A variant on this middle ground is when a problem is found. My daughter is current on all vaccinations but my son had immediate swelling in his head as a baby right after his first vaccination. His fontanel (aka the soft spot on a baby's head) went from slightly dimpled to slightly curved outwards and stayed that way for several months. For him, there won't be any additional vaccinations. On the whole vaccinations are helpful and I support them. However when you start getting evidence of being a "rare case" where complications exist it doesn't make sense to continue. I feel that if the vaccination debate becomes more nuanced rather than just being either 100% for or against vaccinations it would be helpful to everyone. Vaccinations are not a one size fits all but rather a one size fits most. If effort was made identifying the cases where problems exist then I think more people will be onboard with the idea.
My grandfather was able to do many things that I cannot. My father was able to do less than him but still more than me. I have already gotten to do things that my kids won't be able to. Need examples, try how many places you can go hunting / fishing / hiking / off roading / target shooting / camping. You can't even have campfires at developed sites in some areas. Consider what firework options you have, they have probably gone down. Granted I live in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, so many of you will have more options than I do. Even so, the trend that I've observed is that options (another way of looking at Freedom) are going down. I don't see an end in sight either.
GLAAD loves banning / censoring speech. Hardly a Christan organization though.
I've always thought that working for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) must be incredibly depressing. They must just see billions upon billions wasted, produce reports or try and enact change, then get ignored because the right congress people have been paid off. Must be a sad and depressing existence.
An atheist with a chip on their shoulder and lots of insults. How unusual. I suspect that you have a rant queued up on how religious people are judgemental too
Your lack of more recent discoveries is telling
I've never understood why the organ shortage couldn't be solved, or at least improved, by making it an "opt out" system instead of an "opt in" system. My understanding is that the organs are thrown away anyhow when the body is prepared for a funeral. If people really want to not donate that's OK, just let them opt out. Anyone know more about this and why it might not be a good idea?
Using the absolute population as a measure is extremely simplistic. If you look closer you will see that the population goes up due to immigration (both legal and illegal) and that there is a loss of people born in California to the tune of ~150K people a year. The ones that are leaving tend to be better educated and earn more. The many that still flow in do not tend to earn above average wages. It's actually a death cycle for California but the thinking of "well the population continues to rise so we'll be OK" hides that.
Let's not get hung up on nature vs nurture vs God's will. There are people, often easily identified at a young age, who are widely known to be trouble and nobody is surprised when they rape/rob/kill others. Whether it was nature, nurture, or God's will is beside the point. The point is that for whatever reason they commit terrible crimes. One can acknowledge that they are simply incapable of ever not hurting others when it suits their needs. Get rid of them. If you aren't willing to kill them find a cheaper way to implement life in prison. But get them out of society for the rest of our sake. I'm reminded of this nature video where a group of bison isolated a wolf and had him surrounded. Now wolves will kill young bison, but rather than kill the wolf they let him go. That is stupid behavior yet we see our society do it time and time again. So few bad apples make for so much trouble. We need to get better at removing them.
I used to think that this was how the expression was translated and like many in the west I thought that it described the pressures to conform. Then when I used that exact quote a friend of mine who was studying engineering and Japanese corrected me and said that it was more properly translated as "the nail that stand up gets bent over". That the nail was hammered was implied, but since bent over has other meanings these days it made it sound even more severe. I'd stay in my room to if being non-conformist meant getting bent over. Makes getting hammered down look nice.
Don't be such a drama Queen
You do know that he shot and killed his sleeping pregnant stepmother and, by extension, his unborn sibling right? Perhaps you're a typical slashdotter and the unborn means nothing to you. I'm comfortable with bad eggs getting locked up for life. If you want an interesting idea, make a person have to prove that they have repaid society by doing something useful while incarcerated. Killing time requires no personal growth. Make them show that they have repaid society by some tangible work. Then the life sentence becomes life or until you have repaid the lives you took.
This summed it up. Because vaccines help on the macro scale any questions about them are hushed up or mocked. Unfortunately on the micro scale vaccines kill some people and it appears that little or no effort is being made to reduce this. Which leads to kids who die or have negative effects from vaccines and then parents who then rail against vaccines. Then we ridicule the parents because on the macro scale vaccines help. The parents loss was real, the damage on the micro scale is real, and the advantages on the macro scale are real. Why not work on either improving vaccine safety or work on detecting who might be at risk for a bad result and just keep them from being vaccinated? This is the problem with the vaccination discussion. I'm sure that we could find a better way if we looked, but instead we take the typical American approach of there must be no middle ground or room for compromise. Tragic.
I've seen so many bashing comments that this one was my breaking point. Any "cause" that describes the other side in such insulting terms isn't helping itself. I wonder how angry you would be if someone said "It's the matter of giving the despicable bag of flesh that is [insert famous gay person here] a single fucking dime." where the whole decision was based on the fact that they were [famous gay person]. But perhaps even asking such a non-politically correct question makes me "homophobic".
Nothing breeds lack of funding like failure.
If only that were true for "War on terror", "War on Drugs", and a host of "Great Society" programs.