The UK was also complicit in this. In fact, they were the instigators because they wanted to improve the position of their oil assets in Iran. I point this out because it makes the idea that the Islamists hate us mostly because of what the US did in Iran a lot shakier... you see, the US is the "Great Satan," Israel is the "Little Satan". Why isn't the UK a "Satan"?
What the GP is saying is that NYC might be addressing an edge case. In my area, I can't remember the last time I saw someone carrying a cup that appeared to be more than 20 oz (anecdotal, I know). Something like this might only positively affect a tiny, tiny minority while needlessly inconveniencing others who might want a large cup for other reasons (like being able to have a drink available while walking around outside on a hot day for several hours without having to obtain another one).
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc. Biased data even, to wit:
While the Bloomberg administration can claim responsibility for much of the good news, the city did begin surpassing the nation in life expectancy in 2000 â€" two years before he took office.
You can't read too far into this study. Many people don't want to waste food because they either grew up in a poor household or were taught not to waste by their parents (the "starving kids in Africa hyperbole"). If given a big bag of popcorn, they might try to finish it even if they don't like it because they feel a need to not waste food. Not everyone is just a glutton.
It astounds me how people make comments like these. It's akin to the other argument about oppressive surveillance: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." I think the "War on Drugs" and Prohibition are already good examples of what can happen when the government is trying to "protect" people from "irresponsible decisions". It's already been pointed out that if it's OK for government to tell you what not to eat, they can also tell you what to eat. Don't like broccoli? Tough-- you're required to eat it twice a week. I could also point out that the cure might be worse that the disease; people are going to switch to diet drinks to get around this issue, and many of the artificial sweeteners have their own issues.
Do you mean "decisions"? To answer your question, it's because in the USA we have checks and balances to avoid a tyranny of the majority. It's funny how people who say they are so much in favor of human rights want a direct democracy. We have a Senate composed of 2 representatives from each state regardless of population and a nine member Supreme Court in part to protect the rights of the minority. We also have a chief executive who is expected to make informed, moral decisions and if he doesn't, has to answer to the other two branches.
I don't think you're making the point you think you are. Spending money you don't have is a thoroughly conservative value. In the USA, sure people claiming to be conservatives talk about responsibly government spending, but when they get in to office, it's been 30 years of "deficits don't matter." Even now the presumed Republican nominee for president is running on a platform of cutting taxes and raising defense spending. How is that not spending money you don't have?
It's a little obvious that you're talking about a specific political party and not a political philosophy. By definition, a fiscal conservative would scrutinize every expense. Just because people are hypocrites doesn't mean the definition changes... this includes progressives who decided that "liberal" basically means the opposite of what it used to WRT the size and scope of government.
The fact that there are rich people with fancy cars in a country doesn't have any relevance to an abuse of police power. You might as well say something like, "When you live in a place where overtanned idiots in NJ have their own TV show, you can expect to have your home taken through eminent domain so they can put in a strip mall."
The Law is not for Gentiles, so while many Jews became Christians it is misleading to claim that the whole of the Law is "Christian".
You do make a valid point, but I am dismayed by the fact that cherry-picking mods passed over all the valid, similar criticisms of Islam to mod you up.
The problem is that all the good messages of the earlier Sura are abrogated by the later ones. Because the Qur'an is organized by the length of the Sura, not chronologically, it is difficult for the infidel to discern which passages are considered relevant.
See, our media and the "liberal" rubes who speak for us have been bamboozled by the Muslims. If they actually cracked a book on theology, they would know the doctrine of abrogation and know that they are being lied to. Lying to unbelievers is also a tenet of Islam.
You really should look up the doctrine of abrogation. Muslims like to bring up the "there is no compulsion in religion" bit because they know it is abrogated by later passage that demand the unbelievers be subjugated, and lying to unbelievers is OK.
Hell, you've got so-called right-wing "journalists" funded by right-wing corporations trying to commit voter fraud in order to prove that there is voter fraud so there can be purges of voters' lists for no reason other than Hispanic surname or student status.
This is where you lost it. [citation needed] The problem is that voting is inherently secret, so when the few people in a position to investigate allegations of voter fraud refuse to by claiming it doesn't exist, you have to prove it is possible.
Poly* marriages that don't involve religious and other craziness probably should be allowed
I'd like to flesh this out a little bit. What constitutes "religious and other craziness" in the context of polygamy? Does this mean that you can be polygamous as long as you are atheist?
Slashdot Mirror
The UK was also complicit in this. In fact, they were the instigators because they wanted to improve the position of their oil assets in Iran. I point this out because it makes the idea that the Islamists hate us mostly because of what the US did in Iran a lot shakier... you see, the US is the "Great Satan," Israel is the "Little Satan". Why isn't the UK a "Satan"?
What the GP is saying is that NYC might be addressing an edge case. In my area, I can't remember the last time I saw someone carrying a cup that appeared to be more than 20 oz (anecdotal, I know). Something like this might only positively affect a tiny, tiny minority while needlessly inconveniencing others who might want a large cup for other reasons (like being able to have a drink available while walking around outside on a hot day for several hours without having to obtain another one).
Don't worry about it. I'm sure that when his fascist regulation has no effect, it'll be abolished. Right?
You can't read too far into this study. Many people don't want to waste food because they either grew up in a poor household or were taught not to waste by their parents (the "starving kids in Africa hyperbole"). If given a big bag of popcorn, they might try to finish it even if they don't like it because they feel a need to not waste food. Not everyone is just a glutton.
It astounds me how people make comments like these. It's akin to the other argument about oppressive surveillance: "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." I think the "War on Drugs" and Prohibition are already good examples of what can happen when the government is trying to "protect" people from "irresponsible decisions". It's already been pointed out that if it's OK for government to tell you what not to eat, they can also tell you what to eat. Don't like broccoli? Tough-- you're required to eat it twice a week. I could also point out that the cure might be worse that the disease; people are going to switch to diet drinks to get around this issue, and many of the artificial sweeteners have their own issues.
Keep telling yourself that, so you always have someone to blame for your own failures.
Wait... I thought this wasn't supposed to be a nerd's basement?
Do you mean "decisions"? To answer your question, it's because in the USA we have checks and balances to avoid a tyranny of the majority. It's funny how people who say they are so much in favor of human rights want a direct democracy. We have a Senate composed of 2 representatives from each state regardless of population and a nine member Supreme Court in part to protect the rights of the minority. We also have a chief executive who is expected to make informed, moral decisions and if he doesn't, has to answer to the other two branches.
It's a little obvious that you're talking about a specific political party and not a political philosophy. By definition, a fiscal conservative would scrutinize every expense. Just because people are hypocrites doesn't mean the definition changes... this includes progressives who decided that "liberal" basically means the opposite of what it used to WRT the size and scope of government.
If you mean "classical liberal" before progressives co-opted the term, I agree.
Not only is that a false dilemma, but I'm wondering in what universe merely outlawing guns is going to make them totally disappear.
Thanks for taking my one-line observation and turning it into a worthless, spittle-laced rant that has nothing to do with my point.
Alas, no mod points. The Slashdot progressive contingent won't allow it.
The fact that there are rich people with fancy cars in a country doesn't have any relevance to an abuse of police power. You might as well say something like, "When you live in a place where overtanned idiots in NJ have their own TV show, you can expect to have your home taken through eminent domain so they can put in a strip mall."
You do make a valid point, but I am dismayed by the fact that cherry-picking mods passed over all the valid, similar criticisms of Islam to mod you up.
The problem is that all the good messages of the earlier Sura are abrogated by the later ones. Because the Qur'an is organized by the length of the Sura, not chronologically, it is difficult for the infidel to discern which passages are considered relevant.
See, our media and the "liberal" rubes who speak for us have been bamboozled by the Muslims. If they actually cracked a book on theology, they would know the doctrine of abrogation and know that they are being lied to. Lying to unbelievers is also a tenet of Islam.
You really should look up the doctrine of abrogation. Muslims like to bring up the "there is no compulsion in religion" bit because they know it is abrogated by later passage that demand the unbelievers be subjugated, and lying to unbelievers is OK.
At least you don't heat with oil. Yikes. Nearly double your heating costs.
This is where you lost it. [citation needed] The problem is that voting is inherently secret, so when the few people in a position to investigate allegations of voter fraud refuse to by claiming it doesn't exist, you have to prove it is possible.
Just because some homosexuals were born that way doesn't mean they all are. Case in point: "bicurious".
Damn 1%ers need to wed their fair share!
I'd like to flesh this out a little bit. What constitutes "religious and other craziness" in the context of polygamy? Does this mean that you can be polygamous as long as you are atheist?
Front panel? Luxury! I have to inscribe my programs directly onto core memory with a magnetized needle!