Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Disable player chat (Score 1) 704

by yndrd1984 (#46553655) Attached to: Getting Misogyny, Racism and Homophobia Out of Gaming

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?

Comment: Re: Disable player chat (Score 1) 704

by yndrd1984 (#46553561) Attached to: Getting Misogyny, Racism and Homophobia Out of Gaming

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.

Comment: Re: Disable player chat (Score 1) 704

by yndrd1984 (#46549467) Attached to: Getting Misogyny, Racism and Homophobia Out of Gaming

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.

Comment: Re:Cancer isn't one disease (Score 1) 366

by yndrd1984 (#45874953) Attached to: Why a Cure For Cancer Is So Elusive

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.

Comment: Re: The worst thing... (Score 1) 575

by yndrd1984 (#45699649) Attached to: GitHub Takes Down Satirical 'C Plus Equality' Language

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.

Comment: Re:Yes. (Score 1) 1216

by yndrd1984 (#45521399) Attached to: Should the US Copy Switzerland and Consider a 'Maximum Wage' Ratio?

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, ... something that is likely to actually make the situation better?

I did hiring for fast food back when I was in my university years ... we were very likely to pass over an applicant living out of his car ...

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.

Comment: Re:Yes. (Score 1) 1216

by yndrd1984 (#45509793) Attached to: Should the US Copy Switzerland and Consider a 'Maximum Wage' Ratio?

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?

Comment: Re:Further proof that anti-GMO is all about the mo (Score 1) 194

by yndrd1984 (#45509783) Attached to: Make Way For "Mutant" Crops As GM Foods Face Opposition

So the question is, if a GMO does not provide better yields than a traditional crop, why do farmers purchase them?

Just in case this wasn't rhetorical, it's to reduce input costs. Take the Bt trait - if the corn/cotton makes its own pesticide, you don't have to buy it separately and drag several tons of diesel-powered equipment around in circles to spray it.

Comment: Re:Further proof that anti-GMO is all about the mo (Score 2) 194

by yndrd1984 (#45509709) Attached to: Make Way For "Mutant" Crops As GM Foods Face Opposition

it has been found that the yield of GMO crops is not better then that of classical crops

And why would it be better? The purpose of most GMOs is to lower input costs - fewer herbicides and pesticides, no need to till, etc.

That's like ignoring fuel efficiency when comparing cars - "Same top speed, so it's not any better!".

Comment: Re:So these won't be accepted, either. (Score 1) 194

by yndrd1984 (#45509577) Attached to: Make Way For "Mutant" Crops As GM Foods Face Opposition

Then who selects for the 'right' crops?

People with the job title "Breeder".

Do you infest the field with the herbicide that you want your crop to be resistant to and hope for the best?

Pretty much.

If you get crap yields, you might get hungry / broke pretty fast.

*facepalm*

FORTRAN rots the brain. -- John McQuillin

Working...