Dude why are you so angry? Have a beer and chill out.

Obviously, the Taliban IS taking over. 14 years of bombing runs haven't prevented it. So, your suggestion is to keep bombing cities? It doesn't work.

Does that include bombing hospitals and then chalking it up to "collateral damage"? Because that's what we just did.

Cheers!

Backwards from your perspective.

It was Saudi nationals who attacked us over 14 years ago, not Afghani's. Bin Laden was found in a house in Pakistan over 4 years ago, not a mountain in Afghanistan yesterday. So I ask again, why do we still drop bombs on Afghani civilians? You're bringing up 9/11 like it just happened. It was 14 years ago. Over 2300 U.S. troops dead and over 22,000 U.S. troops wounded. Many thousands more dead and wounded Afghani civilians (children) caught in the middle.

We do have a moral reason to leave -- hospital patients are being bombed by American forces. Just think about that for a moment. Accident or no, if it were an American hospital that was hit, it would not be called "collateral damage" and you would be outraged. And of course, incidents like these make Daesh, et al., stronger not weaker. Backwards thinking indeed.

I mean to say that there is clearly no real threat to the U.S. if:

a) the enemy is unsophisticated enough to seek shelter among civilians

b) it faces no domestic or international reprisals for bombing hospitals where it suspects those enemies might be (accidentally or otherwise)

We (the U.S.) have no moral justification for being in Afghanistan. I use the word "moral" because I suspect that the only reason we are there is because of money and/or international politics. Civilians are dying in horrific ways and we don't care because we are so far removed from the fighting that it may as well not be happening at all. There is no greater goal and I think the proof is that we have a current President and Congress who keep us committed to an endless and futile war from above instead of getting us the hell out of there.

I agree. I would also add that if a belligerent (such as the U.S.) is not willing to sacrifice the lives of its own troops and civilians, then it has no moral justification for engaging in unilateral warfare.

In short, what the fuck are we fighting for?

Right. You're comparing covert extramarital sex to eating a cookie dough blizzard, but I'm naive.

We're talking about a website whose slogan is "Life is short. Have an affair.", and those who get caught using it without their spouse's consent. You can't do that and expect your spouse to remain committed to you.

Also, your google-fu sucks. You've described "polyamory", which is quite uncommon. You may have an "open relationship" with your partner, and that's cool. But it's not the topic of this discussion.

We're talking about a website that facilitates cheating and a man being upset for getting caught, not a swingers club bulletin.

Barring obvious trolls, that's quite possibly the most misogynistic comment I've ever read on Slashdot. You clearly have no interest in being married (which is fine), so don't presume to know what it's like simply because you have some friends who wish their wives would "put-out" more or some other bullshit.

Reality check: you can hunt for new sex partners or you can have a best friend for life. You can't have both, which is why it's called cheating rather than "indulging", and why it's done in secret.

Ignoring the shear absurdity of your suggestion, that's not the point. For the life of me, I cannot understand people who refuse to listen to science. The CDC is your friend. Seriously, please read this.

You need to learn about "hurd immunity". Here, I'll quote the NIH (another friend) for you:

We all love a good conspiracy theory, but this one has been thoroughly debunked. By advocating for non-immunization, you're putting innocents at risk.

No, actually it's quite apt to the subject. Nobody wants to be tracked by RFID, facial recognition, etc. Yet, these venues are incorporating them into their "products". They hide these policies in fine print wrapped in legalese for a reason. They're tracking you and harvesting every bit of information they can get so it can be sold to the highest bidder. Submitting to such practices makes us their product. That you don't particularly care about that fact is a moot point. And your ad hominem attack about 1984 was immature. Let's hear a real argument.

Directly from their privacy policy on their website.

Understand that you are NOT the customer here. You're the product.

So be a part of the solution. Start producing quality documentation for stuff that you're good at and provide it to the public at no charge.

I'm not sure if you're agreeing with me, or trying to one-up me here. The point is, once you've bought something, the seller has no right to dictate how you consume it.

Say a concert venue offers me VIP tickets at a price that is normally lower than what I'd pay for a nosebleed seat. I buy them, but then only stay for the opening act. Is that a better analogy for you? I mean, this isn't a difficult concept!

If you buy a dozen apples from a farmer, does she have the right to dictate how you consume the apples? Can she sue you for telling others where and from whom you bought the apples?

You're a fucking airline. You're going where I need to go and I bought a ticket. If I'm not on the plane for the second half of the trip, you've saved that much on fuel. Fuck off.