No, you don't know what those things are. Cut and pasted from another post of mine
You're confused, let me help you.
Fascism is a combination of left wing economic policy (although not communism) and right wing social policy. The Nazi's got to be one of history's biggest villains not because of their left wing economic policies but because of their right wing social policies. Big patriotic rallies, not big on gays, not big on minorities; these are all attributes of the right.
Furthermore, fascists were big on the rule of law and they certainly gave their police force a wide set of powers which the Right often complains about the Left in this country not doing.
Now I'm not trying to say the Right in this country are Nazi's, I'm just pointing out that you got the meaning of some words wrong.
Fascism is a combination of left wing economic policy (although not communism) and right wing social policy. The Nazi's got to be one of history's biggest villains not because of their left wing economic policies but because of their right wing social policies. Big patriotic rallies, not big on gays, not big on minorities; these are all attributes of the right.
Furthermore, fascists were big on the rule of law and they certainly gave their police force a wide set of powers.
Now I'm not trying to say the Right in this country are Nazi's, I'm just pointing out that you got the meaning of some words wrong.
Oh how profound of you. A man made mass extinction is underway and we should just sit back and enjoy the show cause "Darwinism"? That's not even of coherent thought.
You must be new to the english language so I'll help you.
Humanity is typically seperated from the natural world in contexts like this due to the conscience nature of our actions. An asteroid or a volcano are considered natural as they are events that literally just happen "naturally" where as humans choose to do or not do things.
The free market fixing things in this case would be allowing developers to buy up houses, bulldoze them, and then build 20 story condo and apartment buildings. This is literally how major cities like New York got to be major cities.
To put it in other words, there is a shortage of supply to meet housing demand. Right now zoning laws are preventing the supply to go up to meet the demand thus eventually creating our out of control housing prices we see today.
No offense but what you describe sounds more like run away inflation. No matter how much wages go up there will always be a housing shortage.
This would be a waste of money not to mention a bit dangerous given the stability of landfill in an earthquake zone. What they need to be doing is rezoning their residential zones to build up. There is way too big a demand for housing for silicon valley to maintain its large regions of suburban housing. Really, this should have been done a decade ago but short sighted voters wanted to maintain their property values and now they have their entire service industry living three families per house.
For a region that styles itself as Left Wing it's really unconciousable to me that they so abandoned their working class.
The short; the average age of someone quitting smoking for the 2011-2012 period (the most recent period in the study) was 39.5 years old. In other words, the parent you're replying to is correct, a 25 year old threshold does not make sense.
"Of course I'd rather see a total ban on smoking as it doesn't have any good purpose at all."
You could say the same for alcohol, coffee, or any number of other things. Personally, I really enjoy a smoke every now and then if the tobacco is good. Of course I'm happy none of my friends smoke anymore because of health issues but I do miss being able to bum a smoke every other month or so to enjoy, wake me up, or just to get a nice little nicotine buzz. Tobacco and alcohol pair especially well
Now I'm not necessarily advocating for this law but the big idea here is to get cigarettes out of the reach of school age kids. Everyone I know who smoked in high school got seniors to buy them smokes and they were therefore much easier to get than the 21 and over alcohol.
Don't get me wrong, we certainly did get our hands on alcohol when we were underage but getting enough to maintain a habbit would have been much harder to do.
Maybe you got modded down because your post wasnt very well thought through
"How do you distinguish between entitlements"? Observation maybe? Your comment is like saying "they're all cars so how can you possibly tell the difference!?"
Governments who give entitlements will inevitably "go to hell"? Yeah, every world government sure is going to hell right now.
So we shouldn't plan for the future because technological change might disrupt the plans? That's just stupid, there's nothing wrong with setting long term goals.
So your solution to your transportation problems is to inconvenience friends and family?
Unless there were some extenuating circumstances I'd be pretty irritated getting phone calls from friends for rides home from a night out where they had a few drinks. There are scenarios where it's perfectly fine to bum a ride from someone you know but there are plenty of others where it's just plain rude.
Also, your "solution" doesnt cover when one is outside ones home area.
Maybe if you live in a major urban area taxi company's have apps but that's certainly not my experience where i live. I live in a fairly affluent suburb of a major urban area and i can assure you taxi companies are not so advanced here.
They are also about twice the price of Uber most times of the day.
I'm not following your narrative here at all. Are you saying economic damage from technological advances brought poverty on India and China? If so, that's not true at all. In the case of China it was most certainly a highly corrupt and failing dynasty, then European colonialism and the plunder of Chinese wealth that brought, then civil war, then Japanese invasion, then more civil war. The country was literally in ruins. India has some similar stories in its history as well. Furthermore, both of these countries were poverty riddled even at their heights. The average Chinese peasant or low caste Indian did not live particularly prosperous lives even at the height of these country's historic power. Technological advancement's effect on their economies has almost nothing to do with the decline of these civilizations from their heights.
Furthermore, you seem to paint a narrative where an already existing middle class were the only beneficiaries from tech advancement's effect on the economy when technological advancement is exactly what brought the prosperity that allowed for the West to have the extremely large and prosperous middle class that we think of today when we hear the term. The odds are pretty damn good you and I would have both been impoverished peasants who died in their thirties if it wasnt for the technological advancements of the last several centuries. After all, historically what constituted what one might call a middle class in was only a very small sliver of the population.
I am in no way trying to tie anything I'm saying here into the discussion about modern automation which I think could prove to be very problematic in keeping large parts of the population employed, I'm just pointing out that your narrative, as I understand it, seems to be false.
Calling it fake meat would be inaccurate. Soy deli slices are fake meat. This would be meat, just not from an anaimal.
As for "if you dont eat meat why eat this?", anyone who doesnt eat meat because they have an ethical issue with killing an animal but still enjoys the taste and values the level of nutrition provided by meat would be very interested in this.
On top of that, there are many of us who love eating meat but recognize that it's a very inefficient means of making food in a world where food and water scarcity is becoming more and more of an issue and who believe this could be a great way to get meat with less resources used.
Slashdot Mirror
No, you don't know what those things are. Cut and pasted from another post of mine
You're confused, let me help you.
Fascism is a combination of left wing economic policy (although not communism) and right wing social policy. The Nazi's got to be one of history's biggest villains not because of their left wing economic policies but because of their right wing social policies. Big patriotic rallies, not big on gays, not big on minorities; these are all attributes of the right.
Furthermore, fascists were big on the rule of law and they certainly gave their police force a wide set of powers which the Right often complains about the Left in this country not doing.
Now I'm not trying to say the Right in this country are Nazi's, I'm just pointing out that you got the meaning of some words wrong.
You're confused, let me help you.
Fascism is a combination of left wing economic policy (although not communism) and right wing social policy. The Nazi's got to be one of history's biggest villains not because of their left wing economic policies but because of their right wing social policies. Big patriotic rallies, not big on gays, not big on minorities; these are all attributes of the right.
Furthermore, fascists were big on the rule of law and they certainly gave their police force a wide set of powers.
Now I'm not trying to say the Right in this country are Nazi's, I'm just pointing out that you got the meaning of some words wrong.
Oh jesus christ, read the fucking articles. It's largely large mammals whose populations are dropping the most, not fucking mice.
You really are willfully ignorant.
This isnt exactly niche knowledge here unless you're being willfully ignorant.
In the interest of saving myself time here's this for you
http://bfy.tw/CpUB
I'll just cut and paste my responce from a post just like yours posted above.
Well none of that rediculousness changes the fact that the population counts of most large mammals are crashing globally.
Oh how profound of you. A man made mass extinction is underway and we should just sit back and enjoy the show cause "Darwinism"? That's not even of coherent thought.
Well none of that rediculousness changes the fact that the population counts of most large mammals are crashing globally.
You must be new to the english language so I'll help you.
Humanity is typically seperated from the natural world in contexts like this due to the conscience nature of our actions. An asteroid or a volcano are considered natural as they are events that literally just happen "naturally" where as humans choose to do or not do things.
This isnt a mass extinction event, it's "just a period of massive flux"?
That's exactly what a mass extinction is, you're just rewording things to make them sound more pleasent.
"It's not a tax cut for the wealthy, we're just reducing their taxes". How in keeping with the the times you are.
The free market fixing things in this case would be allowing developers to buy up houses, bulldoze them, and then build 20 story condo and apartment buildings. This is literally how major cities like New York got to be major cities.
To put it in other words, there is a shortage of supply to meet housing demand. Right now zoning laws are preventing the supply to go up to meet the demand thus eventually creating our out of control housing prices we see today.
No offense but what you describe sounds more like run away inflation. No matter how much wages go up there will always be a housing shortage.
You can when the people who sell them their food live in what amount to suburban slums.
This would be a waste of money not to mention a bit dangerous given the stability of landfill in an earthquake zone. What they need to be doing is rezoning their residential zones to build up. There is way too big a demand for housing for silicon valley to maintain its large regions of suburban housing. Really, this should have been done a decade ago but short sighted voters wanted to maintain their property values and now they have their entire service industry living three families per house.
For a region that styles itself as Left Wing it's really unconciousable to me that they so abandoned their working class.
Let's bring some real data in on this
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
The short; the average age of someone quitting smoking for the 2011-2012 period (the most recent period in the study) was 39.5 years old. In other words, the parent you're replying to is correct, a 25 year old threshold does not make sense.
"Of course I'd rather see a total ban on smoking as it doesn't have any good purpose at all."
You could say the same for alcohol, coffee, or any number of other things. Personally, I really enjoy a smoke every now and then if the tobacco is good. Of course I'm happy none of my friends smoke anymore because of health issues but I do miss being able to bum a smoke every other month or so to enjoy, wake me up, or just to get a nice little nicotine buzz. Tobacco and alcohol pair especially well
Now I'm not necessarily advocating for this law but the big idea here is to get cigarettes out of the reach of school age kids. Everyone I know who smoked in high school got seniors to buy them smokes and they were therefore much easier to get than the 21 and over alcohol.
Don't get me wrong, we certainly did get our hands on alcohol when we were underage but getting enough to maintain a habbit would have been much harder to do.
Maybe you got modded down because your post wasnt very well thought through
"How do you distinguish between entitlements"? Observation maybe? Your comment is like saying "they're all cars so how can you possibly tell the difference!?"
Governments who give entitlements will inevitably "go to hell"? Yeah, every world government sure is going to hell right now.
Sure, if you wear partisan blinders then the "other" always look like bad guys
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Maybe pull your head out of the sand.
So we shouldn't plan for the future because technological change might disrupt the plans? That's just stupid, there's nothing wrong with setting long term goals.
I think that's a very good point.
Well if you sit around on your ass all day you dont have to worry about transportation options at all.
So your solution to your transportation problems is to inconvenience friends and family?
Unless there were some extenuating circumstances I'd be pretty irritated getting phone calls from friends for rides home from a night out where they had a few drinks. There are scenarios where it's perfectly fine to bum a ride from someone you know but there are plenty of others where it's just plain rude.
Also, your "solution" doesnt cover when one is outside ones home area.
Yeah, you and everyone else and yet there's been demand for taxi services for as long as cars have been the major form of transportation.
Basically, way to both point out the obvious and not contribute to the conversation at all.
Maybe if you live in a major urban area taxi company's have apps but that's certainly not my experience where i live. I live in a fairly affluent suburb of a major urban area and i can assure you taxi companies are not so advanced here.
They are also about twice the price of Uber most times of the day.
I'm not following your narrative here at all. Are you saying economic damage from technological advances brought poverty on India and China? If so, that's not true at all. In the case of China it was most certainly a highly corrupt and failing dynasty, then European colonialism and the plunder of Chinese wealth that brought, then civil war, then Japanese invasion, then more civil war. The country was literally in ruins. India has some similar stories in its history as well. Furthermore, both of these countries were poverty riddled even at their heights. The average Chinese peasant or low caste Indian did not live particularly prosperous lives even at the height of these country's historic power. Technological advancement's effect on their economies has almost nothing to do with the decline of these civilizations from their heights.
Furthermore, you seem to paint a narrative where an already existing middle class were the only beneficiaries from tech advancement's effect on the economy when technological advancement is exactly what brought the prosperity that allowed for the West to have the extremely large and prosperous middle class that we think of today when we hear the term. The odds are pretty damn good you and I would have both been impoverished peasants who died in their thirties if it wasnt for the technological advancements of the last several centuries. After all, historically what constituted what one might call a middle class in was only a very small sliver of the population.
I am in no way trying to tie anything I'm saying here into the discussion about modern automation which I think could prove to be very problematic in keeping large parts of the population employed, I'm just pointing out that your narrative, as I understand it, seems to be false.
Calling it fake meat would be inaccurate. Soy deli slices are fake meat. This would be meat, just not from an anaimal.
As for "if you dont eat meat why eat this?", anyone who doesnt eat meat because they have an ethical issue with killing an animal but still enjoys the taste and values the level of nutrition provided by meat would be very interested in this.
On top of that, there are many of us who love eating meat but recognize that it's a very inefficient means of making food in a world where food and water scarcity is becoming more and more of an issue and who believe this could be a great way to get meat with less resources used.