Yeah, it's weird how the dudes here are complaining about having more options.

Yeah, straw men are odd that way.

Maybe ponder the hypocrisy of saying "you made a choice, now deal with the consequences" to only one person?

No it wasn't; that's just an urban legend. The ARPAnet was a way of allowing researchers to share resources. Thus, a user in San Francisco could use a computer in Los Angeles, and wouldn't even need a new, dedicated terminal to do it. Its resilience has more to do with the poor state of telecommunications at the time demanding it, and certain design features that allowed for a useful combination of efficiency and flexibility.

As for why it was funded by DARPA, that was where there was money.

How does something so completely wrong get modded so highly?

How about you re-read the first sentence? BC for women does not reduce the sensation for them, with the occasional exception of diaphragms. Condoms do reduce sensation for men, most of whom (in the U.S.) already had their sensation reduced by half via infant genital cutting.

Except it's her body, you gave up the rights when it left your body. But you didn't give up the responsibility.

Except that's still crap. Either "you made a choice, now deal with the consequences" applies to both parents, or neither. And you guys have yet to explain why 9 months of a women's life is sacred, yet 18 years of a man's life is nothing worthy of consideration.

The pharma industry doesn't like to make medicines that solve more than one problem at a time. It's difficult to monetize that efficiently.

Duuuuurwutt? Why would Pharma not want to sell the same research (cost) as multiple products(profit)? Wellbutrin alone is used to treat anxiety, depression, and OCD.

The number of responses here along the lines of "women always trick men into marriage by getting pregnant"

"Always"? Which comments would those be? In any case, some men are tricked into being fathers, or think they are fathers. The chances of that happening are small, but the consequences (the next 20 years of your life) are large.

I can't be the only man on Slashdot who 1) respects women

/rollseyes

How about respecting people?

"birth control is a woman's responsibility"

Women have a plethora of BC options open to them - various IUD's, the pill, diaphragms. None of which (well, occasionally diaphragms) interfere with her pleasure during sex. Condoms do interfere for men, and most American men are already missing half their nerves to begin with, when their genitals were cut without their consent as infants.

In other words, you would like for other people to pay for their choices. You consider your choices to be unassailable.

More hand waving.

this leftist

Snort. Like any leftist is going to even dream of possibly hypothetically maybe using the Personal Responsibility Fairy argument that people choose long commutes for their job.

You are much closer to Rand than I.

Not on this planet. At best you're a LMIAL, which of course is just another sort of right-winger.

And a non sequitar to boot.

I take apart logical fallacies, not make them. The point about helmets and planes is a direct response to the "we're all gonna die anyway" non-response to the impact of smoking on health.

There is no need for the digital situation this argument always turns into, between attempts to prolong life as long as possible, by seeking out and elminating all risk, and acting completely recklessly.

Speaking of logical fallacies, you have both a Straw Man and a Slippery Slope in there. No one is proposing to "eliminate all risk", and efforts to reduce smoking will no more lead to the state micro-managing your bacon consumption than seat belt laws did.

Your point is what is weak.

You wish. Note the example they chose to use.

I fugure we've taken this about as far as it can go, eh?

It never went anywhere. Argument-by-anecdote is a non-starter.

Nellie is an elephant. Nellie is pink. Therefore, elephants are pink.

Obama is black. Obama is president. Therefore all presidents are black.

John Smith is a Catholic priest. John Smith was a pedophile who molested kids. Therefore, all priests are pedophiles.

Aunt Nellie smoked. Aunt Nellie lived to 80. Therefore, smokers live to 80.

Uncle Jack never smoked. Uncle Jack died from an heart attack at age 52. Therefore, not smoking causes heart attacks.

Or are anecdotes....just anecdotes?

You mean a single study from a single journal? Even if that turns out to be the case, there's still 186,000 miles between Product X having no benefit and Product Y causing cancer.

Too lazy to read? Everything you are hand waving about has already been addressed.

But what really baffles me is...WHAT Japanese robots? I think you have mistaken some anime with reality, there are no Japanese fuckbots in reality.

Your prudish ignorance is not my problem.

Lacking a remedial understanding of logical fallacies, are you? Their choice of anecdote to lampoon is an added bonus.

report it to your health insurance so you can get your gouging

I see "false equivalence" is a Big Word for some people.

Living in an urban area is also a choice, and it increases your health risks. Long commutes add to health risks.

As much as you "choose" not to marry a supermodel or buy the Yankees. There are real choices in life (smoking), and then there's choice according to Randian cultists, where everyone has unlimited housing and job options.

And if we're going to be pedantic, smoking wont give you crabs or the clap either. It's still a bad comparison for plenty of other reasons.

HPV or genital warts are highly associated with cancer.

There's a vaccine for HPV. There isn't one for lung cancer.

The only way to get HPV or AIDS via sex is to....have sex with someone that already has HPV or AIDS. Cigarettes will give you cancer all by themselves.

You can bring prostitutes into your bedroom every night with every STD known to man, but you wont pass them on to your kids just because you live in the same house. Whereas second hand smoke has long been proven to harm non-smokers as well as smokers.

You can have unprotected sex without fear of infection if you and your partner get tested for STD's. There is no "test" that will let you smoke without risking cancer.

Humans have an inborn desire to fuck. They don't have an inborn desire to smoke cigarettes.

Sex isn't a product (unless you buy one of those Japanese robots, but robots wont give you AIDS) and can't be taxed, as it's something you could go out and start doing with your neighbor 30 seconds after reading this. Cigarettes are a product that are purchased in stores, and that makes them taxable.

So, yeah: false equivalence.