Actually it's not just the religious zealots who have issue with prostitution. The leftwing feminist groups have issue with it too. Basically the latter doesn't want men having easy access to sex without having to deal with privileged princesses. They label this as 'abuse' even though it's consensual all around (she wants his money, he wants her body for an hour). In many ways, prostitution is the most honest exchange that exists between the two genders, especially since the point of marriage and the nuclear family has been thoroughly destroyed.
If you list the 'positive' outcomes, you'll see that one aligns almost perfectly with left wing dogma terminology ('diversity', 'social tolerance', 'historical empathy'), another is circular reasoning (more likely to return to a museum, so what?), and 'critical thinking skills' (which, without context, means nothing). What did this program do? Count the number of times the student used 'diversity', 'social tolerance', 'historical empathy' and possibly others? How does that prove overall intellectual improvement? If anything it just shows how much the propaganda has been reenforced.
The article then goes on to claim a causal relationship, when, at best, it does no more than show the same set of correlations it says were made in the past. So which is it? Does going to art museums give people these attributes, or do people with these attributes end up going more often? Or are these people going just for the social kudos/'faux' sophistication because of the novel exclusivity? Really, all they proved was that exposing people to new experiences causes some of them to want to do it again. How is that interesting?
Since the value of art really depends on what the viewer makes of it, I think they have it backwards: potentially, more intelligent people get more out of it. It doesn't make people more intelligent by osmosis, and honestly, there are a lot of intelligent people out there who are not content with the simple mental masturbation that comes with viewing/talking about art.
Oh, it's the NYT, what a shock. They pull many of the same logical contortions as fox. The only difference is they're better at hiding it behind screeds of big words and compound complex sentences.
You're looking at the end result and and claiming that there must be social inequality that lead to it. I understand this line of reasoning when it comes to the military, corporate CEO positions, and professional sports. They have a history of barring or diminishing women.
See, I don't draw any exceptions to these. If the goal is to eliminate willful discrimination in the selection process, the system can't have 'assumption of bias' in it to begin with. Affirmative action is just as bigoted as the 'good old boys club' stereotype. This sort of thing is not some zero sum game. It's an absolute value. Engaging in it in opposite directions just creates and encourages more of it. Having it institutionalized in the law (eg title 9/vawa etc) magnifies this dramatically. Now, which groups do these laws give 'privilege' to again? Certainly not men. It's the men who pay the price though, financially, personally, and professionally.
The NFL is being assholes to women? It already makes its male players demean themselves by dancing around in pink uniforms for breast cancer awareness month, even when prostate cancer is more relevant for the majority of the viewerbase.. The NFL is about as PC as it gets, sadly enough.
No. We need more GOOD software engineers. Those get-girls-into-STEM scholarships are sexist. The test for this is to swap the gender pronouns. Ask yourself how the feminist groups would respond to a white, straight, male scholarship of any kind. Their heads would explode. If the goal isn't to prop one group up over another, why not just open these programs to everyone who qualifies on actual, relevant discriminators like GPA and hobby work? Now that would be promoting equal opportunity.
Of course if the goal of feminism all along was to turn the tables and keep men under women's' stilettos, then all of this makes perfect sense. Most of the 'sexism' they complain about today is not from 'culture'. It's from biology! For powerful political positions, the vast majority of women vote for a male even when females are on the ballot. Why is that? Because, biologically, women feel the most comfortable with an alpha male in charge.. oh many may SAY "it's a women's world now" or some shit, but they don't actually feel that way.
Ah so men should be punished for being 'crude' around women, yet they should tolerate the inappropriate emotional dramacoasters and the passive aggressive, hypergamous behavior of the stereotypical modern female office worker? Yeah, fuck that.
You want to be treated 'equally'? Fine.. Time to break out the thick skin and deal with it. (Healthy) guys don't tolerate that above mentioned behavior for a reason. It completely disrupts productivity. If you're taking every damn quip someone makes personally, you're the one who's lacking. You say guys telling crude jokes are childish boys? What about the childish girl that's always crying when the boys say something she doesn't like? Stop demanding that men walk on eggshells around your princess ass so that you don't have to change. Equality is not demanding that everyone else live up to your priorities and expectations. Equality is the opportunity to measure up in relevant ways. That's all.
If you demand that men roll out the carpet for you, many of them will, mainly because so many of them are pussy beggar manginas/white knights, but the consequence is that they will never respect you as an equal afterward.
Maybe, but the demand that there be equal distributions everywhere is also part of the problem. It's a rather childish, simplistic, and dysfunctional worldview to have.. esp when forcing large tracts of society to comply with it via the law. All it does is breed more discrimination against those labeled as the 'oppressors' which in turn breeds actual, real contempt in that group for the protected 'victim' classes. ("She got the programming job? Was it achievement or politics?" instead of "She got the job, ok great I look forward to working with her")
Liberals always like to preach 'tolerance' and 'diversity' when they don't really understand the implications of the terms. 'Tolerance' of difference implies that things won't always be equal, that we are all individuals with different strengths and weaknesses, and so we are not interchangeable square pegs. Liberals are fine with this until it touches on race, gender, or sexual orientation, where we are expected to throw out any rational thought and assume that any imbalance is due to bigotry (instead of biology, or free choice, or life choices or..).. This is as irrational as the 'god hates fags' mantra of westboro baptist.
No. That is not an accurate translation. That is shaming language, the last resort of those backing the politically dominant yet outmoded popular position for emotional/self-interested reasons.
and why's that? Why must they be addressed? Most men dont' want to teach 2nd grade, and most women don't get excited about computer technology. So what? Just because there's not an even distribution across different types of people does not automatically imply systemic discrimination. Leftists have a big time case of confirmation bias here.. They're always looking for discrimination so they see it everywhere, and in the process of trying to make it 'fair', they end up causing the lion's share of discrimination in the opposite directions.
If the hd and ram are replaceable, then it's a drive to frys/bestbuy/microcenter or a 24hr overnight internet delivery away. Otherwise, it's a 2 week wait minimum. If you truly want something up and running again ASAP, you don't want a laptop, you want a self-built desktop.
From a time when desktop computers served and empowered their owners, rather than disenfranchise and enslave them with service contracts, SaaS, and one-size-fits-all lowest common denominator design specs.
I am sure I will find an unbiased report about toyotas on honda.com too. Seriously, those graphs suggest a hard limiter has been hit, like a settable sysctl/kernel knob, rather than a serious architectural deficiency.
Yet again here's another one completely ignoring the most likely future. Right now, for you, it wasn't mandatory. If enough people like you take the bait, it will become mandatory. Surely I don't have to explain this. Once it is mandatory, your rate will go back up to the previous (inflation adjusted) rate, and the monitor less plans will be outrageously expensive, or omitted altogether. Then we're all fucked by the soccer mom society.
You want to put a gps in your car and track it? Fine, I don't care, but do it on your own. Don't give the insurance companies any more excuses....and if you have kids, don't track them with it. They will have to live without your monitoring someday. Might as well let them take it in stages. If you don't trust your kids to drive without it, fix that issue instead of covering it over with technology.
Well somehow we managed for many thousands of years, and children grew up a lot sooner too. Some people are talking about pushing 'adolescence' (itself a recently made up term) into the mid 20s. I mean really, how is that going to make things better? It won't. I'll just encourage even less maturity and stagnation in the population. What it will do is encourage more group dependence which jives with certain freedom unfriendly ideologies.. I'll pass. Go move to N. Korea if you want that much surveillance in your kids lives.
or you mean you're just trying to justify your irrational fear for your kids safety...This is what most parents are doing when they demand this or that freedom concession from society. They're as fucking useless as parents as dr phil is for relationship advice.
Well at least you're getting closer to the crux of the issue. However, mindless beatings won't help either. Perhaps you should vote accordingly and help get these tyrants out of office.
Great, so they never learn how to moderate their impulses/practice judgment skills, or anything else required of a truly adult human. Your kids will add to the burgeoning population of adult age children who need a surveillance state in order to function at a subsistence level.
So what happens when enough of you soccer-mom style safety-manic 'parents' lobby the state to mandate this? Then I'M forced into it too. Fuck you?
Seriously, I hope your company goes out of business along with your competition. It's people like you, looking to make quick bucks off creating this loss of freedom, and, effectively, property ownership, that are bringing about the surveillance society, one 'risk management assessment' at a time. It's like DRM for behavior. You, the insurance companies, and the state can all burn in the fiery pits of the hell you're building for the rest of us. Take that soccer mom safety mania you help breed in the population and shove it up your ass.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it's not just the religious zealots who have issue with prostitution. The leftwing feminist groups have issue with it too. Basically the latter doesn't want men having easy access to sex without having to deal with privileged princesses. They label this as 'abuse' even though it's consensual all around (she wants his money, he wants her body for an hour). In many ways, prostitution is the most honest exchange that exists between the two genders, especially since the point of marriage and the nuclear family has been thoroughly destroyed.
Yes, I read the article.
If you list the 'positive' outcomes, you'll see that one aligns almost perfectly with left wing dogma terminology ('diversity', 'social tolerance', 'historical empathy'), another is circular reasoning (more likely to return to a museum, so what?), and 'critical thinking skills' (which, without context, means nothing). What did this program do? Count the number of times the student used 'diversity', 'social tolerance', 'historical empathy' and possibly others? How does that prove overall intellectual improvement? If anything it just shows how much the propaganda has been reenforced.
The article then goes on to claim a causal relationship, when, at best, it does no more than show the same set of correlations it says were made in the past. So which is it? Does going to art museums give people these attributes, or do people with these attributes end up going more often? Or are these people going just for the social kudos/'faux' sophistication because of the novel exclusivity? Really, all they proved was that exposing people to new experiences causes some of them to want to do it again. How is that interesting?
Since the value of art really depends on what the viewer makes of it, I think they have it backwards: potentially, more intelligent people get more out of it. It doesn't make people more intelligent by osmosis, and honestly, there are a lot of intelligent people out there who are not content with the simple mental masturbation that comes with viewing/talking about art.
Oh, it's the NYT, what a shock. They pull many of the same logical contortions as fox. The only difference is they're better at hiding it behind screeds of big words and compound complex sentences.
You're looking at the end result and and claiming that there must be social inequality that lead to it. I understand this line of reasoning when it comes to the military, corporate CEO positions, and professional sports. They have a history of barring or diminishing women.
See, I don't draw any exceptions to these. If the goal is to eliminate willful discrimination in the selection process, the system can't have 'assumption of bias' in it to begin with. Affirmative action is just as bigoted as the 'good old boys club' stereotype. This sort of thing is not some zero sum game. It's an absolute value. Engaging in it in opposite directions just creates and encourages more of it. Having it institutionalized in the law (eg title 9/vawa etc) magnifies this dramatically. Now, which groups do these laws give 'privilege' to again? Certainly not men. It's the men who pay the price though, financially, personally, and professionally.
The NFL is being assholes to women? It already makes its male players demean themselves by dancing around in pink uniforms for breast cancer awareness month, even when prostate cancer is more relevant for the majority of the viewerbase.. The NFL is about as PC as it gets, sadly enough.
No. We need more GOOD software engineers. Those get-girls-into-STEM scholarships are sexist. The test for this is to swap the gender pronouns. Ask yourself how the feminist groups would respond to a white, straight, male scholarship of any kind. Their heads would explode. If the goal isn't to prop one group up over another, why not just open these programs to everyone who qualifies on actual, relevant discriminators like GPA and hobby work? Now that would be promoting equal opportunity.
Of course if the goal of feminism all along was to turn the tables and keep men under women's' stilettos, then all of this makes perfect sense. Most of the 'sexism' they complain about today is not from 'culture'. It's from biology! For powerful political positions, the vast majority of women vote for a male even when females are on the ballot. Why is that? Because, biologically, women feel the most comfortable with an alpha male in charge.. oh many may SAY "it's a women's world now" or some shit, but they don't actually feel that way.
Ah so men should be punished for being 'crude' around women, yet they should tolerate the inappropriate emotional dramacoasters and the passive aggressive, hypergamous behavior of the stereotypical modern female office worker? Yeah, fuck that.
You want to be treated 'equally'? Fine.. Time to break out the thick skin and deal with it. (Healthy) guys don't tolerate that above mentioned behavior for a reason. It completely disrupts productivity. If you're taking every damn quip someone makes personally, you're the one who's lacking. You say guys telling crude jokes are childish boys? What about the childish girl that's always crying when the boys say something she doesn't like? Stop demanding that men walk on eggshells around your princess ass so that you don't have to change. Equality is not demanding that everyone else live up to your priorities and expectations. Equality is the opportunity to measure up in relevant ways. That's all.
If you demand that men roll out the carpet for you, many of them will, mainly because so many of them are pussy beggar manginas/white knights, but the consequence is that they will never respect you as an equal afterward.
Maybe, but the demand that there be equal distributions everywhere is also part of the problem. It's a rather childish, simplistic, and dysfunctional worldview to have.. esp when forcing large tracts of society to comply with it via the law. All it does is breed more discrimination against those labeled as the 'oppressors' which in turn breeds actual, real contempt in that group for the protected 'victim' classes. ("She got the programming job? Was it achievement or politics?" instead of "She got the job, ok great I look forward to working with her")
Liberals always like to preach 'tolerance' and 'diversity' when they don't really understand the implications of the terms. 'Tolerance' of difference implies that things won't always be equal, that we are all individuals with different strengths and weaknesses, and so we are not interchangeable square pegs. Liberals are fine with this until it touches on race, gender, or sexual orientation, where we are expected to throw out any rational thought and assume that any imbalance is due to bigotry (instead of biology, or free choice, or life choices or..).. This is as irrational as the 'god hates fags' mantra of westboro baptist.
No. That is not an accurate translation. That is shaming language, the last resort of those backing the politically dominant yet outmoded popular position for emotional/self-interested reasons.
and why's that? Why must they be addressed? Most men dont' want to teach 2nd grade, and most women don't get excited about computer technology. So what? Just because there's not an even distribution across different types of people does not automatically imply systemic discrimination. Leftists have a big time case of confirmation bias here.. They're always looking for discrimination so they see it everywhere, and in the process of trying to make it 'fair', they end up causing the lion's share of discrimination in the opposite directions.
If the hd and ram are replaceable, then it's a drive to frys/bestbuy/microcenter or a 24hr overnight internet delivery away. Otherwise, it's a 2 week wait minimum. If you truly want something up and running again ASAP, you don't want a laptop, you want a self-built desktop.
Expect all you like. Reality won't give a shit.
Ah, yes, the cry of the well-healed.
From a time when desktop computers served and empowered their owners, rather than disenfranchise and enslave them with service contracts, SaaS, and one-size-fits-all lowest common denominator design specs.
So you get the money back you shouldn't have had to pay in the first place. So what?
I am sure I will find an unbiased report about toyotas on honda.com too. Seriously, those graphs suggest a hard limiter has been hit, like a settable sysctl/kernel knob, rather than a serious architectural deficiency.
slippery slopes are not always fallacies, and judging by what's happened already in recent history, it's a very likely possibility.
Yet again here's another one completely ignoring the most likely future. Right now, for you, it wasn't mandatory. If enough people like you take the bait, it will become mandatory. Surely I don't have to explain this. Once it is mandatory, your rate will go back up to the previous (inflation adjusted) rate, and the monitor less plans will be outrageously expensive, or omitted altogether. Then we're all fucked by the soccer mom society.
You want to put a gps in your car and track it? Fine, I don't care, but do it on your own. Don't give the insurance companies any more excuses.. ..and if you have kids, don't track them with it. They will have to live without your monitoring someday. Might as well let them take it in stages. If you don't trust your kids to drive without it, fix that issue instead of covering it over with technology.
Well somehow we managed for many thousands of years, and children grew up a lot sooner too. Some people are talking about pushing 'adolescence' (itself a recently made up term) into the mid 20s. I mean really, how is that going to make things better? It won't. I'll just encourage even less maturity and stagnation in the population. What it will do is encourage more group dependence which jives with certain freedom unfriendly ideologies.. I'll pass. Go move to N. Korea if you want that much surveillance in your kids lives.
or you mean you're just trying to justify your irrational fear for your kids safety...This is what most parents are doing when they demand this or that freedom concession from society. They're as fucking useless as parents as dr phil is for relationship advice.
Actually those things are getting damn close enough to 100% true to call them such. Doubly true for fathers.
Well at least you're getting closer to the crux of the issue. However, mindless beatings won't help either. Perhaps you should vote accordingly and help get these tyrants out of office.
Yeah why not, lets delay adulthood for another decade while we're at it.. so what? 30 is the new 18? 40? 50?
Great, so they never learn how to moderate their impulses/practice judgment skills, or anything else required of a truly adult human. Your kids will add to the burgeoning population of adult age children who need a surveillance state in order to function at a subsistence level.
So what happens when enough of you soccer-mom style safety-manic 'parents' lobby the state to mandate this? Then I'M forced into it too. Fuck you?
That's lovely.. Indoctrinating your kids into the radiant socialist future early eh? you know, so you can feel soccer mom safe (tm)?
Why do europeans have such problems with americans? It makes me wonder whether they're in even deeper propagandic sludge than americans are.
Not once it becomes mandated.. Then they up the price to the (inflation adjusted) original rate and charge crazy premiums for those who want privacy.
Seriously, I hope your company goes out of business along with your competition. It's people like you, looking to make quick bucks off creating this loss of freedom, and, effectively, property ownership, that are bringing about the surveillance society, one 'risk management assessment' at a time. It's like DRM for behavior. You, the insurance companies, and the state can all burn in the fiery pits of the hell you're building for the rest of us. Take that soccer mom safety mania you help breed in the population and shove it up your ass.