dwar0123

What other possibilities? Like refusing emergency medical care to the uninsured? How many insured people have to die while they establish whether or not the patient is insured before you think that requirement goes bye bye. Oh and once you accept the patient, you're liable for them.

fyp

We do not define the 'bad guy' by the best things they do, we define it by the sum total of their contribution to society. Hamas is well known for their charity work. And it is no flimsy sham, their charity work is actually very broad and quite generous. They are still evil bastards and no doubt a cynic will point out that their charity work is mere propaganda used to sway local opinion in their favor. Nothing like the NRA and their education programs as obviously no one's opinion is being swayed by their positive work. I don't think it's reasonable for you to try to pretend that anyone is laying 100% of the blame on the NRA and gun manufacturers. When you paint the picture with such absurd distortions you can make any position look like the better one. The problem is your mirror is warped and the image you see no longer reflects reality.

A body isn't actively evolving, no one has suggested that this was the case, so your clarification only speaks to your inability to comprehend. This isn't surprising as the apparent misunderstanding can be traced to you using the word 'evolved' rather than 'evolving' Our bodies are most certainly evolved, they have very clearly evolved over many generations to handle food. Irrelevant to the discussion but sadly for you the argument isn't to hard to make that our digestive ability does evolve during our life time. Our gut bacteria do go through many thousands of generations and the gut culture is known to change over time which can and has been known to change a persons ability to handle different types of food. Also evolution happens every generation, not tens our hundreds but every single one. It may be so gradual that you can't see much between individual generations, but there is no minimum amount of change that is required before it is called evolution, so it is utter nonsense to think there is a minimum number of generations required before it occurs.

Wow I mean, I have seen clueless statements about science before, but never one that is proceeded by such an ironic declaration. Edit: I suppose I should state something of why that is a clueless statement. How do you propose anything gets to the age of fertility without handling food?

An honest question. To do it the way Will Allen does it, what percent of the population would have to be doing what Will Allen is doing.

Fully admitted? The only thing approaching the admission of a mistake was stating that he might have picked the wrong website to get his data from. That isn't an admission so much as blaming someone else and its uselessly vague about what mistake he is referring too. But lets assume it is about the 8 billion dollar tanks, is there an actual website that states that tanks cost 8 billion each? Or that the overall cost was half a trillion for 50 tanks?

I'd find it scary that the righteous moral crusader refers to the death of billions as a necessary pity except of course it's a cliché. The self-righteous are always willing to sacrifice the world for its own good.

I'd say only you could rationalize this in such a way as to believe that your mistake had nothing to do with numbers but that isn't true. Still sad though. Everyone makes mistakes, some have the humility to admit them and move on, others dig a bottomless pit of humiliation and move in.

I am curious, do you ask because you think he should be, or do you ask because you think we as a country would charge him?

Your arithmetic is off by several orders of magnitude, yet you .... Are you being snarky about your own mistake? Or are you intentionally trying to deceive others that you just didn't make this mistake or are you truly still unaware of it? I can't decide which is the most likely, but the last is clearly the funniest. Regardless, they all show a deep lack of awareness.

Did a google search for legal definition of murder First result http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Murder "The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse." Intent is not required. Reading more of the definition supports this interpretation. Negligent homicide can be murder, though probably not in this case tbh.

So rather than removing yourself from the gene pool, you effectively accomplish the same thing by causing your children to remove themselves? The coward's Darwin reward.

You are welcome to argue against a collection of individuals accruing rights that individuals themselves do not possess, but if you want to be taken seriously do not try to burden your opposition with such an absurd argument as the 'divine right of kings'. That is a strawman argument worthy of al_u_card and you are better than that. I am not even going to articulate an actual counter response to that statement because it is that stupid.

The drone attacks may be terrifying, as would any form of lethal force being applied to you or your community would be. But to suggest it is terrorism is to rob terrorism of any meaning that would differentiate it from violence. Trying to find a more narrow meaning, you can't really say that civilians are the target of the drone attacks, but you could perhaps suggest that they are expected victims and thus define terrorism in such a way as to include attacks which might be expected to have innocent casualties. But that definition would again include pretty much every significant conflict in every war, ever. Again, robbing the word of any defining meaning. One thing you can say about drone attacks is that from a certain point of view, they are immoral. You are bringing violence to others without personally putting yourself at risk. This will strike many as being cowardly and killing people like a coward is certainly immoral by many moral standards. I would like to point out how entirely unlike terrorism this is. Terrorism is about staying relevant when the rest of the world is ready to move on. It is about being noticed and being taken seriously. People respect violence, they notice it and when you have thoroughly lost, violence may be the only way to stay relevant. Rarely do you blow yourself up to stay relevant(once at most), you convince others to do it for you.

In any conflict, terrorists are the ones that are losing.

Don't worry, AL_U_Card can't see or hear anything that would contradict his world view, so no fear he will see this.

To some extent, it incentivizes success but really it just incentivizes short term success, which is often illusionary at that, such that the Ceo can cash out. But more problematically it incentivizes very risky bets. Is it worth doing a 50-50 shot that will ruin the company or increase stock price by 10%. Believe it or not, the math works out such that it often is worth it. If you have 1 million stock options with a strike price of $10 dollars, increasing the value of stock to $11 means you earned a cool million. Doing a mediocre job and keeping the stock price static means you lost and gained nothing. Doing a poor job and dropping the price to $9 means you lost nothing, dropping the price to $5 means you lost nothing, dropping the price to $0 means you lost nothing. Sure you would love to do a good responsible job and increase stock price by 10% but if your choices are between static price and 50/50 10% increase or wiping the company out.... Of course, the average employee will be ruined when the CEO ruins the company, but the CEO won't he has his golden parachute. And if it works, the average employee isn't ruined and the CEO makes a massive windfall.

I've seen some tv documentary on the subject and my understanding was that psychopaths were about 0.5% - 1.0% of the population and that the incidence among Ceo's was substantially higher than that of the general population; but that is still a far cry from 'many'. We could still be talking as few as 2-3% of Ceo's being psychopathic.

Oh I agree with this, Mike's entire notion of 'risk takers' and his desire to glorify them is naïve and unsettling in how well Fox is getting at stamping their message into the consciousness of a large percentage of our population. I just think its worth nailing down what they actually mean because really, this entire bs narrative depends on vagueness. It evaporates when you start nailing down details. And one of those details that Mike is parroting right now is that the risk takers are the investors, not the ceo's with golden parachutes. And not only does it become preposterous, but Mike's claim that 'risk takers' are a tiny minority is objectively false. I don't know what percentage of the population owns investments, but I am sure it can't be quantified as a tiny minority.

The risk takers are the owners/stock holders, who hire and setup the conditions by which the CEO is paid. The ceo isn't a risk taker, he is just hired help.

Agreed, I'd argue that this systematic transfer of risk is one of the primary causes of the large income disparity we find ourselves with. When I hear you talk about harming the risk taking culture all I hear is you wanting to remove even more risk from a system that is already playing with loaded dice. The problem isn't with harming the risk taking culture, it is with getting them to actually be taking personal risks rather then just freely taking risks with everyone else's skin, profiting richly when they succeed and getting out with little lost when they don't. A national holiday for them? I'd sooner support a national holiday for lawyers.

With respect to large corporations, the thing about risk is that it should actually entail some. Especially for the people who are making the risky decisions. As it is, it seems that even on the occasions the government allows a big business to fail, it is only the low level employees who suffer. The ones who were theoretically not taking any risks and were never going to be richly rewarded upon success. They get laid off while the CEO walks away still a millionaire if not a billionaire.

Yes, but if the lower 90% had started with a nanometer, their growth would be phenomenal, while if the top 10% had started with a Parsec, their growth would be statistical noise. Your rephrasing it with this analogy did nothing to elucidate the problems people were posing.

Pandora play's this quite often for me and I appreciate it.