103 karma · joined June 26, 2016
I think you bring a nasty tone to the conversation, and you bring straw men and appeals to emotion with a rehearsed disregard for the practical issues others work with.
Firstly, the question posed is quite unlikely to be meant literally (many women do not want to live a monogamous life).
Secondly, if they are trying to fight "biology", may their focus on monogamy be biologically based?
Thirdly, should all statements along the lines of "oh, men", or "men don't take responsibility for [...]" be banned?
Lastly, man or woman - it is hard to truly take offense at such a statement.
Had this been about abilities or some "obsession" in the non-private sphere, I suspect they would have come to a different conclusion...
There is also a third concept: That of imagining. She speaks specifically of one equation in classical mechanics, which she played around with in her mind until it became second nature.
Of course, this is based on her experience. It appeals to me based on my own experience, yet it isn't a showcasing of scientific rigour within pedagogics.
1 If some scientist finds a way to save a minute per instance of brushing your teeth, and if there is no difference in quality and cost, that is 600 million+ minutes saved every day in the US alone.
2 If some scientist finds a way for nocturnal people to contribute to society like other people, that is surely on the same magnitude as 1.
3 If some scientist finds some way to cut 10% of time on inspecting welds, it is surely a huge boost to the economy.
This is of course not meant to endorse situations where the quality drops. E.g. "If one cent is saved per unit of milk produced, I can buy a new yacht!"
These countries each take part in the UN, without showing any signs that they respect the universal human rights declaration.
I'd suggest fixing that part of the human rights situation should have a higher priority than making monopolist abuse and unfair trade in communications about human rights.
1. They have applied their own laws in a way that amounts to subsidies, and
2. The corporate structure turned out to be fictional, and allocations of profits were therefore also fictional. ("Arm's length" and all that.)
They even open the door for national tax authorities to use their findings and evaluate for profit shifting.
This is an inspirational moment - too long have tax treaties favoured those willing to break the spirit of the law and weigh down the little man with the consequences!
1. Foreign deductions are taxed based on the difference between the locale where the earnings are made and the locale the service/product is provided from. Where the sales division is located has no relevance to taxability, and deductions for sales costs are treated as any other internal service.
2. IP is enforced on the national level, and should not be eligible as a foreign deduction. Good-will also follows the local market.
3. Documentation should be provided that foreign costs are real, and that they are actually taxed. Tax agreements should be null and void if systematic abuse is uncovered.
The problem right now is that no company can compete against these cheats.
Personally, I think Ireland has scammed the rest of Europe for long enough by now.
Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of India's competitiveness in asses-in-seats outsourcing is created by artificial tax rule phenomena - and various constructs to exploit these.
If I came across a case of taharrush gamea, Heaven help me. I believe I would turn out a killer. If I came across some guy not being able to tell me he's late with a delivery; I understand it, but to him it's a loss of face? Of course I try to help.
I can't believe defending those in an exposed situation is a bad thing. The thing is: One has to be able to trust oneself without some sort of nonsensical, theoreticsl framework.
Nevertheless, how numerous are CEOs compared to other employees?
I think what is meant is that your analysis of people is different when they say the "right" things. The wife-murdering Earth Day founder comes to mind.
As Dag Hammarsköld said: It is much more difficult to care about those close to you than those far away.
I have seen plenty of people that use implicit accusations as a means of getting ahead. White, "angry", old men is a term that's been popular lately - I will use that as an example.
Are all old, white men "angry"? Are only the old, white men that disagree with the speaker "angry"? Are old, white men angrier than old men in general? Than old, white women? Than <colour> [menopausal|child-caring|single] women? Is there some skew in who brings their opinions to market? In who is heard?
I say that the people that the most seductively claim some one is biased, are those most likely to sweep their own biases under the rug.
Furthermore, I claim it is a much better goal to be consciously fair in one's dealings, than to seek some mythical state of "biased-less-ness". It seems more work, but it truly brings greater rewards to you and the people you deal with.
Trying to be "unbiased" leads to exactly zero good, because it isn't how the human mind functions. I will put my own family before the stranger on the street. That doesn't mean I won't help the stranger on the street that I _see_ needs it. I need a functioning mind for that, and this college nonsense about bias is something I had to unlearn to do so, as it leads to cowardice at the hint of personal danger or embarrassment.
(Unless, of course, you dont't perceive a real threat, but just some poor sod you can lecture about how morally superior you are.)
[EDIT: Spelling]
The likelihood of each is quite low, though - at least in western societies.
Risk is different - it's about what isn't even perceived to have happened in a given situation. If I walk in the street, there is a risk a piano may have fallen out of an airplane and be falling towards me.
If I perceive that as a risk, I may take countermeasures, in this example entering an underground garage would stop the (for me as a part of the example) hypothetical piano.
If I often take exaggerated countermeasures as a parent, I may cause harm to the child. The safest child would be the one locked in a bomb shelter on a healthy diet. It would protect against falling pianos, falling bombs, freezing to death, drowning, transportation accidents, school bullies, sexually abusive authority figures, house fires, sun burns - everything except an attack on the bomb shelter ventilation system.
The prohibitive costs excluded, no reasonable parent would do such a thing. (If air raid sirens go off, of course it still becomes reasonable to take the child to such a shelter - until the 'all clear').
If the child is never given a chance to be unsupervised, when will it learn to tell situations and behaviours that carry risk from those that don't? When will they develop their independent sense of judgement?
Anyways, to answer your -hopefully rhetorical - question: Transportation by car is risky on a population level. Playing in the forest or park is not even close. It may also be argued that allowing children a steadily developing autonomy from an early age leads to a lower risk over the course of a lifetime - since the child then steadily increases its ability to handle a risky world.
Therefore, I claim that unreasonable protection is the true neglect of the child.
[EDIT: Spelling]
I agree wholeheartedly that bartering is the logical continuation of the drug economy in a cash free world. Maybe some pseudo currencies would also arise, creating black market banks.
Money is power. We, the public, ought to stop propping up cartels and giving power to drug lords. My suggestion is to try that first, and then see what problems remain with cash.
Half of the problem with cash could be solved by ending the war on drugs. The war on drugs has created a class of people whose main economic function is to transfer wealth from the public to the worst people in society. This is a many-headed monster that robs/burglarizes/steals money from average people, and vacuums it into a global system of money laundering. The cost is mostly absorbed through higher insurance premiums and more costly welfare schemes. The physical needs of this class of people are often carried by family and charity.
No cash could kill this, but so could treating drugs like simple agricultural and/or chemical products and regulate the distribution.
All costs of the war on drugs are covered by the public. All profit by heavy criminals.
Sort this first, and then get back to cash and its utility in evading taxes.
An attack on the guard himself is likely to lead to a resolute counterattack.
Soldiers guarding typically have limited police jurisdiction of the area they guard in most countries.
This should be common knowledge.
My take on this is that these McMansions are an in-between step. They look like a Picasso - and not in a good way - because they are not designed as a whole.
Once complex manual labour (most importantly: masonry) can be automated, and once one figures out how to combine a modern, relaxed lifestyle with architecture, these "mansions" will come to be seen as barbarous monstrosities.
About the names: It could be nicknames, it could be names common in a militant (i.e. political) subculture. There is no information what was meant - only the conclusion that it was racist.
About the physical standards of the building, and the assembly line of verdicts: That is something to fix!
(Also this clumsy confusion of 'pen' for 'pentitentiary' and 'pen' for 'farm animal enclosure' should be corrected with a new sign.)
) In Icelandic, "win" means "work".