What scientific evidence do you have to back up your claim?
He's not the one making the claim on this treatment. The "doctor" in the article is. The onus is on him to prove that his treatment works. He has none.
The most retarded thing about Libertarianism, at least as espoused by people on the internet, is the idea that as long as there's at least an illusion of choice, then there can be no harm done. That idea is completely absurd on it's face, especially the idea that things are fine even when no real choice is offered.
The ADA has a monopoly on medical practice in America, I prefer choices.
Not if those choices are just going to be quacks. If they truly believe they have something, let them prove it scientifically. The second they refuse to do that, or they sue critics, then they are instantly a quack, and don't deserve any praise or sympathy whatsoever.
The fact is that the medical community as a whole has not cured cancer.
The fact is this guy's methods don't work either. Him deciding to sue critics rather than scientifically address them is further evidence of his quackery.
No, but you have failed to prove anything remotely like your point. Your stupid link didn't produce anything close to what you claimed. Therefore, your entire point is invalid, and you have no idea what you're talking about.
Yeah, that doesn't happen. In fact, climate scientists are generally subject to some of the harshest criticisms, from people who have no fucking idea what they're talking about.
No, and that's a completely ass backwards view to take. It doesn't matter in the least if the patients are "satisfied". What matters is whether this is fraud or not.
Many victims of fraud are completely satisfied and happy with the person they're fraudulently giving money to. That doesn't make it any less wrong.
The problem with your argument, is that all of those medical treatments are required to be proven in effectiveness before they can be used. Most of these quack scams are not.
No, credit matters just as much as getting the job done. More, in fact.
If you're getting the job done, but someone else is taking all the credit, then you get overlooked at promotion/raise time, you get looked at during layoff time, and the company still gets the benefits of your hard work.
Most managers don't have to directly deal with those expenses, however. And most of those expenses are sunk costs, that axing one or two people isn't really going to put a dent in.
I think it still takes a company with a culture of telecommuting, or even outsourcing, for that to work. If you're the only one telecommuting on your team, and the company doesn't have operations overseas, or outsource anything, then it's much different.
So basically you're trying to justify how shitty 401ks are by saying it's better for the company? Fuck the company. I don't give a rat's ass about the company. I care about me.
Yes, I know the reason. Doesn't make it any less bullshit. My point still stands: There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why software engineers should not be compensated for excess overtime.
If you think living in Montana, for instance is optional
It is. The government isn't putting a gun to your head and saying, "Live in Montana, dammit!" (with the exception being the military, but then you've already made a choice to allow that in the first place). Are you trying to say it's not?
But even where there is some public transportation, certain jobs just need personal transport. I was a field tech for almost 35 years, and taking the bus would just not work.
Again, that's your choice to take that job. Nobody forced you to.
Furthermore, nobody is talking about "eliminating cars". We're saying that it is YOUR CHOICE and COMPLETELY OPTIONAL to have a driver's license. That's all.
You haven't answered his question. Further, you went on some bullshit rant about "what the free marked does," which is completely irrelevant, as it doesn't address the question.
If the manufacturer and/or seller of a gun is liable for what the new owner does with it, or a bartender is liable for what a patron does after purchasing booze, or I get in trouble for selling you a class 4 laser and you do something dumb, I see no reason why Ford can't be legally liable for handing over the keys to someone who didn't pass a vehicle test, or a parent can't be legally liable for loaning the keys to a teenager. Thats how it works in private aviation, anytime anyone crashes for any reason, the vehicle manufacturer gets sued, because that's where the money is.
This is a complete and utterly worthless idea that would have no chance of working whatsoever.
It doesn't mean no laws could ever exist, or no judicial system could ever exist, or no civil courts could ever exist.
It does mean that those things are far, far weaker, and have a far, far lower chance of actually protecting anyone.
Your entire point falls apart when you fail to post which states actually allow a previously unlicensed driver to get a license without a road test. It fails even more when you fail to answer the parent's question.
Driving is, in much of American a NECESSITY. To claim it is a privilege may be linguistically accurate, but it is not accurate at all. It is a necessity for most of us.
Nope. That's entirely a function of your choice on places to live. If you decide to live somewhere with a bad public transportation infrastructure, then you've made the choice to need to drive, and thus to use the DMV.
Yes, it should be difficult to have a license. People should be required to actually know what the fuck they're doing before they should be allowed on the public roads.
Slashdot Mirror
And how would you back it up and justify it? Anyone can say any kind of bullshit they want; being able to back it up is completely different.
What scientific evidence do you have to back up your claim?
He's not the one making the claim on this treatment. The "doctor" in the article is. The onus is on him to prove that his treatment works. He has none.
The most retarded thing about Libertarianism, at least as espoused by people on the internet, is the idea that as long as there's at least an illusion of choice, then there can be no harm done. That idea is completely absurd on it's face, especially the idea that things are fine even when no real choice is offered.
The ADA has a monopoly on medical practice in America, I prefer choices.
Not if those choices are just going to be quacks. If they truly believe they have something, let them prove it scientifically. The second they refuse to do that, or they sue critics, then they are instantly a quack, and don't deserve any praise or sympathy whatsoever.
The fact is that the medical community as a whole has not cured cancer.
The fact is this guy's methods don't work either. Him deciding to sue critics rather than scientifically address them is further evidence of his quackery.
No, but you have failed to prove anything remotely like your point. Your stupid link didn't produce anything close to what you claimed. Therefore, your entire point is invalid, and you have no idea what you're talking about.
Yeah, if you can't produce something real, instead of a retarded LMGTFY link, I'm forced to conclude that you're just a troll.
The onus is on YOU to produce evidence backing up your point, not us.
Yeah, that doesn't happen. In fact, climate scientists are generally subject to some of the harshest criticisms, from people who have no fucking idea what they're talking about.
No, and that's a completely ass backwards view to take. It doesn't matter in the least if the patients are "satisfied". What matters is whether this is fraud or not.
Many victims of fraud are completely satisfied and happy with the person they're fraudulently giving money to. That doesn't make it any less wrong.
The problem with your argument, is that all of those medical treatments are required to be proven in effectiveness before they can be used. Most of these quack scams are not.
No, credit matters just as much as getting the job done. More, in fact.
If you're getting the job done, but someone else is taking all the credit, then you get overlooked at promotion/raise time, you get looked at during layoff time, and the company still gets the benefits of your hard work.
Most managers don't have to directly deal with those expenses, however. And most of those expenses are sunk costs, that axing one or two people isn't really going to put a dent in.
I think it still takes a company with a culture of telecommuting, or even outsourcing, for that to work. If you're the only one telecommuting on your team, and the company doesn't have operations overseas, or outsource anything, then it's much different.
That's just a completely load of horse shit that you're trying to pass off as to why this should be acceptable. And it doesn't work.
So basically you're trying to justify how shitty 401ks are by saying it's better for the company? Fuck the company. I don't give a rat's ass about the company. I care about me.
It's good because on days when things are going well, you can leave early and no one says anything.
Not really. Very few places allow this.
Yes, I know the reason. Doesn't make it any less bullshit. My point still stands: There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why software engineers should not be compensated for excess overtime.
If you think living in Montana, for instance is optional
It is. The government isn't putting a gun to your head and saying, "Live in Montana, dammit!" (with the exception being the military, but then you've already made a choice to allow that in the first place). Are you trying to say it's not?
But even where there is some public transportation, certain jobs just need personal transport. I was a field tech for almost 35 years, and taking the bus would just not work.
Again, that's your choice to take that job. Nobody forced you to.
Furthermore, nobody is talking about "eliminating cars". We're saying that it is YOUR CHOICE and COMPLETELY OPTIONAL to have a driver's license. That's all.
So you're saying that it wasn't a government agency that had employees stealing sensitive data, but a private company?
And obviously there's no way to take a picture of the list with my phone, or barring that, write down the list on a piece of paper.
You haven't answered his question. Further, you went on some bullshit rant about "what the free marked does," which is completely irrelevant, as it doesn't address the question.
If the manufacturer and/or seller of a gun is liable for what the new owner does with it, or a bartender is liable for what a patron does after purchasing booze, or I get in trouble for selling you a class 4 laser and you do something dumb, I see no reason why Ford can't be legally liable for handing over the keys to someone who didn't pass a vehicle test, or a parent can't be legally liable for loaning the keys to a teenager. Thats how it works in private aviation, anytime anyone crashes for any reason, the vehicle manufacturer gets sued, because that's where the money is.
This is a complete and utterly worthless idea that would have no chance of working whatsoever.
It doesn't mean no laws could ever exist, or no judicial system could ever exist, or no civil courts could ever exist.
It does mean that those things are far, far weaker, and have a far, far lower chance of actually protecting anyone.
Your entire point falls apart when you fail to post which states actually allow a previously unlicensed driver to get a license without a road test. It fails even more when you fail to answer the parent's question.
So they should be doing exactly what they do today?
It might interest you that there used to be way fewer teachers, no administrators, no dept of education ... and the quality of education was way higher
And what percentage of the population was actually educated?
If you really think that the government doesn't do anything good, you need to think again.
Driving is, in much of American a NECESSITY. To claim it is a privilege may be linguistically accurate, but it is not accurate at all. It is a necessity for most of us.
Nope. That's entirely a function of your choice on places to live. If you decide to live somewhere with a bad public transportation infrastructure, then you've made the choice to need to drive, and thus to use the DMV.
Yes, it should be difficult to have a license. People should be required to actually know what the fuck they're doing before they should be allowed on the public roads.