS driver that ships by default. That wouldn't instantly make their driver better performing than NVIDIA's blob, but over the long term they would get help improving it and it would at the very least become better than NVIDIA's OSS driver. And despite the cliche, many Linux users want stuff to Just Work and as Windows 7's EOL looms ever closer, I suspect there will be more and more of this lazy sort of user who just wants stuff to work.
But again, this is about maven marketing theory, not raw numbers. You use the word "fanatical" as if it were a pejorative; that alone proves you missed my point entirely.
It's not shitty for the price and feature set. Some of us care do about stuff like ECC, Vt-d. AES-NI and it's neat being able to get that even on a lower end chip.
As far as GPUs go, admittedly these days I'm out of the loop when it comes to cutting edge gaming, but I thought ATI/AMD has basically always managed to stay relatively close to NVIDIA when it comes to the hardware, but they always lagged behind on the driver front.
Go full tilt open source. Specs to your CPU completely opened up; nothing hidden (that doesn't mean you can't keep it patented though), unlike Intel's stuff. GPU drivers completely open sourced so that all Linux distros include it by default. Advertise yourself as the open and secure (as in no 'obscurity') option.
Yes, we are a pretty small slice of the gaming (or general computing) pie. But we are influential. We're the ones people turn to when they ask what they should buy. Some of us (not me) will start submitting useful GPU driver patches to you, for free.
What have you got to lose? Do you really think your current drivers are so goddamn awesome that NVIDIA is going to use them for inspiration?
Intel makes it easy, i3 Basic, i5 mid range i7 high end.
First off, this information is useless without knowing the generation (Sandy Vagina or whatever) and even knowing the generation isn't nearly enough information. U (low power) variants are slower across the board, K variants mean overclockability or something, and if you actually care about specific features like AMT, Vt-d, Vt-x, AES-NI, etc. you pretty much *have* to head on over to Ark because there's no consistency whatsoever. I've seen i7s that didn't support Vt-d and goddamn 1.5ghz Celerons that did.
Their market segmentation strategy is chaos and the i3/5/7 thing is pretty much worthless, though admittedly Ark is nice saving grace that I really wish AMD would copy.
Several +5 insightful comments are screaming bloody murder already, but there might be reason to applaud this.
Users will be able to choose from several toolbar configurations including the "Notebook bar" which is similar to Microsoft Office's ribbon. According to TDF, "The MUFFIN (My User Friendly -- Flexible Interface) represents a new approach to UI design, based on the respect of user needs rather than on the imposition of a single UI to all users"
This is how it should be. The only correct UI choice is the choice that is most flexible[1] and user-configurable (ideally through a scripting language of some sort, though I've no idea if this is how they're doing it.) This has a nice side effect of (at least theoretically) forcing them to keep their own code as modular and clean as possible in order to easily support multiple layouts.
Stop screaming at them to not touch the UI. This is the one change that everyone here should be clamoring for... provided one of the options given is to duplicate the old UI.
1. It's worth noting that Apple, Microsoft, GNOME and many other projects/companies explicitly reject this approach and instead assume that they must heard and train stupid users to follow The One True Way. There's a grain of logic to this, but in practice they simply end up with a bunch of attention grabbing glitter welded to tablet-inspired emu shit.
Broken record. What do YOU consider human trafficking? That's the first step of this conversation. It's obvious that there is no single objective definition.
White noise. You've descended to sophistry, ignoring the point of this entire tangent and even ignoring your previous attempts to pretend that the main/only topic of conversation here was Major Depressive Disorder, which obviously would be extremely ill-suited this sort of sporadic short term therapy.
You brought MDMA up as a counterexample to disprove my assertion that the psychiatric establishment's pathologization of addiction has made them ignore effective drugs in lieu of extremely ineffective drugs and some outright placebos. And it is obviously that same pathologization of addiction that leads them to insist that the patients are not to be trusted to take the MDMA home with them, and there's no mention of an attempt to use MDMA or any other euphoria-producing drug to treat chronic disorders or treat episodic disorders.
You're either too lazy to follow your own arguments, a moron, or you never had any intention of being intellectually honest.
You are SO full of shit - adjust your dose of sertraline - you're letting your delusions interfere with reality, fucktard. I also never said that they had the same neurological effects, stupid.
Me:
MDMA for PTSD isn't *quite* the same thing as opioids or amphetamines for depression or anxiety.
You:
What do you think MDMA stands for? It's a stimulant with a chemical structure closely related to metamphetamine and mescaline.
I'll let posterity decide who is full of shit and/or delusional here.
Claiming a 20% success rate is grounds for a malpractice suit is really, really stupid.
When benzos (probably; I'm not looking this up right now) have a 70%+ rate? And not telling the patient that actual effective treatments exist? Yes, that's malpractice.
Now, if the patient is informed of all of the choices and doesn't want to risk the side effects of benzos and decides to see if they're one of the lucky 1 in 5, sure. They should have that option.
Claiming a 20% success rate is grounds for a malpractice suit is really, really stupid.
Do try and keep up. My entire overarching thesis from the beginning is that effective drugs DO exist, but it's so much easier for them to keep prescribing placebos and marginally effective drugs to potentially suicidal people without even telling them that these drugs are abysmally ineffective.
I NEVER said Prozac was useful for anything, so why do you keep bringing it up? Are you delusional?
Prozac is the cornerstone of modern psychiatry. It was the first SSRI widely prescribed. Millions of people were given placebos, and eight years after they were shown to be placebos doctors are STILL doing it and there's been no effort to my knowledge to aggressively conduct after-market studies on the other SSRIs and SNRIs. Defending modern antidepressants as you appear to be doing is defending this whole charade.
Again, my overarching thesis is that psychiatrists are addicted (a word I choose advisedly) to prescribing placebos. If they have to admit that the current drugs suck *and* that there are drugs that actually do work but they're all controlled... that's a shitstorm of the highest magnitude. No one will accept it. It's in no one's interest to tell the truth about these things... except the patients, but they have an entire society brainwashing them that any drug that actually clearly and reliably makes people happier is by definition bad.
But of course you really don't want to fix the problem, because that would go against your narrative, that everybody must get stoned
"A gramme is always better than a damn".
That is my best retort all month but I'm going to spoil it with an explanation: you're brainlessly regurgitating propaganda. Opioids and amphetamines don't impair you any more than an Welbutrin would... You just have to compare the doses fairly (after all, one isn't terribly effective if one is having a mild seizure.)
Using the word "high" means you don't have a goddamn clue. It's a function of dose first and foremost, but also activity. If it's a mild-moderate dose and you're taking it in the context of functioning in your daily life, you don't perceive it as getting high. That's a social construct, that.
You might be tempted to substitute some other word for "high, but here's the fact of the matter: We have drugs that can severely impair thinking that are approved to treat depression (atypical antipsychotics), and we have drugs that can markedly improve thinking (amphetamines) that are evil, evil drugs that only bad people use.
Try as you might to differentiate the 'good' drugs from the 'bad', you will always, ALWAYS come back to the inescapable fact that the 'bad' drugs are so deemed because they are very effective. (And also because they tend to work fast and don't have an upper dose limit that prevents an "abuser" from obtaining high levels of euphoria.)
At least, that's the conclusion you'll inexorably meet if you're intellectually honest about it.
Also, I don't know what sort of 3rd world shithole you're living in to say this:
Poor in America. You have any idea how huge and expensive a hassle it is to find a doctor who offers a reasonable uninsured rate ($50 was nice but most are around $80 now), a ride there and to the pharmacy and then have to pay for the drugs? And if you're working, losing money for the time it takes to go to the doctor's office? Larger cities sometimes have free clinics, which are like one or days a month and are hellish.
It's a bit better under Obamacare insurance, except the doctors themselves are abysmally bad and suspicious of their patients.
Here, there is no cost for seeing a doctor, no cost for being referred to a psychiatrist, no cost for therapy sessions.
Fucking good for you. Is your country actually accepting post-Trump American refugees?
You're probably seeing things through the lens of your country's for profit private medical system
I suspect the efficacy of SSRIs is not dependent on latitude and longitude. Forgive my American chauvinism, but I also suspect that practices and popular medicines are often based on ours since we're a world leader in healthcare study and innovation (just not its practice.)
In fact, I strongly suspect quite the opposite: free access to healthcare probably greatly increases the appetite for placebos. Witness the clusterfuck of alternative medicine being paid for by the NHS, for example (or did they finally stop that shit?) The longer you spend tinkering around, the more time there is for a coincidence to suddenly convince you that you've stumbled on something that really works. Which isn't to say I'm for more restrictive healthcare but surely, you can't possibly expect me to believe that with all of the quackery Britain and much of the continent tolerates that they're somehow better judges of real medicine.
I'm less familiar with the Commonwealth but I suspect Canada and Australia aren't too dissimilar.
You're still reading from your script. My question is simple: what is human trafficking? Someone who enters the country illegally with help from someone else and is working as a prostitute? Uh, ok. That *alone* is an immigration issue. Nothing more. She's not a "victim" of *anything* unless she's been subject to threats or violence.
Are many of them threatened? I'm sure they are, but I suspect those statistics you're quoting do not make any such distinction. Furthermore, what is the nature of the threat? Physical? That's assault, and the person making the threat should be arrested.
Threatening to have her deported? Uh, if she's there illegally then she's there illegally... threatening to turn someone in for a crime might be considered blackmail or something, but that's nothing that warrants a new label of "human trafficking". By all means, offer asylum for the women and interviews to get the ones in abusive situations out of there (and the offenders arrested, hopefully), but by blanketly calling every illegal immigrant prostitute a victim of human trafficking (as I assume you're doing, but you're still very vague on this point), you are infantilizing women. If they choose to enter a country illegally and work as a prostitute, they are choosing to deal with the consequences.
That doesn't excuse any other crimes they may or may not be a victim of, nor does it mean deporting them is necessarily the moral thing to do, but the fundamental disagreement between us, I suspect, is that I am in favor of treating women as equals and responsible for their actions. And that necessarily demands that we don't automatically consider a woman a victim of anything just because she's here illegally working as a prostitute.
Insisting that women are always the victim doesn't just lead to more little girls growing up feeling powerless; it also allows genuine monsters to walk free.
Personally, I'd like to see a situation where no woman would feel pressured to be in prostitution or porn production, and no woman would be pressured to stay out of it either.
I'd like to see that too, but it's very important to not conflate pressure with crime. Let's make it easier for women to get away to shelters or something, fine. Beyond that... "Yes means yes", more or less. The infantalization of women doesn't help in the long run, partially because it lets them abrogate responsibility, but also because it's making the left look really stupid and hypocritical and fueling the right backlash.
I'm sure many guys aren't happy to be in porn ("gay for pay" is a real thing, by the way), but no one gives the tiniest shit about whether they ever feel any pressure.
Drugs are used to mitigate a lack of certain neurochemicals in the brain, a PHYSICAL condition
Except there's no good PHYSICAL evidence that modern antidepressants "mitigate" this in the sense of bring patient's neurotransmitter mixture closer to a 'normal', non-depressant brain. On top of this, SSRIs and SNRIs have very bad efficacy, with the granddaddy of them all (Prozac) having efficacy vs. depression so low that they can't be sure it's any better than a placebo.
The main issue is when MD's without psychiatric training started prescribing these drugs. "Try this and come back in two weeks" can work with a rash, but not with mental health.
No, that's exactly what needs to be done. Patients need to be told that all medicines that currently have on-label approval as antidepressants in all liklihood will not sufficiently help them, and the ones that stand a halfway decent chance of even partially helping them have a strong liklihood of severe side effects. They need to be clearly informed that this is a crapshoot and that their best chance at finding effective management is to keep moving on after each failure.
Finding the right drugs titrated at the right dosages requires direct interaction between patient and doctor, and probably therapy to understand the social and mental effects of the underlying physical issues.
Psychiatry isn't a science. It's proto-science. The only thing they can do that has the slightest bit of scientific backing is to issue their patients some questionnaires (the same exact ones used in studies) and prescribe based on that. And that's something GPs can do just as well as psychiatrists.
It wasn't the most important goal, but it fit seamlessly within the larger narrative. One caveat I could add is if you go back far enough, feminists were too busy with actual, explicit institutionalized sexism to bother having much of an opinion on pornography. (Also, if you go back to the days of suffragettes, hardcore porn was in fact illegal.)
Almost forgot: the other major reason for continuous treatment is to bolster the lie that SSRIs/SNRIs/Tricyclics/MAOIs/etc work by "correcting a neurotransmitter imbalance", i.e. by making your brain normal again. All of the tools we have at our disposal are ugly hacks, including SSRIs, but they really don't want to admit that. The FDA even allowed Zoloft (as I recall) to put out commercials basically advertising that it made you normal again.
That's backwards thinking, justification-after-the-fact. The real reason for continuous treatment is that's the only chance the SSRIs / SNRIs have of making even the slightest dent in anixety disorders (or other episodic disorders.) For anxiety specifically, benzos / nonbenzos work instantly, powerfully and on-demand, and if properly tapered off certainly do not "wreck havoc on your neurochemistry".
That might have something to do with the fact that all of popular modern psychiatry is built on the wild, incredible successes of a proven placebo, Prozac. (To be fair. it has non-placebo effects for anxiety. Unlike people suffering from depression, one out of five people suffering from panic attacks find it effective!)
There's every reason to suspect the efficacy of other SSRIs have been similarly overstated.
Rather, they pick from a smorgasbord of conditions.
Because the conditions are biased conjecture with a thin veneer of statistics smeared over it. Psychiatry isn't science. It's proto-science. The DSM V, as with the DSM IV before it, contains phrases like "except for religion." Any endeavor that makes explicit allowances for the lies and delusions of religion is by definition unscientific.
ANyone who says Christianity is any better either has their head up their ass, no knowledge of history, or is purposely trying to tar another religion out of their own sense of hatred. Seems like you're a mix of 1 and 3.
Spoken like a true anal-spelunker.
Everyone not falling over themselves to virtue signal realizes that Christianity is less of a problem in the world today. The IRA did not want to conquer the fucking world. They didn't want to convert, kill or subjugate all non-Catholics. They didn't want to restore Old Testament law or old canon laws. They didn't want to bring back official religious tolerance of or advocacy of slavery.
They just wanted 'the British' (who, as a different ethnic group, happened to be largely Protestant) out of northern Ireland. Now, you can rightfully disagree all day long about that goal or how they choose to pursue it, but drawing a line of equality or equivalence between this and the problems of Islamism and jihadism today is absurd to the point of disqualifying yourself from the debate entirely.
And through most of the last millenium Jews in the Muslim world had more freedom there than they did in Christian Europe
If you ever want to share your time machine with us, please let us know. The rest of us are stuck here in 2016, when the Jews are much safer in Berlin than they are in Islamic countries.
"Advocating" for genocide? No. They are (allegedly) recording something that happened to specific cities.
The difference is vital.... unless you think that talking about genocide against the "Amaleks" (a group of people that doesn't exist any more, and may well never have existed) is just as bad as talking about genocide against the unbelievers, the polytheists, and the Jews.
Talking about gleefully genociding imaginary people who supposedly lived thousands of years ago is not the same thing as talking about gleefully genociding billions of people who are alive in the world today. Not all Muslims take those verses literally, and sure there are plenty of hateful things in the Bible, but there is no equivalence with what you just wrote and what the Qu'ran has to say about non-Muslims.
Yes, it is a thing - a tiny one that no one really takes seriously because it has no chance of gaining any real traction, so everyone just accepts it and ignores it.
It's waned somewhat in the past ~15 years due to the internet making it an unrealistic goal, but from what I've seen it was the predominant form of feminism in the 90s and earlier. The standard argument is/was that porn (all porn, even software) encourages objectification and thus encourages men to rape. I'd be surprised if this ideology is "tiny"... diminished from its peak, sure (after all, they have to contend with the fact that virtually every man in the nation has access to the most depraved kinks imaginable for free and yet there hasn't been a corresponding meteoric rise in reported rapes), but it's definitely still around.
Slashdot Mirror
That makes no sense whatsoever. AMD could quickly get a foothold in Linux by having an OSS driver that ships by default. That wouldn't instantly make their driver better performing than NVIDIA's blob, but over the long term they would get help improving it and it would at the very least become better than NVIDIA's OSS driver. And despite the cliche, many Linux users want stuff to Just Work and as Windows 7's EOL looms ever closer, I suspect there will be more and more of this lazy sort of user who just wants stuff to work.
But again, this is about maven marketing theory, not raw numbers. You use the word "fanatical" as if it were a pejorative; that alone proves you missed my point entirely.
It's not shitty for the price and feature set. Some of us care do about stuff like ECC, Vt-d. AES-NI and it's neat being able to get that even on a lower end chip.
As far as GPUs go, admittedly these days I'm out of the loop when it comes to cutting edge gaming, but I thought ATI/AMD has basically always managed to stay relatively close to NVIDIA when it comes to the hardware, but they always lagged behind on the driver front.
Go full tilt open source. Specs to your CPU completely opened up; nothing hidden (that doesn't mean you can't keep it patented though), unlike Intel's stuff. GPU drivers completely open sourced so that all Linux distros include it by default. Advertise yourself as the open and secure (as in no 'obscurity') option.
Yes, we are a pretty small slice of the gaming (or general computing) pie. But we are influential. We're the ones people turn to when they ask what they should buy. Some of us (not me) will start submitting useful GPU driver patches to you, for free.
What have you got to lose? Do you really think your current drivers are so goddamn awesome that NVIDIA is going to use them for inspiration?
Intel makes it easy, i3 Basic, i5 mid range i7 high end.
First off, this information is useless without knowing the generation (Sandy Vagina or whatever) and even knowing the generation isn't nearly enough information. U (low power) variants are slower across the board, K variants mean overclockability or something, and if you actually care about specific features like AMT, Vt-d, Vt-x, AES-NI, etc. you pretty much *have* to head on over to Ark because there's no consistency whatsoever. I've seen i7s that didn't support Vt-d and goddamn 1.5ghz Celerons that did.
Their market segmentation strategy is chaos and the i3/5/7 thing is pretty much worthless, though admittedly Ark is nice saving grace that I really wish AMD would copy.
Users will be able to choose from several toolbar configurations including the "Notebook bar" which is similar to Microsoft Office's ribbon. According to TDF, "The MUFFIN (My User Friendly -- Flexible Interface) represents a new approach to UI design, based on the respect of user needs rather than on the imposition of a single UI to all users"
This is how it should be. The only correct UI choice is the choice that is most flexible[1] and user-configurable (ideally through a scripting language of some sort, though I've no idea if this is how they're doing it.) This has a nice side effect of (at least theoretically) forcing them to keep their own code as modular and clean as possible in order to easily support multiple layouts.
Stop screaming at them to not touch the UI. This is the one change that everyone here should be clamoring for... provided one of the options given is to duplicate the old UI.
1. It's worth noting that Apple, Microsoft, GNOME and many other projects/companies explicitly reject this approach and instead assume that they must heard and train stupid users to follow The One True Way. There's a grain of logic to this, but in practice they simply end up with a bunch of attention grabbing glitter welded to tablet-inspired emu shit.
Broken record. What do YOU consider human trafficking? That's the first step of this conversation. It's obvious that there is no single objective definition.
*even bigger. I'm not proofreading shit for your sake so maybe this third correction will have a typo too
I'm sorry, you said "stoned", not "high". My subconscious was being generous to you there. "Stoned" is of course an even pejorative than "high".
White noise. You've descended to sophistry, ignoring the point of this entire tangent and even ignoring your previous attempts to pretend that the main/only topic of conversation here was Major Depressive Disorder, which obviously would be extremely ill-suited this sort of sporadic short term therapy.
You brought MDMA up as a counterexample to disprove my assertion that the psychiatric establishment's pathologization of addiction has made them ignore effective drugs in lieu of extremely ineffective drugs and some outright placebos. And it is obviously that same pathologization of addiction that leads them to insist that the patients are not to be trusted to take the MDMA home with them, and there's no mention of an attempt to use MDMA or any other euphoria-producing drug to treat chronic disorders or treat episodic disorders.
You're either too lazy to follow your own arguments, a moron, or you never had any intention of being intellectually honest.
You are SO full of shit - adjust your dose of sertraline - you're letting your delusions interfere with reality, fucktard. I also never said that they had the same neurological effects, stupid.
Me:
MDMA for PTSD isn't *quite* the same thing as opioids or amphetamines for depression or anxiety.
You:
What do you think MDMA stands for? It's a stimulant with a chemical structure closely related to metamphetamine and mescaline.
I'll let posterity decide who is full of shit and/or delusional here.
Claiming a 20% success rate is grounds for a malpractice suit is really, really stupid.
When benzos (probably; I'm not looking this up right now) have a 70%+ rate? And not telling the patient that actual effective treatments exist? Yes, that's malpractice.
Now, if the patient is informed of all of the choices and doesn't want to risk the side effects of benzos and decides to see if they're one of the lucky 1 in 5, sure. They should have that option.
Claiming a 20% success rate is grounds for a malpractice suit is really, really stupid.
Do try and keep up. My entire overarching thesis from the beginning is that effective drugs DO exist, but it's so much easier for them to keep prescribing placebos and marginally effective drugs to potentially suicidal people without even telling them that these drugs are abysmally ineffective.
I NEVER said Prozac was useful for anything, so why do you keep bringing it up? Are you delusional?
Prozac is the cornerstone of modern psychiatry. It was the first SSRI widely prescribed. Millions of people were given placebos, and eight years after they were shown to be placebos doctors are STILL doing it and there's been no effort to my knowledge to aggressively conduct after-market studies on the other SSRIs and SNRIs. Defending modern antidepressants as you appear to be doing is defending this whole charade.
Again, my overarching thesis is that psychiatrists are addicted (a word I choose advisedly) to prescribing placebos. If they have to admit that the current drugs suck *and* that there are drugs that actually do work but they're all controlled... that's a shitstorm of the highest magnitude. No one will accept it. It's in no one's interest to tell the truth about these things... except the patients, but they have an entire society brainwashing them that any drug that actually clearly and reliably makes people happier is by definition bad.
But of course you really don't want to fix the problem, because that would go against your narrative, that everybody must get stoned
"A gramme is always better than a damn".
That is my best retort all month but I'm going to spoil it with an explanation: you're brainlessly regurgitating propaganda. Opioids and amphetamines don't impair you any more than an Welbutrin would... You just have to compare the doses fairly (after all, one isn't terribly effective if one is having a mild seizure.)
Using the word "high" means you don't have a goddamn clue. It's a function of dose first and foremost, but also activity. If it's a mild-moderate dose and you're taking it in the context of functioning in your daily life, you don't perceive it as getting high. That's a social construct, that.
You might be tempted to substitute some other word for "high, but here's the fact of the matter: We have drugs that can severely impair thinking that are approved to treat depression (atypical antipsychotics), and we have drugs that can markedly improve thinking (amphetamines) that are evil, evil drugs that only bad people use.
Try as you might to differentiate the 'good' drugs from the 'bad', you will always, ALWAYS come back to the inescapable fact that the 'bad' drugs are so deemed because they are very effective. (And also because they tend to work fast and don't have an upper dose limit that prevents an "abuser" from obtaining high levels of euphoria.)
At least, that's the conclusion you'll inexorably meet if you're intellectually honest about it.
Also, I don't know what sort of 3rd world shithole you're living in to say this:
Poor in America. You have any idea how huge and expensive a hassle it is to find a doctor who offers a reasonable uninsured rate ($50 was nice but most are around $80 now), a ride there and to the pharmacy and then have to pay for the drugs? And if you're working, losing money for the time it takes to go to the doctor's office? Larger cities sometimes have free clinics, which are like one or days a month and are hellish.
It's a bit better under Obamacare insurance, except the doctors themselves are abysmally bad and suspicious of their patients.
Here, there is no cost for seeing a doctor, no cost for being referred to a psychiatrist, no cost for therapy sessions.
Fucking good for you. Is your country actually accepting post-Trump American refugees?
You're probably seeing things through the lens of your country's for profit private medical system
I suspect the efficacy of SSRIs is not dependent on latitude and longitude. Forgive my American chauvinism, but I also suspect that practices and popular medicines are often based on ours since we're a world leader in healthcare study and innovation (just not its practice.)
In fact, I strongly suspect quite the opposite: free access to healthcare probably greatly increases the appetite for placebos. Witness the clusterfuck of alternative medicine being paid for by the NHS, for example (or did they finally stop that shit?) The longer you spend tinkering around, the more time there is for a coincidence to suddenly convince you that you've stumbled on something that really works. Which isn't to say I'm for more restrictive healthcare but surely, you can't possibly expect me to believe that with all of the quackery Britain and much of the continent tolerates that they're somehow better judges of real medicine.
I'm less familiar with the Commonwealth but I suspect Canada and Australia aren't too dissimilar.
You're still reading from your script. My question is simple: what is human trafficking? Someone who enters the country illegally with help from someone else and is working as a prostitute? Uh, ok. That *alone* is an immigration issue. Nothing more. She's not a "victim" of *anything* unless she's been subject to threats or violence.
Are many of them threatened? I'm sure they are, but I suspect those statistics you're quoting do not make any such distinction. Furthermore, what is the nature of the threat? Physical? That's assault, and the person making the threat should be arrested.
Threatening to have her deported? Uh, if she's there illegally then she's there illegally... threatening to turn someone in for a crime might be considered blackmail or something, but that's nothing that warrants a new label of "human trafficking". By all means, offer asylum for the women and interviews to get the ones in abusive situations out of there (and the offenders arrested, hopefully), but by blanketly calling every illegal immigrant prostitute a victim of human trafficking (as I assume you're doing, but you're still very vague on this point), you are infantilizing women. If they choose to enter a country illegally and work as a prostitute, they are choosing to deal with the consequences.
That doesn't excuse any other crimes they may or may not be a victim of, nor does it mean deporting them is necessarily the moral thing to do, but the fundamental disagreement between us, I suspect, is that I am in favor of treating women as equals and responsible for their actions. And that necessarily demands that we don't automatically consider a woman a victim of anything just because she's here illegally working as a prostitute.
Insisting that women are always the victim doesn't just lead to more little girls growing up feeling powerless; it also allows genuine monsters to walk free.
Personally, I'd like to see a situation where no woman would feel pressured to be in prostitution or porn production, and no woman would be pressured to stay out of it either.
I'd like to see that too, but it's very important to not conflate pressure with crime. Let's make it easier for women to get away to shelters or something, fine. Beyond that... "Yes means yes", more or less. The infantalization of women doesn't help in the long run, partially because it lets them abrogate responsibility, but also because it's making the left look really stupid and hypocritical and fueling the right backlash.
I'm sure many guys aren't happy to be in porn ("gay for pay" is a real thing, by the way), but no one gives the tiniest shit about whether they ever feel any pressure.
Drugs are used to mitigate a lack of certain neurochemicals in the brain, a PHYSICAL condition
Except there's no good PHYSICAL evidence that modern antidepressants "mitigate" this in the sense of bring patient's neurotransmitter mixture closer to a 'normal', non-depressant brain. On top of this, SSRIs and SNRIs have very bad efficacy, with the granddaddy of them all (Prozac) having efficacy vs. depression so low that they can't be sure it's any better than a placebo.
The main issue is when MD's without psychiatric training started prescribing these drugs. "Try this and come back in two weeks" can work with a rash, but not with mental health.
No, that's exactly what needs to be done. Patients need to be told that all medicines that currently have on-label approval as antidepressants in all liklihood will not sufficiently help them, and the ones that stand a halfway decent chance of even partially helping them have a strong liklihood of severe side effects. They need to be clearly informed that this is a crapshoot and that their best chance at finding effective management is to keep moving on after each failure.
Finding the right drugs titrated at the right dosages requires direct interaction between patient and doctor, and probably therapy to understand the social and mental effects of the underlying physical issues.
Psychiatry isn't a science. It's proto-science. The only thing they can do that has the slightest bit of scientific backing is to issue their patients some questionnaires (the same exact ones used in studies) and prescribe based on that. And that's something GPs can do just as well as psychiatrists.
And sex-positive feminism has always existed, of course, but it wasn't something you often saw, at least in the mainstream face of feminism.
It wasn't the most important goal, but it fit seamlessly within the larger narrative. One caveat I could add is if you go back far enough, feminists were too busy with actual, explicit institutionalized sexism to bother having much of an opinion on pornography. (Also, if you go back to the days of suffragettes, hardcore porn was in fact illegal.)
Almost forgot: the other major reason for continuous treatment is to bolster the lie that SSRIs/SNRIs/Tricyclics/MAOIs/etc work by "correcting a neurotransmitter imbalance", i.e. by making your brain normal again. All of the tools we have at our disposal are ugly hacks, including SSRIs, but they really don't want to admit that. The FDA even allowed Zoloft (as I recall) to put out commercials basically advertising that it made you normal again.
That's backwards thinking, justification-after-the-fact. The real reason for continuous treatment is that's the only chance the SSRIs / SNRIs have of making even the slightest dent in anixety disorders (or other episodic disorders.) For anxiety specifically, benzos / nonbenzos work instantly, powerfully and on-demand, and if properly tapered off certainly do not "wreck havoc on your neurochemistry".
Few are ever this simple.
That might have something to do with the fact that all of popular modern psychiatry is built on the wild, incredible successes of a proven placebo, Prozac. (To be fair. it has non-placebo effects for anxiety. Unlike people suffering from depression, one out of five people suffering from panic attacks find it effective!)
There's every reason to suspect the efficacy of other SSRIs have been similarly overstated.
Rather, they pick from a smorgasbord of conditions.
Because the conditions are biased conjecture with a thin veneer of statistics smeared over it. Psychiatry isn't science. It's proto-science. The DSM V, as with the DSM IV before it, contains phrases like "except for religion." Any endeavor that makes explicit allowances for the lies and delusions of religion is by definition unscientific.
Don't lase me bro!
No, wait, that dude was white.
ANyone who says Christianity is any better either has their head up their ass, no knowledge of history, or is purposely trying to tar another religion out of their own sense of hatred. Seems like you're a mix of 1 and 3.
Spoken like a true anal-spelunker.
Everyone not falling over themselves to virtue signal realizes that Christianity is less of a problem in the world today. The IRA did not want to conquer the fucking world. They didn't want to convert, kill or subjugate all non-Catholics. They didn't want to restore Old Testament law or old canon laws. They didn't want to bring back official religious tolerance of or advocacy of slavery.
They just wanted 'the British' (who, as a different ethnic group, happened to be largely Protestant) out of northern Ireland. Now, you can rightfully disagree all day long about that goal or how they choose to pursue it, but drawing a line of equality or equivalence between this and the problems of Islamism and jihadism today is absurd to the point of disqualifying yourself from the debate entirely.
And through most of the last millenium Jews in the Muslim world had more freedom there than they did in Christian Europe
If you ever want to share your time machine with us, please let us know. The rest of us are stuck here in 2016, when the Jews are much safer in Berlin than they are in Islamic countries.
"Advocating" for genocide? No. They are (allegedly) recording something that happened to specific cities.
The difference is vital.... unless you think that talking about genocide against the "Amaleks" (a group of people that doesn't exist any more, and may well never have existed) is just as bad as talking about genocide against the unbelievers, the polytheists, and the Jews.
Talking about gleefully genociding imaginary people who supposedly lived thousands of years ago is not the same thing as talking about gleefully genociding billions of people who are alive in the world today. Not all Muslims take those verses literally, and sure there are plenty of hateful things in the Bible, but there is no equivalence with what you just wrote and what the Qu'ran has to say about non-Muslims.
(all porn, even software)
Fuck me... all porn, even softcore*.
Yes, it is a thing - a tiny one that no one really takes seriously because it has no chance of gaining any real traction, so everyone just accepts it and ignores it.
It's waned somewhat in the past ~15 years due to the internet making it an unrealistic goal, but from what I've seen it was the predominant form of feminism in the 90s and earlier. The standard argument is/was that porn (all porn, even software) encourages objectification and thus encourages men to rape. I'd be surprised if this ideology is "tiny"... diminished from its peak, sure (after all, they have to contend with the fact that virtually every man in the nation has access to the most depraved kinks imaginable for free and yet there hasn't been a corresponding meteoric rise in reported rapes), but it's definitely still around.