Why does that matter? According to you, the only options are to mortgage your life away or die, yet a large percentage of Americans have health insurance and haven't mortgaged their lives.
So we can play a silly numbers game, as though that makes the slightes difference, or you can just admit that there are a large number of people with good insurance who get good coverage, and have reasonable medical bills.
Or you can try to support your previous assertion in the face of facts that directly contradict you.
"In a 5-to-4 opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court ruled that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was based on reasonable suspicion"
REASONABLE SUSPICION. That is different from "no reason".
"And yes, in some european countries it is mandatory to have your ID card with you when you leave the house. I don't think you'll be arrested for not having it, at least I've never heard of that happening after WW2."
I'm no geography whiz, but Colorado is not in Europe, as far as I know.
Thanks for the completely unrealted story though. It was a good read, but you should have paid attention to the part where THEY GAVE HER A TICKET. She wasn't arrested.
So apart from being an entirely different continent, and the lady not being arrested, your point is a decent one.
What's the point of making ridiculous, fear based points that are factually incorrect (apart from karma whoring)?
About 85% of Americans have health insurance, with around 70% being private health insurance.
Nowhere in your post does it mention the option of having your health care provider pay for your services, which is what I and every member of my family have done since I can remember.
Please stop modding people up when they're clearly doing nothing but playing to the crowd. This guy is fear mongering himself, and shouldn't be rewarded for it.
"It's not my desire to focus on this stuff anymore, but many of the SSRIs have been linked to suicidal and homicidal teens."
And here's why. Often, people are so depressed that even the act of getting out of bed to deal with daily tasks is impossible. When given an anti-depressant, the individual's mental state improves, giving them the ability to act on their impulses when the couldn't before.
It is generally considered a bad idea to focus your attention on anything other than driving while driving, unless absolutely necessary. Bitching at someone about a cell phone is neither helpful or necessary.
You can rationalize all you like, what he did (and her too, no pass there) put a great deal of other people at risk.
They were BOTH wrong, and their immature, irresponsible driving could have cost lives.
"Replace one with a boy and I think most people would assume that the man holding his hand was his father or brother. Replace one with an autistic man and most people would probably assume that the non-autistic man was his caregiver."
No, YOU assume those things because it fits your world view. In the case of many of my autistic clients, you wouldn't know they were autistic. So YOU would assume me and the (apparently) non-autistic man I was walking with were gay.
WHY?
All the exposition doesn't answer my question. I know several women who hold hands while walking. None of them are gay.
This is the point where you should admit defeat. There is nothing inherently "homosexual" about holding hands. I think you know that. Instead of trying to buoy an obviously absurd statement by the original poster, just admit he (and you by extension) engaged in hyperbolic scare tactics, becuase you'll NEVER be able to make the case that any part of holding hands is "gay".
"Um - if you see two men walking through the park and they are holding hands like a couple are they or are they not expressing homosexuality?"
Replace one of the men with a boy. Are they expressing homosexuality? I once worked with autistic adults, and part of that was holding their hand while walking outside. So, by your measure, I'm gay. I had no idea.
And you didn't answer my question. What part of holding hands is a homosexual activity?
"This law explicitly bans depictions of homosexuality in games, it specifically singles out homosexuality seperate from other sexual behaviors which can be either hetereosexual and homosexual - how much clearer can it be?"
Then explain it to me. I'm obviously not getting it, so tell me PLEASE, what part of holding hands is homosexual activity? If it's so clear, you should have no problem explaining.
But that didn't answer my question. The statement was "a homosexual character in the game makes it illegal to sell to minors". Does engaging in a "homosexual act" make one a homosexual? Is that the metric?
Of course not. How does one identify a "homosexual" character?
By the way, I'm not looking for an answer, so much as trying to draw attention to the absurdity of the original comment.
"That's purely prejudicial to include one and not the other. A homosexual character in a game makes it illegal to sell to minors? Please."
Where does it say that? I didn't read that, so you apparently made it up.
Second, you've made the assumption that one would be able to identify a "homosexual character" somehow. Tell me, oh wise one, how exactly would you be able to do that?
There's no prejudice here, just a rampant need to find some to bitch about.
"You *JUST DONT NEED A CAR*. You dont need it at all."
Well, I work 40 miles from my home, in a state with no significant public transportation at all. I DO need a car. And I hate that fact, but it's still a fact.
All the pie in the sky, wishful thinking, anti-technology ranting in the world won't change a damned thing, so save it, no one is listening.
Why is it that we continually endure rants about SUV's and their gargantuan size, but when someone makes a car that addresses that very problem, it gets panned because it's too small.
"What, and forcing people to be in the military -- via a draft/conscription, as has occurred in every major war in U.S. history (I don't consider the Iraq wars as "major") -- isn't invasive and invocative of a deep visceral negative reaction?"
Right. And while the drafts were going on, everyone just bent overt and took it didn't they? Oh, wait, they certainly didn't, as I recall just the opposite happened.
That's only because you said it before, and now you don't want to back off of it. 4% is nothing. A "large chunk" is overstatement, and simply not accurate by any metric.
A straw man (or straw dog[1]) argument is a rhetorical technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.
Nowhere in my original post did I mention anything at all about internet fragmentation or my opinion on it. What you did is a perfect example of a straw man.
But I wouldn't expect you to know that. I would expect a half-thought out retort about staying on topic, completely ignoring the fact that you have been shown that you engaged in an obvious and simplistic logical fallacy, and then your defense of your fallacy.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes I do realize that. But that wasn't the point. The original poster made a ridiculous claim that has no basis in reality, and I refuted.
My point, which a lot of people seemed to have missed, is that if it was very expensive, 70% of the population wouldn't have it.
What does that have to do with insurance? That is consumer debt related to purchasing things they don't need.
My insurance is 60 bucks a paycheck. It's about the average for me, with 110 being the high end and 35 being the low.
You were wrong. Stop trying so hard to be right and just admit it.
Use your head for a second and you'll relize if it was really expensive 70% of the population WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT.
So yes, I've destroyed your argument.
Why does that matter? According to you, the only options are to mortgage your life away or die, yet a large percentage of Americans have health insurance and haven't mortgaged their lives.
So we can play a silly numbers game, as though that makes the slightes difference, or you can just admit that there are a large number of people with good insurance who get good coverage, and have reasonable medical bills.
Or you can try to support your previous assertion in the face of facts that directly contradict you.
Yeah, it cost me 60 bucks a paycheck. It's subsidized by my employer.
And frankly, your ridiculous assertion that I have to mortgage myself for it deserves a serious verbal slap, but I'm not going to do it.
After several knee surgeries and one intestinal surgery, my total bill was... 900 bucks.
Save your "mortgage away your life" garbage, it's not true, and I won't allow you to keep using those scare tactics without refuting you.
If you had, you'd have seen this
"In a 5-to-4 opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court ruled that the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment because it was based on reasonable suspicion"
REASONABLE SUSPICION. That is different from "no reason".
"And yes, in some european countries it is mandatory to have your ID card with you when you leave the house. I don't think you'll be arrested for not having it, at least I've never heard of that happening after WW2."
I'm no geography whiz, but Colorado is not in Europe, as far as I know.
Thanks for the completely unrealted story though. It was a good read, but you should have paid attention to the part where THEY GAVE HER A TICKET. She wasn't arrested.
So apart from being an entirely different continent, and the lady not being arrested, your point is a decent one.
What's the point of making ridiculous, fear based points that are factually incorrect (apart from karma whoring)?
About 85% of Americans have health insurance, with around 70% being private health insurance.
Nowhere in your post does it mention the option of having your health care provider pay for your services, which is what I and every member of my family have done since I can remember.
Please stop modding people up when they're clearly doing nothing but playing to the crowd. This guy is fear mongering himself, and shouldn't be rewarded for it.
Save your crap conspiracy theories. People like you make it even harder for people with mental illness to seek treatment.
"It's not my desire to focus on this stuff anymore, but many of the SSRIs have been linked to suicidal and homicidal teens."
And here's why. Often, people are so depressed that even the act of getting out of bed to deal with daily tasks is impossible. When given an anti-depressant, the individual's mental state improves, giving them the ability to act on their impulses when the couldn't before.
It is generally considered a bad idea to focus your attention on anything other than driving while driving, unless absolutely necessary. Bitching at someone about a cell phone is neither helpful or necessary.
You can rationalize all you like, what he did (and her too, no pass there) put a great deal of other people at risk.
They were BOTH wrong, and their immature, irresponsible driving could have cost lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
This has been hashed out for years. I'm surprised someone who is so concerned about the first amendment doesn't know about it.
"Replace one with a boy and I think most people would assume that the man holding his hand was his father or brother. Replace one with an autistic man and most people would probably assume that the non-autistic man was his caregiver."
No, YOU assume those things because it fits your world view. In the case of many of my autistic clients, you wouldn't know they were autistic. So YOU would assume me and the (apparently) non-autistic man I was walking with were gay.
WHY?
All the exposition doesn't answer my question. I know several women who hold hands while walking. None of them are gay.
This is the point where you should admit defeat. There is nothing inherently "homosexual" about holding hands. I think you know that. Instead of trying to buoy an obviously absurd statement by the original poster, just admit he (and you by extension) engaged in hyperbolic scare tactics, becuase you'll NEVER be able to make the case that any part of holding hands is "gay".
"Um - if you see two men walking through the park and they are holding hands like a couple are they or are they not expressing homosexuality?"
Replace one of the men with a boy. Are they expressing homosexuality? I once worked with autistic adults, and part of that was holding their hand while walking outside. So, by your measure, I'm gay. I had no idea.
And you didn't answer my question. What part of holding hands is a homosexual activity?
"This law explicitly bans depictions of homosexuality in games, it specifically singles out homosexuality seperate from other sexual behaviors which can be either hetereosexual and homosexual - how much clearer can it be?"
Then explain it to me. I'm obviously not getting it, so tell me PLEASE, what part of holding hands is homosexual activity? If it's so clear, you should have no problem explaining.
Yes, it may be an act of homosexuality.
But that didn't answer my question. The statement was "a homosexual character in the game makes it illegal to sell to minors". Does engaging in a "homosexual act" make one a homosexual? Is that the metric?
Of course not. How does one identify a "homosexual" character?
By the way, I'm not looking for an answer, so much as trying to draw attention to the absurdity of the original comment.
"That's purely prejudicial to include one and not the other. A homosexual character in a game makes it illegal to sell to minors? Please."
Where does it say that? I didn't read that, so you apparently made it up.
Second, you've made the assumption that one would be able to identify a "homosexual character" somehow. Tell me, oh wise one, how exactly would you be able to do that?
There's no prejudice here, just a rampant need to find some to bitch about.
Well?
Your eyes are constantly moving, even while staring intently at something. If they weren't you wouldn't see anything after a few seconds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saccade
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retinal_detachment
Everything you posted is wrong.
"You *JUST DONT NEED A CAR*. You dont need it at all."
Well, I work 40 miles from my home, in a state with no significant public transportation at all. I DO need a car. And I hate that fact, but it's still a fact.
All the pie in the sky, wishful thinking, anti-technology ranting in the world won't change a damned thing, so save it, no one is listening.
Why is it that we continually endure rants about SUV's and their gargantuan size, but when someone makes a car that addresses that very problem, it gets panned because it's too small.
You can't have it both ways.
"What, and forcing people to be in the military -- via a draft/conscription, as has occurred in every major war in U.S. history (I don't consider the Iraq wars as "major") -- isn't invasive and invocative of a deep visceral negative reaction?"
Right. And while the drafts were going on, everyone just bent overt and took it didn't they? Oh, wait, they certainly didn't, as I recall just the opposite happened.
Terrible example.
"Oil sits at 4%, a large chunk in my opinion"
That's only because you said it before, and now you don't want to back off of it. 4% is nothing. A "large chunk" is overstatement, and simply not accurate by any metric.
Yay, now tell me why that's news. I think anyone who isn't an idiot knows that motorcycles are pretty dangerous if you crash them.
The key is to NOT crash them.
Lastly, 79% of statistics are made up on the spot.
"Certain I'm an asshole?"
I was right. Thanks for proving it for me.
"How is that a straw man?"
A straw man (or straw dog[1]) argument is a rhetorical technique based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent.
Nowhere in my original post did I mention anything at all about internet fragmentation or my opinion on it. What you did is a perfect example of a straw man.
But I wouldn't expect you to know that. I would expect a half-thought out retort about staying on topic, completely ignoring the fact that you have been shown that you engaged in an obvious and simplistic logical fallacy, and then your defense of your fallacy.
So do that, and prove me correct again.
Mods a post about net censorship in a thread about net censorship, discussing a story about net censorship OFF TOPIC?
God damn, mod, you're a fucking moron.