"A place where anyone can relax and be fully self-expressed, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, age, or physical or mental ability; a place where the rules guard each person's self-respect and dignity and strongly encourage everyone to respect others."
"The concept originated in the women's movement, where it "implies a certain license to speak and act freely, form collective strength, and generate strategies for resistance...a means rather than an end and not only a physical space but also a space created by the coming together of women searching for community.""
So, a place where boys can be fully self-expressed... that means if they want to openly talk about how mean girls are for rejecting them, or talk about how useless girls are because they don't know math and can't code, or whatever... they can do that without feeling uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe. They can speak and act freely. They can form collective strength (meaning... boys against girls). They can generate strategies for resistance, which could be political or social... so stuff like talking about how women "trap" men with pregnancy or rape accusations.
You think that sounds crazy? I've seen safe spaces for women and LGBT people, and yes, absolutely fucking crazy things are said there. But that's what it is.
Correct. However, as I already pointed out, boys have a safe space. It's the class where there was only one girl and some unknown number of boys.
No, that's not a safe space for boys. They still will get in trouble for doing/discussing things that offend the one girl. Even if there are NO girls in a given camp, it's likely that the material was created with at least the possibility of girls being present. Not so for the girls camp.
Look, if you want segregated camps, then segregate them. That's fine. Segregated camps (or schools) work well.
But learn what the word means. If one camp allows girls and the other camp allows girls, then it's not segregated by gender.
Segregated camps are a great idea, but these camps aren't segregated. The camp that is not a girl camp still has to accept girls, which means they still have to make it a welcoming atmosphere for girls. The girls camp does not have to make it a welcoming atmosphere for boys.
Nonsense. The US spends over $600 billions/year on military. China spends only 216 and Russia 84. The US could still have the most powerful military on earth while cutting the budget by half.
Annual spending and military strength is related, but not directly.
The US could cut the military budget quite a bit, but since we still have all the old equipment we'd still have the most powerful military. For a while.
You could just overlap the circles. Have the "kitten pictures" circle if you like. Or make one giant circle instead.
I know you *could* but I think the culture on Google+ is such that that would be aberrant behavior. If I started posting kitten pics to my one giant circle, people would rightly say "Why are you posting kitten pics, I only know you from this game we both play, I don't want to see that crap." Because they have an expectation that I'm going to make use of the circles and segregate my posts. Circles are a key feature of Google+, and if I don't want to use them, I should go to Facebook.
On Facebook that culture doesn't exist. I've heard it's possible to do (friend lists?), but I honestly haven't even checked out the features enough to know. I just know that everybody posts things for everybody to see, and so people expect that. If some work colleague adds me, they KNOW they are signing up to see kitten pics and whatever other random stuff I post.
Also, even if I broke the mold and started sharing everything with everyone on Google+, that's only half the story. Others would have to start doing it to, otherwise the benefit I'm looking for (seeing more stuff about other people) wouldn't ever come about.
Google+ just isn't designed to share as much as Facebook. You limit who you share stuff with, therefore you share less overall. That's a fairly obvious result of what I think was a short-sighted design goal... designing a social network where the expected behavior is to share LESS... that just doesn't make sense.
Actually, pedantically, that's not clear. The KKK for example is a bastion of old, white, hateful assholes. It's not racist to point that out.
They were referring to Slashdot, not the KKK. That is what makes it racist.
In fact if you're going to level an accusation of "racist", it's best to state the acused's race as that generally indicates where and importantly where not their bigotry will be directed.
Honestly I don't know if you're referring to me or the person I called racist.
If you're referring to the other person, they didn't actually call slashdot racist.. so I guess you must be referring to me?
If you're referring to me, how am I to know that person's race? And in any case I don't think it's necessary to identify the accused's race to call something out as racist.
I see what it's directed at, but it still makes very little sense.
What doesn't make sense to you? The general principle is coherent... if a group of people is demonized unfairly, then they have little to lose by engaging in the negative behaviors expected of them. They are already judged. (Barring when there's a third, neutral system at play, like the law... if your group is unfairly demonized as rapists, it obviously hurts you to go out and rape people and then be punished for it, compared to just having people think you *might* want to rape people.)
You may not agree with that, but at least the concept should make sense to you and should sound pretty familiar... I've heard it many times myself.
This article (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150803_Should_hitchBOT_live_on_.html) describes them as "Two Philadelphia-area pranksters with millions of online followers"
If their pranks involve filming themselves vandalizing things, is it really inaccurate to describe them as part of thug culture? If not in their day-to-day lives, at least their online personas?
The article also includes a quote from one of them: ""Cops tryin to blame Always Teste," Bassmaster tweeted earlier today."
What SJWs don't understand, along with many other people is your post which seems to be a long, angry undirected rant at I'm not sure what precisely.
It's directed at the person who said, "It's probably that the comments offer nothing of value, having become the bastion of old white hateful assholes." Clearly an anti-white racist who deservedly got smacked down.
Now do you understand, or at least see who/what the post was directed at?
I agree. the circles concept proved to be useless to me for how I use social media, and probably filtered quite a bit of my experience on Plus.
When I signed up, I categorized contacts into appropriate circles, like family, friends, work, and acquaintances. But it turns out, once people are categorized like that, I shared fewer things with fewer people. I'm not going to post a picture of my cat and consciously decide, yes I want my coworkers to see this. So I don't share it to that circle.
Well when you stop sharing as much with as many people, and they do the same thing, it turns out that you don't see a whole lot of what's going on. When my friend started posting kid pics to the family circle, that means I didn't get to see the kid pics, which also generally includes commentary on non-kid stuff, like "oh look we're on vacation in blah, doing blah."
On Facebook, when you share something it generally goes to all your friends. Even that girl from high school you added because it was cool back then to add everyone to try to get the highest friend count. So she gets to see when I visit some new restaurant, and I get to see when she got married.
That is awesome. I like it a lot.
You know what else is cool? I've played a handful of Facebook games in my day, and many of those games give you bonuses for referrals, so there are are discussion threads where people are just randomly posting referrals that require you to add them as friends. So now I have "friends" all over the world. There's a guy from Nigeria who is depressed that his girlfriend dumped him. There's a guy from Sri Lanka who is a big cricket fan, and I've actually watched some cricket (the last world cup) and it's pretty cool. There's a girl from England who lives in a cool looking village that she complains about a lot. There's some chick who seems to have become unbelievably successful with her MLM business in the last 2-3 years, and is some kind of regional director now. She drives a Mercedes.
Again, that is awesome. How do I get that on Google Plus where (and yes I've done this) you just create a circle for people you don't care about (I had/have one for Ingress) and never share anything off-topic there?
Exactly, but the Islamic terrorists are already doing that. The question is, why does it serve our interests for OUR government to protect ISIS by stopping OUR people from attacking or defrauding them?
Umm no, not if they are seen as oppressing Muslims. Then they are enemies. How do you think Mohammed justified going to war against Jewish tribes -- aka people of the book.
Even if they are not oppressing Muslims, but just seen as being too "uppity" they become targets. That's why jizya was prescribed to be collected in a humiliating way.. in the Ottoman Empire, Christians would be slapped and cajoled by a crowd as they lined up to pay their jizya. These are also people of the book.
I don't understand why you're calling them heretics. That means someone engaging in heresy. Heresy is a belief or action that is fundamentally opposed to the commonly held beliefs of a religion, taken as legitimate for that religion. For instance, if a Christian were to say "Well, Jesus was not the son of God, I think the Bible really says that he was a regular guy who did so and so with God's help" that is heresy because you are attempting to redefine Christianity.
Calling fundamentalism heretical doesn't really make sense in general.
Wow I'm surprised we're ranked that highly. I didn't expect that we'd be above France and Germany.
But anyway, with all the gigabit projects going on now it seems like the "more competitive option" has come. Basically it took one company to not play along (Google), then another company to get scared and react (AT&T), and now everybody's jumping in.
That's a great idea, and I'd add a p2p element so the aggregate bandwidth going through interconnections is also reduced. (Simpler than hoping for widespread multicast support.)
If I could donate 5mbps outgoing to Netflix to act as a seed node for others in my area for a reduction in my bill, I'd do that.
Why is that the ideal solution? It seems like we're starting to get some traction with plain old competition from Google Fiber, AT&T Gigapower, Time Warner MAXX, Comcast's 2Gbps thing (don't recall the name), etc. We didn't need government owned infrastructure to do that...
And frankly, if the government owned it I'm not sure these types of upgrades would have been any faster. If the reason it's faster is something like "they can do it via eminent domain and bypassing their own rules and regulations" then that's pretty much bullshit.
Tell me, how much does it cost to call someone 30, 50, or 100 miles away now? Oh wait, it is $0 a min. All from regulating Ma-Bell and having the markets opened.
No, I think that's a result of competition from the internet/data networks. When Ma Bell was broken up into regional Bells, there were still high long distance fees. And yes I do remember that.
Cell phones with extremely high monthly costs, so high that providing long distance was an "eh why not" for the companies involved, sealed the deal. And they drove down costs by using data networks to carry voice. Packet switching vs dedicated lines made a big difference.
The thing is, they aren't selling you X mbps guaranteed for every end to end connection. That's impossible of course. I'm curious if during this 8pm-10pm window, users can still get their X mbps in aggregate by downloading from many providers in parallel. If so it doesn't sound like a problem, more like a reality of how networks work. If the throttling is based on content, such as movies downloaded from this GTT CDN are throttled but random zip files downloaded from the same servers are going at full speed, that would be bad.
In your gas station analogy, it is running low on gas and each pump can only deliver 5 gallons. Using 2 pumps will let you get what you paid for, so it should be okay.
When salaries are as high as they are in medicine and in the administrative ranks of charities then I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about "non-profit" vs "for profit." Who cares whether they pay dividends to shareholders or whether they pay out their excess money as 6-7 figure salaries?
It's hilarious that you've deluded yourself into believing that your desperate little attempts at changing the topic
You should reflect more.
Here, have a reality check: unlike you with your pitiable fixation on selective quoting
Selective quoting.. ahh.. the bane of idiots who say one thing, mean something else, stick fervently to it, and pretend that's what they originally said. Oh no, now he quoted me! The bastard!
the literally life-and-death issue of the recent rise in entirely preventable diseases killing people, traceable to the equally the recent impact of antivaxxer lunacy on public health.
You're seriously an idiot. You can't distinguish between what the article is about, what the "whole page" is about, and what an individual thread is about.
No more food for you from me. Toddle off back under your bridge and starve.
Ohhhh burn!
You sound so stupid it's unbelievable. The weirdest part though is how you're pretending that you know me.
But anyway, I'm glad you're not going to "feed" me any more dumb comments. Hopefully.
Oh shit here comes another reply accusing me of quoting you, and changing the topic!
Oh my, do you need a nap? That might explain your nonsensical reply to me.
All of which is why I said almost every other case.
Yes, you did, and that's wrong. That's why I replied to you. Virtually every case has effects that go beyond the kids.
none of your three Ever-So-Significant points are the direct causes of otherwise perfectly preventable deaths.
Oh I get it now. You're an idiot! You should have just said so.
You said "the bad effects of bad parenting stop with the kids." No mention of preventable death. The person you replied to was talking about demonstrable harm to children... again, not preventable death, just harm.
Now why are you pretending that you meant to narrow it from demonstrable harm to preventable death? Do you think that helps your argument? If you restrict the type of bad parenting we're talking about to "things that kill" then you're getting ludicrously incorrect on two fronts instead of one.
First of all, bad parenting that kills children is far more likely to have effects that go beyond the immediate death of the child. So rather than "almost every other case" not having further effects, it is "almost every other case has tremendous effects on others." I mean you really can't get more wrong that you are now with your historical revision.
Secondly, if we're talking about actual death instead of just harm or "bad effects" then anti-vaxxers pretty much drop off the map. Dying from easily preventable disease is very low on the list of stuff that kills kids. First they have to get the disease, which is still rare. Then they have die from the disease, which is also rare. Even in our rather crazy anti-vaxxer country, how many kids from that big measles outbreak in Disneyland? In the meantime, how many have died from, say, homicide -- which, in children, is often related to bad parenting?
Since you seem to need this spelled out too, we weren't discussing people who can't get vaccinated, we were discussing people who can get vaccinated but who are idiotic enough to refuse.
This is just sad.
You said the problem is little sacks of disease walking around. And I agree.
But you seem to not understand that the reason they aren't vaccinated doesn't actually make a difference in terms of their being out there walking around potentially spreading disease.
You are a demonstrated idiot, so let me spell it out a little more. It doesn't matter if it's a religious objection, an allergy, or a vaccine that just didn't work for that person -- the person is still a little sack of disease walking around, and that's a problem.
Now perhaps what you meant was the moral problem of people who intentionally endanger others. But that's not what you said. Do try to keep up with your own posts.
Got any other nits to pick
I enjoy putting people in their place when they talk a bunch of nonsense while trying to sound clever. So if you want to put forward another stupid comment, I'll be happy to reply!
or would you like to try staying vaguely on-topic for once, instead of these pathetic attempts at derailing?
I don't get it, is this some type of ironic humor? My post wasn't off topic, but attempting to derail the conversation by claiming that I derail conversations.. it's kind of funny, but also not funny. I think it's probably just you being an idiot again.
In almost every other case, the bad effects of bad parenting stop with the kids.
Are you kidding???
1. Badly parented kids can become bad parents themselves, affecting the next generation 2. Your badly parented kids may be in my kid's classroom, seeking negative attention 3. Speaking specifically of health concerns that GP brought up, your badly parented kid who is exposed to second hand smoke makes my health insurance premiums go up
There's very little you do that doesn't affect other people.
But in this case, their precious little walking sacks of infection can toddle off outside of home septic home and spread their diseases far and wide.
And if you don't think that's a problem that needs solving, you don't think at all.
Hmm so how do you propose solving the problem of kids who can't get vaccinated because they are allergic, or have some immunologic disorder?
Are they somehow less of a problem, even though they are also little walking sacks of infection who can spread their diseases far and wide?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"A place where anyone can relax and be fully self-expressed, without fear of being made to feel uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe on account of biological sex, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, cultural background, age, or physical or mental ability; a place where the rules guard each person's self-respect and dignity and strongly encourage everyone to respect others."
"The concept originated in the women's movement, where it "implies a certain license to speak and act freely, form collective strength, and generate strategies for resistance...a means rather than an end and not only a physical space but also a space created by the coming together of women searching for community.""
So, a place where boys can be fully self-expressed... that means if they want to openly talk about how mean girls are for rejecting them, or talk about how useless girls are because they don't know math and can't code, or whatever... they can do that without feeling uncomfortable, unwelcome, or unsafe. They can speak and act freely. They can form collective strength (meaning... boys against girls). They can generate strategies for resistance, which could be political or social... so stuff like talking about how women "trap" men with pregnancy or rape accusations.
You think that sounds crazy? I've seen safe spaces for women and LGBT people, and yes, absolutely fucking crazy things are said there. But that's what it is.
No, that's not a safe space for boys. They still will get in trouble for doing/discussing things that offend the one girl. Even if there are NO girls in a given camp, it's likely that the material was created with at least the possibility of girls being present. Not so for the girls camp.
Look, if you want segregated camps, then segregate them. That's fine. Segregated camps (or schools) work well.
But learn what the word means. If one camp allows girls and the other camp allows girls, then it's not segregated by gender.
Segregated camps are a great idea, but these camps aren't segregated. The camp that is not a girl camp still has to accept girls, which means they still have to make it a welcoming atmosphere for girls. The girls camp does not have to make it a welcoming atmosphere for boys.
then inconveniencing a few hundred million people is worth saving tens of thousands of lives, yes?
So let's ban driving.
You're not taking into account different degrees of inconvenience. I'm shocked that you're at +5 right now.
Nonsense. The US spends over $600 billions/year on military. China spends only 216 and Russia 84. The US could still have the most powerful military on earth while cutting the budget by half.
Annual spending and military strength is related, but not directly.
The US could cut the military budget quite a bit, but since we still have all the old equipment we'd still have the most powerful military. For a while.
We pay a high price to stay ahead for the future.
You could just overlap the circles. Have the "kitten pictures" circle if you like. Or make one giant circle instead.
I know you *could* but I think the culture on Google+ is such that that would be aberrant behavior. If I started posting kitten pics to my one giant circle, people would rightly say "Why are you posting kitten pics, I only know you from this game we both play, I don't want to see that crap." Because they have an expectation that I'm going to make use of the circles and segregate my posts. Circles are a key feature of Google+, and if I don't want to use them, I should go to Facebook.
On Facebook that culture doesn't exist. I've heard it's possible to do (friend lists?), but I honestly haven't even checked out the features enough to know. I just know that everybody posts things for everybody to see, and so people expect that. If some work colleague adds me, they KNOW they are signing up to see kitten pics and whatever other random stuff I post.
Also, even if I broke the mold and started sharing everything with everyone on Google+, that's only half the story. Others would have to start doing it to, otherwise the benefit I'm looking for (seeing more stuff about other people) wouldn't ever come about.
Google+ just isn't designed to share as much as Facebook. You limit who you share stuff with, therefore you share less overall. That's a fairly obvious result of what I think was a short-sighted design goal... designing a social network where the expected behavior is to share LESS... that just doesn't make sense.
Actually, pedantically, that's not clear. The KKK for example is a bastion of old, white, hateful assholes. It's not racist to point that out.
They were referring to Slashdot, not the KKK. That is what makes it racist.
In fact if you're going to level an accusation of "racist", it's best to state the acused's race as that generally indicates where and importantly where not their bigotry will be directed.
Honestly I don't know if you're referring to me or the person I called racist.
If you're referring to the other person, they didn't actually call slashdot racist.. so I guess you must be referring to me?
If you're referring to me, how am I to know that person's race? And in any case I don't think it's necessary to identify the accused's race to call something out as racist.
I see what it's directed at, but it still makes very little sense.
What doesn't make sense to you? The general principle is coherent... if a group of people is demonized unfairly, then they have little to lose by engaging in the negative behaviors expected of them. They are already judged. (Barring when there's a third, neutral system at play, like the law... if your group is unfairly demonized as rapists, it obviously hurts you to go out and rape people and then be punished for it, compared to just having people think you *might* want to rape people.)
You may not agree with that, but at least the concept should make sense to you and should sound pretty familiar... I've heard it many times myself.
This article (http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20150803_Should_hitchBOT_live_on_.html) describes them as "Two Philadelphia-area pranksters with millions of online followers"
If their pranks involve filming themselves vandalizing things, is it really inaccurate to describe them as part of thug culture? If not in their day-to-day lives, at least their online personas?
The article also includes a quote from one of them: ""Cops tryin to blame Always Teste," Bassmaster tweeted earlier today."
That sounds pretty thuggy.
What SJWs don't understand, along with many other people is your post which seems to be a long, angry undirected rant at I'm not sure what precisely.
It's directed at the person who said, "It's probably that the comments offer nothing of value, having become the bastion of old white hateful assholes." Clearly an anti-white racist who deservedly got smacked down.
Now do you understand, or at least see who/what the post was directed at?
I agree. the circles concept proved to be useless to me for how I use social media, and probably filtered quite a bit of my experience on Plus.
When I signed up, I categorized contacts into appropriate circles, like family, friends, work, and acquaintances. But it turns out, once people are categorized like that, I shared fewer things with fewer people. I'm not going to post a picture of my cat and consciously decide, yes I want my coworkers to see this. So I don't share it to that circle.
Well when you stop sharing as much with as many people, and they do the same thing, it turns out that you don't see a whole lot of what's going on. When my friend started posting kid pics to the family circle, that means I didn't get to see the kid pics, which also generally includes commentary on non-kid stuff, like "oh look we're on vacation in blah, doing blah."
On Facebook, when you share something it generally goes to all your friends. Even that girl from high school you added because it was cool back then to add everyone to try to get the highest friend count. So she gets to see when I visit some new restaurant, and I get to see when she got married.
That is awesome. I like it a lot.
You know what else is cool? I've played a handful of Facebook games in my day, and many of those games give you bonuses for referrals, so there are are discussion threads where people are just randomly posting referrals that require you to add them as friends. So now I have "friends" all over the world. There's a guy from Nigeria who is depressed that his girlfriend dumped him. There's a guy from Sri Lanka who is a big cricket fan, and I've actually watched some cricket (the last world cup) and it's pretty cool. There's a girl from England who lives in a cool looking village that she complains about a lot. There's some chick who seems to have become unbelievably successful with her MLM business in the last 2-3 years, and is some kind of regional director now. She drives a Mercedes.
Again, that is awesome. How do I get that on Google Plus where (and yes I've done this) you just create a circle for people you don't care about (I had/have one for Ingress) and never share anything off-topic there?
Now that would be interesting. If we could give a refundable tax credit for NOT voting, I think that would work wonders.
So the government should issue letters of marque against terrorist groups.
Exactly, but the Islamic terrorists are already doing that. The question is, why does it serve our interests for OUR government to protect ISIS by stopping OUR people from attacking or defrauding them?
Well, Peter Capaldi happened.
(Sorry, just not a fan)
Islam honours all those as "believers".
Umm no, not if they are seen as oppressing Muslims. Then they are enemies. How do you think Mohammed justified going to war against Jewish tribes -- aka people of the book.
Even if they are not oppressing Muslims, but just seen as being too "uppity" they become targets. That's why jizya was prescribed to be collected in a humiliating way.. in the Ottoman Empire, Christians would be slapped and cajoled by a crowd as they lined up to pay their jizya. These are also people of the book.
So no.
I don't understand why you're calling them heretics. That means someone engaging in heresy. Heresy is a belief or action that is fundamentally opposed to the commonly held beliefs of a religion, taken as legitimate for that religion. For instance, if a Christian were to say "Well, Jesus was not the son of God, I think the Bible really says that he was a regular guy who did so and so with God's help" that is heresy because you are attempting to redefine Christianity.
Calling fundamentalism heretical doesn't really make sense in general.
Wow I'm surprised we're ranked that highly. I didn't expect that we'd be above France and Germany.
But anyway, with all the gigabit projects going on now it seems like the "more competitive option" has come. Basically it took one company to not play along (Google), then another company to get scared and react (AT&T), and now everybody's jumping in.
That's a great idea, and I'd add a p2p element so the aggregate bandwidth going through interconnections is also reduced. (Simpler than hoping for widespread multicast support.)
If I could donate 5mbps outgoing to Netflix to act as a seed node for others in my area for a reduction in my bill, I'd do that.
Why is that the ideal solution? It seems like we're starting to get some traction with plain old competition from Google Fiber, AT&T Gigapower, Time Warner MAXX, Comcast's 2Gbps thing (don't recall the name), etc. We didn't need government owned infrastructure to do that...
And frankly, if the government owned it I'm not sure these types of upgrades would have been any faster. If the reason it's faster is something like "they can do it via eminent domain and bypassing their own rules and regulations" then that's pretty much bullshit.
Tell me, how much does it cost to call someone 30, 50, or 100 miles away now? Oh wait, it is $0 a min. All from regulating Ma-Bell and having the markets opened.
No, I think that's a result of competition from the internet/data networks. When Ma Bell was broken up into regional Bells, there were still high long distance fees. And yes I do remember that.
Cell phones with extremely high monthly costs, so high that providing long distance was an "eh why not" for the companies involved, sealed the deal. And they drove down costs by using data networks to carry voice. Packet switching vs dedicated lines made a big difference.
The thing is, they aren't selling you X mbps guaranteed for every end to end connection. That's impossible of course. I'm curious if during this 8pm-10pm window, users can still get their X mbps in aggregate by downloading from many providers in parallel. If so it doesn't sound like a problem, more like a reality of how networks work. If the throttling is based on content, such as movies downloaded from this GTT CDN are throttled but random zip files downloaded from the same servers are going at full speed, that would be bad.
In your gas station analogy, it is running low on gas and each pump can only deliver 5 gallons. Using 2 pumps will let you get what you paid for, so it should be okay.
When salaries are as high as they are in medicine and in the administrative ranks of charities then I'm not sure it makes sense to talk about "non-profit" vs "for profit." Who cares whether they pay dividends to shareholders or whether they pay out their excess money as 6-7 figure salaries?
It's hilarious that you've deluded yourself into believing that your desperate little attempts at changing the topic
You should reflect more.
Here, have a reality check: unlike you with your pitiable fixation on selective quoting
Selective quoting.. ahh.. the bane of idiots who say one thing, mean something else, stick fervently to it, and pretend that's what they originally said. Oh no, now he quoted me! The bastard!
the literally life-and-death issue of the recent rise in entirely preventable diseases killing people, traceable to the equally the recent impact of antivaxxer lunacy on public health.
You're seriously an idiot. You can't distinguish between what the article is about, what the "whole page" is about, and what an individual thread is about.
No more food for you from me. Toddle off back under your bridge and starve.
Ohhhh burn!
You sound so stupid it's unbelievable. The weirdest part though is how you're pretending that you know me.
But anyway, I'm glad you're not going to "feed" me any more dumb comments. Hopefully.
Oh shit here comes another reply accusing me of quoting you, and changing the topic!
*yawn*
Oh my, do you need a nap? That might explain your nonsensical reply to me.
All of which is why I said almost every other case.
Yes, you did, and that's wrong. That's why I replied to you. Virtually every case has effects that go beyond the kids.
none of your three Ever-So-Significant points are the direct causes of otherwise perfectly preventable deaths.
Oh I get it now. You're an idiot! You should have just said so.
You said "the bad effects of bad parenting stop with the kids." No mention of preventable death. The person you replied to was talking about demonstrable harm to children... again, not preventable death, just harm.
Now why are you pretending that you meant to narrow it from demonstrable harm to preventable death? Do you think that helps your argument? If you restrict the type of bad parenting we're talking about to "things that kill" then you're getting ludicrously incorrect on two fronts instead of one.
First of all, bad parenting that kills children is far more likely to have effects that go beyond the immediate death of the child. So rather than "almost every other case" not having further effects, it is "almost every other case has tremendous effects on others." I mean you really can't get more wrong that you are now with your historical revision.
Secondly, if we're talking about actual death instead of just harm or "bad effects" then anti-vaxxers pretty much drop off the map. Dying from easily preventable disease is very low on the list of stuff that kills kids. First they have to get the disease, which is still rare. Then they have die from the disease, which is also rare. Even in our rather crazy anti-vaxxer country, how many kids from that big measles outbreak in Disneyland? In the meantime, how many have died from, say, homicide -- which, in children, is often related to bad parenting?
Since you seem to need this spelled out too, we weren't discussing people who can't get vaccinated, we were discussing people who can get vaccinated but who are idiotic enough to refuse.
This is just sad.
You said the problem is little sacks of disease walking around. And I agree.
But you seem to not understand that the reason they aren't vaccinated doesn't actually make a difference in terms of their being out there walking around potentially spreading disease.
You are a demonstrated idiot, so let me spell it out a little more. It doesn't matter if it's a religious objection, an allergy, or a vaccine that just didn't work for that person -- the person is still a little sack of disease walking around, and that's a problem.
Now perhaps what you meant was the moral problem of people who intentionally endanger others. But that's not what you said. Do try to keep up with your own posts.
Got any other nits to pick
I enjoy putting people in their place when they talk a bunch of nonsense while trying to sound clever. So if you want to put forward another stupid comment, I'll be happy to reply!
or would you like to try staying vaguely on-topic for once, instead of these pathetic attempts at derailing?
I don't get it, is this some type of ironic humor? My post wasn't off topic, but attempting to derail the conversation by claiming that I derail conversations.. it's kind of funny, but also not funny. I think it's probably just you being an idiot again.
In almost every other case, the bad effects of bad parenting stop with the kids.
Are you kidding???
1. Badly parented kids can become bad parents themselves, affecting the next generation
2. Your badly parented kids may be in my kid's classroom, seeking negative attention
3. Speaking specifically of health concerns that GP brought up, your badly parented kid who is exposed to second hand smoke makes my health insurance premiums go up
There's very little you do that doesn't affect other people.
But in this case, their precious little walking sacks of infection can toddle off outside of home septic home and spread their diseases far and wide.
And if you don't think that's a problem that needs solving, you don't think at all.
Hmm so how do you propose solving the problem of kids who can't get vaccinated because they are allergic, or have some immunologic disorder?
Are they somehow less of a problem, even though they are also little walking sacks of infection who can spread their diseases far and wide?