She has to sneak because she's not teaching him religion, she's teaching him to sneak when it comes to religion. Making it a habit for him to avoid you (and your point of view) when it comes to religion, and instead only discuss the subject with 'the right people'.
For example, buy an orange in the store, take the seeds out and plant them. You will get a tree, but never any oranges.
Pretty much - you likely will get "oranges", but only a few, tiny, bitter-tasting green fruits or some similar mess of "throwback" characteristics.
So I am left wondering why Monsanto didn't take one more step in making these seeds hybrids that were not viable.
These are soybeans - since they self-pollinate it's very, very difficult to get them to crossbreed at all, so none of the commercial varieties are hybridized.
Santa Clause (who isn't part of a religion either, so double fail there).
So you think that Saint Nicholas, who delivers gifts on Christmas, likely based on Odin and other characters in pagan religion/folklore, isn't a religious figure?
Next you'll tell me that Saint Patrick isn't a religious figure either.
both the GMO strain and roundup itself cause cancer
Glyphosate (sold under several brand names, including "Roundup") has been used worldwide for quite some time. If it was a problem you'd have thought it would have been caught earlier.
the surface area of 3 light minute sphere is about 10 orders of magnitude larger than the circumference of three light minute. Though the two are not completely comparable
Well, they're not comparable at all. In meters vs square meters the area will give you a much larger number, but use parsecs vs square parsecs and the reverse is true.
I'm not sure that "10 orders of magnitude larger" means anything when merely changing units makes it false.
I just heard on NPR the other day that women only make 70% of what men do.
Per the wiki, full-time year-round female employees made 81% of what similar male employees made in 2010 - and that's even before correcting for hours worked or occupation. Wage differences based on sexual discrimination are estimated to be 5%-7%, about the same as the wage difference between five foot six inch tall and six foot tall men.
just how the fuck did the child get in the photograph in the first place.
CP covers a lot more that actual photographs of criminal acts. Depending on where you are, photos of merely naked children, photos of adults that look or are make to look young, CGI renderings, drawings/paintings, stick figures with captions, and even pure text can legally be counted as CP.
I think that one of the main problems with discussing this issue is that one side hears "child porn" and thinks "actual video of someone anally raping an unwilling, kidnapped 8-year-old", and the other side is also including "topless pix my first girlfriend sent me when she was 16", "xkcd-style drawings with creepy captions", or "that Der Spiegel cover from the 60's".
Except it isn't a small minority. Its the majority. In 2010, it was estimated that 58 percent of all workers in the US were earning minimum wage. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2010.htm [bls.gov]
From your own source:
In 2010, 72.9 million American workers age 16 and over were paid at hourly rates, representing 58.8 percent of all wage and salary workers. Among those paid by the hour, 1.8 million earned exactly the prevailing Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour. About 2.5 million had wages below the minimum.2 Together, these 4.4 million workers with wages at or below the Federal minimum made up 6.0 percent of all hourly-paid workers.
My story is somewhat similar. When I was little "circumcision" was some kind of surgery, and a "bris" was a Jewish baptism.
Then I came across an article in a fairly conservative magazine that was describing the horrors of FGM and how it should be banned, and of course one of the first things they had to do was make sure nobody thought that "female 'circumcision'" was anything like the male variety. After about 20 minutes of trying to figure out what they meant by the 'flap' over the 'bell' (apparently anatomical names aren't family friendly) I looked through my grandmother's books (she's a nurse).
In a lot of ways that was the moment I grew up. In one horrifying instant the illusions of childhood fell away, and things got very complicated.
Those are your beliefs. In cultures all around the world this viewpoint is not supported. Ethics vary with culture as well.
All completely true, all completely vacuous. You haven't even bothered to make an argument, not even any real content other than the faux wisdom of 'we can't be bothered to take sides'.
Stop acting like you're above it all and join the rest of us mortals trying to build a better world. We need all the help we can get.
So do you also believe children should not be vaccinated???
What kind of absurdity is this? Vaccinations have massive, universally agreed upon health benefits, and (barring rare side effects) only 'costs' the child a brief pain and has no long-term effects (other than immunity).
Circumcision may have beneficial effects, that given a one-sided review, just barely manage to be cost effective, but permanently alter a person's appearance and remove significant portion of the sensitive parts of the penis.
How you think that these things are comparable is beyond me.
--Several prominent advocates of circumcision, such as John Harvey Kellog, liked the idea that it would reduce masturbation
So, I would masturbate even more if I hadn't been circumcised? Is this even possible?!
No, but if you had been circumcised as a punishment for masturbation, it might have slowed you down for a bit.
What did you expect from Americans? Rational discourse?
(He he, I like to mock my fellow Americans.:) )
But seriously, many Americans think that the foreskin is a birth defect. Not like one, but really is one. So no, they aren't insane, they just think that perfectly normal human males are circus freaks that needs to be 'fixed' by modern medicine. Nothing crazy about that.
I don't see how this is a response to anything I wrote, let alone the actual question I asked, but anyway:
Never once have I said anything about women getting everything and men getting nothing, but that doesn't seem to matter
Because regardless of what you say, that does seem to be the situation we're in (with allowances for hyperbole).
We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.
And you think it's any different for men? "Slut"/"stud" is the opposite of "good girl"/"virgin who can't get laid". Want kids when she doesn't - "Patriarchal oppressor!", don't want kids when she does - "How could you be so cruel as to deny her that?"
And don't miss the big ones: "Don't you trust me that I'm on the pill?"
Yes -> gives up what little control he had over his fertility
No -> you're a misogynist who thinks all women are out to get pregnant, gold-diggers,... (all the stuff you wrote)
How do we win? Give the man the decision entirely?
Don't recommend that. Men (for the most part) did exactly that, and look at the mess we have now!
this can allllll be avoided in NOT having sex with someone on the first, second or even third date
No. It's a sweet idea, but with half the pregnancies in the US unplanned, completely naive. People change, people lie (even to themselves), people fall for peer pressure and society's rationalizations ("men are never ready for babies, he'll be mad for a bit, but once he sees his child, it'll all be OK").
In the end, it's 50/50, because someone else isn't responsible for another person, no matter how deceitful the man or woman may be.
Where I'm from, if you lie in order to get money, that's fraud (unless you lie about being on birth control, who the father is,...).
if I don't reply, it's only because I've done this one too many times for my tastes
That's fine, I won't take a lack of reply as a 'win'. I'm replying mostly because I think both perspectives deserve equal time.
Slashdot Mirror
She has to sneak because she's not teaching him religion, she's teaching him to sneak when it comes to religion. Making it a habit for him to avoid you (and your point of view) when it comes to religion, and instead only discuss the subject with 'the right people'.
Wow, out of millions of trends in the world, two of them happen to increase at vaguely similar times - absolute proof that they're related!
Besides, why would people in most of Europe, where GMOs are banned, be getting more cancer?
For example, buy an orange in the store, take the seeds out and plant them. You will get a tree, but never any oranges.
Pretty much - you likely will get "oranges", but only a few, tiny, bitter-tasting green fruits or some similar mess of "throwback" characteristics.
So I am left wondering why Monsanto didn't take one more step in making these seeds hybrids that were not viable.
These are soybeans - since they self-pollinate it's very, very difficult to get them to crossbreed at all, so none of the commercial varieties are hybridized.
Santa Clause (who isn't part of a religion either, so double fail there).
So you think that Saint Nicholas, who delivers gifts on Christmas, likely based on Odin and other characters in pagan religion/folklore, isn't a religious figure?
Next you'll tell me that Saint Patrick isn't a religious figure either.
both the GMO strain and roundup itself cause cancer
Glyphosate (sold under several brand names, including "Roundup") has been used worldwide for quite some time. If it was a problem you'd have thought it would have been caught earlier.
You can buy all the machine tools and heat treat ovens you need, 2nd hand, and make your own real guns.
Or, buy all the machine tools and heat ovens you need and make ... more machine tools and ovens.
Forget the damn micro-droids, make a self-replicating machine the size of a house today!
the surface area of 3 light minute sphere is about 10 orders of magnitude larger than the circumference of three light minute. Though the two are not completely comparable
Well, they're not comparable at all. In meters vs square meters the area will give you a much larger number, but use parsecs vs square parsecs and the reverse is true.
I'm not sure that "10 orders of magnitude larger" means anything when merely changing units makes it false.
I just heard on NPR the other day that women only make 70% of what men do.
Per the wiki, full-time year-round female employees made 81% of what similar male employees made in 2010 - and that's even before correcting for hours worked or occupation. Wage differences based on sexual discrimination are estimated to be 5%-7%, about the same as the wage difference between five foot six inch tall and six foot tall men.
That propaganda film never works. You should show him "Electro-Gonorrhea, the Noisy Killer".
Thank you! My issue with CP is this exactly. At some point, some child WAS dragged into this issue.
You do realize that my point was the exact opposite of that, right?
moisture at a level that makes the flour in your kitchen look wet
Flour is 10%-15% water, BTW.
Besides, I'd assume we were going with nuclear engines/solar sails/ion drives once we "broke atmo".
just how the fuck did the child get in the photograph in the first place.
CP covers a lot more that actual photographs of criminal acts. Depending on where you are, photos of merely naked children, photos of adults that look or are make to look young, CGI renderings, drawings/paintings, stick figures with captions, and even pure text can legally be counted as CP.
I think that one of the main problems with discussing this issue is that one side hears "child porn" and thinks "actual video of someone anally raping an unwilling, kidnapped 8-year-old", and the other side is also including "topless pix my first girlfriend sent me when she was 16", "xkcd-style drawings with creepy captions", or "that Der Spiegel cover from the 60's".
Except it isn't a small minority. Its the majority. In 2010, it was estimated that 58 percent of all workers in the US were earning minimum wage. http://www.bls.gov/cps/minwage2010.htm [bls.gov]
From your own source:
3.6% isn't even close to 60%.
It doesn't matter. Anything that gives them an opportunity to attack science will be used. It doesn't matter if it makes sense.
My story is somewhat similar. When I was little "circumcision" was some kind of surgery, and a "bris" was a Jewish baptism.
Then I came across an article in a fairly conservative magazine that was describing the horrors of FGM and how it should be banned, and of course one of the first things they had to do was make sure nobody thought that "female 'circumcision'" was anything like the male variety. After about 20 minutes of trying to figure out what they meant by the 'flap' over the 'bell' (apparently anatomical names aren't family friendly) I looked through my grandmother's books (she's a nurse).
In a lot of ways that was the moment I grew up. In one horrifying instant the illusions of childhood fell away, and things got very complicated.
Those are your beliefs. In cultures all around the world this viewpoint is not supported. Ethics vary with culture as well.
All completely true, all completely vacuous. You haven't even bothered to make an argument, not even any real content other than the faux wisdom of 'we can't be bothered to take sides'.
Stop acting like you're above it all and join the rest of us mortals trying to build a better world. We need all the help we can get.
So do you also believe children should not be vaccinated???
What kind of absurdity is this? Vaccinations have massive, universally agreed upon health benefits, and (barring rare side effects) only 'costs' the child a brief pain and has no long-term effects (other than immunity).
Circumcision may have beneficial effects, that given a one-sided review, just barely manage to be cost effective, but permanently alter a person's appearance and remove significant portion of the sensitive parts of the penis.
How you think that these things are comparable is beyond me.
[The medical benefits] are sound.
Not sound enough to convince most medical groups.
contrary to a lot of really good studies
Only if you define 'good study' as what gets headlines in the US...
--Several prominent advocates of circumcision, such as John Harvey Kellog, liked the idea that it would reduce masturbation
So, I would masturbate even more if I hadn't been circumcised? Is this even possible?!
No, but if you had been circumcised as a punishment for masturbation, it might have slowed you down for a bit.
You liken the foreskin to a hairlip and cancer?
You people are insane.
What did you expect from Americans? Rational discourse? :) )
(He he, I like to mock my fellow Americans.
But seriously, many Americans think that the foreskin is a birth defect. Not like one, but really is one. So no, they aren't insane, they just think that perfectly normal human males are circus freaks that needs to be 'fixed' by modern medicine. Nothing crazy about that.
My wife works at a rehabilitation/ nursing home and the women there all agree uncircumcised is gross
If I'm ever desperate enough to bang your wife, maybe I'll start caring what she thinks.
Is anyone going to have the guts to tell me why they think my viewpoint is wrong, rather than simply mod my views into oblivion?
You're trivializing someone's feelings, making wild assumptions about their personal life, making duplicate posts, and taunting people.
Don't like the 'Troll' mod? Then don't act like one.
The only people I've met who are against circumcision are people who are uncircumcised.
Hi, nice to meet you! Now you can't say that any more.
We're not butchered.
Technically it's 'surgically altered', but 'butchered' evokes my feelings pretty well.
That I'm circumcised was something I never, ever thought about until...
That's great! It doesn't seem to have bothered you.
But that doesn't change my feelings, nor does it change the ethics of the issue: My body, my choice. Right?
You could start here, but there are a variety of criticisms of these studies, which explains why so few organizations take them seriously.
IO will destroy you
Io from mythology, Diskworld, D&D, Jupiter, ... which one?
I don't see how this is a response to anything I wrote, let alone the actual question I asked, but anyway:
Never once have I said anything about women getting everything and men getting nothing, but that doesn't seem to matter
Because regardless of what you say, that does seem to be the situation we're in (with allowances for hyperbole).
We're damned if we do, damned if we don't.
And you think it's any different for men? "Slut"/"stud" is the opposite of "good girl"/"virgin who can't get laid". Want kids when she doesn't - "Patriarchal oppressor!", don't want kids when she does - "How could you be so cruel as to deny her that?"
And don't miss the big ones: "Don't you trust me that I'm on the pill?" ... (all the stuff you wrote)
Yes -> gives up what little control he had over his fertility
No -> you're a misogynist who thinks all women are out to get pregnant, gold-diggers,
How do we win? Give the man the decision entirely?
Don't recommend that. Men (for the most part) did exactly that, and look at the mess we have now!
this can allllll be avoided in NOT having sex with someone on the first, second or even third date
No. It's a sweet idea, but with half the pregnancies in the US unplanned, completely naive. People change, people lie (even to themselves), people fall for peer pressure and society's rationalizations ("men are never ready for babies, he'll be mad for a bit, but once he sees his child, it'll all be OK").
In the end, it's 50/50, because someone else isn't responsible for another person, no matter how deceitful the man or woman may be. ...).
Where I'm from, if you lie in order to get money, that's fraud (unless you lie about being on birth control, who the father is,
if I don't reply, it's only because I've done this one too many times for my tastes
That's fine, I won't take a lack of reply as a 'win'. I'm replying mostly because I think both perspectives deserve equal time.