I wasn't talking about people who are committing suicide. I was referring to idiots that take drugs for fun, and take too much because their stoned from all the drugs they decided to take.
A person who overdosed either chose to do so deliberately, in which case it's suicide, or he did so accidentally, in which case he didn't choose to do so so any more than people who go out after dark choose to get mugged. Which one is it?
People randomly "decide" to overdose on tainted lettuce or dairy products? I was unaware of this trend.
So it's bad luck when people get bad consequences from actions you approve of, and deliberate choice when people get bad consequences from actions you disapprove of? Why do you have such double standard?
Wow, good projection there. It is almost subliminal, following as it does something that makes no sense at all. Givien that my argument is about allowing people to choose to put poison in their body, you want to equate it to walking around and eating food. And somehow that translates into me wanting to control them.
Nice evasion. Now answer my question: Do you have any reason why potential bad consequences from drug use shouldn't be mitigated, besides trying to discourage such use - in other words, control people?
Being top dog means you get to butt into their business, not the other way around.
Who lives their lives in the public eye, Joe Average or Joe President? Who has their affairs and birth certificates and stupid remarks and pastors discussed in (inter)national media?
The chains of power bind both ends. All the chains the Top Dog holds end up determining his moves; the necessities of maintaining all that power override any other concern. The US is a fine example: it's politics have worldwide consequences, thus they attract worldwide interest, and are in large part determined by the desire to keep that worldwide effect rather than the good of the citizens.
That's one of the reasons leaders tend to be so awful: what kind of person does it take to want the job?
But, at the same time, let the idiots who decide to overdose suffer the consequences of their actions.
I'm not entirely sure why consider suicide a sign of idiocy. Or did you mean "decide" in the same way as people would randomly "decide" to die of food poisoning if only those pesky regulatory agencies didn't interfere?
That is the point at which the liberals who want to LEGALIZE drugs fail the logic test. They want the government to allow them to use their favorite substances, and then rescue them when they have trouble. I want the government to stop inserting themselves into everyone's personal choices, including during the negative results that will result.
Do you have any particular reason for your wish? Because it seems to me that mitigating risks (of drugs, of walking out at night, of eating at a restaurant, etc) makes people effectively more free, and I don't really understand why anyone would think this is a bad thing.
Do you simply want to control people and pretend you don't?
Please butt out of our domestic politics. It's none of your goddamn business, and yet foreign politicians know more about state-level politics in America than they do their own provinces.
You can be the Top Dog or you can be just another face in the crowd but you can't be both. And America made its choice. Don't blame the rest of us if you don't like it.
If they were able to increase their profits from other drugs at a whim, why would they wait to incur marijuana losses before doing it? Why wouldn't they just do it now?
For the same reason corporations wait until being fined before passing it on to their customers: they're just too nice to try and profit more than their fair share.
They could also write in that if I click 'like' on a cereal facebook page I would have to kill myself, but that doesn't make it legally binding.
It doesn't have to be legally binding, it just has to make a court case drag on a bit longer. In a battle of attrition the company is always on high ground to mere mortals.
The failure doesn't disappear just because you make the shantytown illegal. All that accomplishes is make the people who lived there even worse off, for the sake of letting those who didn't pretend the problem doesn't exist. And in a way, it doesn't: a "failure" implies an unintended undesirable consequence of some decision or policy, while demolishing the homes of worst-off members of society for the sake of appearances is an intentional, deliberate action. It confirms that you are okay with this outcome, of treating people like garbage to be thrown aside and disposed of if they aren't economically useful; in other words, you haven't failed, you're simply evil.
And what they could possibly have hoped to achieve by filing charges, other than a nasty (and well deserved) publicity backlash?
Most likely they were defending the concept of domination. In their view, society is made of hierarchical power relations, and the only way to advance is to challenge someone above you. Bullying is a natural part of such system, used to establish pecking order, and it's "cheating" to expose it to outside judgement.
Basically, the school administration approves of bullying because it helps perpetuate a system where they're top dogs, and consequently view any effective attempt to stamp out bullying as a direct threat to their own status. It's ultimately the same reason why some people like to shit on the poor (sometimes despite being poor themselves), or get bent out of shape at the thought of everyone getting a prize: if there's no way to divide people into winners and losers - or pure and impure, or whatever terms you prefer - the hierarchical system will collapse, and take with whatever part of your identity you have invested in status in it.
By that reasoning, I don't owe said debt, as no one I've ever voted for has actually been elected.
You don't owe the federal debt, actually, the entity known as the United States of America does. You are only affected insofar as the US might be unable to provide its current level of services at their current price, and are free to renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere.
Federal debt operates just like limited liability corporations debt would, in this sense.
Here in Finland, the tax department sends me a tax card which tells how much to withhold each month based on my estimated yearly earnings, which I give to my employer. I later get a prefilled tax return based on my real earnings, which details any extra to be paid or returned. I check it, and if it's okay, I need do nothing.
A more cynical person might think a system where the market for tax apps or accountants for the average person exists is intentionally designed to make paying taxes difficult and aggravating.
I can only imagine how many adults would opt for several shots at the same time.
I did. Why wouldn't I? It's not like actual pathogens act like mooks in a film and come at me one (type) at a time, so if I can't deal with multiple declawed versions at once, I'm dead already.
But, despite what people frequently seem to think, making lots of grammatical errors does obscure your meaning, especially if you're trying to communicate technical or complex thoughts. Without knowledge of grammar, you're limited to general, simple sentences.
Complex thoughts require simple sentences. The reader already has his hands full trying to understand the idea. He does not need to struggle with parsing text too.
Unless, of course, you are trying to make simple thoughts seem deep, complex and subtle, in which case - and no other - obscure, riddle with unnecessary grammar structures, and generally flourish - in the gesturial, not growth, sense, for the latter would just make no sense in this context, altough it might be an appropriate pictorisque description for the metaphorical tangle of such sentences, if we consider words to grow like vines in a jungle (tropical rainforest, but the underbrush of any thick area of vegetation might do as a metaphor for such off-tangent rambling) - your sentences away.
We absolutely, positively need petroleum right now in order to exist.
And we absolutely, positively can't keep relying on it, for the simple reason that it's running out. We need to start investing serious money into moving to post-fossils economy while we still can, so why not start now and save ourselves some of the pain of full-scale climate change?
If you believe that humans are causing the problem, and believe the solutions that the UN is suggesting, then you are a hypocrite if you want to force other people to pay for it.
If that shit gets loose and starts infecting thousands or millions there might not be much of a choice... I say kill a few, maybe save a billion. Whats wrong with that?
Well, for starters, the world's nuclear arsenal isn't capable of sterilizing the entire African rainforest system, or even killing all the people living there. Therefore, all you'd get is the fun task of enforcing a guarantine in a radiactive area with devastated physical and social infrastructure.
I really wish that the U.S. would live up to its ideals
US was founded on genocide, slavery and whitewashing said activities with sanctimonious bullshit. It is following its ideals, all the way to Hell by the looks of things.
Eich's views on same-sex marriage really don't relate Mozilla (I don't think), and they don't really make him a bad or nasty person either - at least, not themselves without knowing the reasoning behind them.
Eich's views on same-sex marriage don't make him a bad person, any more than having the view that starving children should be fed makes you a good person. However, the second those views manifest into actions, whether it's giving money to a charity to feed those children or to an organization attempting to legalize against gays, they do push your alignment towards good or evil, respectively.
No one can see into your heart, so no one can judge it, but the second you bear fruit it can, will and should be judged. And Eich's fruit was - correctly, in my view - judged to be no different than that of those who opposed "miscegenation": rotten. And so he was cast aside, out of the way of someone better.
Professional intelligent agents were not fooled. People who only heard what they wanted to hear do not count as professionals.
In my experience, professional people fool themselves all the time, and refuse to listen to anyone who contradicts them, so why would professional intelligence agents be an exception?
CIA is "the Company"; like all others, it's run by pointy-haired bosses.
Unreadable? How sad you have a comprehensive system so primitive.
It's called optimization. "Unreadable" means that the low-level - indeed, in most people subconscious - routine was unable to comprehend the text, and kicked it up to a higher-level one. The higher level subsystem is more flexible but, as a result, needs more resources which could be put to better use; and of course the process can occur again, escalating text comprehension all the way to the conscious mind. Thus, if you write unreadable - which means nonstandard - text, you are inconveniencing everyone who reads it, and deserve to be modded down.
Slashdot Mirror
A person who overdosed either chose to do so deliberately, in which case it's suicide, or he did so accidentally, in which case he didn't choose to do so so any more than people who go out after dark choose to get mugged. Which one is it?
So it's bad luck when people get bad consequences from actions you approve of, and deliberate choice when people get bad consequences from actions you disapprove of? Why do you have such double standard?
Nice evasion. Now answer my question: Do you have any reason why potential bad consequences from drug use shouldn't be mitigated, besides trying to discourage such use - in other words, control people?
Who lives their lives in the public eye, Joe Average or Joe President? Who has their affairs and birth certificates and stupid remarks and pastors discussed in (inter)national media?
The chains of power bind both ends. All the chains the Top Dog holds end up determining his moves; the necessities of maintaining all that power override any other concern. The US is a fine example: it's politics have worldwide consequences, thus they attract worldwide interest, and are in large part determined by the desire to keep that worldwide effect rather than the good of the citizens.
That's one of the reasons leaders tend to be so awful: what kind of person does it take to want the job?
I'm not entirely sure why consider suicide a sign of idiocy. Or did you mean "decide" in the same way as people would randomly "decide" to die of food poisoning if only those pesky regulatory agencies didn't interfere?
Do you have any particular reason for your wish? Because it seems to me that mitigating risks (of drugs, of walking out at night, of eating at a restaurant, etc) makes people effectively more free, and I don't really understand why anyone would think this is a bad thing.
Do you simply want to control people and pretend you don't?
You can be the Top Dog or you can be just another face in the crowd but you can't be both. And America made its choice. Don't blame the rest of us if you don't like it.
For the same reason corporations wait until being fined before passing it on to their customers: they're just too nice to try and profit more than their fair share.
It doesn't have to be legally binding, it just has to make a court case drag on a bit longer. In a battle of attrition the company is always on high ground to mere mortals.
The failure doesn't disappear just because you make the shantytown illegal. All that accomplishes is make the people who lived there even worse off, for the sake of letting those who didn't pretend the problem doesn't exist. And in a way, it doesn't: a "failure" implies an unintended undesirable consequence of some decision or policy, while demolishing the homes of worst-off members of society for the sake of appearances is an intentional, deliberate action. It confirms that you are okay with this outcome, of treating people like garbage to be thrown aside and disposed of if they aren't economically useful; in other words, you haven't failed, you're simply evil.
http://www.cracked.com/photoplasty_839_29-iconic-images-from-history-shamelessly-turned-into-ads_p29/#27
Look at #27.
Most likely they were defending the concept of domination. In their view, society is made of hierarchical power relations, and the only way to advance is to challenge someone above you. Bullying is a natural part of such system, used to establish pecking order, and it's "cheating" to expose it to outside judgement.
Basically, the school administration approves of bullying because it helps perpetuate a system where they're top dogs, and consequently view any effective attempt to stamp out bullying as a direct threat to their own status. It's ultimately the same reason why some people like to shit on the poor (sometimes despite being poor themselves), or get bent out of shape at the thought of everyone getting a prize: if there's no way to divide people into winners and losers - or pure and impure, or whatever terms you prefer - the hierarchical system will collapse, and take with whatever part of your identity you have invested in status in it.
You don't owe the federal debt, actually, the entity known as the United States of America does. You are only affected insofar as the US might be unable to provide its current level of services at their current price, and are free to renounce your citizenship and move elsewhere.
Federal debt operates just like limited liability corporations debt would, in this sense.
Here in Finland, the tax department sends me a tax card which tells how much to withhold each month based on my estimated yearly earnings, which I give to my employer. I later get a prefilled tax return based on my real earnings, which details any extra to be paid or returned. I check it, and if it's okay, I need do nothing.
A more cynical person might think a system where the market for tax apps or accountants for the average person exists is intentionally designed to make paying taxes difficult and aggravating.
Or it could be simple hubris. A lot of religious leaders seem to have trouble telling themselves and their deity apart.
But is that because they lack depth, or because you took a few lazy steps at the shore and called it a day?
This kind of socialistic entitlement is destroying America and the very concept of personal responsibility. Why do you hate freedom so much?
I did. Why wouldn't I? It's not like actual pathogens act like mooks in a film and come at me one (type) at a time, so if I can't deal with multiple declawed versions at once, I'm dead already.
Sure it is, just not through DNA. The whole reason we have such long adolescence is to receive cultural inheritance.
There's also dishonesty in talking with great conviction about a subject you have inadequate knowledge of.
Complex thoughts require simple sentences. The reader already has his hands full trying to understand the idea. He does not need to struggle with parsing text too.
Unless, of course, you are trying to make simple thoughts seem deep, complex and subtle, in which case - and no other - obscure, riddle with unnecessary grammar structures, and generally flourish - in the gesturial, not growth, sense, for the latter would just make no sense in this context, altough it might be an appropriate pictorisque description for the metaphorical tangle of such sentences, if we consider words to grow like vines in a jungle (tropical rainforest, but the underbrush of any thick area of vegetation might do as a metaphor for such off-tangent rambling) - your sentences away.
And we absolutely, positively can't keep relying on it, for the simple reason that it's running out. We need to start investing serious money into moving to post-fossils economy while we still can, so why not start now and save ourselves some of the pain of full-scale climate change?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
Well, for starters, the world's nuclear arsenal isn't capable of sterilizing the entire African rainforest system, or even killing all the people living there. Therefore, all you'd get is the fun task of enforcing a guarantine in a radiactive area with devastated physical and social infrastructure.
US was founded on genocide, slavery and whitewashing said activities with sanctimonious bullshit. It is following its ideals, all the way to Hell by the looks of things.
Eich's views on same-sex marriage don't make him a bad person, any more than having the view that starving children should be fed makes you a good person. However, the second those views manifest into actions, whether it's giving money to a charity to feed those children or to an organization attempting to legalize against gays, they do push your alignment towards good or evil, respectively.
No one can see into your heart, so no one can judge it, but the second you bear fruit it can, will and should be judged. And Eich's fruit was - correctly, in my view - judged to be no different than that of those who opposed "miscegenation": rotten. And so he was cast aside, out of the way of someone better.
In my experience, professional people fool themselves all the time, and refuse to listen to anyone who contradicts them, so why would professional intelligence agents be an exception?
CIA is "the Company"; like all others, it's run by pointy-haired bosses.
It's called optimization. "Unreadable" means that the low-level - indeed, in most people subconscious - routine was unable to comprehend the text, and kicked it up to a higher-level one. The higher level subsystem is more flexible but, as a result, needs more resources which could be put to better use; and of course the process can occur again, escalating text comprehension all the way to the conscious mind. Thus, if you write unreadable - which means nonstandard - text, you are inconveniencing everyone who reads it, and deserve to be modded down.