Feb 28, 2014 at 16:59:53
“False. He used momentary violence to stop a bully from raping a woman. That bully then got shunned by the rest of his peers as a result, because finally someone had the balls to take him down. He learned his lesson and grew humble, and as an adult turned out to be a kind and productive member of society instead of the pariah he was shaping up to be.”
“Because it's not a magic solution - it's a temporary help.
If you still eat 5000 calories a day (which is easy to do even after surgery if all you eat is ice cream and donuts) you will still continue to gain weight.
Lifestyle change is the only lasting solution - which includes avoiding a huge percentage of most American food, which is largely over-processed and void of proper nutrients.”
“I've said it before and I'll say it again. This law is completely and utterly ridiculous and as far as I'm concern is unconstitutional as it is mandating content.
I've made the comparison to a boat before. If you're shooting a period piece on a boat, would the government have the authority to demand all actors wear modern looking bright orange life preservers while shooting on the open water? Of course the answer to that is no. That would be a free speech violation as it would effectively prevent the filmmaker from depicting actors in open water without life preservers like the story calls for.
In the case of porn, part of the fantasy being sold (e.g. the story being told) is one of uninhibited sex without a condom (there's little to no market demand for condom only porn, while the majority is for unprotected sex - and the number one search term in most US states won't get approved here but refers to an internal finish which is physically impossible to perform while wearing a condom.)
If the actors are willing to take the risk (which is minimal, seeing as statistically they're less likely to catch something than with a random civilian) then who's the government to say they can't? It's patently absurd on every level.
This is an expected outcome - and considering the loss of income for the city, it serves them right for being so boneheaded.”
“1. How is that an argument AGAINST evolution? If anything it demonstrates a common ancestor.
2. Evolution IS correct. We didn't evolve from chimps, chimps and humans evolved from a common ancestor. Plus, your question is a logical fallacy. It's like you're assuming every parent dies the moment their offspring is born. Do you even science?
3. Survival of the fittest is part of the evolutionary process. Clearly fused chromosomes did not disagree with evolution or we wouldn't be here.
4. She did not deserve it.
5. I'm not here to argue the benefits of AA - I'm opposed to institutionalized biases.
6. It's not about majority vs minority - it's about fairness for all.”
Oct 19, 2013 at 19:36:58
“OK... disclaimer: I'm not a fan.
However, I am a video professional.
This is fake. Basically, someone recorded a bad dub over the actual audio. It's not even in sync with the track - even though her actual voice is, as can be heard in the background. Around 1:07 it's painfully obvious.”
“1. Fused chromosomes happen all the time. In fact 1 out of 1000 live births has some form of it, and it is actually evidence of how evolution works. If you look at the chromosomes of humans and chimpanzees, you can see that our 2nd chromosome is actually two great ape chromosomes fused. And I'm not sure who sold you on the marine mammal story, but it's false. Our closest genetic sibling is the chimpanzee. Even if what you wrote was true, and it isn't, that still wouldn't make evolution false.
2. That's one too many.
3. Not sure why you're using quotes there, unless you believe there's a group of "real" Americans out there who only agree with you. As for AA having a bias, yes, it was created to correct for a bias and it did a lot of good for a long time, but that still doesn't mean it's "right" or even logical to institutionalize a "corrective bias." Bias is bias is bias.”
rayano 86 on Oct 21, 2013 at 13:37:59
“1. We also share 92% of our genetic make u p with mice.
2.I'm not saying creation or evolution are correct.If we evolved from chimpanzees why are they still here? We know crocs and alligators are closely related to dinosaurs but dinosaurs they are not.
3. Yes in humans we see many examples of genetic anomolies and fusions, these die out in nature acoording to survival of the fittest. These are part of our genetic code which seems to disagree with that statement. What other animals share such rates of multiple genetic abnormalities that inhibit unassisted survival?
4. She's white, single mother. I think she deserved it.
5. Even though it was created to correct a bias against one demographic, the program still has done more for white women than any other group in America.
6. Even with the studies conducted to prove to point people are still in favor of it's elimination because it helps some minorities and at times does not assist the majority.”
“This is akin to the "were you there?" question often used by evolution deniers. It's a logical fallacy.Now, it just so happens that I do know someone this story applies to - but I shouldn't have to personally know them in order to make the argument. The facts speak for themselves.”
rayano 86 on Oct 17, 2013 at 11:36:45
“1. Evolution still has yet to explain the fusion of our 2nd chromosome or the reason why humans have more in common with marine mammals than with apes/chimps/primates.
2. I know of and have only met 1 person who could qualify.
3.I see you like the other " Americans" have forgotten why AA was created. If there was no bias to begin with the program never would have been needed. No matter how you feel about who benefits and who doesn't.”
“As a liberal who does not support any Affirmative Action based on race, I've often gotten into weird arguments with my liberal friends who do. To me it's simply a matter of fairness.
I think any law that discriminates based on race is wrong, even if the intent is to correct a wrong. In the case of AA, it's meant to give opportunities to minorities who lack the head start opportunities their white peers generally and statistically enjoy. However, as is usually the case with generalizations and statistics, the problem is that the same situation isn't true for everyone. When you consider that a black kid from a wealthy family who goes to private school and lives a life of privilege can get accepted into an ivy league university over a white kid who grew up in a poor household and went to public school but whose educational prospects might be equal or even better at the end of high school, merely based on the color of his skin, then the law is fatally flawed. Nobody should be held back or advanced based solely on their race.
The easiest - and most logical - and least offensive way to implement the same "leveling of the playing field" as AA has tried to do, is for economic status to be the only deciding factor.
I do not believe there is such a thing as "positive discrimination" - there's only discrimination, regardless of intent.”
lmcjerome on Oct 16, 2013 at 14:22:17
TrueSense on Oct 16, 2013 at 13:52:05
“Are you talking about quotas or affirmative action ? AA can be anything from a quota, very rare these days, some set a-sides, to just making sure your pool includes certain minority candidates ? The NFL does this, even though many teams just go through the motions. While your argument has some merit, AA has disproportionately helped women, yet the issue is about race for some reason.
Black people account for 10% of the population yet to Justice Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas, this is the greatest evil every perpetrated. Roberts is very aggressive about seeking such case and lied his way onto the court when asked about his stances, claiming they were just professional. We must put things back into their proper place.
I like your anecdote of the bad case scenario. Some poor kid vs. some rich kid.
Also, do not buy into the meritocracy crap. It is a myth! Most people do not apologize for how they got their opportunity or taking advantage of just about anything that advances them.”
rayano 86 on Oct 16, 2013 at 13:48:46
“How many wealthy black children do you know personally that this has happened to?”
betopless on Oct 16, 2013 at 13:42:40
“So true and very well written!”
bear79 on Oct 16, 2013 at 13:41:58
“you make some good points- though I think many conservatives still wouldn't agree with you- it would be seen as "preferential" treatment nonetheless. AA at the very least recognizes the vast racial inequality in this country. Just look at the stats- its staggering. On every measurable quality of life index- blacks fare far worse than any other racial group. But I like your idea of distilling it down to economic status. Actually, by doing that- you'd still wind up applying AA to more minorities- since the poverty rates are much higher... f&f”
Oct 15, 2013 at 13:24:01
“Be that as it may - Walter was ultimately responsible, no matter what you think of Hank and his actions. Just like a bank robber is guilty of murder if someone dies during the robbery - even if it's just the security guard having a heart attack. Anything that happens as a result of you committing a crime is your responsibility. Ergo, Walter was responsible.”
Oct 14, 2013 at 18:06:01
“Ultimately, Hank was just doing his job - Walt was the criminal who not only set up the scenario, but was the target of Hank's investigation. Walt trying to stop it does nothing to minimize his responsibility for it happening in the first place. It's like, if I I'm going 30mph, see a kid and aim for it and floor it... stepping on the brakes at the last moment wouldn't mean I'm not responsible.”
Back Stabbers on Oct 14, 2013 at 18:13:56
“Hi Temsi...Hank was doing more than his job....he was doing it for glory and for himself. He was obsessed!
He never should have put Gomez in this situation....he placed Gomez and himself at risk by not following proper procedure.
He should have had more back-up. To my knowledge nobody in the department even knew they were going off on this wild hair.
Plus Hank was not nice to his wife...he was very dismissive of her. I did not find Hank to be a sympathetic character. Sorry.”