You should reflect more.

Selective quoting.. ahh.. the bane of idiots who say one thing, mean something else, stick fervently to it, and pretend that's what they originally said. Oh no, now he quoted me! The bastard!

You're seriously an idiot. You can't distinguish between what the article is about, what the "whole page" is about, and what an individual thread is about.

Ohhhh burn!

You sound so stupid it's unbelievable. The weirdest part though is how you're pretending that you know me.

But anyway, I'm glad you're not going to "feed" me any more dumb comments. Hopefully.

Oh shit here comes another reply accusing me of quoting you, and changing the topic!

Oh my, do you need a nap? That might explain your nonsensical reply to me.

Yes, you did, and that's wrong. That's why I replied to you. Virtually every case has effects that go beyond the kids.

Oh I get it now. You're an idiot! You should have just said so.

You said "the bad effects of bad parenting stop with the kids." No mention of preventable death. The person you replied to was talking about demonstrable harm to children... again, not preventable death, just harm.

Now why are you pretending that you meant to narrow it from demonstrable harm to preventable death? Do you think that helps your argument? If you restrict the type of bad parenting we're talking about to "things that kill" then you're getting ludicrously incorrect on two fronts instead of one.

First of all, bad parenting that kills children is far more likely to have effects that go beyond the immediate death of the child. So rather than "almost every other case" not having further effects, it is "almost every other case has tremendous effects on others." I mean you really can't get more wrong that you are now with your historical revision.

Secondly, if we're talking about actual death instead of just harm or "bad effects" then anti-vaxxers pretty much drop off the map. Dying from easily preventable disease is very low on the list of stuff that kills kids. First they have to get the disease, which is still rare. Then they have die from the disease, which is also rare. Even in our rather crazy anti-vaxxer country, how many kids from that big measles outbreak in Disneyland? In the meantime, how many have died from, say, homicide -- which, in children, is often related to bad parenting?

This is just sad.

You said the problem is little sacks of disease walking around. And I agree.

But you seem to not understand that the reason they aren't vaccinated doesn't actually make a difference in terms of their being out there walking around potentially spreading disease.

You are a demonstrated idiot, so let me spell it out a little more. It doesn't matter if it's a religious objection, an allergy, or a vaccine that just didn't work for that person -- the person is still a little sack of disease walking around, and that's a problem.

Now perhaps what you meant was the moral problem of people who intentionally endanger others. But that's not what you said. Do try to keep up with your own posts.

I enjoy putting people in their place when they talk a bunch of nonsense while trying to sound clever. So if you want to put forward another stupid comment, I'll be happy to reply!

I don't get it, is this some type of ironic humor? My post wasn't off topic, but attempting to derail the conversation by claiming that I derail conversations.. it's kind of funny, but also not funny. I think it's probably just you being an idiot again.

Are you kidding???

1. Badly parented kids can become bad parents themselves, affecting the next generation
2. Your badly parented kids may be in my kid's classroom, seeking negative attention
3. Speaking specifically of health concerns that GP brought up, your badly parented kid who is exposed to second hand smoke makes my health insurance premiums go up

There's very little you do that doesn't affect other people.

Hmm so how do you propose solving the problem of kids who can't get vaccinated because they are allergic, or have some immunologic disorder?

Are they somehow less of a problem, even though they are also little walking sacks of infection who can spread their diseases far and wide?

For someone who hates abstract arguments, you didn't waste any time abstracting the issue to "children suffering and dying."

And come on.. be honest.. aren't you perfectly fine with innocent children suffering and dying? I think you must be, given that you're wasting your time here on slashdot instead of saving innocent children.

Vaccines aren't 100% effective, otherwise you're right that it wouldn't be an issue.

There are also people who can't use vaccines due to allergies, and the idea is they are protected via "herd immunity" -- basically if enough people are vaccinated, then disease can't get a foothold and spreading it is much harder.

I'm not sure how I feel about that case, because to me if you're allowing people to go to public school without vaccination because they are allergic, then you're admitting it's not a safety issue to have some percentage of unvaccinated people.

I think people should be able to choose to not vaccinate voluntarily, and there should be a lottery system for which unvaccinated kids get into schools.

It doesn't have to be equal.

A simple example shows you're wrong. When Bill Gates makes another buck on his stock market portfolio, how does the poorest homeless man in India, who owns nothing, has no family, and is 2 days away from starving to death, get POORER? He can't possibly get poorer.

Can you explain how your theory relates to air, which is a limited resource? Do rich people breathing somehow prevent poor people from breathing?

Maybe sometimes, but not always. Sometimes it's because the rich got richer all on their own, like if someone invents a new use for something. That doesn't deprive others of anything, it just enriches everyone (but not equally... the guy who invented profits the most, and/or his employer).

That's called "house poor" -- which is different than just "poor."

You can't complain about not having money just because you spend a lot of money. For example surely you'd laugh if I said I'm poor because my 10000 sqft house, maid, gardener, and two mistresses take up so much of my income that I have very little left over. I'm barely making it!

Similarly, if you live in a high cost area, you don't get to complain about that cost. There's a reason for that cost. You are buying access to an area that lots of people want access to. Your *being there* is what you get for your money. That atmosphere. The connections. The beautiful people and scenery. The actual possibility of giving elevator pitches for your startup. Randomly seeing celebrities having coffee or whatever. You live in the kind of place that other people travel to for tourism because they think it's so great, and you get to live there.

So sick of these whiners who have to "deal" with the problem of living in a popular place.

I'm sure they could find volunteers.

True but I'm assuming the entire gang isn't going to show up for every incident (unless it's quite a small gang to begin with). I guess if the police started doing this regularly, they might.. on the other hand, they might also just cut their losses and stop hassling people who don't pay because it's not worth getting into a surprise gun fight with professionals over $50 (or whatever).

On the other hand, for a big drug deal where a lot of armed criminals really might show up... well we keep hearing about how police departments are getting all this surplus military equipment for next to nothing, so I'm not sure looking at the pure dollar figures tells you that much. For instance according to http://www.newsweek.com/how-am...

I guess the real reason isn't that cops are idiots or greedy, it's that they have to weigh the benefit against the risk to their lives. Confronting a john who tries to hire an undercover cop as a prostitute poses little risk if the officer is armed. Little compared to waiting for the enforcer anyway. Busting a guy trying to buy weed is little risk compared to setting up a sting with a big gang and showing up in your MRAP and getting into a fire fight. Is it worth risking your life to put a negligible dent in the drug trade or the sex trade? Maybe not.

You seem to think the two aren't linked.

How we manage the lowest of us is a function of the achievements of the highest of us.

I'm not talking about the world, just America.

When we speak of helping poor students, we generally mean helping them achieve academic success. Not helping them get rich. So "all the poor straight-A students" are actually the success story here, not an object of pity.

It's like you're having the wrong conversation and getting really indignant about it.

Have you considered the possibility that you may be too dumb to objectively decide how smart other people are?

Translation: You're not interested in smart kids. You're probably also the type who thinks we should end world hunger before daring to venture into space or mess around with worthless stuff like high speed internet.

Not everything has to be about the "troubled kids" you know. We spend more than enough money trying to help the troubled kids. I think society gets more bang for the buck from helping a bright kid achieve more than a troubled kid fail slightly less.

I assume you replied to the wrong person. Surely you meant to say that to the person who said "The terrorists are the Federal Government of the United States; their enemy is We the People" (GGP) rather than GP.

Amiga3d's example of Islamic terrorism is perfect, but the example of the federal government being a terrorist because they have occasionally violated the Constitution is ridiculous.

I think you must have some kind of mental disability or personality disorder to be going on and on about this in such a ranting fashion. Hopefully it makes you feel better to say a bunch of nonsense and then add "objectively true." Sad person.