Plus, you have 20-40% of the 1.6 million homeless youth in America who are transgender and whose families threw them out because of their gender status. And later, they get denied apartments because they're transgender.
America is a hard place if you're different. I can only imagine what it's like for someone to be in this position.
Less and less. I was there beginning of March, and was surprised to see that neighborhoods that had been wasteland are now showing signs of life. I don't know what's going to happen, but don't count Detroit out just yet. There is investment going on in surprising parts of that city. There are still large tracts that are barren, but people are starting to find a way.
In the case of capital offenses, death results from an individual knowingly and willingly violating the law of the land in a fashion that the state has deemed that person must die for the greater good of society, as retribution for the actions they took, and or because the state wants to strongly discourage others from the same action.
So then you don't believe the US is a society founded on Christian principles? Good, we're making progress.
I don't need to defend anything, your utter inability to comprehend a simple point is not an attack, it's something to be pitied.
So, you are unable to defend his statement in any meaningful way? You did so once, albeit without making an actual argument. I guess I'm not surprised that you cannot do it a second time.
Here is the thesis: Facebook is no more a monopoly than Fox News. You clearly disagree, but you've yet to say why.
Fox News doesn't have monopoly control over a communications platform. Faceberg does.
So, he's claiming that Facebook has a monopoly over something, though he doesn't seem to understand what he's saying. Is the "communications platform" he's talking about Facebook itself? Because if it is, then that's stupid because one has a monopoly in a marketplace, not just over a single company. It's like saying "Facebook has a monopoly on Facebook".
And if he's saying, "Facebook has a monopoly on communications over the Internet", then that's stupid because we could list a bunch of sites that are trying to compete with Facebook, including Twitter, Google+, Tumblr, etc etc etc.
Either way, it's a stupid comment. Now let's see how stupid you can be: I challenge you to defend the stupid sonofabitch's statement a second time. I'll even quote it again, in its entirety, in case you've forgotten it.
Fox News doesn't have monopoly control over a communications platform. Faceberg does.
Ratzo, I see you're upvoting yourself from sock-puppet accounts again.
You got me. I control every account with UIDs between 3000000 and 4000000. Now I'm in negotiations with Slashdot to give me control over the Anonymous Coward account so I can troll myself.
Particularly after a short conversation (or cross-examination) testing internal consistency of the logical implications of the "belief".
Internal consistency?
Q: What is your religion? A: I'm a born-again Christian Q: So, you're pro-life? A: Absolutely. 100% Q: Do you believe in the death penalty? A: Fucking-A right.
Bill Nye would enthusiastically agree that kids (and adults) should "ask those questions and not just believe what (ANYONE, including) Bill Nye the Science Guy is trying to tell them."
The difference is that Bill Nye would also suggest that after "asking those questions" that the kids (and adults) should at least pay some attention to the answers.
Sarah Palin wants people to "listen and believe". The fact that she's going around touting a "debate with Bill Nye" and it turns out that she's basically debating a cardboard cutout of Bill Nye and some selectively edited video clips is proof of how her type works. Let's have an actual debate between the two and see who makes a better case.
If they're Facebook employees, then it's Facebook's own time.
Funny how support of corporate involvement in elections depends on whether it's your candidate that's getting support or opposition from the corporation.
Freedom is directly related to productivity because government regulations (reduction of freedom) makes production less efficient. Let's say I buy $11,000 worth of potassium ferricyanide for an industrial process. The bank reports the transaction to the feds because it's over $10,000, raising the bank's costs and wasting taxpayer's money.The chemical company might be required to report the sale to several federal agencies, such as the EPA and Homeland Security; another government expense and a burden on the chemical supplier. Maybe one of those agencies decides that the sale should be prevented, which is really expensive for everyone, or demands that I fill out a form explaining why I need the chemical and how I'm going to handle it to meet OSHA regulations. The DOT puts its hand in also, requiring that the chemical be boxed in containers of no more than 10 pounds each, with no more than 200 pounds carried on a single vehicle, with a signed form in triplicate taped to each box, using tape meeting a federal specification (which is no longer manufactured). And on, and on, and that's why freedom accompanies productivity.
Can anyone spot the several logical fallacies in the above statements? Explain. This will count toward 20% of your grade.
Extra credit: Describe in a paragraph how unregulated markets tend to eventually become much less efficient ("productive").
Slashdot Mirror
You're old-fashioned. I don't get involved until they're drafted into the NBA.
The ministers need to take the stick out they ass.
Fuck yeah!
Oh come on, Hillary Clinton isn't that bad.
Plus, you have 20-40% of the 1.6 million homeless youth in America who are transgender and whose families threw them out because of their gender status. And later, they get denied apartments because they're transgender.
America is a hard place if you're different. I can only imagine what it's like for someone to be in this position.
http://homeless.samhsa.gov/Sea...
Now that is the truth.
Less and less. I was there beginning of March, and was surprised to see that neighborhoods that had been wasteland are now showing signs of life. I don't know what's going to happen, but don't count Detroit out just yet. There is investment going on in surprising parts of that city. There are still large tracts that are barren, but people are starting to find a way.
You complete me.
So then you don't believe the US is a society founded on Christian principles? Good, we're making progress.
So, you are unable to defend his statement in any meaningful way? You did so once, albeit without making an actual argument. I guess I'm not surprised that you cannot do it a second time.
Here is the thesis: Facebook is no more a monopoly than Fox News. You clearly disagree, but you've yet to say why.
Yeah, he did. Here's the entirety of his quote:
So, he's claiming that Facebook has a monopoly over something, though he doesn't seem to understand what he's saying. Is the "communications platform" he's talking about Facebook itself? Because if it is, then that's stupid because one has a monopoly in a marketplace, not just over a single company. It's like saying "Facebook has a monopoly on Facebook".
And if he's saying, "Facebook has a monopoly on communications over the Internet", then that's stupid because we could list a bunch of sites that are trying to compete with Facebook, including Twitter, Google+, Tumblr, etc etc etc.
Either way, it's a stupid comment. Now let's see how stupid you can be: I challenge you to defend the stupid sonofabitch's statement a second time. I'll even quote it again, in its entirety, in case you've forgotten it.
You got me. I control every account with UIDs between 3000000 and 4000000. Now I'm in negotiations with Slashdot to give me control over the Anonymous Coward account so I can troll myself.
Internal consistency?
Q: What is your religion?
A: I'm a born-again Christian
Q: So, you're pro-life?
A: Absolutely. 100%
Q: Do you believe in the death penalty?
A: Fucking-A right.
How should a court of law test whether or not a follower actually believes?
Facebook does not have monopoly control over online communications, you stupid sonofabitch.
There are several species of nematode that are more qualified than Sarah Palin.
Citation needed.
The difference is that Bill Nye would also suggest that after "asking those questions" that the kids (and adults) should at least pay some attention to the answers.
Sarah Palin wants people to "listen and believe". The fact that she's going around touting a "debate with Bill Nye" and it turns out that she's basically debating a cardboard cutout of Bill Nye and some selectively edited video clips is proof of how her type works. Let's have an actual debate between the two and see who makes a better case.
Don't forget, "Al Gore is fat!"
If they're Facebook employees, then it's Facebook's own time.
Funny how support of corporate involvement in elections depends on whether it's your candidate that's getting support or opposition from the corporation.
As long as the endless hours of Fox News Trump boosterism is also seen as an in kind contribution.
There won't be riots as long as Trump supporters continue to get their disability checks on time.
Can anyone spot the several logical fallacies in the above statements? Explain. This will count toward 20% of your grade.
Extra credit: Describe in a paragraph how unregulated markets tend to eventually become much less efficient ("productive").
It must be Friday.
It kind of sounds like "millennial" is one of those all-purpose terms that just means, "anyone younger than me whose behavior I don't understand".