If they try to jack up prices they'll see what happens.
It shows no causation. Correlation is useless.
Wearing long sleeves correlates with winter. Long sleeves do not cause winter.
What you want is CAUSATION. Everything else is trash.
The differences are physical because neurology and genetics are physical. Possibly you refer to programming which is also physical but is often considered to be beyond or beside the physical somehow. In any case...
Men and women had different evolutionary pressures upon them and so sexual dimorphism exists. This has been a known fact of science and is patiently obvious...
We've only had this obscured because the ideological literalists have crept into the feminist movement and have concluded that for men and women to be given equal meritorious treatment in society they must be literally identical.
You see the same thing out of evangelical Christians when they insist the world is 6000 years old or that dinosaurs didn't exist because they aren't able to accept that maybe there were dinosaurs... and maybe the world is billions of years old... and yet maybe their god still created it all. The other religious factions don't seem to have a problem making that leap but literalists are annoying in this sort of discussion. Tragically irritating.
Its patiently obvious that we are different. Men and women think differently. Not just in terms of spacial perception but emotionally. Our personalities are different.
And that's fine. It doesn't mean either is inferior. Just different. And there is nothing wrong with being different.
I'd like to also see this tried on a much more primitive engine... one that didn't make use of transistors.
You have to take into consideration that US demographics are extremely diverse where as china's stats are pretty much uniform.
Point being... we have a lot of stupid people in the US. Just stupid. Not a lot to be done about it.
That said, we also have some of the smartest people in the world. And what is more, we draw smart people to the US from all around the world. And they come here and have children.
Are they massively outnumbered by the exceptionally stupid? Yes. But we have them all the same.
I have no such faith. But by the same token, you seem to suggest that we should have no courts or laws what so ever.
You would suggest we have total anarchy.
Ultimately, we must trust in some sort of authority or system for laws and justice or what do we have?...
Do I think the system will make no mistakes ever? Of course not. Its unavoidable. You can merely limit it as much as possible and then accept what cannot be avoided. The alternative is anarchy. And anarchy leads to chaos. And chaos leads to fear. And fear leads to submission. And submission leads to slavery.
Anarchists tend to wind up in chains of their own making.
I'd rather not be a slave. So I don't support anarchy.
I do actually... I just didn't bother making that distinction in that sentence.
Your reply has no substance and is therefore null.
Null comments are null.
0 = 0
Actually their next step is to claim they have a shortage of doctors and then use that as a justification to open immigration for doctors assuming they take medicare contracts. The English are already doing that. Their healthcare system is full of Indian doctors imported in large part because their system ran into the same problem.
Think the politicians in the US wouldn't do the same thing?
They're idiots. They don't see that the consequence will be a collapse in US medical education.
Your argument is that authorities want to imprison crazy people and that is a bad thing?
If someone is dangerously insane... that is... given to violence or criminal behavior due to their insanity, then it is in the public interest that they be restrained lest they continue to act in a criminal fashion disrupting the peace.
If someone is not dangerously insane then why should the authorities care if they are in jail or not? They pose no threat and cause no disturbance. What point is there to putting them in jail?
As such... it doesn't actually cut both ways. It cuts one way. That sword has one edge... not two.
Well then lets just define legal and illegal as "whatever you think or feel at the moment"... what could possibly go wrong?
Obviously we need laws that are static and not subject to the whims of any person at any time whenever convenient.
If you're saying we have too many laws or that we've made a lot of things illegal that shouldn't be illegal... then I totally agree with you. But the problem is that laws are passed through a political process and many of the political factions like those laws.
Our current system of government thrives on playing people off against each other to make sure that no one gets what they want. You have faction A and faction B and while both factions want things they also want to frustrate the other factions. As a result, you can pass laws no one likes so long as the other faction doesn't like it either.
How to get out of this box? Two ways.
1. One party where there are no opposing factions. That doesn't mean there aren't other factions. They just don't oppose any government action what so ever. Imagine a government where it was illegal to be a republican or a democrat but not illegal to be a democrat or republican. That's basically what happens. Often the whole thing is run by some strong man like a putin or a chavez... and anyone that disagrees disappears.
2. Limit the power of government so much that it isn't worth fighting over for most of the factions. They are ultimately fighting over money and power. If you limit the power of government so it isn't useful for those purposes then you avoid the problem entirely.
Those are your choices.
Door 1 or door 2 or "this." Pick one.
Try that in court... it should be fun.
Do you honestly think that an effective counter argument? Really?
In the context of a court, right and wrong is legal and illegal.
So they are a distinction without meaning in this instance.
Careful. The legal definition of insanity is in place to prevent people from exploiting the definition to get away with crimes.
The definition is largely "do you know that what you did was wrong."... So if a talking banana told you to do it, it doesn't really matter. You knew it was wrong and chose to do it anyway. You should have ignored the talking banana. That is the position of the law.
We can offer better treatment for people with mental instability without redefining insanity legally. If we redefine it, then clever criminals will use it to get light sentences and make an even larger mockery of our legal system.
Do not be that stupid. See this one coming. Show enough intelligence to anticipate the next move.