Democrats aren't in general anti-Catholic any more. The only Catholic President I'm aware of was Kennedy. Pro-Catholic websites are not going to be considered terorristic. There is some terrorism in the anti-abortion movement, and I'd like to get rid of that. The rest of the anti-abortion movement is basically just a bunch of people I disagree with on something, and there's nothing wrong with that.
However, I am pleased that you've noticed that, while extending the power of government to do what you agree with is tempting, the extended power will be used by people elected later that you don't agree with.
The first problem with your analysis is that it implies there is some 'logical' way of composing a social contract in such a way as there won't be some people who are 'made insecure'
Let's think about the philosophy for a moment, without worrying about details of implementation. If we can agree on a philosophy of ethics, we can work on implementing it in practical terms. It doesn't have to be easy to be valid.
A much better answer is this: It is evident from the study of human beings that we require a source of truth that is objective and transcends beyond any cause that exists within the individual members of society.
That falls firmly into the Would Be Nice category. In fact, we have no source of objective transcendent truth. All attempts to establish such mean trying to ram beliefs down people's throats. We have truths we can objectively investigate, but they aren't transcendent. Transcendent beliefs are always subjective reports that can't be objectively verified.
Further, there is a significant body of scientific evidence that such an object exists as it is reported by the experience of many millions of human beings throughout time and is connected with many physical events that cannot be explained in any other reasonable fashion ( in the composite if not the the specific).
There is a significant body of scientific evidence that a large number of people have mystical experiences, yes. Such experiences tend to be similar in many ways, and different in others. Some of the similar ones are objectively unverifiable but scientifically unlikely, like life everlasting or the fairly common perception of the Universe as full of something vaguely like life. Many people come out of those experiences as better people, but that's hardly inexplicable.
I consider this to be evidence that the human brain is predisposed to such experiences. They're either real or accidents of brain evolution. I don't have a way, currently, of telling which. (This is what I'd most want to talk to a nonhuman intelligent life-form about, preferably one with no evolutionary relationship. If they have similar experiences, that is some evidence that they're in some sense real.)
The "many physical events" are all explainable. We don't have to believe all accounts of strange events, after all. All miracles we attribute to Jesus were written down some time after his life by people with a vested interest in making it impressive. Which Gospel was it that tried to satisfy a prophecy by tracing Joseph's ancestry, despite the claim elsewhere that Mary was pregnant before Joseph had sex with her? Now, if someone wanted to retcon Jesus as divine, throwing in a few things like water to wine and healing lepers wouldn't seem out of line.
Finally, when we look at all those people with mystical experiences, they don't necessarily agree. In every religion I've looked at, there have been mystics, and the religions don't agree with each other. Moral codes vary to some extent. You seem to be advocating that we take a certain group of people who have had mystical experiences and trusting them and not others with mystical experiences.
Currently, the average middle-class woman in developed countries has less than two children, on the average. I'd suspect that such women on the average have had sex a lot more than two times. Almost none of the sex between my wife and me was with the intention of reproduction. As far as I could tell, Mom and Dad had an active sex life for a long time after my younger brother was born. However, I don't think they were dissing me.
Lots of actions aren't evidence-based. For example, you've constructed a theoretical argument that sex work and porn cause more child abuse. It's reasonably plausible, but there's lots of other possibilities. Perhaps some people who'd abuse other people sexually will find that porn keeps them calm and under control. (I know that pictures of unclothed attractive women do often make me feel calmer.) Perhaps some people are going to have sex with sex workers, but would prefer to keep it legal if possible. Lots of things are possible here, and I don't see a whole lot of evidence one way or another.
You're talking about sex work, and instead complaining about imbalance of power and cases where consent really can't be given. If an adult female wants to do something sexual with me for a certain amount of money, that's one thing. We both have to agree to the transaction without external pressure. Sex with an employee is coercion to some extent, and promoting someone for something she does for you rather than for the company is an abuse of your position (which isn't really a sexual issue). Children can't legally consent. That's why we have restrictions on contracts with minors, among other things. Women who are sufficiently drunk can't consent.
It's not that difficult to understand. Giving consent without being coerced and while legally able to give consent is one thing. Sex with some sort of coercion is another, and in some cases it's really not possible to know if there's actual coercion going on. Sex with someone without the mental and emotional capability to consent is also wrong.
The women I hang around with, who all are feminist in the sense of wanting equal rights and , are generally for sex with members of the appropriate gender. None of them would interpret a single wink as sexual harassment. They tend to agree that, while having one person do something a bit off is no big deal, having fifty do it is unpleasant. You may be noticing people who are more strident (or perhaps I just hang around with superior women). It can be hard to tell.
Marriage rates are down, and the number of people living together in a sexual relationship without marriage has gone way up since I was a kid. I don't know which way sexual cohabitation is going. Birth rates are down everywhere women get education, opportunity, and access to birth control.
So you think that a previous relationship does imply continuing consent? I've read about too many assholes who apparently believed that it did. Nor does holding hands constitute sexual assault, at least not where I live. Grabbing a breast would, but that law lists "intimate areas". explicitly.
So, suppose you want to do something with a girl friend, and you don't want to ask incessant questions. There's ways to hint that you want a response, and the response doesn't have to be verbal to be consent under that standard.
It's also apparently only for campus sexual assault cases. There's sometimes enough confusion on campuses to make it a good idea to lay out things clearly, and establish exactly what "consent" is. Presumably, married couples can set their own rules. Assuming a woman likes those fantasies, she isn't likely to want to get ravished at any moment of any day, so there should be some way for the husband to know when it's OK and when it isn't. Even under the rules you quoted, the husband can start with something short of a gross misdemeanor and let the wife respond.
I've always been amazed that Pat's gawd punishes Southern States for those Liberal Nawthener's sins. Legalize Gay Marriage? Let's send a Hurricane to Mississippi.
That's an old practice. Some people thought Ben Franklin's lighting rods were blasphemous, and so he smote Lisbon with an earthquake. Some other people thought God had better aim than that.
Okay, so how do you explain the fact that many cities have popular and efficient mass-transit systems? I've been on such systems in cities out of the US, and they're often very good.
Your idea of a powered enclosed tricycle seems unusual. Such a thing is certainly possible to build. Why do you think they aren't fairly common, given that you claim such advantages for them? Lots of people would like a much less expensive alternative to a standard automobile. I suspect you've missed some problems with that idea. If not, maybe you could get rich making something like that as a startup. It would be capital-intensive, but if you can convince enough investors that shouldn't be an insuperable problem.
You seem to be missing the point of an assumption for the sake of an argument. Discussing a situation in which SDCs cause half the deaths of HDCs is a reasonable thing to do. People were thinking about going to the Moon in the 1950s, after all.
This year, I couldn't resist sending all tax money on Friday, April 13. That's four days early, which is highly unlikely to cause a problem for a taxpayer.
A signature is you writing your name. This can be done with any form of writing. There is no legal requirement for cursive. A signature isn't really for identifying the signer, but rather to signify agreement.
Also, I do know some history, and plenty of cases of minorities being discriminated against without government requirements. You also may be confusing cause and effect. If a large majority is prejudiced against X people, then laws are likely to be written discriminating against X. Therefore, a lack of laws against X is evidence that the prejudice isn't as severe as a prejudice that does result in laws.
As far as living under an authoritarian regime goes, yes, there are bad governments in the world. That doesn't mean all government is bad.
I'm going to suggest that you look up what happened in Yugoslavia in WWII if you're going to talk about occupying armies. For one thing, the only resistance organization consistently opposing the occupiers was Communist, just as it was in Greece. For another thing, the occupying armies stayed from the invasions in 1941 to the eviction in 1944.
So, most of the population did submit to oppression, including many of those who were nominally working against it.
In the case of civil unrest, it wouldn't be the army, primarily, but rather the police forces. The Army would only intervene if necessary, and it probably wouldn't be necessary. There are highly abusive police forces in the US that don't face significant armed resistance.
You might want to (a) not accuse me of talking out of my ass when making a factual statement relevant to something you said, and (b) read your own cites.
I read the Act you mentioned, and found only one geographical restriction, the one I mentioned.
Your cite (more applicable to what you claimed) indicates that there was already mortgage discrimination going on, and that private parties participated in the redlining. It was partly government discrimination and partly private. Your own quote shows that non-state-sponsored discrimination already existed.
I'm not wasting time. As I said, there's things I need to concentrate for and things I don't. I need to do some record-keeping work, run tests, etc., and not all code reviews require real concentration. Given that all our meetings are in the morning, and adhere to a predictable schedule, there isn't a big problem.
If you're going to use words in nonstandard ways, you need to be clearer about that.
Anyway, I'm strongly for free speech. This doesn't mean I'm for letting people arbitrarily use other people's platforms for their speech.
From my Googling, it looks like there was an incident last year in which someone attacked others with a bike lock. I didn't do that. I don't condone such violence. Most leftists don't. It makes no more sense than me saying you people kill people with cars.
Did you have an actual point? If you want to avoid having candidates you really dislike, get involved in the nomination process. Also, I don't know of any Presidential candidate in my lifetime nearly as bad as Stalin or Hitler.
Trump didn't won because people liked him, he won because people loathed his opponents.
Including all the opponents in the Republican nomination process? That's an awful lot of opponents to loath.
Who are the candidates?
This is 2018. There's plenty of time for a candidate to establish himself or herself. Besides, it would appear that the Democrats should win as long as the candidate isn't loathed by too many gullible people.
When you have one fairly simple hypothesis that explains many different discrepancies, it's fairly likely to be correct. Looking for single reasons is one of the things science does. We had Kepler's laws that accurately described orbital motion and we noticed that things fall when they drop them, and Newton unified those into a law of gravity.
Slashdot Mirror
Democrats aren't in general anti-Catholic any more. The only Catholic President I'm aware of was Kennedy. Pro-Catholic websites are not going to be considered terorristic. There is some terrorism in the anti-abortion movement, and I'd like to get rid of that. The rest of the anti-abortion movement is basically just a bunch of people I disagree with on something, and there's nothing wrong with that.
However, I am pleased that you've noticed that, while extending the power of government to do what you agree with is tempting, the extended power will be used by people elected later that you don't agree with.
Let's think about the philosophy for a moment, without worrying about details of implementation. If we can agree on a philosophy of ethics, we can work on implementing it in practical terms. It doesn't have to be easy to be valid.
That falls firmly into the Would Be Nice category. In fact, we have no source of objective transcendent truth. All attempts to establish such mean trying to ram beliefs down people's throats. We have truths we can objectively investigate, but they aren't transcendent. Transcendent beliefs are always subjective reports that can't be objectively verified.
There is a significant body of scientific evidence that a large number of people have mystical experiences, yes. Such experiences tend to be similar in many ways, and different in others. Some of the similar ones are objectively unverifiable but scientifically unlikely, like life everlasting or the fairly common perception of the Universe as full of something vaguely like life. Many people come out of those experiences as better people, but that's hardly inexplicable.
I consider this to be evidence that the human brain is predisposed to such experiences. They're either real or accidents of brain evolution. I don't have a way, currently, of telling which. (This is what I'd most want to talk to a nonhuman intelligent life-form about, preferably one with no evolutionary relationship. If they have similar experiences, that is some evidence that they're in some sense real.)
The "many physical events" are all explainable. We don't have to believe all accounts of strange events, after all. All miracles we attribute to Jesus were written down some time after his life by people with a vested interest in making it impressive. Which Gospel was it that tried to satisfy a prophecy by tracing Joseph's ancestry, despite the claim elsewhere that Mary was pregnant before Joseph had sex with her? Now, if someone wanted to retcon Jesus as divine, throwing in a few things like water to wine and healing lepers wouldn't seem out of line.
Finally, when we look at all those people with mystical experiences, they don't necessarily agree. In every religion I've looked at, there have been mystics, and the religions don't agree with each other. Moral codes vary to some extent. You seem to be advocating that we take a certain group of people who have had mystical experiences and trusting them and not others with mystical experiences.
Currently, the average middle-class woman in developed countries has less than two children, on the average. I'd suspect that such women on the average have had sex a lot more than two times. Almost none of the sex between my wife and me was with the intention of reproduction. As far as I could tell, Mom and Dad had an active sex life for a long time after my younger brother was born. However, I don't think they were dissing me.
Lots of actions aren't evidence-based. For example, you've constructed a theoretical argument that sex work and porn cause more child abuse. It's reasonably plausible, but there's lots of other possibilities. Perhaps some people who'd abuse other people sexually will find that porn keeps them calm and under control. (I know that pictures of unclothed attractive women do often make me feel calmer.) Perhaps some people are going to have sex with sex workers, but would prefer to keep it legal if possible. Lots of things are possible here, and I don't see a whole lot of evidence one way or another.
You're talking about sex work, and instead complaining about imbalance of power and cases where consent really can't be given. If an adult female wants to do something sexual with me for a certain amount of money, that's one thing. We both have to agree to the transaction without external pressure. Sex with an employee is coercion to some extent, and promoting someone for something she does for you rather than for the company is an abuse of your position (which isn't really a sexual issue). Children can't legally consent. That's why we have restrictions on contracts with minors, among other things. Women who are sufficiently drunk can't consent.
It's not that difficult to understand. Giving consent without being coerced and while legally able to give consent is one thing. Sex with some sort of coercion is another, and in some cases it's really not possible to know if there's actual coercion going on. Sex with someone without the mental and emotional capability to consent is also wrong.
The women I hang around with, who all are feminist in the sense of wanting equal rights and , are generally for sex with members of the appropriate gender. None of them would interpret a single wink as sexual harassment. They tend to agree that, while having one person do something a bit off is no big deal, having fifty do it is unpleasant. You may be noticing people who are more strident (or perhaps I just hang around with superior women). It can be hard to tell.
Marriage rates are down, and the number of people living together in a sexual relationship without marriage has gone way up since I was a kid. I don't know which way sexual cohabitation is going. Birth rates are down everywhere women get education, opportunity, and access to birth control.
So you think that a previous relationship does imply continuing consent? I've read about too many assholes who apparently believed that it did. Nor does holding hands constitute sexual assault, at least not where I live. Grabbing a breast would, but that law lists "intimate areas". explicitly.
So, suppose you want to do something with a girl friend, and you don't want to ask incessant questions. There's ways to hint that you want a response, and the response doesn't have to be verbal to be consent under that standard.
It's also apparently only for campus sexual assault cases. There's sometimes enough confusion on campuses to make it a good idea to lay out things clearly, and establish exactly what "consent" is. Presumably, married couples can set their own rules. Assuming a woman likes those fantasies, she isn't likely to want to get ravished at any moment of any day, so there should be some way for the husband to know when it's OK and when it isn't. Even under the rules you quoted, the husband can start with something short of a gross misdemeanor and let the wife respond.
That's an old practice. Some people thought Ben Franklin's lighting rods were blasphemous, and so he smote Lisbon with an earthquake. Some other people thought God had better aim than that.
So why did I start hearing "SJW" from people who dislike us? Suddenly, it was there, it was perjorative, and I was one.
A friend told me that he was using "FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN #17" until he was told not to, but that he could use #18.
Okay, so how do you explain the fact that many cities have popular and efficient mass-transit systems? I've been on such systems in cities out of the US, and they're often very good.
Your idea of a powered enclosed tricycle seems unusual. Such a thing is certainly possible to build. Why do you think they aren't fairly common, given that you claim such advantages for them? Lots of people would like a much less expensive alternative to a standard automobile. I suspect you've missed some problems with that idea. If not, maybe you could get rich making something like that as a startup. It would be capital-intensive, but if you can convince enough investors that shouldn't be an insuperable problem.
So you approve of the common practice of slapping things together and praying it'll all work?
Completely wrong. Corporations pay income tax. The fact that it's passed through to the shareholders doesn't make any difference.
You seem to be missing the point of an assumption for the sake of an argument. Discussing a situation in which SDCs cause half the deaths of HDCs is a reasonable thing to do. People were thinking about going to the Moon in the 1950s, after all.
If it's AI, we can hold the driver-equivalent responsible. Even self-driving cars won't go out for a spin unless ordered.
This year, I couldn't resist sending all tax money on Friday, April 13. That's four days early, which is highly unlikely to cause a problem for a taxpayer.
A signature is you writing your name. This can be done with any form of writing. There is no legal requirement for cursive. A signature isn't really for identifying the signer, but rather to signify agreement.
Also, I do know some history, and plenty of cases of minorities being discriminated against without government requirements. You also may be confusing cause and effect. If a large majority is prejudiced against X people, then laws are likely to be written discriminating against X. Therefore, a lack of laws against X is evidence that the prejudice isn't as severe as a prejudice that does result in laws.
As far as living under an authoritarian regime goes, yes, there are bad governments in the world. That doesn't mean all government is bad.
I'm going to suggest that you look up what happened in Yugoslavia in WWII if you're going to talk about occupying armies. For one thing, the only resistance organization consistently opposing the occupiers was Communist, just as it was in Greece. For another thing, the occupying armies stayed from the invasions in 1941 to the eviction in 1944.
So, most of the population did submit to oppression, including many of those who were nominally working against it.
In the case of civil unrest, it wouldn't be the army, primarily, but rather the police forces. The Army would only intervene if necessary, and it probably wouldn't be necessary. There are highly abusive police forces in the US that don't face significant armed resistance.
You might want to (a) not accuse me of talking out of my ass when making a factual statement relevant to something you said, and (b) read your own cites.
I read the Act you mentioned, and found only one geographical restriction, the one I mentioned.
Your cite (more applicable to what you claimed) indicates that there was already mortgage discrimination going on, and that private parties participated in the redlining. It was partly government discrimination and partly private. Your own quote shows that non-state-sponsored discrimination already existed.
I'm not wasting time. As I said, there's things I need to concentrate for and things I don't. I need to do some record-keeping work, run tests, etc., and not all code reviews require real concentration. Given that all our meetings are in the morning, and adhere to a predictable schedule, there isn't a big problem.
If you're going to use words in nonstandard ways, you need to be clearer about that.
Anyway, I'm strongly for free speech. This doesn't mean I'm for letting people arbitrarily use other people's platforms for their speech.
From my Googling, it looks like there was an incident last year in which someone attacked others with a bike lock. I didn't do that. I don't condone such violence. Most leftists don't. It makes no more sense than me saying you people kill people with cars.
Did you have an actual point? If you want to avoid having candidates you really dislike, get involved in the nomination process. Also, I don't know of any Presidential candidate in my lifetime nearly as bad as Stalin or Hitler.
Including all the opponents in the Republican nomination process? That's an awful lot of opponents to loath.
This is 2018. There's plenty of time for a candidate to establish himself or herself. Besides, it would appear that the Democrats should win as long as the candidate isn't loathed by too many gullible people.
When you have one fairly simple hypothesis that explains many different discrepancies, it's fairly likely to be correct. Looking for single reasons is one of the things science does. We had Kepler's laws that accurately described orbital motion and we noticed that things fall when they drop them, and Newton unified those into a law of gravity.