This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 181182183 184185 ... 502
5462
« on: June 01, 2015, 06:22:51 PM »
You can't live IN those cities - you can live outside of them. It's always cheaper to live on the outskirts of a major metro area. I see your point, but I was mainly trying to demonstrate the claim that single-earner minimum wage households can't reasonably afford rent and utilities anywhere is itself incredibly disingenuous.
5463
« on: June 01, 2015, 05:24:39 PM »
Well yeah, that's why I said illegal and not constitutional.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I've no doubt you understand the distinction. I just felt it ought to have been made nevertheless.
5464
« on: June 01, 2015, 05:19:12 PM »
Also, didn't the US Court of Appeals rule that the bulk collection of metadata was illegal only 3 weeks ago?
Illegal =/= unconstitutional. There's a case to be made that the programme is technically illegal according to Section 215 of the Patriot Act.
5465
« on: June 01, 2015, 05:18:07 PM »
Rip-off of rugby.
5466
« on: June 01, 2015, 05:13:39 PM »
They don't have control over being a woman in their 20's, a demographic that is likely to get pregnant.
Because so many women of that age choose to have children. I get the point your making, obviously, but I don't think it's true to say that pregnancy is comparable to mental illness.
Wait, or are you saying companies not hiring women of that age because they might get pregnant is comparable to mental illness?
In the sense that someone has a risk factor (Woman in their 20's - Past mental illness) that makes a company decide not to hire them when there is no tangible evidence any problems will happen other than them being part of that demographic.
Ah, my bad. I misunderstood what you meant.
5467
« on: June 01, 2015, 05:09:35 PM »
They don't have control over being a woman in their 20's, a demographic that is likely to get pregnant.
Because so many women of that age choose to have children. I get the point your making, obviously, but I don't think it's true to say that pregnancy is comparable to mental illness. Wait, or are you saying companies not hiring women of that age because they might get pregnant is comparable to mental illness?
5468
« on: June 01, 2015, 05:06:42 PM »
but it places the burden instead on someone for something they had no control over.
Women have no control over getting pregnant?
5469
« on: June 01, 2015, 04:55:42 PM »
Do companies not already screen employees for past mental illnesses?
Not to my knowledge, depending on the sector. That's usually for things like schizophrenia and other psychotic disorders. Personality disorders, especially cluster B disorders like psychopathy and narcissism, aren't actually viewed by many people as "illnesses" in the traditional sense.
5470
« on: June 01, 2015, 04:51:27 PM »
For the sake of monitoring people who are probably--or definitively--antisocial to the point of having a personality disorder, and perhaps even to bar them from doing certain jobs, or working in the public sector. Forget the technicalities for a moment, would this be ethical? Or is it just discrimination against individuals with mental illnesses? Would that be warranted nonetheless for the sake of society's well-being? On the other hand, are psychopaths actually valuable, on net, to society? Hell, are egosyntonic disorders even illnesses? My own answers to those questions:
5471
« on: June 01, 2015, 04:48:29 PM »
5472
« on: June 01, 2015, 04:35:34 PM »
to become physically dependent on those substances after a single use
I'm fairly certain that is false; I don't think there's a single substance on Earth that will get you physiologically addicted to something after a single use. I mean, it's only about 23pc of people who have used heroin actually get addicted to it.
5473
« on: June 01, 2015, 04:28:37 PM »
All drugs should be legalised and subject to varying forms of regulation.
Things like cannabis? Have a Dutch-coffee-shop type arrangement.
Cocaine? Sold in specialised pharmacies.
Heroin? Only available with a prescription to be taken in a supervised consumption area.
5474
« on: June 01, 2015, 04:27:12 PM »
Sorry, couldn't tell that your OP was being sarcastic.
Uh, it wasn't. I even said in the OP that, yes, the woman is a cunt. But somebody being a cunt to somebody by not giving them a can of coke =/= fucking news worthy.
5475
« on: June 01, 2015, 03:47:53 PM »
Goddamn, this is such horseshit. Note that this news story originally came from Vox with the sensationalist head-line of: “A full-time minimum-wage job won’t get you a 1-bedroom apartment anywhere in America.” Which, isn't actually true. What is true is that a single-earner household wherein the worker earns minimum wage cannot afford their rent and utilities in the average "fair market value" apartment in any U.S. state for less than 30pc of their income. There's nothing wrong with the NLIHC study, per se, but I don't know why we expect--especially at a state level--for a single-minimum wage earner to comfortably cover rent and utilities given the fact that half of these renters are under 25 and will have a disproportionate propensity to have some kind of multi-earner arrangement. Furthermore, state- and even county-level studies of housing costs don't tell us as much as we would like them to, given the existence of low-rent areas within these states and counties which aren't properly accounted for by the research. There is a great deal of variability in rent, even in places like New York City. Using the metric of affordability, the study shows that the ceiling is $377/month. You can rent in Houston for $366/month, New Orleans for $370/month, Oklahoma City for $399/month, Cleveland for $395/month and Philadelphia for $400/month for two bedrooms. Finally, why is the minimum wage being cast as the suspect here? If anybody actually bothers to do three minutes of research they'll realise it's the flattening of housing construction since the recession which is probably driving higher rents, as is the case here in the UK too.
5476
« on: June 01, 2015, 01:28:49 PM »
Flight attendant should be axed.
I agree with you, there.
5477
« on: June 01, 2015, 01:10:16 PM »
So, basically, civil law or common law?
And judicial activism or judicial restraint?
Probably because I'm British, I think a combination of common law and judicial restraint are the superior position to take. Although I do believe a strong judiciary is necessary to keep both the government and democracy in check.
I don't know nearly enough as I should though, so I'll be waiting for Flee to come and enlighten us.
5478
« on: June 01, 2015, 11:32:09 AM »
What's your response to this: So as someone very interested in the subject, my time to shine I suppose.
Well first, as the link is provided below, Binney clarified his comments. I like what Binney did and I think his heart's in the right place. But he's a bit of a nut job; I think he discussed 9/11 with Alex Jones. Tom Drake, who comes off as a bit more level headed, presented Snowden with an award.
I think that the NSA needs to be massively reined in. Honestly, there's a legitimate argument for abolishing it....
Were the programs exposed unconstitutional? Maybe. Personally, I think so. Some people use Smith v. Maryland to justify the programs, which is a legitimate argument. However, I've never found the Smith justification convincing. I believe it was Senator Mike Lee who said that comparing the one stalker in Smith having his number collected is like stretching a pony ride into a trip from the moon. I think the third party doctrine should be overturned. It's rather preposterous that people would still think we have no privacy with third parties when we basically store everything with them today.
I strongly believe though that the NSA violated statutory law. Section 215 was not ample justification for the phone call collection, as the court in New York recently ruled. With 50 percent of data also acquired on Americans, it's hard to argue the NSA didn't intentionally intercept data on Americans, as the FISA Amendments prohibit.
The programs first don't stop terrorism. As Bruce Schneier described in Data and Goliath, the dots that Hayden and others describe are impossible to detect, and therefore impossible to connect. That's why all that the NSA has to show for their program is some cab driver who donated chump change to a terrorist group.
The programs are one of the major policy issues we face in my opinion. They are a direct threat to freedom of speech; to give an example, 1 in 6 journalists have considered self-censoring due to surveillance. Another 1/6 have considered it at some point. The surveillance has a history of being used on subversive thinkers, like MLK. Some of the NSA's activities included spying on Occupy Wall Street, which incorrectly, was viewed as a threat to national security.
As for Edward Snowden, I appreciate what he did, but I don't think the whole thing should be about him. I think he should be pardoned. As seen with previous intelligence whistleblowers, there's really no channels to go through or you end up with guns in the shower like Mr. Binney.....
Currently, the USA Freedom Act is a joke (and I'm very upset that my candidate, Bernie Sanders, showed he potentially supports it by voting for cloture, but to be fair you can't know for sure there). The specific search term section would actually give greater authority to the NSA. Congress should pass the Surveillance State Repeal Act instead, which gets rid of the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments.
5479
« on: June 01, 2015, 10:44:23 AM »
considering how long and relentlessly fox has railed against the lgbt community...yeah.
So, you aren't happy about their bad record. And you aren't happy about their amending that record?
5480
« on: June 01, 2015, 09:48:07 AM »
I'm the most liberal person here
Ah, the good old "talk shit, get hit" liberal mentality. . .
5481
« on: June 01, 2015, 08:53:36 AM »
Way to completely ignore the actual issue.
How am I ignoring the issue? I've quite clearly stated that yes, this woman was rude and Islamaphobic.
5482
« on: May 31, 2015, 06:31:02 PM »
That's why nationalized healthcare is attractive because if I'm out of state and need to see the doc, I'm not fucked.
Or you could just scrap the regulation which prohibits inter-state insurance coverage?
5483
« on: May 31, 2015, 06:26:01 PM »
the MTA are massive jews Fucking Christ-killers.
5484
« on: May 31, 2015, 06:18:23 PM »
you'd probably feel it was very important at the time.
I'd be pissed off because you've inconvenienced me, but I'm not going to turn it into a thing. I'd go "He's a bigot, but I'm going to just get on with my life". I'm not trivialising the issue so much as pointing out how obviously trivial it is in the first place. Low-level bigotry can be found pretty much anywhere; do we really need a news story if a Texan won't allow his wife to talk in church, or when my mother disparages Polish workers? No. We don't.
5485
« on: May 31, 2015, 06:14:16 PM »
5486
« on: May 31, 2015, 06:13:39 PM »
Meta being a bigot again
I'm bigoted for thinking this is a specious thing to make a news story out of?
5487
« on: May 31, 2015, 06:12:49 PM »
>people still think islamaphobia isnt real
Who said anything about Islamaphobia not being real? The woman who denied her the coke is Islamaphobic, but so fucking what? I think there are more pressing issues than a bigot denying somebody a can of coke?
5488
« on: May 31, 2015, 06:02:05 PM »
and a personal bond of love most importantly.
I really don't understand why we need a social institution for that. Yeah, familial stability is all well and good (assuming children are part of the equation), social recognition is something I can understand, but if it all stems from a simple emotional bond I really don't see the point.
5489
« on: May 31, 2015, 06:00:00 PM »
Muslim chaplain denied unopened can of Diet Coke during flight A simple request for an unopened can of Diet Coke on a United Airlines flight left Tahera Ahmad in tears. A Muslim chaplain and director of interfaith engagement at Northwestern University, Ahmad, 31, was traveling Friday from Chicago to Washington for a conference promoting dialogue between Israeli and Palestinian youth. She was wearing a headscarf, or hijab. For hygienic reasons, she asked for an unopened can of soda, she said. The flight attendant told her that she could not give her one but then handed an unopened can of beer to a man seated nearby. Ahmad questioned the flight attendant. “We are unauthorized to give unopened cans to people because they may use it as a weapon on the plane,” she recalled the flight attendant telling her. Who fucking cares? People are rude, get the fuck over it.
5490
« on: May 31, 2015, 05:50:47 PM »
Nobody here since im not a athiest, vegan or sjw, and at the same time i'm not a racist gun nut who thinks poor people are trash
I can tell you don't spend a lot of time on this board.
Pages: 1 ... 181182183 184185 ... 502
|
Show Posts