Studies are backed by data. Maybe the data is bad. Maybe the reasoning is bad. Often the data is good, and the analysis is good. If everything is just an opinion, you might as well say everything humans try and study and understand is just like, your opinion, man.
It's really weird to me that people think that the fact that it's their right has anything to do with this discussion. The question isn't if it's their right, it's if they're exercising their rights in a way people are free to disagree with. And saying it's none of our business is a curious moot position to take: they volunteered the information. It's like somebody saying something really stupid, and you present a counter argument, and people say, "Yeah but, they have the right to say whatever they want." Yes they do. What does that have to do with breaking down what they said?
I'm sorry but if you can talk about the game on the weekend or this funny youtube vid you saw you should be able to talk about sex. Just because a large population cringe up whenever they hear the word and like to pretend its a dirty disgusting thing they would never do doesn't make it more or less a legitimate thing to talk about.
The reason why it's not suitable to talk about in a work environment is because it makes most people feel uncomfortable. This isn't complicated. Get into the reasons why it's jusfied or not, but if the question is how to maintain a non hostile working environment, not permitting people to discuss things that make a large percent of the population cringe up is kind of obvious.
Incidentally, I don't mind talking about sex, but I sure as shit don't want to talk about you having sex, so in return, I won't talk about *me* having sex. This is not complicated stuff.
Unless you are going to white list some topics for the workplace and everything else is no go then you can't really tell people to talk to each other according to your sensibilities.
No, some topics are blacklisted around the office, because there are not that many that make for a hostile work environment. You're doing a lot of mental gymnastics to excuse some reasonable limits on behavior that the majority of the population agrees with.
Nobody has any sympathy for what constitutes "destitute" in the US because anybody with any reasonable upward mobility knows people in other countries that make their trials and tribulations look trivial.
The 64 year old. Good lord. This is what the future is, eh? Maybe the issue is that you can't retire at 63. Maybe the issue is you expect or need the same job at that age. That's kinda messed up. You might as well want the same things as a union at that point. Yet I kind of doubt this guy is pro-union.
It doesn't make much sense to contribute to a plan that can't actually be implemented unless everyone has to contribute by law.The US will never have single payer healthcare for the same specious argument. So enjoy that bucket of crabs you're in.
Is it so hard to get one candidate that isn't fucking corrupt?
Is corrupt some kind of number to you? 1 or 0? If you're looking for zero, the answer to your question is impossible. Do you work? Do you have friends? Family? Are you so unable to distinguish between doing what is right from being perfect? Are you like, 21 and still think your parents are paragons of virtue or something? If you're looking for somebody who hasn't done something that looks back to somebody else, you're naive to the core, in ways that ironically make the world a worse place.
The poster said "I'm sure the study was flawed" and went on to suggest people would rather fill in anonymous surveys with answers that suggested they were discriminated against instead of "being honest" that they were not good at their jobs.
That's exactly the kind of mental gymnastics people go through to prove to themselves that it's a just world, and ironically just contribute to the actual problem.
Me not selling something today doesn't mean I won't want to sell it tomorrow. The issue with out of print books should be addressed by having reasonable copyright term limits.
> Even if it cost money I don't know many working people who wouldn't fork over another $20 just to make everyone else have to get up in the morning too.
Running an economy on emotions is a stupid thing to do.
Slashdot Mirror
It's much easier to think you have a point when you simply deny reality:
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
https://it.slashdot.org/story/...
https://yro.slashdot.org/story...
Etc, etc, etc.
Do you feel like a sensitive little stupidhead? Because you should.
Boy did your parents fail you.
Studies are backed by data. Maybe the data is bad. Maybe the reasoning is bad. Often the data is good, and the analysis is good. If everything is just an opinion, you might as well say everything humans try and study and understand is just like, your opinion, man.
Uh, okay then.
People are more likely to "eat out" than ever before
With what money, exactly? They money they get from switching to hairdressing?
It's really weird to me that people think that the fact that it's their right has anything to do with this discussion. The question isn't if it's their right, it's if they're exercising their rights in a way people are free to disagree with. And saying it's none of our business is a curious moot position to take: they volunteered the information. It's like somebody saying something really stupid, and you present a counter argument, and people say, "Yeah but, they have the right to say whatever they want." Yes they do. What does that have to do with breaking down what they said?
Oh boy, scientists totally forgot about the sun! You've cracked the case!
I'm sorry but if you can talk about the game on the weekend or this funny youtube vid you saw you should be able to talk about sex. Just because a large population cringe up whenever they hear the word and like to pretend its a dirty disgusting thing they would never do doesn't make it more or less a legitimate thing to talk about.
The reason why it's not suitable to talk about in a work environment is because it makes most people feel uncomfortable. This isn't complicated. Get into the reasons why it's jusfied or not, but if the question is how to maintain a non hostile working environment, not permitting people to discuss things that make a large percent of the population cringe up is kind of obvious.
Incidentally, I don't mind talking about sex, but I sure as shit don't want to talk about you having sex, so in return, I won't talk about *me* having sex. This is not complicated stuff.
Unless you are going to white list some topics for the workplace and everything else is no go then you can't really tell people to talk to each other according to your sensibilities.
No, some topics are blacklisted around the office, because there are not that many that make for a hostile work environment. You're doing a lot of mental gymnastics to excuse some reasonable limits on behavior that the majority of the population agrees with.
Nobody has any sympathy for what constitutes "destitute" in the US because anybody with any reasonable upward mobility knows people in other countries that make their trials and tribulations look trivial.
The 64 year old. Good lord. This is what the future is, eh? Maybe the issue is that you can't retire at 63. Maybe the issue is you expect or need the same job at that age. That's kinda messed up. You might as well want the same things as a union at that point. Yet I kind of doubt this guy is pro-union.
keep getting rid of the players and the only person left to look at is the manager
Yeah, dude, it's tyranny. *rolls eyes*
I was born and raised in a country with "single payer healthcare" — USSR.
Well, that explains a lot. You even put it in quotes, suggesting even you can tell the difference between communism and what we're talking about.
It doesn't make much sense to contribute to a plan that can't actually be implemented unless everyone has to contribute by law.The US will never have single payer healthcare for the same specious argument. So enjoy that bucket of crabs you're in.
Is it so hard to get one candidate that isn't fucking corrupt?
Is corrupt some kind of number to you? 1 or 0? If you're looking for zero, the answer to your question is impossible. Do you work? Do you have friends? Family? Are you so unable to distinguish between doing what is right from being perfect? Are you like, 21 and still think your parents are paragons of virtue or something? If you're looking for somebody who hasn't done something that looks back to somebody else, you're naive to the core, in ways that ironically make the world a worse place.
You have to be a special kind of idiot, maybe the independent voting kind of idiot, to see Hillary as corrupt and Donald Trump as not corrupt.
That's a lot of words with zero anything to show for this having anything to do with Trump.
Availability of healthcare isn't the primary factor; people who are in poverty tend to seek care less often
uhhhh ....
If life is a doing what I like, enjoying it, and not feeling angry about things contest, yeah, I'm winning that. What can I say man? You're a coward.
The poster said "I'm sure the study was flawed" and went on to suggest people would rather fill in anonymous surveys with answers that suggested they were discriminated against instead of "being honest" that they were not good at their jobs.
That's exactly the kind of mental gymnastics people go through to prove to themselves that it's a just world, and ironically just contribute to the actual problem.
It's like you just decided to do a little demo of the kind of quick to judge hostility they face.
Yup
Me not selling something today doesn't mean I won't want to sell it tomorrow. The issue with out of print books should be addressed by having reasonable copyright term limits.
Allowed to do what?
"I wish things were cheaper."
Basically the gist of all those words. Yes, and?
> Even if it cost money I don't know many working people who wouldn't fork over another $20 just to make everyone else have to get up in the morning too.
Running an economy on emotions is a stupid thing to do.