> Seriously. Like when someone smashes a window, breaks into your house and murders your family. What were you expecting when you don't put bars over your windows?
You probably think you're funny but those remarks are very reasonable in certain neighborhoods.
Come now, let's not be PC. You don't need to say "certain neighborhoods." We all know you mean neighborhoods with "those people."
And yet if you go walking into the wolf-filled woods without any protection, you have nobody to blame but yourself if you become puppy-chow. Just because the wolves are two-legged doesn't change the basic reality.
When you make a point about the relative liabilities of human beings in relation to one another by resort to an analogy about non-human animals, I wonder: is it intended as an insult to some of the humans whose actions you're characterizing, or is it merely an implicit admission that you don't have a solid grasp on ethical/legal concepts like comparative liability?
Apparently, suggesting things you can do to mitigate your chances of being harmed qualifies as "blaming the victim."
You must not have noticed the top reply, which does exactly what you seem to be denying is a thing that people do: it purports to distinguish between a victim and someone who emails a list of passwords to herself.
Is it okay to advise people to take smart precautions about their passwords? Of course it is, and it's a straw man to suggest anyone is saying "don't tell people to take precautions." No one says that. No one.
What's NOT okay is the superiority complex many seem to have about failure to take (or even be aware of) such mitigating steps. If you believe that making a careless mistake means forfeiting victim's rights upon being taken advantage of, then I look forward to laughing at you when someone finds the glass side of YOUR house.
That's what they are arguing: Those that think contraception is wrong shouldn't have to buy it. As employers, they are being told to pay for something they believe is morally wrong.
It's more attenuated than that. Employers aren't required to pay for birth control. Insurance companies are. The employers aren't buying birth control for anyone. What they're fighting for is the right to affirmatively put barriers in the way of their employees getting access to birth control through basic health insurance. In fact, by providing contraceptive coverage they would actually REDUCE their costs; so what they're trying to do is the opposite of what they claim. They're not trying to avoid purchasing something. They are trying to actively purchase more specifically to prevent their female employees from having convenient access to birth control. The actuarial tables on this are clear. Providing birth control actually makes an individual woman statistically CHEAPER to insure, since she's less likely to become pregnant and thereby incur pregnancy-related costs (both medical costs and costs to her employer, e.g., from missing work, etc.):
Similarly, the PwC actuaries state that after all effects are taken into account, providing contraceptive services is “cost-saving.”
From a review of existing research on HHS's website
There is a difference between paying taxes things to the government which does unpopular things, and the government forcing someone to buy a particular type of product from a third party. Both are wrong, but the former is a necessary evil and the latter is an unnecessary aspect of fascism.
That's an objection to the employer mandate generally, though; not to having coverage of specific things. This debate specifically centers around the particulars of coverage. It is not an objection to being required to provide health insurance to their employees.
Also, throwing around the word "fascism" so cavalierly isn't doing your argument any favors.
Fitting, I guess, in light of the fact that they're related to an article about an incredibly useful piece of technology with all kinds of implications for stress monitoring (stress, of course, being a major cause of and/or contributor to all manner of physical and mental health problems) that's being used to
I can't decide whether to shake my head or hit it repeatedly on a desk.
Aperture was the one I cared about, yeah.
Liz Cheney and Ann Romney have supported their husbands but they themselves are not in politics.
Liz Cheney's husband is a partner at the law firm of Latham & Watkins. He used to be GC for DHS but he's not particularly political. Liz Cheney's father, on the other hand, is the former VPOTUS...
Regardless, I agree with your overall point. Taking swipes at people's looks, whether they're in politics or not, is beyond immature. It has no place in grown-up conversation, and certainly not in politics.
Why did the Roman Empire collapse? What is the Latin for office automation?
