Bullshit. The tobacco companies in the 1980s contributed funds to certain groups (Citizens for a Sound Economy, the predecessor of AFP and FreedomWorks). Some of the individuals in those groups also worked to support the Tea Party. That does not mean it was started by Big Tobacco.
The tea party was started by small groups who were loosely affiliated at best. The outside support came later, not at the start.
Valid point, but it reminds me of how hard it was to get members of the left to acknowledge that Bush Jr. wasn't actually particularly conservative and most of his base found most of his policies extremely distasteful.
One of the comments I saw on this one of Torment's updates on kickstarter claimed that the lead developer of Dragon Age claimed (sorry, can't actually visit game sites to confirm this claim from work) that the cost of voice acting is the largest constraint on breadth of character dialog at Bioware. I think Planescape's use of a little voice acting for major lines, but printed dialog otherwise was better.
Republicans now are not the republicans then. Just because a subset of those republicans pushed it as an alternative doesn't mean it's pure partisan politics that other republicans now are against such a plan even if it was actually implemented by a Democrat. Neither party is actually a monolithic block whose members all believe what the party on average seems to believe. Look up the voting paradox sometime as an example of a group holding mutually exclusive beliefs even when not a single member of that group does.
Actually, his second answer would suggest that he considers biological parts to determine sex, and recognizes that surgery can't replicate all of them yet. Your extrapolations don't necessarily follow from his statement. He might think, like I do, that an XX who has pure male genitalia because of a hormonal issue with his mother is male. Sex was defined a long time before we knew the highly correlated genetics that go along with it.
You are conflating gender and sex. Male and female are sexes, determined by reproductive organs. Masculine and Feminine are genders, determined by personality traits . You're not alone in this, but I don't think using gender in place of sex is actually helpful to the discussion. I would argue that there are more than two in each, but that a vast majority of people fall into one or the other on both gender and sex, and that gender and sex are strongly but not perfectly correlated. Most of the time, only the two defaults are really necessary. Surgery can alter sex, but can't actually make a male into a female or vice versa at this time. I would contend that "male with penis removed and artificial vagina" is a separate sex that we don't have a word for. For most purposes, but not all, female would be a sufficiently accurate term. Possibly no need for a shorter term than "Male to female, post op". Since such people want to be female, and will be if medical science advances far enough, I'm happy to call them female, but they aren't quite that.
Actually, it's not enough for the pro-marriage-equality side. When civil unions are suggested, they consistently say that's not enough, and that it's important that it be called marriage. Conversely, I've seen several conservatives suggest exactly what mdielmann did, reverting all marriages to civil unions.
The passing of proposition 8 in California, one of the most friendly states to alternative lifestyles in general, suggests that whatever poll you are thinking of was wrong in some fashion.
Since Card does not explicitly put his politics into his books, I would suggest that he is well aware that his business isn't politics. That doesn't mean he can't have opninions.
On your last point: So, you'd be fine and dandy with eliminating all government marriages altogether, right? Most of what comes with legal marriages are priveleges rather than rights, which require other people to react certain ways given that a couple is married. That's an infringement of the liberty of those other people. For that matter, Title 2 of the civil rights act, most of the ADA, minimum wages laws are infringements on liberty. Given your anti-conservative rant, I would guess that you don't really support that principle consistently, only when it fits your purposes. I could be wrong.
Reagarding #1 I disagree. If no one actually reacts in a way that leads to chaos, the state should not press charges. Laws about incitement should only deal with actual results, not content of the speech.
Oh, I'm familiar with that. It would be funny, except I think Ron would have been a much better candidate than Romney, and would have been a better president than Obama in most ways. But the specific complaining up thread was about video editing, which MSNBC has been caught doing more than once. His statements don't back up the tu quoque argument at all.
Fox misleads, and has left out context sometimes (although in the case of "you didn't build that" the context didn't actually save the line) but MSNBC has gone so far as to hide the race of a man carrying a weapon to a tea party rally (hint: not white) while worrying about white people showing up at rallies carrying weapons, and making it sound like George Zimmerman thought Trayvon's race made him suspicious. Creating a false context is much worse that leaving out context IMO.
The UCR for 2011 show blacks committing more total murders than whites. IIRC, a large number of their victims were also black.
It's possible for groups to be disadvantaged on a nation basis while being advantaged on a per jurisdiction basis. If areas with larger black populations are harsher on crime in general, even if they are slightly harder on whites, while lily white areas are lighter on crime in general while still being harsher on whites, the national average would make it look like the system is harder on blacks. Anyone who doesn't understand what simpson's paradox is should not be making pronouncements based on national averages. If you really want, I can construct an artificial example to demonstrate this. There might be racism involved in why those jurisdictions are harsher on crime, but it's much murkier than the simple claims they are making.
Always be suspicious about broad claims based on national averages.
Got links? Tried to look up fox editing a video about ron paul supporters. Couldn't find anything after about 5 pages on google. I haven't even checked on the second one.
Unfortunately, the ratings can't be trusted. Just as an example of this argument: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/11/05/the-ten-worst-fact-checks-of-the-2012-election/ Mostly true, half ture, and mostly false should really be true but slightly misleading, misleading, incredibly misleading. Alll the misleading entries are partially the opinion of the author about whether specific inferences are actually justified.
There are breakdowns by state in the US, and there is a great deal of variability. You are correct that this sort of analysis can be tailored to fit any preferred interpretation though. As someone else noted, scotland is actually better than the US average. Might not be when ethnicity is factored in.
As a counterpoint to that claim, note that that Asian Americans (Asian is about as fine tuned as I can find) have a life expectancy of 87.8, while someone in japan (no good breakdown by ethnicity) has a life expectancy of about 83. These sorts of studies are extremely subject to confounding variables that will be ignored to let them make a claim they want. Did they separate out all those confounds in your quoted line at the same time? They used the word OR, so I suspect they didn't. I'd also like to see the life expectancy comparison for non-hispanic whites at age 40. By that time, the violence is much less of a factor. The article claimed it persists through all age groups, and also occured even when limited to whites, but those could be true even if there is no difference when corrected for age and ethnicity at the same time.
I do appreciate that they noted that most of the causes had nothing to do with the medical system per se. However, they apparently chose to blame the availability of guns for gun deaths rather than admitting cultural issues.
Government doesn't spell out rights. It is granted the power to override people's rights in certain specific circumstance. Rights, inasmuch as they exist at all (really just useful social fictions), are more basic than government is.
Strictly speaking, Hitler was appointed into power to appease the voting block that supported him. He was in power before actually winning an election.
PS1 let you reset your spent points, PS2 doesn't. PS2 lets you accumulate cert points indefinitely, PS1 didn't. So there is more on the spot flexibility in PS2, less flexibility in customization.
You're right, I was overly broad. The third convention involving prisoners of war does place restrictions on who is protected, and many of the prisoners at GB would not qualify. The fourth convention requires humane treatment for civilians, but leaves fairly broad latitude for internment in article 41. Since the 4th convention does not include combatants in it's protections, plain clothes soldiers (or terrorists if you prefer) appear to be protected by neither the third nor 4th, but any individual not directly caught engaging in combat could be interred. There's a reason I specified "arguably" instead of "clearly".
Slashdot Mirror
Bullshit. The tobacco companies in the 1980s contributed funds to certain groups (Citizens for a Sound Economy, the predecessor of AFP and FreedomWorks). Some of the individuals in those groups also worked to support the Tea Party. That does not mean it was started by Big Tobacco.
The tea party was started by small groups who were loosely affiliated at best. The outside support came later, not at the start.
Valid point, but it reminds me of how hard it was to get members of the left to acknowledge that Bush Jr. wasn't actually particularly conservative and most of his base found most of his policies extremely distasteful.
One of the comments I saw on this one of Torment's updates on kickstarter claimed that the lead developer of Dragon Age claimed (sorry, can't actually visit game sites to confirm this claim from work) that the cost of voice acting is the largest constraint on breadth of character dialog at Bioware. I think Planescape's use of a little voice acting for major lines, but printed dialog otherwise was better.
I'm sorry, I think daggerfall was worse than Oblivion in all respects.
Republicans now are not the republicans then. Just because a subset of those republicans pushed it as an alternative doesn't mean it's pure partisan politics that other republicans now are against such a plan even if it was actually implemented by a Democrat. Neither party is actually a monolithic block whose members all believe what the party on average seems to believe. Look up the voting paradox sometime as an example of a group holding mutually exclusive beliefs even when not a single member of that group does.
Actually, his second answer would suggest that he considers biological parts to determine sex, and recognizes that surgery can't replicate all of them yet. Your extrapolations don't necessarily follow from his statement. He might think, like I do, that an XX who has pure male genitalia because of a hormonal issue with his mother is male. Sex was defined a long time before we knew the highly correlated genetics that go along with it.
You are conflating gender and sex. Male and female are sexes, determined by reproductive organs. Masculine and Feminine are genders, determined by personality traits . You're not alone in this, but I don't think using gender in place of sex is actually helpful to the discussion. I would argue that there are more than two in each, but that a vast majority of people fall into one or the other on both gender and sex, and that gender and sex are strongly but not perfectly correlated. Most of the time, only the two defaults are really necessary. Surgery can alter sex, but can't actually make a male into a female or vice versa at this time. I would contend that "male with penis removed and artificial vagina" is a separate sex that we don't have a word for. For most purposes, but not all, female would be a sufficiently accurate term. Possibly no need for a shorter term than "Male to female, post op". Since such people want to be female, and will be if medical science advances far enough, I'm happy to call them female, but they aren't quite that.
Actually, it's not enough for the pro-marriage-equality side. When civil unions are suggested, they consistently say that's not enough, and that it's important that it be called marriage. Conversely, I've seen several conservatives suggest exactly what mdielmann did, reverting all marriages to civil unions.
The passing of proposition 8 in California, one of the most friendly states to alternative lifestyles in general, suggests that whatever poll you are thinking of was wrong in some fashion.
Since Card does not explicitly put his politics into his books, I would suggest that he is well aware that his business isn't politics. That doesn't mean he can't have opninions.
On your last point: So, you'd be fine and dandy with eliminating all government marriages altogether, right? Most of what comes with legal marriages are priveleges rather than rights, which require other people to react certain ways given that a couple is married. That's an infringement of the liberty of those other people. For that matter, Title 2 of the civil rights act, most of the ADA, minimum wages laws are infringements on liberty. Given your anti-conservative rant, I would guess that you don't really support that principle consistently, only when it fits your purposes. I could be wrong.
Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.
Apparently not
Reagarding #1 I disagree. If no one actually reacts in a way that leads to chaos, the state should not press charges. Laws about incitement should only deal with actual results, not content of the speech.
People seem to forget that Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was an authoritarian with little respect for free speech.
Oh, I'm familiar with that. It would be funny, except I think Ron would have been a much better candidate than Romney, and would have been a better president than Obama in most ways. But the specific complaining up thread was about video editing, which MSNBC has been caught doing more than once. His statements don't back up the tu quoque argument at all.
Fox misleads, and has left out context sometimes (although in the case of "you didn't build that" the context didn't actually save the line) but MSNBC has gone so far as to hide the race of a man carrying a weapon to a tea party rally (hint: not white) while worrying about white people showing up at rallies carrying weapons, and making it sound like George Zimmerman thought Trayvon's race made him suspicious. Creating a false context is much worse that leaving out context IMO.
The UCR for 2011 show blacks committing more total murders than whites. IIRC, a large number of their victims were also black.
It's possible for groups to be disadvantaged on a nation basis while being advantaged on a per jurisdiction basis. If areas with larger black populations are harsher on crime in general, even if they are slightly harder on whites, while lily white areas are lighter on crime in general while still being harsher on whites, the national average would make it look like the system is harder on blacks. Anyone who doesn't understand what simpson's paradox is should not be making pronouncements based on national averages. If you really want, I can construct an artificial example to demonstrate this. There might be racism involved in why those jurisdictions are harsher on crime, but it's much murkier than the simple claims they are making.
Always be suspicious about broad claims based on national averages.
Got links? Tried to look up fox editing a video about ron paul supporters. Couldn't find anything after about 5 pages on google. I haven't even checked on the second one.
Unfortunately, the ratings can't be trusted. Just as an example of this argument: http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/11/05/the-ten-worst-fact-checks-of-the-2012-election/ Mostly true, half ture, and mostly false should really be true but slightly misleading, misleading, incredibly misleading. Alll the misleading entries are partially the opinion of the author about whether specific inferences are actually justified.
I dispute that. IMPOSSIBLE TO CHECK, SPUN, MISLEADING, and UNDETERMINED would be better. Almost everything is disputed by someone.
There are breakdowns by state in the US, and there is a great deal of variability. You are correct that this sort of analysis can be tailored to fit any preferred interpretation though. As someone else noted, scotland is actually better than the US average. Might not be when ethnicity is factored in.
As a counterpoint to that claim, note that that Asian Americans (Asian is about as fine tuned as I can find) have a life expectancy of 87.8, while someone in japan (no good breakdown by ethnicity) has a life expectancy of about 83. These sorts of studies are extremely subject to confounding variables that will be ignored to let them make a claim they want. Did they separate out all those confounds in your quoted line at the same time? They used the word OR, so I suspect they didn't. I'd also like to see the life expectancy comparison for non-hispanic whites at age 40. By that time, the violence is much less of a factor. The article claimed it persists through all age groups, and also occured even when limited to whites, but those could be true even if there is no difference when corrected for age and ethnicity at the same time.
I do appreciate that they noted that most of the causes had nothing to do with the medical system per se. However, they apparently chose to blame the availability of guns for gun deaths rather than admitting cultural issues.
Government doesn't spell out rights. It is granted the power to override people's rights in certain specific circumstance. Rights, inasmuch as they exist at all (really just useful social fictions), are more basic than government is.
Strictly speaking, Hitler was appointed into power to appease the voting block that supported him. He was in power before actually winning an election.
There is no right to live, only a right not to be killed.
It depends on what definition of enumerate he meant. By the second definition he is correct. He may just be conflating enumerate with establish.
PS1 let you reset your spent points, PS2 doesn't. PS2 lets you accumulate cert points indefinitely, PS1 didn't. So there is more on the spot flexibility in PS2, less flexibility in customization.
You're right, I was overly broad. The third convention involving prisoners of war does place restrictions on who is protected, and many of the prisoners at GB would not qualify. The fourth convention requires humane treatment for civilians, but leaves fairly broad latitude for internment in article 41. Since the 4th convention does not include combatants in it's protections, plain clothes soldiers (or terrorists if you prefer) appear to be protected by neither the third nor 4th, but any individual not directly caught engaging in combat could be interred. There's a reason I specified "arguably" instead of "clearly".