What's the cost of preventing total human extinction for the next, oh, 50 years or so? That ought to be sufficient.
On a more serious note, Cui bono? Our inventiveness and cleverness has made a very comfortable existence for ourselves. And I'm selfish enough to say that that's good. And I suppose those of us who have children have a natural instinctive desire to see that the world is at least as good for them as it was for us. But is the universe itself a better place for having us here?
The fact that you think a distinction needs to be drawn is laughable. Does a sign on the front door of a bank that says, "Mortgage loans available, apply today!" justify bank robbery?
It doesn't, of course. But it is telling that you've made the huge leap from a suggestion that dressing provocatively has a purpose to equating an understanding of that purpose to justifying rape. Congratulations on that one.
implying that wearing less MEANS you're trying to be sexual.
And implying that, or even saying it out loud doesn't even begin to suggest that someone trying to be more sexual deserves to have anything forced upon them against their will.
Now understand: I am not in any way suggesting that dressing more provocatively should subject any person to sexual assault.
You responded:
So what you're saying is that it's always acceptable to rape the women around who are wearing the least clothing?
Since you're clearly incapable of comprehending the plain English that I actually wrote, it's clear that this conversation can serve no further purpose.
Well, perhaps because in a fundamently biological sense, they're still clothed, which isn't quite our natural state.
You're missing the point.
Take two identical twin females. They dress identically, except that one is wearing a miniskirt and one is wearing an ankle length skirt.
Is it your contention that there is nothing whatsoever different about the appearance of those two persons?
If it isn't, then is it not true that one of those outfits is more appealing to men, in a sexual way, than the other?
Is it reasonable to suggest that there are women who might choose one of those outfits over the other who are not aware of that?
That being the case, are the not, in fact, "asking for it?"
Now understand: I am not in any way suggesting that dressing more provocatively should subject any person to sexual assault. But at the same time, anyone who dresses more provocatively really can't credibly claim to be upset when their provocative appearance, well, provokes people.
"free speech zones" aren't unconstitutional per se (you have a right to assemble and protest, but you can't legally do things like block entrances or squat on private property) any more than separate-but-equal was. The problem is with the implementation, and in both cases the implementations were so obviously out of whack as to taint the entire concept.
I think 1 year is a little harsh. It costs a fuckton of money to build and site a transmitter. I don't think it's reasonable to expect those costs to be recouped in one year.
As for the auctioning principle, I would agree with you except that the issue with FCC licensing right now is that there are set-asides that make it other than a truly free market.
In principle, it doesn't even need the magnetic ink. I can write "pay to the order of rubycodez the amount of nine dollars and fifty cents ($9.50)" on a wet kleenex and sign it and you can take it to my bank and cash it. Legally speaking, the numbers at the bottom are merely an optimization.
I have heard that those magnetic padlocks could be opened (and at the same time ruined) with a gigantic electromagnet. I know, [Citation Needed], but google is failing me right now.
But just because Big Brother can blow your house down, don't just roll over on the assumption that he will. Make him do it, and live with the consequences.
Slashdot Mirror
What's the cost of preventing total human extinction for the next, oh, 50 years or so? That ought to be sufficient.
On a more serious note, Cui bono? Our inventiveness and cleverness has made a very comfortable existence for ourselves. And I'm selfish enough to say that that's good. And I suppose those of us who have children have a natural instinctive desire to see that the world is at least as good for them as it was for us. But is the universe itself a better place for having us here?
René Descartes: "Cogito ergo sum."
The Universe: "So what?"
Thank you, captain obvious.
That's exactly what you're suggesting.
Sigh.
If you think that, then you think that a sign on the front door of a bank that offers low rates on mortgages invites bank robbery.
In the phrase "asking for it," the word "it" is not substitutable by the word "rape." Perhaps that's the part you don't understand.
The fact that you think a distinction needs to be drawn is laughable. Does a sign on the front door of a bank that says, "Mortgage loans available, apply today!" justify bank robbery?
It doesn't, of course. But it is telling that you've made the huge leap from a suggestion that dressing provocatively has a purpose to equating an understanding of that purpose to justifying rape. Congratulations on that one.
implying that wearing less MEANS you're trying to be sexual.
And implying that, or even saying it out loud doesn't even begin to suggest that someone trying to be more sexual deserves to have anything forced upon them against their will.
Hi, wondermike! I'm shampoo, and I'm the captain of the gravy train!
nobody must DARE to question the holy Obama!
followed by
Are you a socialist?
Ah. Bask in the delicious irony.
Oh, come on.
I wrote:
Now understand: I am not in any way suggesting that dressing more provocatively should subject any person to sexual assault.
You responded:
So what you're saying is that it's always acceptable to rape the women around who are wearing the least clothing?
Since you're clearly incapable of comprehending the plain English that I actually wrote, it's clear that this conversation can serve no further purpose.
Well, perhaps because in a fundamently biological sense, they're still clothed, which isn't quite our natural state.
You're missing the point.
Take two identical twin females. They dress identically, except that one is wearing a miniskirt and one is wearing an ankle length skirt.
Is it your contention that there is nothing whatsoever different about the appearance of those two persons?
If it isn't, then is it not true that one of those outfits is more appealing to men, in a sexual way, than the other?
Is it reasonable to suggest that there are women who might choose one of those outfits over the other who are not aware of that?
That being the case, are the not, in fact, "asking for it?"
Now understand: I am not in any way suggesting that dressing more provocatively should subject any person to sexual assault. But at the same time, anyone who dresses more provocatively really can't credibly claim to be upset when their provocative appearance, well, provokes people.
I guess girls in skirts higher than the knee are "asking for it" as well.
In a fundamental, biological sense, how are they not?
"free speech zones" aren't unconstitutional per se (you have a right to assemble and protest, but you can't legally do things like block entrances or squat on private property) any more than separate-but-equal was. The problem is with the implementation, and in both cases the implementations were so obviously out of whack as to taint the entire concept.
I think 1 year is a little harsh. It costs a fuckton of money to build and site a transmitter. I don't think it's reasonable to expect those costs to be recouped in one year.
As for the auctioning principle, I would agree with you except that the issue with FCC licensing right now is that there are set-asides that make it other than a truly free market.
In principle, it doesn't even need the magnetic ink. I can write "pay to the order of rubycodez the amount of nine dollars and fifty cents ($9.50)" on a wet kleenex and sign it and you can take it to my bank and cash it. Legally speaking, the numbers at the bottom are merely an optimization.
I have heard that those magnetic padlocks could be opened (and at the same time ruined) with a gigantic electromagnet. I know, [Citation Needed], but google is failing me right now.
Here's a photo of my keychain. Knock yourselves out.
People notice car alarms too. Doesn't mean they prevent auto theft.
there's always going to be a need for another org. to be there to defend that pesky 2nd amendment they wish would just go away.
There. Fixed that for you.
But just because Big Brother can blow your house down, don't just roll over on the assumption that he will. Make him do it, and live with the consequences.
I's already happened. Big Brother did blow someone's house down, and there were consequences.
... than the alternative
I'd like reasons that apply to 'most of the time' as opposed to arguments based on obscure features that may get used only a few times ever.
You must be new here.
So where does it say that he was actually killed for making fun of the bible?
*whoosh*
Seriously, there needs to be a "-1; you didn't get the joke" moderation.
*whoosh*
Hear that? It's the sound of the joke flying just over your head.
If you're an American there are parts of your own country where that isn't true
[Citation Needed]