I've never trusted artificial sweateners. Call it irrational if you want but they just seem like getting something for nothing and I don't trust that. In this case we just discovered Trehalose's hidden "price".
I have a close friend who has been diagnosed c.diff free for almost three months now. It took him years of discomfort and our last line drug for the disease (which apperently is new enough insurance companies arent covering it yet) to get to this point.
To improve my own diet I just ate less and less sweet stuff over time. After a while you don't crave it any more.
By your reasoning one could never support anything because then one would be "Promoting one group over others" and would therefore be "explicitly anti-egalitarian". That is of course complete rubbish.
"2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"
There is absolutely nothing "explicitly anti-egalitarian" about that definition.
How would the first definition ever even be achieved without the second? Without "organized activity" on behalf of any social movement women wouldn't been be able to vote and there certainly wouldn't have been a civil rights movement.
How did a single person who knows how to tie their own shoes mod you up for this nonsense? "Scientific consensus" means that the majority of research supports a certain conclusion. This is a real fucking thing. There's nothing unscientific about that.
Sure, you can point to things that were at one point "scientific consensus" but were wrong but ultimately consensus is what leads us to the best understanding of reality we have, Sure, evolution as a means of understanding the development of life itself could turn out to be completely wrong but as of right now it has shown itself to be correct. The community that studies such things has reached a consensus on the topic and that is that evolution is must likely the source of all modern life.
Let's say a conservative on the internet or anywhere else espouses clearly racist ideals. Does that make conservatives racist? No, of course not. Plenty of idiots espouse plenty of idiotic ideals on the internet and sure, they should be confronted, but that doesn't mean we need to change the meaning of a word.
Wow, way to bring up the minor point of mass shootings but sure I'll indulge your deflection from the topic.
No other first world nation has this problem we have with mass shootings to any similar degree. Meanwhile you you site "facts" about a third world ideology without siting any sources and confabulate first world problems with third.
They're different worlds my friend and support for Sharia law is not the same as wanting to throw gays off roof tops. Plenty of Christians believe that the bible preaches truths but wouldn't harm a gay person nor stone a person for working on the Sabbath despite it clearly advocating for both.
What if you raped someones underage daughter? Should they be able to kill you outside of a proper court hearing? Should they be able to rape your underage daughter?
Drinking and driving? Some people are far more functional than others when drunk. Is it fair for some one who is able to drive properly after having a few drink is punished?
Sure but that in no way makes laws bad by default nor even laws that impinge on individual liberties. For instance, I can't bring a suit case of dynamite onto a passenger plane even if I work in the mining industry and am taking it to a job site I'm flying to.
Meanwhile I can guarantee you I can find some form of "oppression" in any law that any libertarian finds acceptable.
Well if these Christian bakeries followed the law of the land then they wouldn't be ruined. It's really terribly simple.
If a gay person walks up to a Nazi skin head and says "I'm gay" and then gets the shit beaten out of him it's the Nazi skin head who will be punished. There is nothing wrong with a gay person asking for a "gay" wedding cake any more than just announcing their sexual preference. If one had a problem with gay folks that's ones own problem and shouldn't be put on the gay people in question.
"What about poverty rates and economic inequality? Social safety nets? Social divisions? "
All of these is why one uses first world nations in comparisons.
As for the Swiss, they are very clearly an outlier. A small country with an even smaller population? That's a very common place to find outliers in data sets in social studies.
"""You can hit someone just because you hang some arbitrary label on them". This idea is shockingly popular amongst modern liberals."
No. No it is not. You're making that up.
"You're trying to redefine terms to suit yourself and that's precisely the problem here. The left likes to distort terms to suit their political agenda. This includes YOU redefining the term "extremism".
Please observe word order. I did not define extremism at all, I defined political violence. Do try to keep up.
How about I let gay folks sue them along with say, the civil liberty union and let the courts settle these issues on an individual basis? No need to make the fuss you seem to want. Like with any criminal behavior, when the crime is actually commited, the legal system can be brought in and resolves the issue.
Sure, Americans could just be culturally hyper violent compared to the rest of the the first world. From my own personal experiences traveling in the US and abroad i doubt that though. Furthermore if you look at overall crime statistics you'll see that US citizens isnt really more prone to criminal behavior.
If you read any European news it becomes quickly apparent that they have far more knife violence then us. But guns are so much easier to kill some one with so why arent these people using guns? It's because they can't find any to buy legally or even illegally as all illegally sold guns come from a legal source at some point. Some European countries like the UK even provide a knife violence rate much like our own gun violence rate because knife violence is such a significant issue for them
Oh shit, I got the weapon used wrong! My whole point is discredited because I got something wrong that has fuck all to do with my point! What a brilliant conclusion you've come to! You are truely a cut above!
Mainstream news invites the fringes of oppinion in all the time. If its a radio show about feminism then the extreme elements are just going to pop up from time to time. Meanwhile you'e abandoned your subjects "worth pondering" because you heard some things you didnt like.
As for your anecdotal story, that's just you associating with shity women. In another era they'd just have found some other reason to be a jerk to you.
I have plenty of female friends and associates and have personally never experienced anything remotely close to what you describe.
"1. American immigration laws should be enforced." Sure but some common sense compassion is just what's right here.
"2. There is no evidence that police in America apply different standards to white citizens and non-white citizens." How about the first link I found on the subject that even sites its research. https://www.google.com/url?sa=... So basically, white folks do far less time than black for selling drugs on average. Sure, it's not police exclusive but it is most certainly tied to the same core problem.That's a single example on the issue.
"3. Islamic fundamentalism motivates the violent act committed by many extremists and must be combated and defended against using within the framework of foreign diplomacy, foreign aid, military policy, and immigration policy." Sure but on the other end forbidding immigration to some of the most vulnerable peoples of the world is criminal (in a moral context). Just because a person is Muslim doesnt mean they should be treated differently when they seek aid from mass violence. Proper screening? Of course. Banning? These are fucking human beings suffering here.
"4. Government benefits should only be provided to the demonstrably infirm or aged citizens and not be made available to able-bodied persons of working age." So children in poor families should go malnourished thus greatly diminishing their future competitiveness and thus increasing the likelihood they will be unproductive as adults? What a truly amazing idea that is.
There's nothing truly racist happening here but minority communities who are disproportionately poor will suffer far more with such a policy than others.
"5. Restrictions on the sale, ownership, or possession of firearms punish the law-abiding and do not make any dent in violent crime." Please see gun violence and homicide rates for any first world country of comparable wealth. You're creating the purist of fictions on this claim. Our mass gun ownership is making us far less safe than in comparable countries.
Black people go to a restaurant and are denied service.
Gay people go to a cake shop and are denied service.
They're the same fucking scenario. Those black protesters could have easily gone to a different restaurant that catered to black people and the owners decision to integrate has nothing to do with this.
"But now gay people want to force bakers to bake them cakes "
How about another way of seeing it? How about gay people don't want to be denied basic commercial services provided to everyone else? If a baker can tell a gay couple they won't make them a cake they can tell a black couple the same.
No, conservatives have seen fit to re-brand feminism by pointing to its extreme elements. Is a small government type an anarchist? No but an anarchist would advocate for smaller government. Is someone concerned about illegal immigration a racist? No but a racist certainly would be. Likewise a feminist is not a man hater just because they advocate for treating women equally.
It makes me crazy to hear female conservative commentators make statements like "I'm not a feminist but..." and then state they're in favor of equality of the sexes or in other words, lay out a completely main stream feminist agenda. They're literally participating in the negative re-branding of feminism while saying they're all for it.
And I'm begging you, please reject extremism. The economic policies of Nazi Germany are fairly similar to the entirety of all First world nations today. NO REASONABLE PERSON FINDS NAZI GERMANY OBJECTIONABLE BECAUSE THEY HAD SOCIALIZED MEDICINE OR ELDER CARE. There is nothing extreme about socialized medicine or elder care. You're creating false equivalencies. If i live a life like any other and then murder people that makes me evil. If I live a life like any other and don't murder anyone than that makes me as any other.
Your extremism lies in "anything Left is evil". Moderation has almost always been what's best for society, it's always when people run to the extremes that we have horror. Nazi Germany was by any modern observation a moderate in terms of its economy. In terms of nationalism though, it was pure hard Right. This does not make Right wing ideology evil any more than extreme Left wing ideology makes the Left evil. It's merely accepting that extremes are inherently unhealthy.
Slashdot Mirror
I've never trusted artificial sweateners. Call it irrational if you want but they just seem like getting something for nothing and I don't trust that. In this case we just discovered Trehalose's hidden "price".
I have a close friend who has been diagnosed c.diff free for almost three months now. It took him years of discomfort and our last line drug for the disease (which apperently is new enough insurance companies arent covering it yet) to get to this point.
To improve my own diet I just ate less and less sweet stuff over time. After a while you don't crave it any more.
From my prior post
""2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"
There is absolutely nothing "explicitly anti-egalitarian" about that definition."
By your reasoning one could never support anything because then one would be "Promoting one group over others" and would therefore be "explicitly anti-egalitarian". That is of course complete rubbish.
"2 : organized activity on behalf of women's rights and interests"
There is absolutely nothing "explicitly anti-egalitarian" about that definition.
How would the first definition ever even be achieved without the second? Without "organized activity" on behalf of any social movement women wouldn't been be able to vote and there certainly wouldn't have been a civil rights movement.
How did a single person who knows how to tie their own shoes mod you up for this nonsense? "Scientific consensus" means that the majority of research supports a certain conclusion. This is a real fucking thing. There's nothing unscientific about that.
Sure, you can point to things that were at one point "scientific consensus" but were wrong but ultimately consensus is what leads us to the best understanding of reality we have, Sure, evolution as a means of understanding the development of life itself could turn out to be completely wrong but as of right now it has shown itself to be correct. The community that studies such things has reached a consensus on the topic and that is that evolution is must likely the source of all modern life.
Let's say a conservative on the internet or anywhere else espouses clearly racist ideals. Does that make conservatives racist? No, of course not. Plenty of idiots espouse plenty of idiotic ideals on the internet and sure, they should be confronted, but that doesn't mean we need to change the meaning of a word.
I'll leave you with the literal definition of feminism: https://www.merriam-webster.co...
There's nothing bad there.
Wow, way to bring up the minor point of mass shootings but sure I'll indulge your deflection from the topic.
No other first world nation has this problem we have with mass shootings to any similar degree. Meanwhile you you site "facts" about a third world ideology without siting any sources and confabulate first world problems with third.
They're different worlds my friend and support for Sharia law is not the same as wanting to throw gays off roof tops. Plenty of Christians believe that the bible preaches truths but wouldn't harm a gay person nor stone a person for working on the Sabbath despite it clearly advocating for both.
What if you raped someones underage daughter? Should they be able to kill you outside of a proper court hearing? Should they be able to rape your underage daughter?
Drinking and driving? Some people are far more functional than others when drunk. Is it fair for some one who is able to drive properly after having a few drink is punished?
Sure but that in no way makes laws bad by default nor even laws that impinge on individual liberties. For instance, I can't bring a suit case of dynamite onto a passenger plane even if I work in the mining industry and am taking it to a job site I'm flying to.
Meanwhile I can guarantee you I can find some form of "oppression" in any law that any libertarian finds acceptable.
Well if these Christian bakeries followed the law of the land then they wouldn't be ruined. It's really terribly simple.
If a gay person walks up to a Nazi skin head and says "I'm gay" and then gets the shit beaten out of him it's the Nazi skin head who will be punished. There is nothing wrong with a gay person asking for a "gay" wedding cake any more than just announcing their sexual preference. If one had a problem with gay folks that's ones own problem and shouldn't be put on the gay people in question.
"What about poverty rates and economic inequality? Social safety nets? Social divisions? "
All of these is why one uses first world nations in comparisons.
As for the Swiss, they are very clearly an outlier. A small country with an even smaller population? That's a very common place to find outliers in data sets in social studies.
Branding everything bad as Left and clearly making the assumption that nothing bad comes from the Right.
"""You can hit someone just because you hang some arbitrary label on them". This idea is shockingly popular amongst modern liberals."
No. No it is not. You're making that up.
"You're trying to redefine terms to suit yourself and that's precisely the problem here. The left likes to distort terms to suit their political agenda. This includes YOU redefining the term "extremism".
Please observe word order. I did not define extremism at all, I defined political violence. Do try to keep up.
How about I let gay folks sue them along with say, the civil liberty union and let the courts settle these issues on an individual basis? No need to make the fuss you seem to want. Like with any criminal behavior, when the crime is actually commited, the legal system can be brought in and resolves the issue.
Sure, Americans could just be culturally hyper violent compared to the rest of the the first world. From my own personal experiences traveling in the US and abroad i doubt that though. Furthermore if you look at overall crime statistics you'll see that US citizens isnt really more prone to criminal behavior.
If you read any European news it becomes quickly apparent that they have far more knife violence then us. But guns are so much easier to kill some one with so why arent these people using guns? It's because they can't find any to buy legally or even illegally as all illegally sold guns come from a legal source at some point. Some European countries like the UK even provide a knife violence rate much like our own gun violence rate because knife violence is such a significant issue for them
Oh shit, I got the weapon used wrong! My whole point is discredited because I got something wrong that has fuck all to do with my point! What a brilliant conclusion you've come to! You are truely a cut above!
Mainstream news invites the fringes of oppinion in all the time. If its a radio show about feminism then the extreme elements are just going to pop up from time to time. Meanwhile you'e abandoned your subjects "worth pondering" because you heard some things you didnt like.
As for your anecdotal story, that's just you associating with shity women. In another era they'd just have found some other reason to be a jerk to you.
I have plenty of female friends and associates and have personally never experienced anything remotely close to what you describe.
"1. American immigration laws should be enforced."
Sure but some common sense compassion is just what's right here.
"2. There is no evidence that police in America apply different standards to white citizens and non-white citizens."
How about the first link I found on the subject that even sites its research. https://www.google.com/url?sa=...
So basically, white folks do far less time than black for selling drugs on average. Sure, it's not police exclusive but it is most certainly tied to the same core problem.That's a single example on the issue.
"3. Islamic fundamentalism motivates the violent act committed by many extremists and must be combated and defended against using within the framework of foreign diplomacy, foreign aid, military policy, and immigration policy."
Sure but on the other end forbidding immigration to some of the most vulnerable peoples of the world is criminal (in a moral context). Just because a person is Muslim doesnt mean they should be treated differently when they seek aid from mass violence. Proper screening? Of course. Banning? These are fucking human beings suffering here.
"4. Government benefits should only be provided to the demonstrably infirm or aged citizens and not be made available to able-bodied persons of working age."
So children in poor families should go malnourished thus greatly diminishing their future competitiveness and thus increasing the likelihood they will be unproductive as adults? What a truly amazing idea that is.
There's nothing truly racist happening here but minority communities who are disproportionately poor will suffer far more with such a policy than others.
"5. Restrictions on the sale, ownership, or possession of firearms punish the law-abiding and do not make any dent in violent crime."
Please see gun violence and homicide rates for any first world country of comparable wealth. You're creating the purist of fictions on this claim. Our mass gun ownership is making us far less safe than in comparable countries.
Maybe conservatives who are triggered by people who want to be refereed to by an opposite sex then their birth?
How horrible is that?
You're an idiot.
Black people go to a restaurant and are denied service.
Gay people go to a cake shop and are denied service.
They're the same fucking scenario. Those black protesters could have easily gone to a different restaurant that catered to black people and the owners decision to integrate has nothing to do with this.
"But now gay people want to force bakers to bake them cakes "
How about another way of seeing it? How about gay people don't want to be denied basic commercial services provided to everyone else? If a baker can tell a gay couple they won't make them a cake they can tell a black couple the same.
The definition of a strawman. Please mod down.
Drive a car into protesters and kill one or shoot up a bunch of church goers lately? Maybe hit up a gay night club with an automatic weapon?
No, conservatives have seen fit to re-brand feminism by pointing to its extreme elements. Is a small government type an anarchist? No but an anarchist would advocate for smaller government. Is someone concerned about illegal immigration a racist? No but a racist certainly would be. Likewise a feminist is not a man hater just because they advocate for treating women equally.
It makes me crazy to hear female conservative commentators make statements like "I'm not a feminist but..." and then state they're in favor of equality of the sexes or in other words, lay out a completely main stream feminist agenda. They're literally participating in the negative re-branding of feminism while saying they're all for it.
Nice.
"hate and violence" is on the Left but then only on the "far, far right", Way to advocate for political neutrality while being completely non-neutral.
Extremism is what defines political violence. Me telling you that probably won't change anything though.
And I'm begging you, please reject extremism. The economic policies of Nazi Germany are fairly similar to the entirety of all First world nations today. NO REASONABLE PERSON FINDS NAZI GERMANY OBJECTIONABLE BECAUSE THEY HAD SOCIALIZED MEDICINE OR ELDER CARE. There is nothing extreme about socialized medicine or elder care. You're creating false equivalencies. If i live a life like any other and then murder people that makes me evil. If I live a life like any other and don't murder anyone than that makes me as any other.
Your extremism lies in "anything Left is evil". Moderation has almost always been what's best for society, it's always when people run to the extremes that we have horror. Nazi Germany was by any modern observation a moderate in terms of its economy. In terms of nationalism though, it was pure hard Right. This does not make Right wing ideology evil any more than extreme Left wing ideology makes the Left evil. It's merely accepting that extremes are inherently unhealthy.