I LOVE this argument. I mean, I admit that I'm only in my 20's, so I guess I wasn't around when kids were allowed to jump around rambunctiously in class and shout answers. But even if there were such a time (which, seriously, I doubt...from my understanding classrooms have gotten less, rather than more strict), are you seriously arguing that boys are doing more poorly because they're forced to behave in a way appropriate to a classroom setting? And if this is the case, why are we deciding that this is a good thing, and not a defect inherent to the male gender. Because when girls were too shy to speak up in class, that was a defect...but when boys are apparently too addle-brained to sit down, well then. That's a feature!
Anyway, snark aside, the point is: this is a lame argument. Boys doing poorly because they are inherently unable to sit down and pay attention is a) not really true (because, um...in the super-strict classrooms of days gone by, boys apparently did well) and b) if it were true, misbehavior is not an impulse that should be encouraged anyway. Please try again.
Okay, so apparently (if anyone else cares) there are 'trials' of the service going on in my fair city...but the launch has been delayed. Again. So I'm not totally convinced...but its more than I thought was going on.
Things will get interesting when Sprint WiMax service lights up in Chicago later this year. Is this actually happening? I can't find any recent info about this, and I had been under the impression that the plan was scrapped...but I would love to be wrong, I'll tell you (since I'm a Chicago resident).:-)
1. dump some old trash in the previously perfectly fine ocean 2. ??? 3. LUXURY CONDOMINIUMS FOR FISH
I kind of feel like what goes into #2 is not real hard to figure out, but: As far as I can tell, artificial reefs do two things (and I am not in any way an expert on this, I'm mostly just remembering from an article about them doing this in Australia and a quick Google of 'artificial reef' to double check my recollections): create a sort of breakwater to prevent beach erosion, and provide a spot for things like coral to attach on to. Once there's coral and other types of stationary sea life there, then fish and stuff start hanging around and before you know it you have luxury condos for fish. Or so I gather. If they're putting an artificial reef in, generally that means there wasn't much density of marine life in that area prior to its creation, so they would not be placing it in areas that were 'previously perfectly fine.'
There is at least one thing to note about artificial reefs in the negative, why-are-we-throwing-garbage-in-the-ocean sense, which is that sometimes their choice of materials kind of sucks. Apparently they made one out of tires in Florida a little while ago, but eventually some of the tires came loose, drifted to a natural reef and took out a bunch of sealife that was in their path (marauding tire, run!!). So I think the note about how the subway cars are very durable and crap, ideally, should not be busting off of them is an important one.
Oh, that's a cop out. Saying 'oh, my mother was so important to me!' does not change the fact that 'social skills' 'fashion' and 'nest-making' is fluffy crap while 'math' and 'science' are intellectual and important as far as general societal perception of them. The guy I was originally responding to could have come up with things that women are supposedly good at 'inherently' (though I'm more in the 'its socialization' camp, because I should be a boy if these things are inherent) that are not stupid, like maybe language acquisition, or even state them in ways that are less patronizing, like, um...we have a greater sense of visual harmony or something instead of fashion, but he didn't. I mean, probably this is because in the world of 'self-serving lists of characteristics in which men get everything good' this would be like saying women are better artists, and we can't have that because men need to get everything good and useful and women get to be nurturing. But we love our moms! They're important! Being good with kids is incredibly useful to society, now go hide in the house with them and don't bother the men doing men stuff.
Okay, sorry. That's a smidgen exaggerated, but think about it. EVERYTHING good and useful gets attributed to being inherently male, and then the obvious BS of it is excused with like 'of course there are SOME smart women, but they're rare' and 'we love our mommys, they have important skills' while apparently totally neglecting to think of the impact that telling girls their whole lives that the important thing is to be pretty and a good mommy and oh, girls aren't good at math might possibly, possibly have on the things they actually pay attention to and thus get good at. You think, maybe? Anyway, the point is, that list was stupid and patronizing. There's not really any arguing away the imbalance of 'nest-making' vs. 'math', not to mention the narrow scope of the skill set given to women by saying 'but mothers are important!' Stupid.
Okay, yea. I know about the 'nesting instinct.' But saying that's one of womens' interests or skills? That we clean when pregnant? Totally, totally worthy of being placed opposite 'math' and 'science,' skill-wise.
The thing about gay men having a bigger cock is true though. As a woman, that would make me very sad. You guys are already have an average hotness value much above straight men, do you have to take the big cocks away from us too? Have you no decency?:-D
"certain man hating rug munching factions"
Necessary? I think not... Anyway, a) a man invented the technique, so its not some goofy lesbian conspiracy (unless he's their mind controlled scientist slave! who also takes out the garbage and fixes things, since that's all men are good for! Actually, that might be kind of an awesome b-movie plot.) b) the fact that its possible doesn't mean anyone's doing it so that 'no men are involved'. Anyway, ever think that if a lesbian couple DID do this, it wouldn't have anything to do with whether or not a man was involved, but more so that both parents are related to the child? Now the technique tends to be that one partner's egg is used and the other partner actually is pregnant (so they both have a bond), and with gay men they generally mix their sperm so they don't know who actually fertilized the egg, but I'm sure lots of couples would like to both be genetically related to their child. And it has nothing to do with 'man-hating' or 'rug-munching.' Yeesh. This is the sort of lameness that makes me wish I had mod points. Why are you at a 3?
I like how 'fashion' is one of the things women are naturally inclined towards. And 'nest-making?' What is that even supposed to mean?:-D That's very funny. Especially when a sloppy, usually-frumpy, nerdy-ass girl is reading it. You should have probably added 'sports', 'grunting' and 'not doing dishes' to the male side, to balance the stupid, self-serving-stereotypes ratio.
N95 for free? You lucky, lucky bastards. If some carrier doesn't pick it up soon and offer some sort of discount I think I'm going to cry. Even if they do, it won't be free for a long time.:-( Jerkfaces.
Here's the single most reasonable argument for keeping the Electoral College I've heard: It keeps variances in voter turnout by geographic area from affecting the election. So if, for example (and this is extreme, but it illustrates the point), national voter turnout was at, say about 10% but some special interest group really whipped up the public ire in just a couple reasonable-sized states and the voter turnout there was up around 90%, under a national popular vote the interests of people in just those couple states would have an out sized effect on the general election. Under an Electoral College system, each geographic area gets influence in proportion to its population. I do support going to a proportional distribution of electoral votes, and eliminating the slight advantage small states have in comparison to their population, but I appreciate the way the Electoral College system distributes influence.
Is it just me, or does this sound like a randomly generated mash-up of the most ridiculous-sounding Republican partisan talking points? Do people actually talk like this? Massa-two-shits? What does that even mean?
If you think Hillary Clinton won't abuse any power...
You seem to have missed the point of the quote.
It's not that I don't think Hillary will abuse power, or even that I'm a supporter of hers (don't much like her, really). Its a way to illustrate how liberals feel about Bush and why this shit scares us. The idea is to take the person scariest to Bush supporters (usually Hillary Clinton) and flip it around on them, so they get why its important to keep safeguards in place. Often, Bush supporters spend their time defending Bush specifically wielding this power ("democrats are too driven in their hatred of Presidnet Bush. President Bush is not perfect, but he is not nearly what the media portrays him to be."). This is, again, not the problem: I don't trust Bush with that kind of power, you don't trust Clinton (or probably Obama or Edwards or whatever other Democrat). Likely we will both see times when people we don't trust or agree with are in power. Therefore, we should both be fighting tooth and nail to keep the limits on executive power in place. They're already pretty sweeping...they don't need to be expanded.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt attempted to expand the Court (see Judiciary Reorganization Bill of 1937); his plan would have allowed the President to appoint one new, additional justice for every justice who reached the age of seventy but did not retire from the bench, until the Court reached a maximum size of fifteen justices. Ostensibly, this was to ease the burdens of the docket on the elderly judges, but it was widely believed that the President's actual purpose was to add Justices who would favor his New Deal policies, which had been regularly ruled unconstitutional by the Court. This plan, referred to often as the Court Packing Plan, failed in Congress.
A thing to note about that quote is that the guy who said it (and this applies to me as well, incidentally) is not really a Hillary supporter, though he is liberal. Its just that to most far-right Republicans, Hillary is the worst bogey man he could invoke. The point is that someone you disagree with could get elected, so don't be too hasty in tearing down the limits on Presidential power, not that 'ha ha, Clinton will get elected!'
August Pollack has come up with 'The Hillary Rule,' which I think is kind of awesome.
This is very simple: as a conservative, you are only allowed to defend things like this if you can say- in the same breath- that you have no problem with President Hillary Clinton having the exact same level of power
Sort of brings home the point that we have limits on power because the person wielding that power is not always on your side of the issues.
Definitely agree with this. Not about speeding, but one night I just completely blew through a busy intersection and almost killed myself because I was way too tired to be driving and kept 'microsleeping.' Scary. But anyway, I did it right in front of a cop, so I was pulled over less than a block from the intersection. He asked me what happened and I told him truthfully that I was exhausted and having a hard time staying awake and it was freaking me out, too, but I was only about a mile from home at that point. And he let me go just telling me to find somewhere to take a nap before I got on the road next time. I was fully prepared to take a ticket for that idiocy, too.
I do think I sort of get a pass on these things, though, because I'm a dorky white girl who drives a Saturn...it all just screams 'I'm responsible!' Not fair, but a factor in a lot of places.
This might just be me getting irritated over getting stuck behind slow-moving semi trucks, but seems like most of them (at least around here) tend to stick to the speed limit better than most cars, on average. Which, really, makes me less than happy a lot of the time, due to my previously mentioned habit of getting stuck behind them.:-) Add to that the fact that (according to my cousin the truck driver, anyway) a lot of the long-haul companies have all sorts of monitoring equipment in the cabs that measures speed and whether you're on your route or taking breaks at the proper times, etc...and they will bust you for f-ing stuff up. When my cousin drove through here (Chicago) a little bit ago he had to clear the change in his schedule and route with the company to come have lunch with us. Maybe his company was extreme, dunno, but I think truckers have a greater incentive to behave than drivers of non-commercial vehicles, so maybe the cops react to that more than professional courtesy. Truckers don't need the threat of getting pulled over to behave, they already have the threat of being fired or reprimanded by their bosses. Just a thought.
Honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with teens looking at porn. But there are a couple important things to keep in mind, IMO:
a) being exposed to too much porn without any actual, real sexual relationships to compare it to totally screws up your view of what actual sexual relationships are like. This is a good reason to try to limit young teens' porn consumption until they're a little older and have a little more experience. I know some people with seriously f-ed up ideas of how sex should be, or what they expect their partner to be cool with doing...simply because they watch too much porn and don't talk to enough actual women. Fantasy, people. It's fantasy.
b) Weird, violent or just kind of sick porn is getting a lot easier to find and a lot more mainstream. While I, personally, think its totally fine for teens to look at pictures of naked people having sex in moderation, I think that its probably not that healthy for them to be looking at crazy-ass fetish stuff before they have the necessary experience to put it in context. This is not to say that I'm particularly opposed to porn that caters to various fetishes as long as they're made safely with consenting and not coerced performers...just that you need to take the basic class before you move to the advanced level, you know?
This, actually...is why I kind of support making it harder for teens to look at porn, even though I don't really have an issue with it. Because that way, you know they'll figure out some way to get it anyway, but it will hopefully limit their consumption. Its like how when I got older I found out neither of my parents gave a crap about me smoking pot, and knew that I was, but fear of getting caught kept me from smoking too much of it or doing anything really dumb as a teenager. Maybe that's sort of hypocritical viewpoint, but I think its probably fairly practical, since trying to explain to a teenage boy why he should voluntarily control his porn consumption is just not going to work.
Erm...what? This whole set of opinions is, in my opinion, pretty off the mark. Apparently Shakespeare isn't entertaining (have you counted the number of raunchy jokes in his comedies?), Dostoevsky writes 'poor books' (those are fabulously well-constructed, nuanced works, and not usually a terrible slog to read, either), 1984 has no literary value, but Dracula and Frankenstein do. Oh, and plays have no literary value because they're not 'books.' Ack!
I tend to say that with books, there is candy and there is steak. Tom Robbins? Candy. Harry Potter? Candy. Lord of the Rings is totally candy. Does this mean you shouldn't read them? No. Does this make them less worthy of existence? No. Should your diet consist only of candy? Emphatically no. Sometimes you have to read stuff that's only for fun, especially if you tend to read a lot of dense books, you need a break...but you need some sort of nutrition in your diet too. Now Joan Collins? That's simply crap, and you should probably stay away from that sort of thing.:-)
I agree with you on disliking Dickens, though. Didn't surprise me a bit when I found out he often got paid a penny a work. Great stories, but I cannot stand to read them. Lots of people love them, though, so maybe I'm missing something.
Also, that would be 'Midsummer Night's Dream,' and its Shakespeare, so it probably shouldn't be listed separately.
I heard that Adams either wrote or had a heavy hand in the writing of the script, and I know that every iteration of the series is pretty heavily changed...but what was with that ending? Arthur isn't supposed to get the girl (except briefly), that was irritating. Also, Earth is gone for permenent-like in every version as far as I know (except in a parallel dimension where its not, but that's a book or so along).:-) Still, bad ending. Bad.
This is way the hell off topic but I am utterly convinced that Owen Wilson should have played Zaphod in the movie. And I hate the Zaphod they had. Boo.
Slashdot Mirror
I LOVE this argument. I mean, I admit that I'm only in my 20's, so I guess I wasn't around when kids were allowed to jump around rambunctiously in class and shout answers. But even if there were such a time (which, seriously, I doubt...from my understanding classrooms have gotten less, rather than more strict), are you seriously arguing that boys are doing more poorly because they're forced to behave in a way appropriate to a classroom setting? And if this is the case, why are we deciding that this is a good thing, and not a defect inherent to the male gender. Because when girls were too shy to speak up in class, that was a defect...but when boys are apparently too addle-brained to sit down, well then. That's a feature!
Anyway, snark aside, the point is: this is a lame argument. Boys doing poorly because they are inherently unable to sit down and pay attention is a) not really true (because, um...in the super-strict classrooms of days gone by, boys apparently did well) and b) if it were true, misbehavior is not an impulse that should be encouraged anyway. Please try again.
Okay, so apparently (if anyone else cares) there are 'trials' of the service going on in my fair city...but the launch has been delayed. Again. So I'm not totally convinced...but its more than I thought was going on.
Is this actually happening? I can't find any recent info about this, and I had been under the impression that the plan was scrapped...but I would love to be wrong, I'll tell you (since I'm a Chicago resident).
I kind of feel like what goes into #2 is not real hard to figure out, but: As far as I can tell, artificial reefs do two things (and I am not in any way an expert on this, I'm mostly just remembering from an article about them doing this in Australia and a quick Google of 'artificial reef' to double check my recollections): create a sort of breakwater to prevent beach erosion, and provide a spot for things like coral to attach on to. Once there's coral and other types of stationary sea life there, then fish and stuff start hanging around and before you know it you have luxury condos for fish. Or so I gather. If they're putting an artificial reef in, generally that means there wasn't much density of marine life in that area prior to its creation, so they would not be placing it in areas that were 'previously perfectly fine.'
There is at least one thing to note about artificial reefs in the negative, why-are-we-throwing-garbage-in-the-ocean sense, which is that sometimes their choice of materials kind of sucks. Apparently they made one out of tires in Florida a little while ago, but eventually some of the tires came loose, drifted to a natural reef and took out a bunch of sealife that was in their path (marauding tire, run!!). So I think the note about how the subway cars are very durable and crap, ideally, should not be busting off of them is an important one.
Oh, that's a cop out. Saying 'oh, my mother was so important to me!' does not change the fact that 'social skills' 'fashion' and 'nest-making' is fluffy crap while 'math' and 'science' are intellectual and important as far as general societal perception of them. The guy I was originally responding to could have come up with things that women are supposedly good at 'inherently' (though I'm more in the 'its socialization' camp, because I should be a boy if these things are inherent) that are not stupid, like maybe language acquisition, or even state them in ways that are less patronizing, like, um...we have a greater sense of visual harmony or something instead of fashion, but he didn't. I mean, probably this is because in the world of 'self-serving lists of characteristics in which men get everything good' this would be like saying women are better artists, and we can't have that because men need to get everything good and useful and women get to be nurturing. But we love our moms! They're important! Being good with kids is incredibly useful to society, now go hide in the house with them and don't bother the men doing men stuff.
Okay, sorry. That's a smidgen exaggerated, but think about it. EVERYTHING good and useful gets attributed to being inherently male, and then the obvious BS of it is excused with like 'of course there are SOME smart women, but they're rare' and 'we love our mommys, they have important skills' while apparently totally neglecting to think of the impact that telling girls their whole lives that the important thing is to be pretty and a good mommy and oh, girls aren't good at math might possibly, possibly have on the things they actually pay attention to and thus get good at. You think, maybe? Anyway, the point is, that list was stupid and patronizing. There's not really any arguing away the imbalance of 'nest-making' vs. 'math', not to mention the narrow scope of the skill set given to women by saying 'but mothers are important!' Stupid.
Okay, yea. I know about the 'nesting instinct.' But saying that's one of womens' interests or skills? That we clean when pregnant? Totally, totally worthy of being placed opposite 'math' and 'science,' skill-wise.
"certain man hating rug munching factions" Necessary? I think not... Anyway, a) a man invented the technique, so its not some goofy lesbian conspiracy (unless he's their mind controlled scientist slave! who also takes out the garbage and fixes things, since that's all men are good for! Actually, that might be kind of an awesome b-movie plot.) b) the fact that its possible doesn't mean anyone's doing it so that 'no men are involved'. Anyway, ever think that if a lesbian couple DID do this, it wouldn't have anything to do with whether or not a man was involved, but more so that both parents are related to the child? Now the technique tends to be that one partner's egg is used and the other partner actually is pregnant (so they both have a bond), and with gay men they generally mix their sperm so they don't know who actually fertilized the egg, but I'm sure lots of couples would like to both be genetically related to their child. And it has nothing to do with 'man-hating' or 'rug-munching.' Yeesh. This is the sort of lameness that makes me wish I had mod points. Why are you at a 3?
I like how 'fashion' is one of the things women are naturally inclined towards. And 'nest-making?' What is that even supposed to mean? :-D That's very funny. Especially when a sloppy, usually-frumpy, nerdy-ass girl is reading it. You should have probably added 'sports', 'grunting' and 'not doing dishes' to the male side, to balance the stupid, self-serving-stereotypes ratio.
"I never thought I'd die this way... but I always hoped!"
I should specify that I mean in the US.
N95 for free? You lucky, lucky bastards. If some carrier doesn't pick it up soon and offer some sort of discount I think I'm going to cry. Even if they do, it won't be free for a long time. :-( Jerkfaces.
Here's the single most reasonable argument for keeping the Electoral College I've heard: It keeps variances in voter turnout by geographic area from affecting the election. So if, for example (and this is extreme, but it illustrates the point), national voter turnout was at, say about 10% but some special interest group really whipped up the public ire in just a couple reasonable-sized states and the voter turnout there was up around 90%, under a national popular vote the interests of people in just those couple states would have an out sized effect on the general election. Under an Electoral College system, each geographic area gets influence in proportion to its population. I do support going to a proportional distribution of electoral votes, and eliminating the slight advantage small states have in comparison to their population, but I appreciate the way the Electoral College system distributes influence.
Is it just me, or does this sound like a randomly generated mash-up of the most ridiculous-sounding Republican partisan talking points? Do people actually talk like this? Massa-two-shits? What does that even mean?
A thing to note about that quote is that the guy who said it (and this applies to me as well, incidentally) is not really a Hillary supporter, though he is liberal. Its just that to most far-right Republicans, Hillary is the worst bogey man he could invoke. The point is that someone you disagree with could get elected, so don't be too hasty in tearing down the limits on Presidential power, not that 'ha ha, Clinton will get elected!'
Definitely agree with this. Not about speeding, but one night I just completely blew through a busy intersection and almost killed myself because I was way too tired to be driving and kept 'microsleeping.' Scary. But anyway, I did it right in front of a cop, so I was pulled over less than a block from the intersection. He asked me what happened and I told him truthfully that I was exhausted and having a hard time staying awake and it was freaking me out, too, but I was only about a mile from home at that point. And he let me go just telling me to find somewhere to take a nap before I got on the road next time. I was fully prepared to take a ticket for that idiocy, too. I do think I sort of get a pass on these things, though, because I'm a dorky white girl who drives a Saturn...it all just screams 'I'm responsible!' Not fair, but a factor in a lot of places.
This might just be me getting irritated over getting stuck behind slow-moving semi trucks, but seems like most of them (at least around here) tend to stick to the speed limit better than most cars, on average. Which, really, makes me less than happy a lot of the time, due to my previously mentioned habit of getting stuck behind them. :-) Add to that the fact that (according to my cousin the truck driver, anyway) a lot of the long-haul companies have all sorts of monitoring equipment in the cabs that measures speed and whether you're on your route or taking breaks at the proper times, etc...and they will bust you for f-ing stuff up. When my cousin drove through here (Chicago) a little bit ago he had to clear the change in his schedule and route with the company to come have lunch with us. Maybe his company was extreme, dunno, but I think truckers have a greater incentive to behave than drivers of non-commercial vehicles, so maybe the cops react to that more than professional courtesy. Truckers don't need the threat of getting pulled over to behave, they already have the threat of being fired or reprimanded by their bosses. Just a thought.
Honestly, I don't think there's anything wrong with teens looking at porn. But there are a couple important things to keep in mind, IMO:
a) being exposed to too much porn without any actual, real sexual relationships to compare it to totally screws up your view of what actual sexual relationships are like. This is a good reason to try to limit young teens' porn consumption until they're a little older and have a little more experience. I know some people with seriously f-ed up ideas of how sex should be, or what they expect their partner to be cool with doing...simply because they watch too much porn and don't talk to enough actual women. Fantasy, people. It's fantasy.
b) Weird, violent or just kind of sick porn is getting a lot easier to find and a lot more mainstream. While I, personally, think its totally fine for teens to look at pictures of naked people having sex in moderation, I think that its probably not that healthy for them to be looking at crazy-ass fetish stuff before they have the necessary experience to put it in context. This is not to say that I'm particularly opposed to porn that caters to various fetishes as long as they're made safely with consenting and not coerced performers...just that you need to take the basic class before you move to the advanced level, you know?
This, actually...is why I kind of support making it harder for teens to look at porn, even though I don't really have an issue with it. Because that way, you know they'll figure out some way to get it anyway, but it will hopefully limit their consumption. Its like how when I got older I found out neither of my parents gave a crap about me smoking pot, and knew that I was, but fear of getting caught kept me from smoking too much of it or doing anything really dumb as a teenager. Maybe that's sort of hypocritical viewpoint, but I think its probably fairly practical, since trying to explain to a teenage boy why he should voluntarily control his porn consumption is just not going to work.
Erm...what? This whole set of opinions is, in my opinion, pretty off the mark. Apparently Shakespeare isn't entertaining (have you counted the number of raunchy jokes in his comedies?), Dostoevsky writes 'poor books' (those are fabulously well-constructed, nuanced works, and not usually a terrible slog to read, either), 1984 has no literary value, but Dracula and Frankenstein do. Oh, and plays have no literary value because they're not 'books.' Ack! I tend to say that with books, there is candy and there is steak. Tom Robbins? Candy. Harry Potter? Candy. Lord of the Rings is totally candy. Does this mean you shouldn't read them? No. Does this make them less worthy of existence? No. Should your diet consist only of candy? Emphatically no. Sometimes you have to read stuff that's only for fun, especially if you tend to read a lot of dense books, you need a break...but you need some sort of nutrition in your diet too. Now Joan Collins? That's simply crap, and you should probably stay away from that sort of thing. :-)
I agree with you on disliking Dickens, though. Didn't surprise me a bit when I found out he often got paid a penny a work. Great stories, but I cannot stand to read them. Lots of people love them, though, so maybe I'm missing something.
Also, that would be 'Midsummer Night's Dream,' and its Shakespeare, so it probably shouldn't be listed separately.
I think it was meant to imply they didn't speak much english, which would make the resolution of a misunderstanding that much harder.
I heard that Adams either wrote or had a heavy hand in the writing of the script, and I know that every iteration of the series is pretty heavily changed...but what was with that ending? Arthur isn't supposed to get the girl (except briefly), that was irritating. Also, Earth is gone for permenent-like in every version as far as I know (except in a parallel dimension where its not, but that's a book or so along). :-) Still, bad ending. Bad.
This is way the hell off topic but I am utterly convinced that Owen Wilson should have played Zaphod in the movie. And I hate the Zaphod they had. Boo.