Comment Re: A Walkable City? (Score 1) 199
It is true what they say, US folks will use *anything* but the metric system. How many bald eagles' wingspans would that be?
It is true what they say, US folks will use *anything* but the metric system. How many bald eagles' wingspans would that be?
You have stated an opinion, but no argument to support it.
The fact is that many parents are very ignorant about sexuality, which,if they are to be trusted with the sexual education of their children, can have pretty bad consequences on their children: STDs, unwanted pregnancy for teenagers, inability to realise that people are allowed to say no despite social pressure (to name a few). Also I don't know how you remember your own upbringing, but many discover sexuality at a time in their lives where their parents are the last persons on Earth they want to talk to about sexuality.
Lumping together porn and child porn by pretending one is simply a subset of another, that's very low. You might as well say they are both a subset of entertainment to generalise regulation to all forms of entertainment.
The bit that makes child porn illegal, reprehensible and harmful is not "porn" but "child". Because the children are being harmed and they have no agency. If you're also worried about adult porn where the adults do not consent, there the issue is again not "porn" but "lack of consent".
I am confused, two messages above you are against government doing central planning on a large scale but now you are advocating for it, what am I missing?
That's a defensible perspective, even though it's not mine. I can see its advantages in general. Now our issue at hand is reversing global warming. How do you suggest we solve that with minimal government intervention and minimal taxes?
What do you suggest that will work better? We've been trying "the free market" and it has put us in this current situation.
I want there to be zero incentive to mug someone on the subway for their iPhone
Give people economic safety and much of that incentive will disappear. People with proper income don't mug.
I don't see a need to challenge studies that I know nothing about. There are also many people who are happier once they open their sex life, and people who can't be happy in a traditional exclusive relationship.
What I challenge is that the sexual activity itself is harmful in any way.
However one thing is clear, people should only engage in sexual activities if they really want to do it for themselves, and not for any of a number of bad reasons such as pleasing someone, peer pressure, societal pressure to perform, etc. They also teach you that in sex ed.
Last I checked, Apple wanted me to pay something close to 100â per year to publish an app on their store. My app is free, does not generate revenue and has a small user base (a few hundred) so I can't do that. Therefore it is only on the Google store, which did ask me for a one time fee of I think 45â, which I also found upsetting but not nearly as much.
Ah but see there is one technically correct answer to that question: casual sex is actually harmless as long as it's consensual and you use protection correctly. The fact that some people do not like that very simple fact does not change it. It's their problem.
And again I caution you (I assume it's the same AC) against concepts like "objective science". Science cannot be objective, it is made by humans for humans. Evolution is not more "scientifically proven" or "objective science" than the fact that consensual protected sex is harmless. You can spend time trying to find a qualitative difference why one is more correct than the other, but you will fail to find a valid one. As it turns out, some people will tell you that believing in evolution is harmful and will result in you going to "hell", whatever that is.
Perhaps it would be easier if you shared what you think makes sexual education qualitatively less valid than say teaching the theory of evolution. And I mean a concrete example.
Also, as someone whose job sometimes involves writing actual proofs, I caution you against putting these words "scientifically proven" together. That's not what the scientific method is about, and that's not what it does. Otherwise we wouldn't have needed to adjust the theory of evolution over time to explain things it didn't explain before, which we most certainly have.
Does that logic extend to other topics or is that treatment reserved to sexuality? What about evolution? Should parents decide what their children are exposed to on that topic as well? Is there a list of topics for which bigotry is allowed to trump reality? Bigotry is still bigotry even when dressed up as morality.
I mean the US is the one western rich country with high poverty, and also one with the fewest worker protections (including minimum salary). There are variations, for example Germany didn't have a national minimum salary until recently but they were still minimum salaries per profession, negotiated and enshrined in collective agreements. I don't know why some people are so intent on maintaining aspects of US law and society that ensure poverty and precariousness but it does not signal the best of intentions. Seriously it's weird, most other rich countries are much better to live in unless you're in the top 10%. Either you think only the 10% are worthy of a decent life and stfu, or have a look at the rest of the world and revisit your opinions once they are better informed.
The government is supposed to act for the benefit of the population, including and especially the poorest since they need it the most, it's doing that with that minimum wage, what's wrong with that?
Because public services are generally good for the public. You don't seem to have a problem with Uber and Lyft using public roads though, so you do draw the line somewhere, some level of public service is acceptable to you. What makes public roads acceptable to you but not public ride sharing?
A rock store eventually closed down; they were taking too much for granite.