it's just that the world sucks even more without it
it's just that the world sucks even more without it
congratulations, that's the most retarded thing i've read this year
And if someone is trying to find large numbers of people from a certain demographic they don't like in order to capture and do unpleasant things to those people, do you think having a detailed profile of everyone's entire life available at the touch of a button will make this (a) harder or (b) easier?
If the parallel isn't obvious enough for you, please consider a controversial subject like gay marriage and the power of the Christian Right in the US, or the attitudes towards Muslims exhibited by some people in Europe and the rise of far right political parties in the same places.
No. Just as correlation does not imply causation but can certainly suggest a potential causal effect worth investigation, so a very clear difference but in only a small sample can suggest something worth investigating using a larger sample and proper controls. The kind of behaviour I describe has been widely reported anecdotally, so unless you've actually do have some more robust data that shows otherwise, it remains a plausible theory that the situation I described among the younger generation I know is also the case more widely.
In other words, I'm not claiming that my own experience is necessarily representative, but I am claiming that it might be until better data shows otherwise.
Actually, disabling substances are used in the vast majority of rapes. The most common is alcohol (trying to get the victim too drunk to resist or looking for someone who already is, in about two thirds of rapes), but drugs are used in about 20% of additional rapes. Very, very few rapes follow the classic Hollywood script of "stranger leaps out of the bushes with a knife" - so vanishingly few that the scenario is statistically almost nonexistant. Disabling substances are extremely popular because 1) they work very well, 2) the victim often can't remember the attacker well if at all, 3) the victim is not in a state to be making a report until long after the event, 4) the victim's ability to make legally reliable testimony is compromised. Why would people choose the Hollywood way over that?
And I'm sorry, but if you think that you can watch everything you consume every second of every evening you're out and not slip up, you're an idiot. And yes, the reason people get mad at people like you is that the problem is that there are people out there drugging other peoples' drinks en masse and thinking that this is acceptable behavior, not that victims haven't gained supernatural abilities to hyperfocus on everything they may potentially consume at all times and never slip up. "Look, I'm sorry that you're dying of pancreatic cancer, but you should have been getting pancreatic function tests daily and working two jobs to pay for weekly MRI scans to find it before it could have posed a threat to you, and because you weren't, it's your own damned fault, and don't act like I'm a jerk for pointing this out!" That's how you come across when you take that tack. The problem is the f***ing cancer, not the victim.
You're right, it's not representative; I carefully phrased it as a statement of personal experience rather than a general claim for precisely that reason.
It is suggestive of a generational change in attitude, though.
Surely you're not suggesting that there might be some correlation between people willing to answer questions on a potentially sensitive subject from a complete stranger and people who might be less concerned about government spying? That's just crazy talk!
Here's another one still: people who grew up sharing everything publicly on the Internet already take steps to conceal their true identity from anyone they don't want to share with.
Most of the generation before me use their real names on Facebook. I'm struggling to think of anyone of the generation after me who does.
In fact, I'm struggling to think of many who actually use ID-tied sites like Facebook at all, or at least not for extended periods. Multiple accounts, shifting rapidly from one platform to the next, disposable communications via the likes of Snapchat... These kinds of behaviours are almost universal for the younger generation.
Personally, I tend to think that's a very good thing. My major concern is that sometimes the technologies the kids use aren't nearly as private or as temporary as they have been led to believe: plenty of supposedly deleted Snapchat material mysteriously reappears later by one mechanism or another, popular communication tools like WhatsApp might actually be owned by data hoarders like Facebook, modern data mining techniques can still ID people with high reliability from surprisingly small parts of "anonymized" data sets, etc.
Indeed. Next week, your Jewish German grandparents are more sceptical of state surveillance than your Christian American grandparents.
our healthcare system sucks because we tolerate these parasites on our system that have to "profit" for some reason. there's no competition. so they just siphon profit and buy off our legislators and regulators to keep the money train flowing
they are natural monopolies
they are monopolies alone, no government needed to make them
you don't spend billions to build a hospital across the street from another. there's no free market. we're not talking about nail salons
you don't go shopping for an oncologist based on cost. you don't shop around for hospitals while you are having a heart attack. there's no capitalism here
so we need government control, rather than make believing a magic free market fairy fixes things
i'm not a socialist or a statist. specifically on the topic of natural monopolies *alone*, universal payer is the least worst option
citation: all of our social and economic peers: uk, canada, japan, germany, australia, etc: they spend far less on healthcare, and have higher quality healthcare. and it's all government controlled
our bullshit system persists because our government is corrupted. we need to fix the corruption, then kick out the parasites
Right, so women are supposed to walk around at all times with a gun in their hand, never setting it down for anything, and have a proximity radar to warn them if anyone is approaching them where they can't see so that she can pump them full of lead?
Why, I bet the gun will just shoot the rohipnol right out of drinks too!
The percent of rape cases in which having a gun could have helped is probably in in the single digits. And with it of course carries the risk of escalating the risk of getting you seriously injured or killed.
I should add that the Strauss-Kahn red meat is getting old. First off, most of the descriptions of the case are way off, partially inspired by the prosecutors switching from overplaying the case against him to overplaying the case for him. To be clear:
1) If an accusation is made, and the accused is convicted, the legal system has been determined that the person is guilty.
2) If an accusation is made, the accused is not charged, and the accuser is convicted of making a false accusation, then the legal system has determined that it was a false charge.
3) If an accusation is made, the accused is not charged, but neither is the accuser, then the legal system has made no finding in any direction due to insufficient evidence to match the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard in either direction.
This should be obvious, but for some reason, many people are always fixated on interpreting #3 (by far the most common scenario) as #2.
As for Kahn? Since then he's been caught up in one sex related charge after another - and has admitted to parts of them. He's currently out on bail awaiting trial for running a prostitution ring; the trial begins a couple days from now.
Well, that's certainly what the submitter was trying to imply with the two sentences of flamebait about Strauss-Kahn tacked onto the end of an essentially unrelated news story.
the lawyer seeks out the victim
if you ever are the victim of a newsworthy accident/ crime, you will get cold called by a number of lawyers, who want to represent you pro bono
because such cases gild their CV, get their name out there. free advertising
some lawyers, they seek out interesting strange and noteworthy cases only. out of ego, fame, crank cause, adrenaline, hero complex, whatever:
you mean you're a hopeless idealist who think things have to be perfect?
i'm glad you agree we need to get rid of corruption
but i'm mystified how you think the country's obvious success has nothing to do with democracy, however imperfectly implemented
"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." -- "Ali Baba Bunny" [1957, Chuck Jones]