Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:It should not be a religious argument! (Score 1) 903

the American people have said "fuck you" to you crazies loud and clear last time Ron Paul tried to run

If by that you mean he was outnumbered, drastically out-spent, and idiotically complex laws were used to prevent him from even being on the ballot in many areas, then yes indeedy, the American people gave him a great big "fuck you". But I'm sure he got a fair shake.

Comment Re:Hopefully there was a denial of ... (Score 1) 903

(Access to contraception will take away the risk from casual sex, leading to a world of rampant promiscuity, cohabitation and the collapse of the instutition of marriage.)

There are *plenty* of monogamous, married couples who also wish to use birth control.

It reminds me of the mentality behind the idiotic prohibition of drugs. There is always a cover reason, the way it is sold to the public, but then there is the real and actual reason: this insane and insecure desire to tell other adult people how they should live.

Comment Re:This is the problem with religious people. (Score 1) 903

And this is why I think ObamaCare is doomed to fail.

I would have been 100% on board if they said everyone had to be covered by some sort of catastrophic plan and that it would be subsidized in some form for the extremely poor and destitute. If you want to pay more to get more coverage, go right ahead.

I sincerely believe that ACA is designed to fail. It's a stepping stone towards the single-payer system that the progressives really want, only they know it would be difficult or impossible to directly sell that to the American people, so they use these drawn-out tactics. And in the meantime the insurance companies get a nice hefty kickback so you also have multibillion dollar industries behind its stated purposes, making it politically feasible.

Those who have never played and understood chess, never made multi-part long-term plans of their own, etc., are fairly simpleminded and think that politicians would never, ever, ever do things this way. That's one of the biggest reasons why Americans have the sort of government they have.

Comment Re: All or nothing (Score 1) 903

They don't trust their own people because large organizations, all large organizations, are run by control freaks. Would you include the govt. as one of those large organizations? Kinda worrisome when you realize govt. tends to have a monopoly on force.

Government is the very prototype from which the rest learn the methods of control. Force is but one way to control and manipulate. For example, a favorite tactic the US federal government uses to manipulate the states requires no direct force at all. They tax the citizens of a state and then offer to give them their own money back if and only if they behave as desired. Few states can meet their budgets without this money and no state can simply print money the way the feds can. It makes them most malleable.

Comment Re:Hopefully there was a denial of ... (Score 1) 903

... Viagra coverage for men, too. Only seems fair. If you can't get it up, it must be part of His plan.

Frankly, I've never understood the Church's fanaticism about birth control and sex without conception. I guess their `thinking' is along the lines of what comedian Chris Rush said when he joked (paraphrasing): "Don't you know that when you masturbate you're murdering millions of potential Christians?"

I know what you mean. I've read the Bible and couldn't find anything about contraception anywhere. Except for one guy who was directly commanded by God to impregnate a specfic woman for a specific purpose and decided to pull out ("spill his seed on the ground")... but there was nothing even suggesting that this should apply to everyone universally.

I wish they had such hang-ups about violence instead, and left sex alone. That might actually do some good in the world.

Comment Re:Personal faith != alternative to legal system (Score 1) 903

Sotomayor's order applies to a group of nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, and other Roman Catholic nonprofit groups

They don't pay taxes

That's great, because the guy you replied to never said that they do. He said that the way you and I cannot opt out of paying for things that go against our beliefs (such as taxes that fund pointless wars) is not so different from the way religious organizations were being asked to pay for things that go against _their_ beliefs (such as insurance that covers contraceptives). The difference is, the Catholic Church has clout and most of the rest of us don't.

Please sharpen your reading comprehension skills.

Comment Re:Dangerous Road (Score 1) 903

You're absolutely right about how and why (government overstepping its bounds) health insurance and employment were ever coupled in the first place.

I just wanted to add, there is another factor compounding the problem. A corporate employer can buy health insurance wholesale. They can go to health insurers and say "we have 50,000 employees and want to buy insurance, what can you do for us?" That's bargaining power that an individual buying their own coverage simply doesn't have. That's why the prices for individual health insurance are so ridiculously expensive. That lack of alternative is why employees don't resist the current system.

Comment Re:Nice straw man (Score 2, Interesting) 903

Nonetheless, let's rip on the conservatives, because you don't like what they think.

Understand, I think the whole "conservative vs. liberal" program of thought is a narrow self-limitation designed to make sure that who can get on the ballot and actually win an important election is easily controlled by monied interests. A spectrum of this type is illustrated by two points and a line because it is literally one-dimensional thinking. The fact that there are additional points between the two extreme points is supposed to lend the appearance of depth and give people something to argue about while their nation goes down the shitter.

Having said that, I notice that most (key word: "most" - for you reactive types) of the "I don't like what you think, therefore you are EVIL and I am so much better and smarter than you!" sort of behavior comes from those who identify themselves as liberals. Many (key word: many) of them seem eager to make everything into a personal matter rather than debating the principles behind their beliefs. They really do seem insecure and childish at times. I suppose that's why the emotional "we mean well but never really define what that means because fairness!" rhetoric of what Americans call liberalism appeals to them.

That's in addition to the naive and sometimes stupid perspective of anyone who thinks "left vs. right" has any real meaning.

A simple request: if you are functionally illiterate, emotionally volatile, or for any other reason have difficulty comprehending what words like "most" and "many" mean and why I might use them instead of using words like "all" and "every", do me a favor: fuck off and grow up. It's really tiresome.

Comment Re:This is the problem with religious people. (Score 1) 903

Religious people are not legislating anything, which is exactly the point. They don't want to be forced to buy contraceptives

Religious people need to broaden their horizons and realize that no one likes to be forced to do anything. When the thing you want to do does not impose a burden on anyone else and involves only consenting adults, it is wrong to apply force. Period.

To say that this issue is a religious one and this other issue isn't, that's exactly the kind of division that enables so many shitty laws of all kinds, not just within the realm of health insurance.

Comment Re: This is the problem with religious people. (Score 1) 903

I'm waiting for the moment when the Quakers get a refund on the portion of their taxes that pay for war.

Until we give them their rebate, the nuns should just cope with the fact that none of their employees will wind up using contraception even though their insurance covers it.

The difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Quakers is that the Catholics are an extremely powerful, politically well-connected, multinational, ridiculously wealthy and well-funded organization (you know, just like Jesus advocated! oh, wait...). They used to make or break kings and to this day, they have more wealth and influence than many nations.

It's not surprising the Catholics can create a big controversy that government actually listens to, while the Quakers cannot.

Comment Re: All or nothing (Score 1) 903

These church organizations only "pay for abortions" if their members CHOOSE to go get them. Why don't they just TRUST their members not to get abortions?

As someone uselessly pointed out, it's about contraception but your point stands. It's a worthy question and it has an answer that is not difficult to verify. They don't trust their own people because large organizations, all large organizations, are run by control freaks. It doesn't matter if the control is delivered in the name of an article of faith, in the name of king and country, in the name of making money, etc.

Control freaks are not people who are content to put forth their own views. They have no true confidence in the power of their own message. They certainly have no respect for your natural right to make decisions for yourself and then reap the consequences (separating the former from the latter causes insanity). What they prefer is to remove as many alternatives as possible to _make_ you conform to their vision of How It Should Be.

Comment Re:All or nothing (Score 3, Insightful) 903

Health insurance is weird and not traditional insurance in that sense. Health insurance also covers things like routine medical checkups and dental cleanings with little or no out-of-pocket cost to you, even though those too are completely knowable, predictable, and inexpensive. But of course you realize that.

I've heard it explained thusly: if car insurance worked like health insurance, then every time you put gas in your tank, got an oil change, bought tires, etc., you would file a claim.

And if it worked that way, car insurance would be ridiculously expensive.

Comment Re: Who would believe it? (Score 1) 457

BBS were cool, well not really i nthe general sense. Then AOL was cool, you saw a aol keyword on everything, on all commercials etc. Than it was myspace, everyone had to be on myspace. then it was FB, everyone had to have a FB, then twitter, you see #this and #that everywhere. Looks like snapchat is next. I know im getting old because I am behind the curve with snapchat, Ive heard of it, have no idea what it is, dont really care, every thing prior listed I remember being involved with in some way shape or form

I did enjoy BBSes but at the time I didn't know anyone who had heard of them (other than those I introduced). I suppose "obscure" is the word I would use, rather than gauging how cool they were. I never used AOL or any other "online service" beyond a "dumb pipe" ISP, and I thought AOL sucked back when they vigorously competed with the likes of Compuserve and Prodigy (I think that was its name) for dial-up users. I have a learned disdain of anything that needs to be promoted so hard that I run out of files to put on their floppies and pieces of furniture that needed their CDs as coasters. I simply never cared for fads. I'm not anti-fad, because they aren't important enough to me to justify my active opposition of them. I simply don't care for them.

I was aware of the problems with MySpace and then Facebook when they came around because I had tried to give Google a hard time tracking me before that. Other than a few of their web bugs that I saw before I blocked those, no machine I own has ever sent a packet to or received a packet from any Facebook-owned domain. I'm less hostile to Twitter but I have no use for it and I also recognize its own faddish nature. I simply don't care what random strangers ate for breakfast last week and there are better news feeds for anything important.

The difference is, BBSes were something I discovered on my own. I didn't need a marketer or a mob of people to try to shove them down my throat. It was, in a word, organic. That made them easy for me to appreciate. At the time I was something of a newbie in terms of technical skill, and it was like a new little world full of things I could discover. I just don't find that kind of sense of wonder with the modern fads. There's nothing technically interesting there and no real meaning to be found in them, just a whole lot of empty banter and attempts to make sales.

Let's say I probably sound a lot older than I actually am (get off my lawn!), but at any rate, I agree with you about Snapchat and I wonder how many fads we have to witness before the average user starts questioning why they bother with the hype. This is the main thing I have never fully understood about most people: how can they experience so many instances and iterations of an abstract theme and still fail to grasp the principle, let alone even realize that there is, in fact, a theme or a template?

Comment Re:Not all the "older" folks use Facebook ! (Score 1) 457

but I do not like what people do there --- they TELL EVERYBODY EVERYTHING ABOUT THEMSELVES.

Facebook exists to fill the need in narcissists. Nothing more, nothing less.

The opposite of a narcissist is an attention whore who is desperate to feel important to someone for a whole few minutes (likely because of some failure in their upbringing). Facebook merrily caters to both!

Slashdot Top Deals

To err is human, to moo bovine.

Working...