A sense of purpose is important.
Okay, well, while I don't see any evidence of this claim, let's just assume it's true for the sake of argument. In that context, I'd like to address two related topics.
First, does a fry cook at McDonalds satisfy this need for a sense of purpose through their employment? Or do they instead see their job as both a necessary evil and (to a lesser extent) an opportunity to socialize with some of their peers? If you ask a fry cook at McDonalds if they'd prefer to be paid to not show up at work, do you honestly think they'd say they'd like to keep their current arrangement?
Second, why are we so concerned about the poor, but not the wealthy? Do they not need to be assigned a sense of purpose also? How is it that the wealthy seem to get along just fine without being forced to labor simply to maintain their lifestyle? Is there a reason to think that the poor are inherently incapable of being socialites, of finding and pursuing their own interests?
How do we NOT support breeding?
We could start by ending tax incentives for breeders. Also, if we want to make data-driven decisions, we can invest in education of women (as this has been shown to be the factor that's most strongly correlated with decreased population growth rates).
But when the SJW left has so expanded the definitions of "racism," "sexism" to include saying things like
We're getting old.
This is how it happens, how it's always happened. Recall the days of your youth, when you looked upon the aging fossils who clung to their outdated views on social issues like these. If you find yourself on the other side today, it's because the social fabric has continued to change, but your own views have not. You've become one of these aging fossils clinging to outdated views on social issues, even though your views on social issues used to be hip and progressive when you were young. Perhaps now you can find a new appreciation for your racist uncle, your sexist grandfather, etc.
To borrow an apropos quote from Grampa Simpson from The Simpsons:
"I used to be with it, but then they changed what *it* was. Now what I'm with isn't *it*, and what's *it* seems weird and scary to me. It'll happen to you..."
I was thinking through the recent news (last night) that Trump got Carrier to keep 1000 jobs in the US, and how I couldn't see a way to frame that in a bad light. Lo and behold! Recent comments on Slashdot manage to paint this as a bad thing.
Slashdot is hardly the only place where you'll hear a negative opinion of the Carrier deal.
Several news outlets are also taking a more skeptical view.
In the end, viewing any deal as objectively good or bad may be overly simplistic. In the case of this one, it seems like it's good for the people who won't be losing their jobs. It also seems good for other companies who now have a precedent for extracting concessions from our government in exchange for abandoning plans to offshore jobs, as well as those employees who won't be losing their jobs as a result. It seems less good (or even bad) for taxpayers who aren't invested in or employed by these companies, as they'll be effectively subsidizing these jobs to some extent, and it's not clear that the cost of this subsidy is greater than the general economic benefit gained by having a marginally stronger labor market in the manufacturing sector.
it uses less memory than other browsers
I can show you Firefox using arbitrarily large amounts of memory with only a single tab open to about:blank. On any version (starting before 3, even), any desktop OS. I can't reproduce that trick in any other browser.
when taxes get too high the profit incentive disappears and people won't want to operate businesses.
The profit incentive disappears once taxes reach 100%. I don't think anyone is proposing taxes higher than 99.9%, so this is a moot point.
I think people should vote for the person who most closely fits their worldview who actually has a prayer of getting into office. Voting for a third party candidate who might get 2% of the vote is a waste of time. It just is. If it makes you feel good I won't quibble as long as you understand that it will accomplish nothing of value.
So you're saying that an overwhelming majority of the electorate should just stay home, since they don't live in swing states and their votes have [statistically] negligible odds of being practically meaningful?
While mostly true, for a medical doctor she still willingly hinted at buying into standard anti-vaccination stupidity (whether sincere or not, that's a problem).
I'm not sure that that's accurate.
Now, full disclaimer, I'm not some anti-vaccine nutjob, and to the best of my knowledge I don't suffer from autism, nor am I very sympathetic to the argument that vaccines may somehow cause autism. I'm keenly aware that the FDA is very conservative when it comes to approving drugs, treatments, procedures, etc., and that EU nations often enjoy early access to novel healthcare products/services relative to the US. I don't intend my comment to suggest that the FDA is too cavalier in approving vaccines.
That being said, Dr. Stein has taken what appears to me to be a reasonable stance. She has never even hinted at buying into standard anti-vaccine stupidity, although it's true that she has [disappointingly] failed to denounce such stupidity when the opportunity presented itself, instead pivoting to a somewhat nuanced statement about regulatory capture (which really had very little, if anything, to do with the original question). Note, she did not express any support for an anti-vaccine position, at all, though she did fail to dismiss someone else's anti-vaccine position as irrational. In the end, I'd gladly take this sort of weak pandering over the much stronger pandering that both major party candidates are guilty of, on issues that are much more important to the country, personally.
As to original notations, this is merely a confession of autism.
Absent context, this statement is ambiguous. In the context of the entirety of my previous post, it's ambiguous. This makes for poor communication. If you're alleging that some statement of mine constitutes a confession of autism, then you may be "interpreting" my words to mean something which they do not explicitly state. This also makes for poor communication.
As to questioning statements, this is mindless nitpicking or autism.
Perhaps it's your writing style, but I really have no idea what you're trying to communicate here. Are you saying that questioning the statements of another necessarily constitutes "mindless nitpicking or autism"?
This does nothing to aid in rational and productive discourse.
Are you saying that questioning the statements of another does nothing to aid in rational and productive discourse? That seems outright false and antithetical to the very idea of scientific inquiry, which in my opinion is highly rational and productive. We can agree to disagree on this point.
You concede my meaning but want every little line to compile.
I don't concede your meaning (which should be evident from my words "I was questioning your original claim"). You said something which was factually false. Instead of questioning your intellect, I gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked if you simply misspoke and inadvertently made a claim which you did not intend to make. If you're saying that the claim you made (that people are being blacklisted "for even daring to support anything but the democrats") is equivalent to the claim that you now seem to be agreeing with (that people are not being blacklisted for supporting non-Trump candidates), then I've already explained very clearly why you're wrong. You don't seem to disagree on that point, but you do seem to disagree that your original point was factually incorrect. You're making an argument that is internally contradictory.
You're not a computer and neither am I. We are both much more complex and sophisticated creatures that are able to interpret meaning. To limit myself to what a computer would do would be to surrender that for nothing. Deal in meaning and be human.
You seem to be inviting me to interpret your words as I see fit. So, granted full artistic license, I interpret your words to be allegorical in nature and to mean nothing more than that you... *spins wheel of random interpretation* are imprecise with your words and that your words should not be taken literally as they're likely false. Is that what you meant?
As to write in candidates, then the notion is not especially credible. That's three for three.
So, I see you're still making unsubstantiated claims and accepting them as truth. See also: begging the question, circular reasoning.
As to coming down as hard on X as Y... Do it then. Judge both by the same standard. Calculate. Run the numbers. Process the program. Find your value for X. Do it. You want to play the "I'm autistic so I'm more rational" game... fine. Let us see precisely how rational you are... because I've played this game with other people that attempted the same ploy, and generally the logical contradictions happened almost immediately. Let us see if you're different. Execute.
Perhaps it's your writing style again, but I have no idea what you're saying here. Who's coming down as hard on X as Y? Who are X and Y? Are X and Y not supposed to be come down equally hard on? I suppose some context might help here also, but after re-reading my previous post, I honestly have no idea what this could be in reference to.
As to autism as a pejorative, you were demonstrating an inability to grasp concepts in a larger context or interrelate phrases and topics with each other. This is a symptom of autism. I was hoping that by using the term you'd understand that your line of rhetorical argumentation was coming off as literally mentally disabled. Which to be very clear... that is how you were sounding. You take issue and then concede my points. If you weren't autistic or weren't behaving in that matter you'd have processed the context or the interrelation prior to taking issue and thus never found fault in the first place. Failing to do that demonstrated a dysfunction. Work on it.
That's cool, but, while it's entirely possible that I'm autistic and unable to grasp concepts in a larger context, it's also possible that you're just really bad at written communication. I submit as supporting evidence this past exchange, where you make ambiguous statements without any explicit context. In the future, you may want to make use of slashdot's quote feature, which allows you to actually provide context for your statements. I've been making use of it myself, and I note that you haven't had any issues understanding what it is that I'm trying to communicate (though, admittedly, you haven't actually been acknowledging any of the points that I've made, as far as I can tell).
Also, while I appreciate your medical opinion, you must recognize that my alleged autism doesn't excuse the fact that many of your statements lack any supporting basis, which was my original complaint. Since we're now discussing autism almost as much as we're discussing the value (or lack thereof) in voting for third parties, it seems that this hasn't furthered the very rational or productive discussion which you claim to be fond of. Perhaps in the future, we could just keep things on-topic instead of having a sidebar about neurodevelopmental disorders.
Tomorrow's computers some time next month. -- DEC