What good does it do me that there is a copy of me with my memories on a different planet? If my consciousness does not go to the copy (and how would it?), it is rather pointless as well as creepy.
At the very least the same benefits as sending a machine (knowledge, pride) or other people (knowing that the future of mankind is more secure, etc).
And from a philosophical perspective it doesn't make sense to think of one of your future selves differently than the other if they're 100% physically identical. i.e. you'd have the exact same situation if you were magically taken to the other planet and a duplicate was made here.
Western society has only allowed women to own property
Right, when you can't send women to prison (often hard-labor) for not paying taxes or debts or sue them for violating a contract it wouldn't make sense to let them get into a position where they could abuse that power. Horrible and stupid, yes, but not exactly one-sided.
Oddly enough, in several countries women gained the right to control their own money while men were still responsible for the taxes on that income. This lead to men serving prison time for not paying taxes on money that they had no legal right to access.
"In the 19th century women in the US and Europe regularly had clitoridectomy operations as it was seen as a way of stopping the evils of masturbation-induced madness.
Quite right. But it's hard to call that misogyny when those same people pushed for circumcision and anti-erection devices for the exact same reason, as well as chastity belts, ultra-low-fiber diets, and a whole host of useless, freakish "treatments" for all sorts of non-illnesses. It's even harder to call it misogyny when clitoridectomy (and everything similar) is illegal nearly everywhere (barring rare cancer cases, etc), while circumcision is still not only legal but frequently preformed on healthy children in the US.
Objects whiz by at tens of thousands of miles per hour. By the time you focus the telescope, will it and shade already be out of sync?
The shade only has to cover the star, not aim directly at the plant. So this is more like blocking out the sun to see a baseball than tracking a baseball with a camera.
If an ordinance read: "A pack of rabid wolves being situated near our town, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.", would that imply that having rabies is a prerequisite to having this right?
Why do you think that "militia" and "the people" are referring to the same thing? And why does "the people" in every other amendment always mean "people in general" - why does this mention need to be interpreted differently?
Flip it around ; the implication is that women aren't expected to pay because they aren't able to, because they are either incapable of earning money, or not entitled to hold their own finances.
Sure. The male-only draft insults women's ability to fight, and the longer prison sentences men get implies that women aren't mature enough to handle themselves responsibly. Those poor women!
But if we're going that route, why not say that the wage gap (at least whatever part of it might be real) is an insult to men. It implies (and acts as a justification for) the idea that finances are the man's responsibility. It's a cruel reminder of the bad old days when men were thrown into debtor's prison because of debts that their wife owed - how cruel is that?
Homeless women are typically in a LOT more danger than men on the street.
Is that an actual fact, or just something that feels right to you because of your world view?
Because having said all of the above, men and women are NOT the same. They do have SOME differences!?
Ah, modern feminism. Equality when I want it, not when I don't.
People are so used to women getting stuff for free that it's surprising when a woman actually pays for something - and that's one of your top three examples of misogyny?
i.e. One of your bigger complaints in life is: "Other people are expected to support me, and never vice-versa. It's so unfair!"
Thanks, I needed a laugh.
Cancer can absolutely be categorized as one disease. As you say, it's the pathological replication of a cell.
Viral infection can absolutely be categorized as one disease. As you say, it's the pathological replication of viruses.
Sorry, HIV isn't that much like the common cold, and skin cancer isn't that much like leukemia. Clarifying that to laypeople is probably a good idea.
The meme that "cancer is a whole spectrum of diseases" is just that, a meme.
Just like "human beings are primates" and "Pluto isn't a planet".
Study any topic deeply enough and almost any label will come up short. That doesn't mean the label is wrong.
It also doesn't mean the different labeling schemes aren't better than others for certain uses.
That's why they make more money than men
The amount of earned income of women who work full-time is smaller than that of similarly situated men. On the other hand, for every choice a person can make between higher income and some other benefit (flexible hours, commute time, safety, stress, physical effort, etc) men are more likely to chose the extra money than women are. This alone eliminates at least 2/3 of the difference. And just as importantly, almost every type of unearned income - from dating and spouses supporting each other and inheritance to government programs and charities - gives more money to women. The net effect is that women make 80% of consumer choices and own 60% of all the wealth in the US. While I do believe that there are workplace issues women face that need to be resolved, I don't think our income distribution is as bizarrely one-sided as some people want to believe.
hold 90% or more of the political positions, and head up most corporations
In a similar vein, why would we want to? Sure, some women really want to do that, and they really should be able to, but why do the hard work of fighting to the top when you can just marry a coworker and pressure him to do it? And politically, women are the majority of voters, anything that gets labeled as a "women's issue" gets extra attention, and Joe Biden will happily go on TV and shame men into helping women. When's the last time you heard a politician talk about helping men?
dictate what men must look like with fashion magazines
Why would women care about pressuring men to look a particular way if we can get them to act in a particular way? If our society can pressure men to do most of the dirty, dangerous, and uncomfortable work, why worry about their fashion? Think about that next time you're shoveling a driveway, changing a tire, or carrying something heavy to help out a member of the "weaker" sex.
"Except that you can lean on the button pad and enter it by mistake. Bye Bye world."
Or a short develops - in a button that's used underground or on a submarine.
So yeah, I find it offensive that you want to let people lose that before you'll even consider helping them.
I not only would consider helping them, I would consider it an obligation. But part of that obligation is to actually help, not just a simpleminded "icky -> outlaw it".
And that is why your argument is fallacious. Like the guy [bleeding to death] by the side of the road, the person in a bad position who needs a job doesn't have the luxury to shop around.
And your solution to this horrific situation is to tell the "Bad Samaritan" than they can either help for free, or they should just keep driving? You need to understand that your solution would almost certainly get people killed. So why not look at a reward system for people who do help, a better emergency response system,
I did hiring for fast food back when I was in my university years
I've been in similar situations. I've known several people who lived for years in broken-down vehicles, people with untreated mental illness, etc. The most important lesson I learned apart from "holy fuck is life unfair" was that you have to be careful how you help. Giving money to the homeless might feel right, but if they use it to drink themselves to death you haven't really done any good.
And just look at the situation - you get all the good feelings of helping the poor (yay me!), people you don't like bear all of the costs (evil corporations), and if things don't turn out well you're unlikely to have to face that fact (unemployment increased as a result? evil corp's fault). That's pretty much a perfect storm for knee-jerk legislation that might do more harm than good.
contracts that both parties deem as mutually beneficial
Right. Because the unemployed guy with a mortgage and family; he's on an equal footing when negotiating his wage with Walmart.
So if someone is in a bad position, they don't really benefit from having a job? And even stranger, someone who can get a mortgage [i.e. probably in the top 2% of the world] is still in such an overwhelmingly bad situation that he can't fight his own battles?
Let just be clear here. If I'm in a bad situation, and have found a way to improve it, you can stop me from improving my own life because some third person in a better position benefits even more, and you find that offensive?