Clearly you get it. Bravo. But lots of people don't have your perception, and "It takes a village" means to abrogate personal responsibility and make the State responsible for everything. Which is a HUGE mistake, because the State is always going to go with "One Size Fits All"... A society of conformist uneducated drones works best for the State and I, for one, do not want to live in that society. "The Village" turns out to be "The King" and we all end up being serfs and peasants.
While I myself am actually an unabashed proponent of socialism, I gladly recognize the validity of the points you bring up. Indeed, trading personal responsibility away necessarily entails a certain degree of risk, risk that those whom this responsibility is bestowed upon will act in a fair manner. In virtually all past instances of "socialism", this hasn't panned out very well, and opportunistic actors have hijacked the system for their own benefit. Many argue that the ease with which such hijacking can be accomplished is an inherent shortcoming in socialism. Some even argue that it is the only possible outcome. However, while I agree with the former sentiment, I take issue with the latter. It is at least theoretically possible for an implementation of socialism to avoid these pitfalls, since corruption and oppression aren't explicitly stated as a requirements for socialism. In practice a viable instance of socialism remains to be seen, but that doesn't mean that one could not be created in the future, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That being said, I'm as skeptical as you of anyone boasting a populist message of socialist solutions. Not because I have a problem with socialism, but because I've developed a healthy fear of people selling something that seems too good to be true. I say this as a political refugee from communist Poland.
However it's not being a dickhead to assume that you need direct experience with parenting to have a qualified opinion. Would you take flying lessons from a passenger? Take driving lessons from a New Yorker who never owned a car? Let someone build a nuclear reactor who's sole experience was using electricity? I don't think so...
There's something to be said for practical experience, but to couch it as the prime essence of knowledge seems absurd to me. Let's face it, raising kids isn't rocket science. People have been doing it successfully for as long as there have been people, back when nobody knew anything. Would you prefer to take advice from a parent from 100000 years ago or a respected researcher in child development who has no kids of their own?
It takes a village is another way of saying "I take no responsibility for anything society should be more responsible not me"
Actually, it's another way of saying "no man is an island" and acknowledging that children are a product of their society as well as of their family.
The VHEMT link is merely my reflexive response to "you don't have children" commentary. I sometimes also link to the wikipedia article on Hawking radiation and ask if Steve is qualified to be hypothesizing about black holes since he's never even been near one.
tl;dr: Most parents are dickheads by virtue of assuming that direct experience with parenting is necessary for one's comments on the issue to be worthy of consideration.
Muslims are the ones that are denouncing them and saying that they are peaceful... They, obviously, have some reason that they feel they should be involved, likely to distance themselves from the radicals in an attempt to stave off retaliation against themselves, but whatever that reason may be it's not addressing the problem that is causing them to become involved.
That's my point. They obviously have some reason that they feel they should be involved: people like gtall and you constantly talking about Muslims that "continue to sit by while radical muslims commit atrocities". There's an undeniable tendency for Westerners to point to all the moderate Muslims and ask why they're not doing anything, to accuse them of complicity by virtue of their inaction. That is why they feel they should be involved, because they're being accused of aiding terrorists simply by sharing the same faith. I ask you again, why do people accuse moderate Muslims on this basis but not moderate men? Why are people more comfortable with drawing an irrational dividing line based on religion than on gender? Why don't moderate men feel they need to denounce Islamic State and demonstrate that not all men are terrorists? Hint: it might have something to do with Western society associating "terrorism" with "Islam" but not "maleness", with no rational basis for doing so.
So why did I bring up the Kurds? Not only do they speak out against ISIS and distance themselves from ISIS they're also willing to back up those words with actions.
You brought them up because they're Muslim. You didn't bring up the Yazidis that fight along side them. You didn't bring up the Assyrians that fight alongside them. You didn't bring up the Chaldean Catholics that fight alongside them. You're holding up the Kurds as model Muslims. Muslims who not only denounce Islamic State, but also take action against it. The reason you focus on them and not any of the countless other groups that both denounce and combat Islamic State is because they're Muslim.
Yet what happens here in America? We're presented evidence of the monstrousity of ISIS on numerous accounts yet we are perfectly willing to sit with our collective thumbs up our arses and talk and talk and talk and finally do nothing of relevance. So we don't want to put troops there. Fine. Then leave the middle east to fester in its own rot but cut out these half ass useless measures being done for the semblance of looking like you're doing something.
While I personally disagree with the approach that the US has been taking, I don't think total isolationism or full military commitment are among our best choices. Either way, this has little to do with the fact that people still talk about Islam like it's more relevant to Islamic State than is gender. It's a sad fact that if you were to accuse men (in general) of aiding Islamic State through inaction, you'd be looked at like you were mad, but if you accuse Muslims (in general) instead, it's somehow "intuitive".
Best is a grade on what was looked at. It is a correct term in the context.
The context was gurps_npc claiming that "children are and should be a decision made by a woman" and then Archangel Michael replying "children tend to do much better with two parents actively involved in raising them to adulthood, everything else equal."
In other words, gurps_npc was arguing for women's reproductive rights, and Archangel Michael was hijacking the thread to pontificate about how children ought to be raised. Nothing about the context suggests that the discussion would be limited to the scope of a CDC study that wasn't mentioned until several posts later.
If anything, the context suggests that the childrearing issues Archangel Michael brought up are off topic.
Why are we picking on Muslims though? Don't get me wrong, we've come a long way. Now it's generally understood that while many terrorists are Muslim, not many Muslims are terrorists. But still, we're always talking about Islam, about Muslims. Why is there any expectation for them to do more than merely denounce Islamic State?
What are we doing, as men, beyond merely denouncing Islamic State? After all, the ranks of Islamic State are pretty much entirely male. Now, I'm aware that while many (virtually all) terrorists are male, not many males are terrorists. However, as men, are we compelled to do more than just sit by while radical men commit atrocities? Why are people like you expecting some sort of heroic action on the part of Muslims all over the world, simply because Islamic State is also Muslim, while not expecting any sort of heroic action on the part of men all over the world, even though Islamic State is also male?
To me, it's no less ridiculous to consider the Islamic State to be a problem for Muslims to solve than it is to consider them to be a problem to be a problem for men to solve. We're all people, and Islamic State poses a threat to all of us alike. I see no value in expecting any one group to take the lead in solving this issue simply because of some perceived commonality between them and Islamic State, whether based on religion, gender, or some other factor.
Meaningless difference — communism is bad because of the dictatorship of the Communist Party. Wherever attempted in earnest, Communism resulted in millions of dead and utter devastation for the survivors, who are left without both human rights (a given with any Collectivist ideology) and any material wealth.
Some would argue that it was never attempted in earnest, as the means of production were never owned by the people (which is by definition a requirement of communism).
Dictators can be very different. Compare Pinochet, who stepped down on his own, and left his country as Latin America's top economy, with Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez — the guys, who never step down (only carried out) and turn their countries into shitholes?
Ignoring the fact that Cuba did better under Castro than they did under America's golden boy Batista.
They're not silent at all. They've been all over the media denouncing Islamic State and other militant groups. What the fuck do you want them to do, picket outside your house?
I think what he is saying is that children thrive better in a home with both biological parents than without one or both.
Perhaps that's what he means to say. But in fact, he's saying something else. He's saying that what is best for kids is to have two parents, one male, one female. Presumably, we're talking about psychological parents, not necessarily biological ones (as he mentions homosexual parents), so the implication is that two parents are better than three or more. That is a baseless claim, and the number two is chosen for arbitrary reasons.
Whether 200 different people telling him what to do has an effect or not on them is beyond what was said. I'm also thinking that is ancillary to the point because the adverse effects of not having one or any biological parent in the home is so much worse.
What was said is that having two parents is the best. This necessarily implies that having 200 parents is worse than having two. That's what "best" means. It's not ancillary to the point, it follows directly from the claim that having two parents is best. The "science" you link to does not corroborate the claim that having two parents is better than having more than two, since the study didn't include any families in which children were raised by more than two parents.
Firstly, despite recent medical advances, it does require two people to create a baby. Their involvement can be more indirect than previously, but they're still both required: we're not at the cloning-humans stage yet.
Cloning via SCNT has yielded several fatherless mammal clones. While today's technology is quite limited in its efficacy, we're not at the cloning-humans stage primarily due to non-technical reasons.
Secondly, the GP's statement that a child can be raised better by a couple than by a single parent is not contradicted by your statement that a village can do an even better job.
That's true, and I never implied otherwise. OP's statement that he wants the best for children is contradicted by my statement that a village can do an even better job than a pair of parents.
It's perfectly consistent to argue for government policies that encourage the raising of children by stable couples, as well as policies that encourage the development of more tightly-knit neighbourhoods that can support them.
Sure, stable couples. Stable triads. Stable quads. But you only say couples (as well as neighborhoods). You seem rather unwilling to acknowledge your arbitrary focus on the number two. Why is that?
Define "two"? I haven't heard of any conceptions without sperm + egg. Where would you get the rest of the chromosomes from?
No sperm here, and three biological parents (two genetic, one gestational).
You mean strong communities? I think most people like those, but they've been deteriorating. I used to live in a town where everyone knew everyone and it was good. Here, I'm a stranger to everyone.
I was merely trying to point out that OP's claims of what's "best" are arbitrary. Yes, two parents are better than one. And one parents is better than none. But that's not to say that two is some ideal number. The more people are involved in the raising of children, the better the outcomes. The claim that it is ideal to have only two people raising each child is arbitrary and not consistent with what we know about social development of children. If someone can be wrong for saying that having only one parent is ideal, so too can OP be wrong for saying that having only two parents is ideal.
It does require whole teams of medical specialists. And that shows why it's overly simplistic to simply say "it actually takes two to create children".
There's many ways to create children. Some ways involve nothing more than two persons of opposite sex. Other ways involve an additional village of extended family. Other ways involve a team of scientists. Pretending there's only one way to do it, or that one way is "the best", ignores the reality that that's often not the case.
So you're saying that the whole "it takes a village" adage is incorrect, and that children are actually harmed by having extended family participate in their rearing? To me, that sounds like a lot more than "two parents, one male, one female".
Although I'm not sure what moral equivocation has to do with this. Please elaborate?
The fact that 9 Months is taken residence in the womb (and subject to termination right up and sometimes passed delivery), is simply a liberal convenience. Two Males cannot create a child, neither can two females.
You haven't been keeping up with science and technology.
Both are inconvenient biological facts liberals don't actually like (its unfair, you homophobic bastard).
Ah yes, liberals. Of course, a discussion about population and procreation is best framed in the context of political leanings.
And children tend to do much better with two parents actively involved in raising them to adulthood, everything else equal. While a single woman COULD raise a child, typically most women do not have the luxury of means to provide for a child by themselves.
Really children tend to do much better with a village actively involved in raising them to adulthood, everything else equal. While a mere couple COULD raise a child, typically most couples do not have the luxury of culture to provide for a child by themselves.
You choose to draw the line somewhere between "single mother" and "both biological parents". However, this is arbitrary and ignores things like the efficacy of adoptive parenthood as well as what we know about traditional childrearing (as was practiced by humans prior to the green revolution). That's fine, but don't pretend that your arbitrary distinction is the only "correct" distinction. Different ways of raising children work differently, and simply because you deem one method to be sufficient or ideal does not mean that this is true for all parents or all children.
So, unless you're talking about just the 9 months of pregnancy, I would suggest that children should be a choice made by a man, and a woman together in mutual agreement whenever possible.
You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not making a convincing argument by setting them forth without identifying a reasonable basis for having them.
Yeah, I am a hater for wanting the best for children.
And of course, you know what's best for children. Everyone else, they're just idiots. Or worse still, liberals.
My power usage in a 100 square yards flat (yeah, you use square feet... I hope it is easier to calculate from square yard to square feet than it is for me to calculate from square meter to square feet) is about 1700kW/h electric.
You spent so much time gloating over Système International d’Unités being superior to US Customary units that you didn't realize that "kW/h" is 3600 kJ/s^2, a rate of energy increase. Every hour, your power drawincreases by another 1700kW?
Not impressed? Was not meant to impress you. That is per year not per month.
Wait, so that's 1700kW/h/year?! Even the rate at which your power draw is increasing is itself increasing?!
See, this is what you Euroweenies get for embracing an abstract system of measures with no apparent basis in tangible reality.
You wouldn't have confused yourself into a corner if you had just phrased your claims in terms of BTU/fortnight.
Brief aside: If your power draw had been increasing by 1700kW/h since electrification first hit your neighborhood (say, 100 years ago), today you'd be burning roughly 1.5 terawatts, or approximately 1% of all global energy consumption. If instead the rate of increase was itself increasing by 1700kW/h/year, this figure would be much larger, and you'd be the primary consumer of energy on this planet.
I agree. A decreased emphasis on studying for the SAT and a correspondingly increased emphasis on "drama, athletics, music, and [preusmably other] art" will surely improve America's utterly embarassing standing in international comparisons of education outcomes.
The wise Frito from the documentary Idiocracy said it best: "Go away! 'Batin'!"
Many Marriott properties offer "free" WiFi. Indeed, the cost of providing this service is rolled into the room rates.
Other Marriott properties charge a fee for WiFi access. However, Platinum (and I think maybe Gold as well) Marriott Rewards members get access for free (though this is a relatively new development). Since these folks have the same room rates as everyone else, it's not exactly accurate to say that the price is included in the room rate (since many people pay the room rate and the WiFi fee).
Tough I suppose in some sense, even air isn't free.
Slashdot Mirror
Clearly you get it. Bravo. But lots of people don't have your perception, and "It takes a village" means to abrogate personal responsibility and make the State responsible for everything. Which is a HUGE mistake, because the State is always going to go with "One Size Fits All"... A society of conformist uneducated drones works best for the State and I, for one, do not want to live in that society. "The Village" turns out to be "The King" and we all end up being serfs and peasants.
While I myself am actually an unabashed proponent of socialism, I gladly recognize the validity of the points you bring up. Indeed, trading personal responsibility away necessarily entails a certain degree of risk, risk that those whom this responsibility is bestowed upon will act in a fair manner. In virtually all past instances of "socialism", this hasn't panned out very well, and opportunistic actors have hijacked the system for their own benefit. Many argue that the ease with which such hijacking can be accomplished is an inherent shortcoming in socialism. Some even argue that it is the only possible outcome. However, while I agree with the former sentiment, I take issue with the latter. It is at least theoretically possible for an implementation of socialism to avoid these pitfalls, since corruption and oppression aren't explicitly stated as a requirements for socialism. In practice a viable instance of socialism remains to be seen, but that doesn't mean that one could not be created in the future, since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That being said, I'm as skeptical as you of anyone boasting a populist message of socialist solutions. Not because I have a problem with socialism, but because I've developed a healthy fear of people selling something that seems too good to be true. I say this as a political refugee from communist Poland.
However it's not being a dickhead to assume that you need direct experience with parenting to have a qualified opinion. Would you take flying lessons from a passenger? Take driving lessons from a New Yorker who never owned a car? Let someone build a nuclear reactor who's sole experience was using electricity? I don't think so...
There's something to be said for practical experience, but to couch it as the prime essence of knowledge seems absurd to me. Let's face it, raising kids isn't rocket science. People have been doing it successfully for as long as there have been people, back when nobody knew anything. Would you prefer to take advice from a parent from 100000 years ago or a respected researcher in child development who has no kids of their own?
It takes a village is another way of saying "I take no responsibility for anything society should be more responsible not me"
Actually, it's another way of saying "no man is an island" and acknowledging that children are a product of their society as well as of their family.
The VHEMT link is merely my reflexive response to "you don't have children" commentary. I sometimes also link to the wikipedia article on Hawking radiation and ask if Steve is qualified to be hypothesizing about black holes since he's never even been near one.
tl;dr: Most parents are dickheads by virtue of assuming that direct experience with parenting is necessary for one's comments on the issue to be worthy of consideration.
You don't have children, right? Please look at this when you do, and they are nearing 18 years of age, you'll get a huge laugh.
Here, go read something.
Muslims are the ones that are denouncing them and saying that they are peaceful... They, obviously, have some reason that they feel they should be involved, likely to distance themselves from the radicals in an attempt to stave off retaliation against themselves, but whatever that reason may be it's not addressing the problem that is causing them to become involved.
That's my point. They obviously have some reason that they feel they should be involved: people like gtall and you constantly talking about Muslims that "continue to sit by while radical muslims commit atrocities". There's an undeniable tendency for Westerners to point to all the moderate Muslims and ask why they're not doing anything, to accuse them of complicity by virtue of their inaction. That is why they feel they should be involved, because they're being accused of aiding terrorists simply by sharing the same faith. I ask you again, why do people accuse moderate Muslims on this basis but not moderate men? Why are people more comfortable with drawing an irrational dividing line based on religion than on gender? Why don't moderate men feel they need to denounce Islamic State and demonstrate that not all men are terrorists? Hint: it might have something to do with Western society associating "terrorism" with "Islam" but not "maleness", with no rational basis for doing so.
So why did I bring up the Kurds? Not only do they speak out against ISIS and distance themselves from ISIS they're also willing to back up those words with actions.
You brought them up because they're Muslim. You didn't bring up the Yazidis that fight along side them. You didn't bring up the Assyrians that fight alongside them. You didn't bring up the Chaldean Catholics that fight alongside them. You're holding up the Kurds as model Muslims. Muslims who not only denounce Islamic State, but also take action against it. The reason you focus on them and not any of the countless other groups that both denounce and combat Islamic State is because they're Muslim.
Yet what happens here in America? We're presented evidence of the monstrousity of ISIS on numerous accounts yet we are perfectly willing to sit with our collective thumbs up our arses and talk and talk and talk and finally do nothing of relevance. So we don't want to put troops there. Fine. Then leave the middle east to fester in its own rot but cut out these half ass useless measures being done for the semblance of looking like you're doing something.
While I personally disagree with the approach that the US has been taking, I don't think total isolationism or full military commitment are among our best choices. Either way, this has little to do with the fact that people still talk about Islam like it's more relevant to Islamic State than is gender. It's a sad fact that if you were to accuse men (in general) of aiding Islamic State through inaction, you'd be looked at like you were mad, but if you accuse Muslims (in general) instead, it's somehow "intuitive".
Best is a grade on what was looked at. It is a correct term in the context.
The context was gurps_npc claiming that "children are and should be a decision made by a woman" and then Archangel Michael replying "children tend to do much better with two parents actively involved in raising them to adulthood, everything else equal."
In other words, gurps_npc was arguing for women's reproductive rights, and Archangel Michael was hijacking the thread to pontificate about how children ought to be raised. Nothing about the context suggests that the discussion would be limited to the scope of a CDC study that wasn't mentioned until several posts later.
If anything, the context suggests that the childrearing issues Archangel Michael brought up are off topic.
Why are we picking on Muslims though? Don't get me wrong, we've come a long way. Now it's generally understood that while many terrorists are Muslim, not many Muslims are terrorists. But still, we're always talking about Islam, about Muslims. Why is there any expectation for them to do more than merely denounce Islamic State?
What are we doing, as men, beyond merely denouncing Islamic State? After all, the ranks of Islamic State are pretty much entirely male. Now, I'm aware that while many (virtually all) terrorists are male, not many males are terrorists. However, as men, are we compelled to do more than just sit by while radical men commit atrocities? Why are people like you expecting some sort of heroic action on the part of Muslims all over the world, simply because Islamic State is also Muslim, while not expecting any sort of heroic action on the part of men all over the world, even though Islamic State is also male?
To me, it's no less ridiculous to consider the Islamic State to be a problem for Muslims to solve than it is to consider them to be a problem to be a problem for men to solve. We're all people, and Islamic State poses a threat to all of us alike. I see no value in expecting any one group to take the lead in solving this issue simply because of some perceived commonality between them and Islamic State, whether based on religion, gender, or some other factor.
Meaningless difference — communism is bad because of the dictatorship of the Communist Party. Wherever attempted in earnest, Communism resulted in millions of dead and utter devastation for the survivors, who are left without both human rights (a given with any Collectivist ideology) and any material wealth.
Some would argue that it was never attempted in earnest, as the means of production were never owned by the people (which is by definition a requirement of communism).
Dictators can be very different. Compare Pinochet, who stepped down on his own, and left his country as Latin America's top economy, with Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez — the guys, who never step down (only carried out) and turn their countries into shitholes?
Ignoring the fact that Cuba did better under Castro than they did under America's golden boy Batista.
Reality has a well-known liberal bias.
The silent majority of muslims is irrelevant.
They're not silent at all. They've been all over the media denouncing Islamic State and other militant groups. What the fuck do you want them to do, picket outside your house?
I think what he is saying is that children thrive better in a home with both biological parents than without one or both.
Perhaps that's what he means to say. But in fact, he's saying something else. He's saying that what is best for kids is to have two parents, one male, one female. Presumably, we're talking about psychological parents, not necessarily biological ones (as he mentions homosexual parents), so the implication is that two parents are better than three or more. That is a baseless claim, and the number two is chosen for arbitrary reasons.
Whether 200 different people telling him what to do has an effect or not on them is beyond what was said. I'm also thinking that is ancillary to the point because the adverse effects of not having one or any biological parent in the home is so much worse.
What was said is that having two parents is the best. This necessarily implies that having 200 parents is worse than having two. That's what "best" means. It's not ancillary to the point, it follows directly from the claim that having two parents is best. The "science" you link to does not corroborate the claim that having two parents is better than having more than two, since the study didn't include any families in which children were raised by more than two parents.
Firstly, despite recent medical advances, it does require two people to create a baby. Their involvement can be more indirect than previously, but they're still both required: we're not at the cloning-humans stage yet.
Cloning via SCNT has yielded several fatherless mammal clones. While today's technology is quite limited in its efficacy, we're not at the cloning-humans stage primarily due to non-technical reasons.
Secondly, the GP's statement that a child can be raised better by a couple than by a single parent is not contradicted by your statement that a village can do an even better job.
That's true, and I never implied otherwise. OP's statement that he wants the best for children is contradicted by my statement that a village can do an even better job than a pair of parents.
It's perfectly consistent to argue for government policies that encourage the raising of children by stable couples, as well as policies that encourage the development of more tightly-knit neighbourhoods that can support them.
Sure, stable couples. Stable triads. Stable quads. But you only say couples (as well as neighborhoods). You seem rather unwilling to acknowledge your arbitrary focus on the number two. Why is that?
Define "two"? I haven't heard of any conceptions without sperm + egg. Where would you get the rest of the chromosomes from?
No sperm here, and three biological parents (two genetic, one gestational).
You mean strong communities? I think most people like those, but they've been deteriorating. I used to live in a town where everyone knew everyone and it was good. Here, I'm a stranger to everyone.
I was merely trying to point out that OP's claims of what's "best" are arbitrary. Yes, two parents are better than one. And one parents is better than none. But that's not to say that two is some ideal number. The more people are involved in the raising of children, the better the outcomes. The claim that it is ideal to have only two people raising each child is arbitrary and not consistent with what we know about social development of children. If someone can be wrong for saying that having only one parent is ideal, so too can OP be wrong for saying that having only two parents is ideal.
It does require whole teams of medical specialists. And that shows why it's overly simplistic to simply say "it actually takes two to create children".
There's many ways to create children. Some ways involve nothing more than two persons of opposite sex. Other ways involve an additional village of extended family. Other ways involve a team of scientists. Pretending there's only one way to do it, or that one way is "the best", ignores the reality that that's often not the case.
Nope.
10^1 deca (da), 10^2 hecta (h), and 10^3 kilo (k) are all lower case. Upper case doesn't start til you hit 10^6 mega (M).
So you're saying that the whole "it takes a village" adage is incorrect, and that children are actually harmed by having extended family participate in their rearing? To me, that sounds like a lot more than "two parents, one male, one female".
Although I'm not sure what moral equivocation has to do with this. Please elaborate?
The energy industry uses kWh (not KWh). I'm an EE (by education), and a pedantic one at that.
I see you totally missed the point of my post. In attempting to glorify SI, OP demonstrated his own cluelessness when it comes to units.
In other words, *whoosh*.
It actually takes two to create children.
That hasn't been true for a few decades.
The fact that 9 Months is taken residence in the womb (and subject to termination right up and sometimes passed delivery), is simply a liberal convenience. Two Males cannot create a child, neither can two females.
You haven't been keeping up with science and technology.
Both are inconvenient biological facts liberals don't actually like (its unfair, you homophobic bastard).
Ah yes, liberals. Of course, a discussion about population and procreation is best framed in the context of political leanings.
And children tend to do much better with two parents actively involved in raising them to adulthood, everything else equal. While a single woman COULD raise a child, typically most women do not have the luxury of means to provide for a child by themselves.
Really children tend to do much better with a village actively involved in raising them to adulthood, everything else equal. While a mere couple COULD raise a child, typically most couples do not have the luxury of culture to provide for a child by themselves.
You choose to draw the line somewhere between "single mother" and "both biological parents". However, this is arbitrary and ignores things like the efficacy of adoptive parenthood as well as what we know about traditional childrearing (as was practiced by humans prior to the green revolution). That's fine, but don't pretend that your arbitrary distinction is the only "correct" distinction. Different ways of raising children work differently, and simply because you deem one method to be sufficient or ideal does not mean that this is true for all parents or all children.
So, unless you're talking about just the 9 months of pregnancy, I would suggest that children should be a choice made by a man, and a woman together in mutual agreement whenever possible.
You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not making a convincing argument by setting them forth without identifying a reasonable basis for having them.
Yeah, I am a hater for wanting the best for children.
And of course, you know what's best for children. Everyone else, they're just idiots. Or worse still, liberals.
And the end result is always the same: Extreme scarcity except for those who happen to be in charge.
Indeed, but enough about capitalism!
My power usage in a 100 square yards flat (yeah, you use square feet ... I hope it is easier to calculate from square yard to square feet than it is for me to calculate from square meter to square feet) is about 1700kW/h electric.
You spent so much time gloating over Système International d’Unités being superior to US Customary units that you didn't realize that "kW/h" is 3600 kJ/s^2, a rate of energy increase. Every hour, your power drawincreases by another 1700kW?
Not impressed? Was not meant to impress you. That is per year not per month.
Wait, so that's 1700kW/h/year?! Even the rate at which your power draw is increasing is itself increasing?!
See, this is what you Euroweenies get for embracing an abstract system of measures with no apparent basis in tangible reality.
You wouldn't have confused yourself into a corner if you had just phrased your claims in terms of BTU/fortnight.
Brief aside: If your power draw had been increasing by 1700kW/h since electrification first hit your neighborhood (say, 100 years ago), today you'd be burning roughly 1.5 terawatts, or approximately 1% of all global energy consumption. If instead the rate of increase was itself increasing by 1700kW/h/year, this figure would be much larger, and you'd be the primary consumer of energy on this planet.
I agree. A decreased emphasis on studying for the SAT and a correspondingly increased emphasis on "drama, athletics, music, and [preusmably other] art" will surely improve America's utterly embarassing standing in international comparisons of education outcomes.
The wise Frito from the documentary Idiocracy said it best: "Go away! 'Batin'!"
Your post, while reasonable and correct as far as I know, has nothing to do with the "data" claim I was inquiring about.
I'm more than halfway to lifetime silver status with Marriott. I know firsthand how effective a good loyalty program can be.
Sure, he was from Genoa. Or maybe he was the son of Polish King Wladyslaw III. There's many conflicting hypotheses.
From today's headlines: Fuck, cops kill a sleeping 7-year-old girl during a botched raid and Judge Cynthia Gray Hathaway dismisses manslaughter charges against the triggerman.
Another no-knock warrant served after midnight, cops all SWATted up, flashbangs a-flying'. Sure sounds fun.
I'm not sure what data they get from rewards program participation that they don't already get from hotel booking. Can you elaborate?
Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.
Many Marriott properties offer "free" WiFi. Indeed, the cost of providing this service is rolled into the room rates.
Other Marriott properties charge a fee for WiFi access. However, Platinum (and I think maybe Gold as well) Marriott Rewards members get access for free (though this is a relatively new development). Since these folks have the same room rates as everyone else, it's not exactly accurate to say that the price is included in the room rate (since many people pay the room rate and the WiFi fee).
Tough I suppose in some sense, even air isn't free.
I've played EDF 2017. It's terribly bad but really addictive.