This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
Hi pikey!Now, imagine that I were to walk down the street wearing the robes of a cardinal, or a military uniform, from any country. I'd be taking the piss. Imagine if I were to sell hijabs, for profit, as get up gear for hen nights. People would be justly angry.
NSFW
Here
NSFW
is a website I found on google. Took me a few seconds, but it has a lingere outfit, featuring both a hajib, and one featuring a catholic theme. So... where is the outrage? Where is the CNN front page article? There are these themed costumes for every religion, every heritage, every culture. Why? There are men that find women in these costumes sexy, and for some reason find these themes erotic. I admit I wouldn't mind seeing my wife in any of those outfits. But offensive? Come on.
the rich have to move down too
I am of the opinion that people don't have to get poorer for others to get richer. I believe that through technological development, innovation, creativity, and hard work, we can all be prosperous. I don't believe in the "vs" mentality that has saturated the way our culture views economics. It isn't the rich vs the poor, with the government needing to step in and help the rich be poor and the poor be rich. Even if that model was the only way to go about it, the government is just too inept to be a good tool for redistribute wealth.
Post by
gamerunknown
I never thought of the "angels" theme as being offensive to Christians before, but I can see why it would be.
In better news, there is hope for redemption.
Scott DesJarlais
was reelected because God forgave him, apparently.
I don't believe in the "vs" mentality that has saturated the way our culture views economics.
You can thank Vilfredo Pareto for that! He was of the opinion that democracy was useless and society is always run by elites (with the top 20% of society controlling 80% of wealth - regardless of the
empirical support for such a notion
). His name is still used as the measure of all that is good in the world - in economics, nothing beats a free market (Catallactics), but anything short of that is "second best Pareto efficient". See Amy Finkelstein's Clark prize winning essay on how the government doesn't need to provide healthcare, people just need to have two different private insurance policies. Like Stravinsky, Pareto wholeheartedly endorsed Mussolini.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
gamerunknown
Yeah, quite a few of the Stravinsky fans I've encountered have been arrogant pricks (there's a neo-fascist blog caled "Les Sacre Du Printemps", for instance), so I checked his wiki to find out why. My grandmother, lefty as all git, likes him too though. So it's not a perfect correlation. That said, she also likes Heidegger. I'll ask for her opinion on D.H. Lawrence and Ezra Pound.
Post by
Nathanyal
http://www.wcjb.com/local-news/2012/12/woman-returns-work-find-her-brick-driveway-was-stolen
I don't even know what to say.
Post by
HiVolt
http://www.wcjb.com/local-news/2012/12/woman-returns-work-find-her-brick-driveway-was-stolen
I don't even know what to say.
Reminds me of that scene from
Fun With $%^& and Jane
where Jim Carrey goes around stealing parts of his neighbors' lawns.
Edit: Lol name censor.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Something to think about in relation to gun laws.
2009 US firearm deaths, 31,347. 2009 US vehicular deaths, 34,485 (
source
). Conclusion: outlaw cars.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Gone
Something to think about in relation to gun laws.
2009 US firearm deaths, 31,347. 2009 US vehicular deaths, 34,485 (
source
). Conclusion: outlaw cars.
How many of those deaths were caused on purpose and how many were accidents? In both cases, that is what is important.
I kinda have to disagree with that. I mean nobody dies on purpose from smoking, but it's still dangerous and harmful.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
How many of those deaths were caused on purpose and how many were accidents? In both cases, that is what is important.
No. Neither of those are important. The only important thing to consider is whether or not gun laws will have a positive or negative effect on violent crime in the area. That varies from region to region. Some have had better results than others. Washington DC is a great example where strict gun laws resulted in a large increase in crime. Australia is another example where it hasn't worked (
source
).
I cannot be said that gun control laws result in higher violent crime. It can be said that stricter gun control laws are more often than not correlated with an increase in violent crime. It cannot be said that stricter gun control laws are correlated with a decrease in violent crime. The best argument I've seen for gun control laws is that in large areas (such as the US) a decrease in gun ownership is correlated with a decrease in violent crime (
source
).
In order to understand this argument, you must understand the difference between causation, correlation, and the difference between large areas and smaller populations, as well as mitigating factors such as neighboring regions, and culture. The problem is definitely not as simple as "guns are used intentionally to perpetuate violence, so they should be controlled more".
Finally, one must consider whether individual liberty will be compromised if government is able to prevent ordinary law abiding citizens from owning guns.
The problem is a 38 headed hydra Rubik's cube Gordian knot. No matter what you do, even inaction, something negative will result.
Post by
HiVolt
Perhaps we could move this discussion to the active gun law thread, so as not to clog up any possible additional reports on this event?
Post by
Gone
Something to think about in relation to gun laws.
2009 US firearm deaths, 31,347. 2009 US vehicular deaths, 34,485 (
source
). Conclusion: outlaw cars.
How many of those deaths were caused on purpose and how many were accidents? In both cases, that is what is important.
I kinda have to disagree with that. I mean nobody dies on purpose from smoking, but it's still dangerous and harmful.
I will disagree with that. No one kills with smoking (at least as far as I am aware of cases where victim's death was contributed to someone's else smoking), and I personally prefer not to give a damn about how you decided to die. If we compare something as tools of bringing death to others (weapons) then accidents vs intention is important distinction. (I am all for banning smoking though)
What I'm saying that that intentions don't matter, just the results. It's not like you can put a section on a drivers test that says "Do you plan on getting into any car crashes?" where they check yes or no.
Post by
MyTie
Alabama
desegregates
HIV positive prisoners, upon a judge's orders. The article comes complete with Godwin's law, calling something "historic", and a 55 gallon drum of saliva.
Post by
b4xx
Haven't been on for a while, but I hope this hasn't been already discussed here. I find this really interesting, since there really isn't a clear legislation for these kind of things.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/21/justice/iowa-irresistible-worker/index.html
Post by
Adamsm
Haven't been on for a while, but I hope this hasn't been already discussed here. I find this really interesting, since there really isn't a clear legislation for these kind of things.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/21/justice/iowa-irresistible-worker/index.html
So wait; they engaged in texting, then the wife made him fire her...and she sued him? In this case, I can't really side with either of them, since they are both idiots.
Post by
b4xx
Haven't been on for a while, but I hope this hasn't been already discussed here. I find this really interesting, since there really isn't a clear legislation for these kind of things.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/21/justice/iowa-irresistible-worker/index.html
So wait; they engaged in texting, then the wife made him fire her...and she sued him? In this case, I can't really side with either of them, since they are both idiots.
I know right? :D The judges said, that his behaviour wasn't okay, but it's not against the law. I think the guy could've come up with some other option to break the situation, and I think that the woman has a right to be really upset.
Post by
gamerunknown
The issue is at will employment. I think this is a subsidiary to gender based discrimination. Of course, laws preventing employers from basing promotions on removed would be interfering in the free market and would not be second best Pareto efficient, so clearly she was really fired by the beneficent hand of the free market.(##RESPBREAK##)12##DELIM##Sas148##DELIM##Seriously? Try using a more tactful analogy in the future please.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.