As inflammatory as your statement is, you do make a point that is frequently dismissed. Actually putting your penis in another person is a choice. Whether that other person is a man or a woman is irrelevant. It is still a choice. Who you are physically attracted to is not.
So, if you define gay as having the urges, it is not curable. If you define it as acting on those urges, then it is.
Personally, I don't care who other people are having sex with, and I don't like people butting their nose into other peoples lives concerning things that don't effect them. So, I disagree with you conclusion, but your supporting argument is certainly true.
It is just as easy to "cure" someone of being black as it is to "cure" someone who's lean body mass is greater than what the government/insurance/medical industry consider fat. That is even if you ignore the blindingly obvious fact that obesity is not really a choice. Do you really think you could get your body up to 400 pounds? Even if you tried? I know that I couldn't. Even if it was my sole goal in life, my body just wouldn't do it. I simply don't have the genetics for it. Just as the fact that my lean body mass being more than the "normal" body weight for a person my size gets me defined as overweight means that I don't have the genetics to have a "normal" weight.
So, in your attempt to show how other people are bigots, you have exposed your own bigotry.
n fifty years we'll look back on you the way we now look back on people who fought to preserve anti-miscegenation laws: at best misguided and trapped in your particular perspective, unable to consider what's blindingly obvious to the rest of us.
When the anti-(gay)marriage laws were being voted on here in CA, I was truly surprised that the pro-(gay)marriage groups didn't dig out every piece of propaganda that they could from the anti-miscegenation days. Since the anti-(gay)marriage groups were using almost word for word, the same arguments that were used to argue against interracial marriage.
More specifically, it forbids the collection of information on anyone under 13 without the parents consent. Since it would be just as trivial for FB to have a checkbox that says "Parent Consents" as it is for the Disney or Nickelodeon site, we can safely assume that data collection laws are not the reason.
I would presume that 13 is the age because FB is the kind of site that media outlets would love to rake over the coals. 13 was established long before the internet was popularized, and it has held are a pretty safe age by the population as an appropriate age to show kids 'inappropriate' material. (e.g. PG-13 movies) Right or wrong, effective or ineffective, there is precident for the age 13. Many sites on the internet used that as a cutoff age before it became a legal necessity.
So now, FB wanting to have as many users as possible is going to set the age to the lowest possible number that won't cause them legal problems. If they went with 12, they would stand out as the exception. At 13, they are conforming to the cultural standard.
Or you can just unfriend their parents, since even considering that is a clear indication you don't respect their parents and are not their friends anyway.
Why would you want to do that? I truly don't understand why you would have any problem with her having her kids on Facebook? What is the problem with her kids being in contact with their family?
The context of this thread is the cost of running electric cars vs. gasoline cars. I added my costs on the two to the conversation which is relevant to the conversation. You claimed that my statement was incorrect. You did so by making a non-sequitur comment about the AVERAGE cost, which has nothing to do with the conversation, as no one in California would be paying the AVERAGE cost to charge an electric car.
So, what am I trying to prove? Just that my pertinent statement is correct.
My question is what are YOU trying to prove by lying? I initially assumed you were just not thinking about what you were saying when you commented on Average price of electricity in CA, but given that your mistake was pointed out, and you follow that up by implying that the correction isn't a valid comment, one can only assume that you are intentionally lying.
OK, you are not saying that there is a difference between fuel and an energy storage, but just that because of our current capabilities, you should view them that way. Fair enough.
You are misinformed. The use of "average" is useless in the calculation. The average is calculated using the $0.12 "baseline" rate, as well as the "$0.38" above "baseline" usage. The thing is, that every kwh that you add to your bill by adding a car is going to be chaged at the high rate. The lowest rate offered here is $0.12. You only get that rate for the first 387 kwh a month that you use. At the 388th kwh, the rate goes to $0.14. that rate only last for another 113kwhs. At the 501st kwh the rate over doubles to $0.28kwh, and at 757kwh, the rate goes to $0.33kwh. The rate continues to jump at about every 100 kwhs to $.38 and $0.42. The highest I have had personally is $0.42, so I don't know if the rates rise forever, but our rates for additional electricity isn't even close to $0.10kwh, or even $0.20kwh.
I have known a lot of teachers. None of them put in the hours that you claim, and every "the teachers are starving" brigade. Teachers do NOT spend all summer and every evening going to training and dc0014
As for the claim that no one is saying teachers are in poverty, you show that you are among the missinformed throngs that plug there ears to the world. Just a little ways up on this thread you will find that frosty_tsm said:
Hahaha... do you really thing a teacher's day end when the last bell rings? Or that many teach summer school just to make ends meet?
Do you have an online source for that 55%? If so, it would be a very good talking point. I say call you out, as I have not seen any data to show any states spending that much. That doesn't mean it isn't possible. If you are exaggerating, those that support the same position should call you out, as it would undermine the point. If you are accurate, then a source would be very good for keeping the statement from looking like an exaggeration, and driving the point home.
There you go. It seems odd that people think fueling at home is a requirement for electric. Fueling at home is a benefit, sure, but if fueling stations can charge your electric car as fast as they can fuel your gas car, you have reached parity on convenience.
I'm not complaining either, as it is a valid path of discussion.
I would say that while it sounds really dangerous, we currently have dangers in our homes that would seem perposterous to anyone not used to them. Consider that we have wires run through almost every wall of our house that carry enough electricity to kill us. Not just one or two walls, but almost every single one of them. Our 'safety' codes even require that there be outlets every 12 feet, which 99% of the time consist of pieces of plastic with holes in them that open directly to the bare wires of the electric system.
Consider also that we have gas lines leading to many homes that if leaky will kill you through inhalation, and are designed to burn. There is nothing to stop these lines from dumping an unlimited amount of gas into your home. They have no 'fuse' to blow if there is an uncontrolled leak.
That isn't even counting the fact that we let people have kitchens. The number of injuries and deaths in the US due to kitchens is extemely high. Much higher I expect than would ever be caused by car charging stations failing.
This is what I have been saying for years. The other option for transitioning to electric is to mandate the basic car to be all electric, and have a standard electrical connection and mounting system for the power source. This way, the source of the electricity could be changed at a fraction of the price of the whole car. Only driving in town? Run with the battery pack. Planning a 900 mile drive to visit relatives in another state? Slide in the gas generator and have at it. Commute 80 miles to work, and happen to know that there are hydrogen or methanol stations on the way? Slide in the appropriate generator and your good to go. Heck, a spike in the cost of a particular fuel due to a particularly bad storm? Just use a different one until the problem is resolved.
You would probably even see equipment rental companies renting out the alternate generators. I might run on electric 90% of the time, and when I plan to head out on a road trip, I just go rent the gas generator from the local equipment rental, the same way that I rent a jackhammer if I want to break up my front walk.
Of course for many of us the cost of the electricity is off as well. Here in CA you would be paying more like $0.32/kWh or $5.12/100 km which is more than I pay for gas. Cost comparison between powering a gas and electric vehicle is highly dependent on your local electric rates.
You apparently ARE mistaken about how babies are made. Not one single homosexual sex act has ever produced a single baby. Also, women are get pregnant without sex every day. http://www.americanpregnancy.org/infertility/ivf.html
It really surprises me how many adults really don't know how babies are made, and thus repeat the same ignorant comment that you did.
You should also note that as the yeast produces alcohol as it's waste product, the alcohol content keeps going up and the sugar (food) content keeps going down until there is too much waste, and not enough food. This invariably leads to most of the yeast population dieing of starvation and being poisoned by it's own waste.
Of course, the myth of vegetarianism being healthy would then rear it's ugly head. Not to mention that rationing is not the solution to a dwindling food supply. It is short sighted, and doomed to failure. Rationing is only effective at surviving a short term shortage.
That is the point that I am surprised wasn't the very first post. Laptops don't cost $200. Tablets? Those I can get for as little as $150 unsubsidized. Not tablets I want, but they are available.
Cheaper rarely works out to be better for the consumer,
What?!?!?! That is a truly bizarre thing to say. Do you really want to go back to a time when books could only be afforded by the wealthy? When computers could only be bought by the largest of corporations? Cheaper has been awesome for the consumer. Not always, but generally. I LOVE the fact that food is so inexpensive that I can afford exotic foods like pineapples and mangos, which would have been prohibitively expensive to get a hold of just a couple of generations ago.
Slashdot Mirror
As inflammatory as your statement is, you do make a point that is frequently dismissed. Actually putting your penis in another person is a choice. Whether that other person is a man or a woman is irrelevant. It is still a choice. Who you are physically attracted to is not.
So, if you define gay as having the urges, it is not curable. If you define it as acting on those urges, then it is.
Personally, I don't care who other people are having sex with, and I don't like people butting their nose into other peoples lives concerning things that don't effect them. So, I disagree with you conclusion, but your supporting argument is certainly true.
It is just as easy to "cure" someone of being black as it is to "cure" someone who's lean body mass is greater than what the government/insurance/medical industry consider fat. That is even if you ignore the blindingly obvious fact that obesity is not really a choice. Do you really think you could get your body up to 400 pounds? Even if you tried? I know that I couldn't. Even if it was my sole goal in life, my body just wouldn't do it. I simply don't have the genetics for it. Just as the fact that my lean body mass being more than the "normal" body weight for a person my size gets me defined as overweight means that I don't have the genetics to have a "normal" weight.
So, in your attempt to show how other people are bigots, you have exposed your own bigotry.
n fifty years we'll look back on you the way we now look back on people who fought to preserve anti-miscegenation laws: at best misguided and trapped in your particular perspective, unable to consider what's blindingly obvious to the rest of us.
When the anti-(gay)marriage laws were being voted on here in CA, I was truly surprised that the pro-(gay)marriage groups didn't dig out every piece of propaganda that they could from the anti-miscegenation days. Since the anti-(gay)marriage groups were using almost word for word, the same arguments that were used to argue against interracial marriage.
More specifically, it forbids the collection of information on anyone under 13 without the parents consent. Since it would be just as trivial for FB to have a checkbox that says "Parent Consents" as it is for the Disney or Nickelodeon site, we can safely assume that data collection laws are not the reason.
I would presume that 13 is the age because FB is the kind of site that media outlets would love to rake over the coals. 13 was established long before the internet was popularized, and it has held are a pretty safe age by the population as an appropriate age to show kids 'inappropriate' material. (e.g. PG-13 movies) Right or wrong, effective or ineffective, there is precident for the age 13. Many sites on the internet used that as a cutoff age before it became a legal necessity.
So now, FB wanting to have as many users as possible is going to set the age to the lowest possible number that won't cause them legal problems. If they went with 12, they would stand out as the exception. At 13, they are conforming to the cultural standard.
Or you can just unfriend their parents, since even considering that is a clear indication you don't respect their parents and are not their friends anyway.
That would be truly sad, and seriously make them look bad.
Why would you want to do that? I truly don't understand why you would have any problem with her having her kids on Facebook? What is the problem with her kids being in contact with their family?
Why would you want to? Or, are you just pointing out that you couldn't if you did want to? Which you don't?
The context of this thread is the cost of running electric cars vs. gasoline cars. I added my costs on the two to the conversation which is relevant to the conversation. You claimed that my statement was incorrect. You did so by making a non-sequitur comment about the AVERAGE cost, which has nothing to do with the conversation, as no one in California would be paying the AVERAGE cost to charge an electric car.
So, what am I trying to prove? Just that my pertinent statement is correct.
My question is what are YOU trying to prove by lying? I initially assumed you were just not thinking about what you were saying when you commented on Average price of electricity in CA, but given that your mistake was pointed out, and you follow that up by implying that the correction isn't a valid comment, one can only assume that you are intentionally lying.
So, again, what are YOU trying to prove?
OK, you are not saying that there is a difference between fuel and an energy storage, but just that because of our current capabilities, you should view them that way. Fair enough.
You are misinformed. The use of "average" is useless in the calculation. The average is calculated using the $0.12 "baseline" rate, as well as the "$0.38" above "baseline" usage. The thing is, that every kwh that you add to your bill by adding a car is going to be chaged at the high rate. The lowest rate offered here is $0.12. You only get that rate for the first 387 kwh a month that you use. At the 388th kwh, the rate goes to $0.14. that rate only last for another 113kwhs. At the 501st kwh the rate over doubles to $0.28kwh, and at 757kwh, the rate goes to $0.33kwh. The rate continues to jump at about every 100 kwhs to $.38 and $0.42. The highest I have had personally is $0.42, so I don't know if the rates rise forever, but our rates for additional electricity isn't even close to $0.10kwh, or even $0.20kwh.
As for the claim that no one is saying teachers are in poverty, you show that you are among the missinformed throngs that plug there ears to the world. Just a little ways up on this thread you will find that frosty_tsm said:
Hahaha... do you really thing a teacher's day end when the last bell rings? Or that many teach summer school just to make ends meet?
His kinds of comments are down right common.
Do you have an online source for that 55%? If so, it would be a very good talking point. I say call you out, as I have not seen any data to show any states spending that much. That doesn't mean it isn't possible. If you are exaggerating, those that support the same position should call you out, as it would undermine the point. If you are accurate, then a source would be very good for keeping the statement from looking like an exaggeration, and driving the point home.
People keep making that statement, but could you please explain what fuel ISN'T just a energy storage medium?
There you go. It seems odd that people think fueling at home is a requirement for electric. Fueling at home is a benefit, sure, but if fueling stations can charge your electric car as fast as they can fuel your gas car, you have reached parity on convenience.
I'm not complaining either, as it is a valid path of discussion.
I would say that while it sounds really dangerous, we currently have dangers in our homes that would seem perposterous to anyone not used to them. Consider that we have wires run through almost every wall of our house that carry enough electricity to kill us. Not just one or two walls, but almost every single one of them. Our 'safety' codes even require that there be outlets every 12 feet, which 99% of the time consist of pieces of plastic with holes in them that open directly to the bare wires of the electric system.
Consider also that we have gas lines leading to many homes that if leaky will kill you through inhalation, and are designed to burn. There is nothing to stop these lines from dumping an unlimited amount of gas into your home. They have no 'fuse' to blow if there is an uncontrolled leak.
That isn't even counting the fact that we let people have kitchens. The number of injuries and deaths in the US due to kitchens is extemely high. Much higher I expect than would ever be caused by car charging stations failing.
This is what I have been saying for years. The other option for transitioning to electric is to mandate the basic car to be all electric, and have a standard electrical connection and mounting system for the power source. This way, the source of the electricity could be changed at a fraction of the price of the whole car. Only driving in town? Run with the battery pack. Planning a 900 mile drive to visit relatives in another state? Slide in the gas generator and have at it. Commute 80 miles to work, and happen to know that there are hydrogen or methanol stations on the way? Slide in the appropriate generator and your good to go. Heck, a spike in the cost of a particular fuel due to a particularly bad storm? Just use a different one until the problem is resolved.
You would probably even see equipment rental companies renting out the alternate generators. I might run on electric 90% of the time, and when I plan to head out on a road trip, I just go rent the gas generator from the local equipment rental, the same way that I rent a jackhammer if I want to break up my front walk.
Of course for many of us the cost of the electricity is off as well. Here in CA you would be paying more like $0.32/kWh or $5.12/100 km which is more than I pay for gas. Cost comparison between powering a gas and electric vehicle is highly dependent on your local electric rates.
You apparently ARE mistaken about how babies are made. Not one single homosexual sex act has ever produced a single baby. Also, women are get pregnant without sex every day. http://www.americanpregnancy.org/infertility/ivf.html
It really surprises me how many adults really don't know how babies are made, and thus repeat the same ignorant comment that you did.
You should also note that as the yeast produces alcohol as it's waste product, the alcohol content keeps going up and the sugar (food) content keeps going down until there is too much waste, and not enough food. This invariably leads to most of the yeast population dieing of starvation and being poisoned by it's own waste.
Of course, the myth of vegetarianism being healthy would then rear it's ugly head. Not to mention that rationing is not the solution to a dwindling food supply. It is short sighted, and doomed to failure. Rationing is only effective at surviving a short term shortage.
That is the point that I am surprised wasn't the very first post. Laptops don't cost $200. Tablets? Those I can get for as little as $150 unsubsidized. Not tablets I want, but they are available.
Cheaper rarely works out to be better for the consumer,
What?!?!?! That is a truly bizarre thing to say. Do you really want to go back to a time when books could only be afforded by the wealthy? When computers could only be bought by the largest of corporations? Cheaper has been awesome for the consumer. Not always, but generally. I LOVE the fact that food is so inexpensive that I can afford exotic foods like pineapples and mangos, which would have been prohibitively expensive to get a hold of just a couple of generations ago.
Given the stats on movies like Shrek 2
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=shrek2.htm
I'm pretty sure he already does hang around with furries, as I'm not sure how he would avoid it.
Google would be stupid not to jump in with both feet. This is absolutely a proxy war against Google.