Comment Re:So if it were violence against white men (Score 1) 310
You have no sense of historical context, do you?
I say Tommy can have human rights when he files for them, not his self-appointed human protectors. Did they even ask him whether he wanted human rights? Oh, right, he can't answer, like a human could.
What if I took a forigner who didn't speak English and was generally unfamiliar with the American legal system and dumped him in the middle of the contry? If you couldn't find a translator, should all of his human rights be denied too?
For the record, I don't think chimps should be afforded human rights, and you do hae a point, but I do not think your point is currently watertight.
I think cats are a good example.
Obviously, they don't speak, but one can infer mental state from their behaviour as one can with a human and non verbal cues.
I doubt most would trde liberty for food: plenty of people wouldn't shoose to starve to death in freedom either. They do largely seem to understand some idea of freedom. If you stop a cat from going outside when it wants to, they often get really really annoyed. Even an elderly cat who likes t odo little more than go out and sit on the porch.
I'm not sure being domesticated has much t odo with it. That makes them more able to socialise with humans and probably less aggressive too.
Still, who orders a grenade launcher for a school?
someone who hates kids?
Sadly, it's not illegal for municipalities to grant a monopoly to a communications provider, which is how the country got divided up. It's not something they were trying to do.
Of course it was.
Otherwise, they'd be COMPETING. That's what competitive companies do.
But in reality, the only places they compete even a little, is in the giant metropolitan areas. And even then, what do you want to bet they have (illegal) price agreements?
The evidence is all around you: the current state of broadband across most of the U.S.
each company simply deciding not to enter their competitors market is not illegal, no anti-trust law requires a company to always compete, it simply stops companies from agreeing not to compete.
Are you implying that you honestly believe there is no agreement? Again, that's what Apple and those other companies said, too. Turned out otherwise.
If you can show a component of mutual, explicit agreement between the parties here, then anti-trust comes into play
Of course. It has to be shown. But you seem to be presuming that such does not exist, while from my point of view, that's a ludicrous point of view. Of course they have agreements. But you are correct that it has to be shown.
Brilliant post sir!
Also, whenever she does something, you shoud always give her three opinions on it. Make one of them incredibly rude, condescending and showing a fundemental lack of understanding of what she's doing. But never let her get any praise or benefit until she can satissfy the third reviewer.
The grandparents will show them to her when you've trusted them to babysit.
You make it sound like a breach of trust. As I see it, you get to bring up your kids however you want. However, you don't get to dictate everythig about how everyone else interacts with your kids.
I apparently REALLY annoyed my brother when I bought my 4 year old neice some "My Little Pony" stuff. This conflicts with his "everything traditionally targeted at girls is evil" worldview. I refuse to buy into that.
this.
Indeed. Double this.
Feminism isn't forcing girls to do traditionally boy's stuff.
It's to allow either to what they want whether or not it traditionally belongs to the "wrong" gender.
Have you been paying attention to GamerGate?
What's wrong with wanting better eithics in game journalism(tm).
These are not the rapre threats you're looking for.
Wow, you need to get out more because you find that sort of thing in basically every culture I've encountered. It's not "only a US thing"
No: YOU need to get out more, or actually stay in and read some history.
In previous times (I believe Greek Antiquity), women were considered the lustful, wanton corrupting ones corrupting the more pure men. So given that the "X only want sex" seems to have applied to both sexes in modern humans I'd say that's good evidence that it's purely cultural.
Nope and nope. You have a woefully optimistic view of what "marketing" means at big companies.
And ignorance of marketing in general. Partly the things are marketed towards kids. But kids have no money. They're ASLO marketed to parents and other people who buy toys for kids.
Parents these days are used to the idea of girl==pink boy==blue (as opposed to the opposite 100 years ago). So, you want to buy a toy for a girl? There's a pull towards the aisle of pink.
To restore a sense of reality, I think Walt Disney should have a Hardluckland. -- Jack Paar
