In many cases the rape is to be seen as a power play resulting in sex.
You can apply that to just about any crime. Tax evasion is about power, forcing your will over the government and beating the system, not about wanting to pay less money.. it just happens to result in paying less money on your taxes.
I'm sure it is true for some perpetrators but I wouldn't say "many" without some evidence, which I've never seen. I don't know how you'd even collect such evidence. How do you determine the "true" motivation for a crime? Ask the criminal and trust the answer? On the other hand we can look at statistics about victims of rape and see that there are patterns. I find it hard to reconcile those patterns with the theory that it's not sexually motivated.
To reach all my audience I would need to do that on every majour platform.
It is the same with messaging Apps
That's because these platforms are deliberately non-interoperable in an attempt to build their own market share. If the idealists in this thread got their way and people just said no, then we'd end up with a system more like email. My gmail account can email any other email account, no problem. Why can't messengers/calendars do the same? No technical reason.
I'm trying to understand your thought process, because to me they're obviously contractors and I don't understand the counterargument. You're saying that since they can't set their own prices, they're employees? But if they could set their own prices, they would be contractors? Does that mean you think that any employer that lets you negotiate your salary, and pays different employees different amounts, is actually not an employer? I'm not being snarky, I really don't get the opposing view.
You must be trolling, or confusing government innovation with innovation in general. There is obviously innovation in the American private sector, even if we restrict our view to transportation. Tesla, SpaceX, Hyperloop, Uber/Lyft, self-driving cars in general.
This is a cool idea. I disagree with those saying this is pointless... the point is they are sharing the energy supply burden rather than making each car keep its own energy supply via batteries. This means an all-electric car doesn't need a 200+ mile range, maybe it needs 50 miles, which would reduce costs quite a bit.
But you're still crazy if you think there's no innovation in America.
So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that you can be civil to black people individually, but you are also aware that they are inferior as a race.
That's what you understood? Why do you think your internal thought process is complex and subtle and entirely reasonable, but everybody else must be a raving idiot who sees the world in stark black and white? It's stupid.
I don't think blacks are inferior at all. You can't have a single "rating" of a race, or even of a single person because people aren't that simple.
You said you think the next generation is better than we were. I doubt that means you think an entire generation is superior, or inferior, or that it means every individual of a given generation is inferior or superior.
Well I suspect you're a racist too, in the same way I'm "racist" -- acknowledging statistical differences in large populations. I'm actually not racist at all on an individual level. To me it's an important distinction.
I'm curious what qualities you are seeing. I'm also curious what makes you so comfortable in calling one generation better than another. What do you say to people who say one race is better than another for qualities x, y, and z? To use the qualities you've listed so far, couldn't you say that one race is better educated than another, has more poise (very subjective), and is "more capable" (measured somehow)?
But do you not think that there might be some sort of a sampling bias in place?
For certain types of, yes. For others, no. I don't think murder rates are heavily affected by sampling bias, for instance.
I do not believe that blacks or other minorities are predisposed to committing crime.
I know how you feel, but let me ask this.. have you elevated idealism over rationality? Is there any evidence whatsoever that would convince you that blacks (or any group) are predisposed to committing crime? Speaking of "any group", don't you believe that men are more predisposed to committing violent crime than women, or that young people are more predisposed than old people? I would be surprised if you said no, so I'll go ahead and ask in that case what makes race so special?
Wealth is a strong deterrent to committing crime, however. The more you have to lose, the less incentive you have to commit crime.
And yet you just said most people commit a crime on a daily basis. I actually disagree with you, I think rich people are just as likely to commit crimes as others, perhaps even more so. Especially if you control for other factors like age and race. That said, it may also go back to what I said earlier and depend on the type of crime. I don't think rich people are running around murdering others at the same rate as poor people, but I wouldn't be surprised at all about drug use, prostitution, illegal pornography, cheating on taxes, etc.
So, folks who commit suicide aren't dead? Good to know. Or just not important? Irrelevant? Ignorable?
I think it's more that you're talking about a very small number of people. As individuals I'm sure somebody cares about them, but using suicides to inform policy that affects a large segment of the population (like increasing gun control) is stupid.
When guns are involved, they usually succeed.
But aren't guns everywhere in America? Something like a 40% household gun ownership rate? And yet of about 500k suicide attempts in a given year, about 45k of them succeed, half of those with guns. How do you explain that?
So firearms are used in about half of successful suicides, but around 5% of suicide attempts involve guns. How are you so sure that those 5% wouldn't try a different method and be successful at it? Here are some stats about suicide in Japan vs the US, btw: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Obviously you wouldn't call for a ban of trains or ropes, because you realize that the number of people affected is very large compared to the number of people who use trains or ropes for suicide. Why don't you see the same for guns?
They actually won't. The higher you make the barriers to someone offing themselves, the less likely they are to do it. Suicidal person walks out onto a bridge to discover there's a high barrier preventing them from jumping off? They're not terribly likely to walk to another bridge and try again.
But why do you care so much about suicide? Let's analyze your bridge example a bit more. Most people don't try to jump off a bridge for some non-suicidal reason (very few base jumpers as a percent of population, for instance), so putting barriers up doesn't affect them. But imagine if we said, people are jumping off bridges so let's just ban bridges entirely! Now you're impacting a large number of people who use the bridge, to save a small number of people from suicide. Nobody would support that. People don't care that much about suicide.
Having a firearm easily accessible greatly increases the probability that the person attempting suicide will succeed in their endeavour.
in what way is it the fault of social security being drawn down by the needy that is at fault for a shortfall: the trillions taken to "pay for" the bush era tax cuts are why the social security is not able to pay out.
Eh you're anon, but if you misunderstood maybe others did too. I didn't say there were too many needy people. I didn't say taxes weren't high enough, or were too high.
I said it wasn't invested well and earns a low rate of return. If it had been invested aggressively from the beginning, we would own a pretty large portion of the world. China would be working for our needy, rather than us borrowing from China. Germany and Japan's cars would be paying for our retirees.
I guess you don't understand how earning a return on investment works or something. A lot of people are ignorant about it.
There were a bunch of kids that might have otherwise been out slinging dope or gangbanging and they were doing their maker space thing
The kids who deal drugs and join gangs are still doing that. Don't be so naive that you think a small program has a large effect.
Don't worry about the kids. The current crop of young'ns is more capable, more poised and better educated than any of us were.
The "current crop" is not a monolithic block. Maybe your blissful ignorance is good for your blood pressure or something, in that case congratulations. Well I hope it's not too rude a shock to your system when reality sets in.
Having a sensible policy that gives people a chance to immigrate legally and fairly, managed so that it doesn't adversely affect people already there, is good for everyone.
And what if that's not possible? What if we have to choose who it should be good for and who it should be bad for?
The children of many illegals were born in American, and are American citizens.
Hopefully that will change one day. It's an artifact of the civil war and slavery, not a sane citizenship policy.
Even for children not born here, we are all better off with them in school and learning.
Nope, some of us are better off, but most of us suffer because of the decline in school quality as a disproportionate amount of resources are spent on things like ESL classes, the curriculum is dumbed down, and ridiculous amounts of time are wasted on testing and homework as we try to "figure out" why some groups (like very poor kids and kids who don't speak English) aren't keeping up.
For economy to keep growing you need more consumers.
No you don't, there are ways for economies to grow besides increasing the number of warm bodies. But it's really begging the question, because nobody wants absolute growth, they want per capita growth.
If the funds were allowed to "sit" there, how do you think they would grow with interest? Interest is earned when you take the funds and loan them out, which is what we've done. The problem really is that it doesn't earn much interest because it's invested in US debt, which pays very low interest rates (it's considered very safe).
What would have possibly solved the problem, if we could go back in time, is if the government had created a sovereign wealth fund and invested that money internationally. Same thing we do now, except higher risk which means higher return on average. Norway did that in the 90s and has one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world now. They own over 1% of the entire world's stocks which is pretty crazy if you think about how small Norway is (about 5 million people).
Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion. Unwelcome comments regarding a person's lifestyle choices and practices
Consider that someone says "Hey everyone I want to let you know that I'm not a man anymore, I'm a woman, and I'd like you to call me Jane instead of Joe! Thanks!"
Let's say that to me that's an unwelcome comment on that person's lifestyle choices. I don't want to hear about someone's sex change saga.
So I say, "Hey, I don't like hearing about that, your comments are unwelcome so keep them off of this discussion forum."
Now did I just point out a rule, so I'm right, or did I just make a comment that reinforces systemic oppression related to gender identity? How will it be handled?
Rhetorical question, we both know the answer. Like almost all sets of rules, there's nothing really wrong with this code of conduct, the problem lies in how they will inevitably be unfairly applied. People want consistency and fairness and these rules are *screaming* that there is no consistency and fairness, it's just biased towards the identity flavor of the day.
Slashdot Mirror
In many cases the rape is to be seen as a power play resulting in sex.
You can apply that to just about any crime. Tax evasion is about power, forcing your will over the government and beating the system, not about wanting to pay less money.. it just happens to result in paying less money on your taxes.
I'm sure it is true for some perpetrators but I wouldn't say "many" without some evidence, which I've never seen. I don't know how you'd even collect such evidence. How do you determine the "true" motivation for a crime? Ask the criminal and trust the answer? On the other hand we can look at statistics about victims of rape and see that there are patterns. I find it hard to reconcile those patterns with the theory that it's not sexually motivated.
In a capitalist consumer market there is nothing more meaningful than a boycott.
Stock ownership?
To reach all my audience I would need to do that on every majour platform.
It is the same with messaging Apps
That's because these platforms are deliberately non-interoperable in an attempt to build their own market share. If the idealists in this thread got their way and people just said no, then we'd end up with a system more like email. My gmail account can email any other email account, no problem. Why can't messengers/calendars do the same? No technical reason.
I'm trying to understand your thought process, because to me they're obviously contractors and I don't understand the counterargument. You're saying that since they can't set their own prices, they're employees? But if they could set their own prices, they would be contractors? Does that mean you think that any employer that lets you negotiate your salary, and pays different employees different amounts, is actually not an employer? I'm not being snarky, I really don't get the opposing view.
You must be trolling, or confusing government innovation with innovation in general. There is obviously innovation in the American private sector, even if we restrict our view to transportation. Tesla, SpaceX, Hyperloop, Uber/Lyft, self-driving cars in general.
This is a cool idea. I disagree with those saying this is pointless... the point is they are sharing the energy supply burden rather than making each car keep its own energy supply via batteries. This means an all-electric car doesn't need a 200+ mile range, maybe it needs 50 miles, which would reduce costs quite a bit.
But you're still crazy if you think there's no innovation in America.
So, if I understand correctly, you're saying that you can be civil to black people individually, but you are also aware that they are inferior as a race.
That's what you understood? Why do you think your internal thought process is complex and subtle and entirely reasonable, but everybody else must be a raving idiot who sees the world in stark black and white? It's stupid.
I don't think blacks are inferior at all. You can't have a single "rating" of a race, or even of a single person because people aren't that simple.
You said you think the next generation is better than we were. I doubt that means you think an entire generation is superior, or inferior, or that it means every individual of a given generation is inferior or superior.
Well I suspect you're a racist too, in the same way I'm "racist" -- acknowledging statistical differences in large populations. I'm actually not racist at all on an individual level. To me it's an important distinction.
I'm curious what qualities you are seeing. I'm also curious what makes you so comfortable in calling one generation better than another. What do you say to people who say one race is better than another for qualities x, y, and z? To use the qualities you've listed so far, couldn't you say that one race is better educated than another, has more poise (very subjective), and is "more capable" (measured somehow)?
But do you not think that there might be some sort of a sampling bias in place?
For certain types of, yes. For others, no. I don't think murder rates are heavily affected by sampling bias, for instance.
I do not believe that blacks or other minorities are predisposed to committing crime.
I know how you feel, but let me ask this.. have you elevated idealism over rationality? Is there any evidence whatsoever that would convince you that blacks (or any group) are predisposed to committing crime? Speaking of "any group", don't you believe that men are more predisposed to committing violent crime than women, or that young people are more predisposed than old people? I would be surprised if you said no, so I'll go ahead and ask in that case what makes race so special?
Wealth is a strong deterrent to committing crime, however. The more you have to lose, the less incentive you have to commit crime.
And yet you just said most people commit a crime on a daily basis. I actually disagree with you, I think rich people are just as likely to commit crimes as others, perhaps even more so. Especially if you control for other factors like age and race. That said, it may also go back to what I said earlier and depend on the type of crime. I don't think rich people are running around murdering others at the same rate as poor people, but I wouldn't be surprised at all about drug use, prostitution, illegal pornography, cheating on taxes, etc.
So, folks who commit suicide aren't dead? Good to know. Or just not important? Irrelevant? Ignorable?
I think it's more that you're talking about a very small number of people. As individuals I'm sure somebody cares about them, but using suicides to inform policy that affects a large segment of the population (like increasing gun control) is stupid.
When guns are involved, they usually succeed.
But aren't guns everywhere in America? Something like a 40% household gun ownership rate? And yet of about 500k suicide attempts in a given year, about 45k of them succeed, half of those with guns. How do you explain that?
So firearms are used in about half of successful suicides, but around 5% of suicide attempts involve guns. How are you so sure that those 5% wouldn't try a different method and be successful at it? Here are some stats about suicide in Japan vs the US, btw: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
Obviously you wouldn't call for a ban of trains or ropes, because you realize that the number of people affected is very large compared to the number of people who use trains or ropes for suicide. Why don't you see the same for guns?
They actually won't. The higher you make the barriers to someone offing themselves, the less likely they are to do it. Suicidal person walks out onto a bridge to discover there's a high barrier preventing them from jumping off? They're not terribly likely to walk to another bridge and try again.
But why do you care so much about suicide? Let's analyze your bridge example a bit more. Most people don't try to jump off a bridge for some non-suicidal reason (very few base jumpers as a percent of population, for instance), so putting barriers up doesn't affect them. But imagine if we said, people are jumping off bridges so let's just ban bridges entirely! Now you're impacting a large number of people who use the bridge, to save a small number of people from suicide. Nobody would support that. People don't care that much about suicide.
Having a firearm easily accessible greatly increases the probability that the person attempting suicide will succeed in their endeavour.
Doesn't seem to stop the Japanese https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
A gun death is a gun death, whether it's self inflicted, accidental, or intentional.
Well you just divided them into meaningful subcategories, so no.
But even if you were right, why not extend it and say a death is a death, and not get so worked up about the subcategory of gun deaths?
You realize those numbers include suicides? Do you really care that much about suicides?
and what do you think happens to a person when they get arrested for drug possession and get put on probation or spend a year or two in jail?
You tell me. Has NYC's crime rate gone up or down in the last 5 decades? Or are you claiming that's being manipulated as well?
in what way is it the fault of social security being drawn down by the needy that is at fault for a shortfall: the trillions taken to "pay for" the bush era tax cuts are why the social security is not able to pay out.
Eh you're anon, but if you misunderstood maybe others did too. I didn't say there were too many needy people. I didn't say taxes weren't high enough, or were too high.
I said it wasn't invested well and earns a low rate of return. If it had been invested aggressively from the beginning, we would own a pretty large portion of the world. China would be working for our needy, rather than us borrowing from China. Germany and Japan's cars would be paying for our retirees.
I guess you don't understand how earning a return on investment works or something. A lot of people are ignorant about it.
Grow the fuck up, moron.
Oh you got me! I'm the young naive one here lol.
You literally sound like a Nazi when you talk like that. Your grandfather would spit on you! Eliminate the diseases plaguing humanity!
You can't actually be this stupid, right?
There were a bunch of kids that might have otherwise been out slinging dope or gangbanging and they were doing their maker space thing
The kids who deal drugs and join gangs are still doing that. Don't be so naive that you think a small program has a large effect.
Don't worry about the kids. The current crop of young'ns is more capable, more poised and better educated than any of us were.
The "current crop" is not a monolithic block. Maybe your blissful ignorance is good for your blood pressure or something, in that case congratulations. Well I hope it's not too rude a shock to your system when reality sets in.
You sound an awful lot like a Nazi. Do you deserve death?
Having a sensible policy that gives people a chance to immigrate legally and fairly, managed so that it doesn't adversely affect people already there, is good for everyone.
And what if that's not possible? What if we have to choose who it should be good for and who it should be bad for?
The children of many illegals were born in American, and are American citizens.
Hopefully that will change one day. It's an artifact of the civil war and slavery, not a sane citizenship policy.
Even for children not born here, we are all better off with them in school and learning.
Nope, some of us are better off, but most of us suffer because of the decline in school quality as a disproportionate amount of resources are spent on things like ESL classes, the curriculum is dumbed down, and ridiculous amounts of time are wasted on testing and homework as we try to "figure out" why some groups (like very poor kids and kids who don't speak English) aren't keeping up.
You do understand that most people support their party because they think that party's platform is what's best for the country...
For economy to keep growing you need more consumers.
No you don't, there are ways for economies to grow besides increasing the number of warm bodies. But it's really begging the question, because nobody wants absolute growth, they want per capita growth.
What's the problem with sending dreamers home? Don't you think it would do their countries some good?
If the funds were allowed to "sit" there, how do you think they would grow with interest? Interest is earned when you take the funds and loan them out, which is what we've done. The problem really is that it doesn't earn much interest because it's invested in US debt, which pays very low interest rates (it's considered very safe).
What would have possibly solved the problem, if we could go back in time, is if the government had created a sovereign wealth fund and invested that money internationally. Same thing we do now, except higher risk which means higher return on average. Norway did that in the 90s and has one of the largest sovereign wealth funds in the world now. They own over 1% of the entire world's stocks which is pretty crazy if you think about how small Norway is (about 5 million people).
Well here's the question for me:
Comments that reinforce systemic oppression related to gender, gender identity and expression, sexual orientation, disability, mental illness, neurodiversity, physical appearance, body size, age, race, or religion. Unwelcome comments regarding a person's lifestyle choices and practices
Consider that someone says "Hey everyone I want to let you know that I'm not a man anymore, I'm a woman, and I'd like you to call me Jane instead of Joe! Thanks!"
Let's say that to me that's an unwelcome comment on that person's lifestyle choices. I don't want to hear about someone's sex change saga.
So I say, "Hey, I don't like hearing about that, your comments are unwelcome so keep them off of this discussion forum."
Now did I just point out a rule, so I'm right, or did I just make a comment that reinforces systemic oppression related to gender identity? How will it be handled?
Rhetorical question, we both know the answer. Like almost all sets of rules, there's nothing really wrong with this code of conduct, the problem lies in how they will inevitably be unfairly applied. People want consistency and fairness and these rules are *screaming* that there is no consistency and fairness, it's just biased towards the identity flavor of the day.
Why is it that a white guy like me
I don't believe you. Oh, maybe you meant you "identify" as a white guy, that's different though.