People tend to trust the things they've seen, even when they know better, and even if they see a contradictory video. When I release the video of you doing those things, it's likely to permanently damage your reputation.
You've gotta watch out though. There's a really bright thing that you don't want to look directly at. There's other dangers, also, like wolverines and pigeons.
This is why Atheists are generally disgruntled Theists who are simply against what they used to be a member of, and probably still believe much of. Often they're actually cryptotheists who simply believe that the churches are full of liars, but actually do believe in the root metaphysics.
This is not the case for any atheist I've known, heard about, or read about. People who believe in God but not churches or organized religions or whatever are not atheists in any sense of the word I've seen. Most atheists want to be left alone to not practice religion in peace, and only get outspoken and militant when that's not an option.
Now, Bertrand Russell claimed to find a difference between the thinking of ex-Catholic atheists and ex-Protestant atheists, but in neither case were they cryptotheists.
A look at a few statistics shows that the majority of the world population is seriously wrong about religion. Divide the population into Christians, Muslims, and others. None of these three is a majority of the population. Christians and Muslims have distinct beliefs that conflict.
You have nothing to lose and everything to gain by belief in a higher power.
Which higher power? God as defined by the Christians? Muslims? Jews? Jupiter? the Tao? the Buddha? the Flying Spaghetti Monster? the US Supreme Court (I'm fairly certain that exists, actually)?
Suppose there is a God, and God values intellectual honesty. Everyone who mostly tries to believe what is true goes to Heaven, and everyone who deliberately distorts their beliefs for possible gain goes to Hell?
If we go back to Pascal (you're echoing Pascal's Wager), we find that he did not believe there was a proof of God's existence, and therefore had respect for atheists. He believed that, once you admit God exists, it logically follows that his particular brand of Catholicism is true, for no reason I've ever found, so he didn't respect the Orthodox or the Jews or the Muslims or heretics. The wager only makes sense with a dichotomy like that.
Seriously, if you convince yourself that there is a God just in order to reap possible benefits, you're screwing up your karma and your following reincarnations. Or something.
You seem to have drifted topic between "The idea that "people feel they can't say no" and that is the problem of the pursuer rather than the pursued is ludicrous." and now. I'm arguing that a pursuer (probably a man) cannot set up responsibility for a pursued (probably a woman) without previous agreement.
No I am not. I am proposing to isolate men from women. There is a big difference.
OK, I'm curious. What's the difference between isolating women from men and men from women? In either case, we're talking very restricted contact between men and women.
Letting everyone buy the insurance they need means that it's far too expensive for a sick person to buy insurance. If the whole population is the insurance pool, then there's plenty of healthy people to counterbalance the sick. (Remember that you can become one of the "sick ones" at any time despite whatever precautions you take.) The ACA fostered competition through the marketplaces, where insurance companies would offer roughly equivalent policies for the premiums they thought good.
Also, single payer doesn't mean single source. Many countries with some sort of single payer have both private and public providers.
So, you're saying that we pay about half again as much per capita as any European health care systems, but the results aren't as much worse as it looks.
If you require insurance companies to offer plans that cover pre-existing conditions, then either they're working with a very large insurance pool that includes a lot of healthy people, or the premiums are going to be sky-high. The phenomenon of only sick people getting insurance is "adverse selection". Therefore, by mandating that everyone have health insurance (and providing financial aid so everyone can afford it), and having a marketplace, insurance costs are kept down.
Removing the mandate means that people with pre-existing conditions will not be able to afford insurance.
Health care is at least moderately complicated, and what's obvious may not be good.
Sure, and my limited experience is that sex in a loving relationship is better. Lots of people seem to think that way. I don't know if that would apply to you, but it might be worth trying.
I have a perfect right to look at evidence, according to my own interpretations, and decide whether someone is probably guilty as accused or not. I have to act on tons of things without adequate information. The yearbook in question was not forged. The woman in question (I don't remember her name) had put in a few details after Moore's signature, to note when he signed it. I find it disturbing that Moore lied like that when denying an accusation.
What I do know is that Moore is known to stalk teenage women, and has been banned from a mall for that. That seems like an excellent reason not to vote for the man.
I normally vote Democrat, but the party doesn't do that great a job of representing me. (It's far better than the Republicans at that.) I'm the sort of guy who looks at Bernie Sanders' program and considers it a very good start.
That doesn't mean that everything I type should be disregarded as the rantings of a left-wing loon, since I try to evaluate things on their merits.
In this case, I was (perhaps foolishly) replying to someone who looked at everything in the absolute worst light for Franken, and I pointed that out. From that point of view, absolutely nothing Franken could have said or done would have changed physicsphairy's opinion, meaning it was unfalsifiable and irrational.
Of course it's not all men. That doesn't really help. A few percent is enough to make a big problem. If a woman interacts with a hundred different men and one harasses her, she's still been harassed. (This works in reverse also. One catcall can be ignored, and you can't fault a man too much for one. Sixty different men, each with one catcall, is like running a gauntlet, and, I'm told, very disturbing.)
Similarly, there are very few women who'd even think of filing a false harassment charge. (There are probably considerably more who file accusations based on what they perceive as harassment and the man involved doesn't.) The feminists I know would be disgusted at a fake accusation. Proposing to ostracize all women is about as fair as ignoring all harassment.
The Second Amendment solution is hardly realistic (although in the case of one man I know, it could solve some problems), but you were talking about your solution as effective and not pushing it otherwise. The firepower solution would be effective, and has pretty much nothing else going for it.
You are proposing to isolate women. This will hurt workplace function and hurt women's careers - and I'm talking all women, not just problem ones, not even ones who have any tolerance for fake sexual harassment claims. It has a strong passive-aggressive smell, and it takes drastic action on the basis of stereotypes of women that do not in general apply. It is not a route to a real solution.
I'd really like to know the extent of the problem. I know a lot of people here are worried, but I've never seen it happen, and I've been around a while.
Um, I get personal? I quote what you wrote, which is personal insults, and I'm getting personal? Should I refrain from quoting you in the future, lest you take it personally?
Solution? I said I never saw a problem, which is a true statement, covering over forty years of regular employment and reasonably long-term contract work at nine different places. Other people say they saw the problem all over the place. I noted that I find that puzzling.
In other words, you're denying all moral responsibility for your actions with women? If you're not responsible for your actions because humanity, who is?
I fail to see the trouble you can get into not pursuing a woman, unless you're worried about false accusations.
My romantic experience is limited in variety, but I have quite a few years in married to a wonderful woman.
You're about halfway to realization. If sea level goes up a foot, that by itself isn't going to be a big problem. What will be a big problem is hurricane storm surges, which will be a foot higher. Land tends to rise gradually, meaning that in many places a foot extra flooding is going to cover a lot of additional area.
We have already bettered the world by defending it from every fascist despot that came along in the 20th century
Nowhere near. We didn't overthrow the fascist governments of Spain and Portugal. We've overthrown democracies to install at least quasi-fascist despots.
If you're considering the Holocaust as only the killing of Jews, 6M is a good estimate. The Germans murdered many more people than that, at least double, and that's only the people they killed more or less deliberately.
Also, 5.5M for Japan is ridiculously low. They killed many more in China alone.
That trick has never worked. Never. The taxes get cut, tax revenues don't go up as predicted, spending cuts don't happen. That's how the Republicans have run huge deficits since about 1980.
Depends on whether you're making money off your hobby. A friend of mine was selling electronic art (Poser, etc.), and her CPA told her to come up with some expenses or the IRS would consider it a business she'd have to pay FICA on. She bought a very nice Mac.
Slashdot Mirror
I use Firefox and Chrome at work, not IE (and I don't have Edge on this computer). They pay me. I figure this is the real world.
People tend to trust the things they've seen, even when they know better, and even if they see a contradictory video. When I release the video of you doing those things, it's likely to permanently damage your reputation.
You've gotta watch out though. There's a really bright thing that you don't want to look directly at. There's other dangers, also, like wolverines and pigeons.
This is not the case for any atheist I've known, heard about, or read about. People who believe in God but not churches or organized religions or whatever are not atheists in any sense of the word I've seen. Most atheists want to be left alone to not practice religion in peace, and only get outspoken and militant when that's not an option.
Now, Bertrand Russell claimed to find a difference between the thinking of ex-Catholic atheists and ex-Protestant atheists, but in neither case were they cryptotheists.
Many people seem to think that saying "I don't believe in God." marks one as an atheist, and that's just a declaration of a lack of belief.
A look at a few statistics shows that the majority of the world population is seriously wrong about religion. Divide the population into Christians, Muslims, and others. None of these three is a majority of the population. Christians and Muslims have distinct beliefs that conflict.
Which higher power? God as defined by the Christians? Muslims? Jews? Jupiter? the Tao? the Buddha? the Flying Spaghetti Monster? the US Supreme Court (I'm fairly certain that exists, actually)?
Suppose there is a God, and God values intellectual honesty. Everyone who mostly tries to believe what is true goes to Heaven, and everyone who deliberately distorts their beliefs for possible gain goes to Hell?
If we go back to Pascal (you're echoing Pascal's Wager), we find that he did not believe there was a proof of God's existence, and therefore had respect for atheists. He believed that, once you admit God exists, it logically follows that his particular brand of Catholicism is true, for no reason I've ever found, so he didn't respect the Orthodox or the Jews or the Muslims or heretics. The wager only makes sense with a dichotomy like that.
Seriously, if you convince yourself that there is a God just in order to reap possible benefits, you're screwing up your karma and your following reincarnations. Or something.
You seem to have drifted topic between "The idea that "people feel they can't say no" and that is the problem of the pursuer rather than the pursued is ludicrous." and now. I'm arguing that a pursuer (probably a man) cannot set up responsibility for a pursued (probably a woman) without previous agreement.
OK, I'm curious. What's the difference between isolating women from men and men from women? In either case, we're talking very restricted contact between men and women.
Letting everyone buy the insurance they need means that it's far too expensive for a sick person to buy insurance. If the whole population is the insurance pool, then there's plenty of healthy people to counterbalance the sick. (Remember that you can become one of the "sick ones" at any time despite whatever precautions you take.) The ACA fostered competition through the marketplaces, where insurance companies would offer roughly equivalent policies for the premiums they thought good.
Also, single payer doesn't mean single source. Many countries with some sort of single payer have both private and public providers.
So, you're saying that we pay about half again as much per capita as any European health care systems, but the results aren't as much worse as it looks.
If you require insurance companies to offer plans that cover pre-existing conditions, then either they're working with a very large insurance pool that includes a lot of healthy people, or the premiums are going to be sky-high. The phenomenon of only sick people getting insurance is "adverse selection". Therefore, by mandating that everyone have health insurance (and providing financial aid so everyone can afford it), and having a marketplace, insurance costs are kept down.
Removing the mandate means that people with pre-existing conditions will not be able to afford insurance.
Health care is at least moderately complicated, and what's obvious may not be good.
Sure, and my limited experience is that sex in a loving relationship is better. Lots of people seem to think that way. I don't know if that would apply to you, but it might be worth trying.
Why would anyone waste their time with public opinion when there's spambots to blame comments on?
What's wrong with you?
I have a perfect right to look at evidence, according to my own interpretations, and decide whether someone is probably guilty as accused or not. I have to act on tons of things without adequate information. The yearbook in question was not forged. The woman in question (I don't remember her name) had put in a few details after Moore's signature, to note when he signed it. I find it disturbing that Moore lied like that when denying an accusation.
What I do know is that Moore is known to stalk teenage women, and has been banned from a mall for that. That seems like an excellent reason not to vote for the man.
I normally vote Democrat, but the party doesn't do that great a job of representing me. (It's far better than the Republicans at that.) I'm the sort of guy who looks at Bernie Sanders' program and considers it a very good start.
That doesn't mean that everything I type should be disregarded as the rantings of a left-wing loon, since I try to evaluate things on their merits.
In this case, I was (perhaps foolishly) replying to someone who looked at everything in the absolute worst light for Franken, and I pointed that out. From that point of view, absolutely nothing Franken could have said or done would have changed physicsphairy's opinion, meaning it was unfalsifiable and irrational.
Of course it's not all men. That doesn't really help. A few percent is enough to make a big problem. If a woman interacts with a hundred different men and one harasses her, she's still been harassed. (This works in reverse also. One catcall can be ignored, and you can't fault a man too much for one. Sixty different men, each with one catcall, is like running a gauntlet, and, I'm told, very disturbing.)
Similarly, there are very few women who'd even think of filing a false harassment charge. (There are probably considerably more who file accusations based on what they perceive as harassment and the man involved doesn't.) The feminists I know would be disgusted at a fake accusation. Proposing to ostracize all women is about as fair as ignoring all harassment.
The Second Amendment solution is hardly realistic (although in the case of one man I know, it could solve some problems), but you were talking about your solution as effective and not pushing it otherwise. The firepower solution would be effective, and has pretty much nothing else going for it.
You are proposing to isolate women. This will hurt workplace function and hurt women's careers - and I'm talking all women, not just problem ones, not even ones who have any tolerance for fake sexual harassment claims. It has a strong passive-aggressive smell, and it takes drastic action on the basis of stereotypes of women that do not in general apply. It is not a route to a real solution.
I'd really like to know the extent of the problem. I know a lot of people here are worried, but I've never seen it happen, and I've been around a while.
Um, I get personal? I quote what you wrote, which is personal insults, and I'm getting personal? Should I refrain from quoting you in the future, lest you take it personally?
Solution? I said I never saw a problem, which is a true statement, covering over forty years of regular employment and reasonably long-term contract work at nine different places. Other people say they saw the problem all over the place. I noted that I find that puzzling.
In other words, you're denying all moral responsibility for your actions with women? If you're not responsible for your actions because humanity, who is?
I fail to see the trouble you can get into not pursuing a woman, unless you're worried about false accusations.
My romantic experience is limited in variety, but I have quite a few years in married to a wonderful woman.
You're about halfway to realization. If sea level goes up a foot, that by itself isn't going to be a big problem. What will be a big problem is hurricane storm surges, which will be a foot higher. Land tends to rise gradually, meaning that in many places a foot extra flooding is going to cover a lot of additional area.
Nowhere near. We didn't overthrow the fascist governments of Spain and Portugal. We've overthrown democracies to install at least quasi-fascist despots.
If you're considering the Holocaust as only the killing of Jews, 6M is a good estimate. The Germans murdered many more people than that, at least double, and that's only the people they killed more or less deliberately.
Also, 5.5M for Japan is ridiculously low. They killed many more in China alone.
That trick has never worked. Never. The taxes get cut, tax revenues don't go up as predicted, spending cuts don't happen. That's how the Republicans have run huge deficits since about 1980.
Depends on whether you're making money off your hobby. A friend of mine was selling electronic art (Poser, etc.), and her CPA told her to come up with some expenses or the IRS would consider it a business she'd have to pay FICA on. She bought a very nice Mac.