magekillr

While I agree with the "too many resources" statement, I do question the heavy-handedness of forcing people to build their houses a certain way. Bearing in mind as well, many people don't have the funds to upgrade existing houses. I'd seriously question forcing people to do it, but putting a hand on regulation and tax incentives is the way that it should be done. The US suburban lifestyle needs to be attacked, head on. Europe needs to tackle it sooner I suppose because there's not enough land, let alone resources. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/oct/29/climatechange-endangeredhabitats Say good bye to tuna, too: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/27/magazine/27Tuna-t.html?src=me&ref=general

Note to tip.it readers: Anything coming from prison planet should be taken with an extreme grain of salt. Alex Jones is a whack job. On the topic at hand, though, cosign with tortilliachp. Leave aside the fact that we're destroying the planet with coal and oil through climate change and environmental impacts with the oil spill, we're using too many resources. This planet can't keep up with our wasteful lives. It's unsustainable. Live free or die? Well, I'd choose to live a life that's better for my children and grandchildren than doing something selfishly because of some distorted view of freedom, thanks.

Glad I'm no longer alone with romy. Thanks, Das and Racheya for seeing what this really is.

That's a good point (not that I was at all offended by man day). It's not really a good point, because I already refuted it in one of my first posts: It has nothing to do with hating men, or even masculinity. It's about pushing a narrow-mindedness of what it means to be a man, making things such as going to plays, watching musicals, dancing ballet, etc on the lower scale of what it means to be a man. Put simply, this "joke" of a holiday is indeed just that: a joke in how stupid it is. What's not a joke, however, is where it stemmed from: a tough guy attitude of testosterone that is the result of a society dominated by the patriarchy. That is my and romy's issue with it. I haven't seen any women posting on this other than her, btw.

It's sexism because women have to live up to a certain standard, whereas the standard is much more lax when it comes to men; this sexism is expressed through clothing lines. In my opinion fashion models reinforce this by lying about their sizes. Frequently models are sizes 0 and 1, but they say they're a size 3 or 4 just for PR. Anyway, I just realized who the author is (Camille Paglia), and she's most certainly not a feminist. She likes to parade herself around as one, but then disses the feminist movement and calls it a bunch of man haters. Rubbish. There is no evidence whatsoever that there is some new sexual malaise that 'appears to have sunk over the country,' and Paglia gives us exactly zero evidence on such a giant change happening over time or in the recent past. Neither is there any evidence that the 'overachieving white upper middle class' is somehow behind the demands for female viagra. Who's behind it? The medical industry, duh. They made a killing off selling it to men, why not try and find something to reach the other 50% of the population? That's a huge market share just waiting to be tapped. This has nothing to do with the level of libidos somehow having dropped. Fascinating how easily an anti-feminist piece gets posted these days in the liberal NYT.

What are we supposed to do? Make our own clothes? She's critiquing the fact that women's clothes, for all intensive purposes, have been tight and fixed to the body, which leaves them feeling they need to live up to a certain standard of fitness and body type. Whereas men's clothes have been made baggy, hiding a lot of the bodies that are less than desired. Basically it's a critique of socially accepted sexism. Not the type of clothes, per se, but it's putting a lot more pressure on women to be models, and men can be less fixated on their own bodies. There's no transition from what they wore as children to what they wear as men. I could be wrong, as I'm reading that quote out of context. That trend is changing, as of late, with clothing being marketed to men as fitting more closely, though.

I don't take supplements, although I do use protein powder in my meals. I don't count that as a supplement because, well, it's my food lol. Also, too many antioxidants can be detrimental to your health. My mother kept trying to get me to take different vitamin pills, and I kept telling her that too much of a certain vitamin can do damage. I get enough nutrition from my current diet, so I don't need to include any filler. I'm a vegetarian, so some people who are vegetarians might need to take iron supplements. The only thing I'm sometimes short on is potassium, but I'll just add a second banana if that happens during that particular day. I'm on a 3,500 calorie per day diet, so my daily values are based on that (except protein, where I aim for 150-180 grams per day).

You could still use them only when it's a tough call. How do you define a tough call, if you leave that up definition up to the ref you leave them open to calls of bias every time they don't use the technology (and get it wrong). The same way it's used in every other sport... And if there's no "official review," the coaches can call a review if they want. If they're wrong and the ruling on the field stands, they lose a sub. Also, this isn't an endorsement of video reviewing. I don't know where exactly I stand on it. Just saying it could be done imo.

Nirvana, the Who. No, the Beatles were not overrated if you look at them in the context of their time; they changed music forever. I'm not even a Beatles fan and I can understand that.

Just got back from this, and I can't recommend it enough. I'll admit, I'm a crier at a lot of movies; I get attached to people very easily, what can I say? I didn't cry during this one, but I definitely had lumps in my throat at the end of the movie. Better than the second one, not better than the first; all three were amazing, so meh, w/e. I saw the first one when I was 7 years old, and I'm now 21 turning 22 in August. It's strange following the same life as the kid on screen. Spoilers (maybe?): [hide]When I left for college, my mom had the same reaction as Andy's mom. We just both sat there, stared at my empty room for a good 2 minutes in silence, and then she looked over and said, "Oh, Justin..." and cried lol. They really got that down well. Good job, Pixar.[/hide]

More than that, Paw. Labor also did what the Labour Party in Britain did: trend to that Third Way economic nonsense which basically fuses corporations and government together (and also abandon a lot of civil liberties positions). The 1980's were like the worst time in world politics; nothing but right-wing nutjobs in power of the two most powerful countries (US and Britain) causing the left wing parties to trend to the right. Thatcher and Reagan led the way, with Blair and Hawke/Keating following after. Right now we're all paying the price of Thatcher and Reagan's deregulations of the banking sectors; at least Australia and Canada had the sense to keep their regulations in place unlike most other countries who followed their lead. Anyway, best of luck to you, Australia. Rudd was really worrying me with his proposed internet wall filter thing, other internet censorship, and I also heard of a possible linking of the internet browsing history to your passports. Creepy. Sad you all rejected the climate change bill.

I completely disagree with the part in bold. If Al Sharpton had his way, white people would be slaves. Since I don't believe Al Sharpton represents the majority of African Americans, let me put it this way: The only group in America that is forced to be politically correct is the "mainstream" Caucasian. Its oppression when making an observation or opinion of another culture (however well meaning) could make you lose your career. An example of this is Don Imus. EDIT: Actually, its mostly observations and opinions against the "big three" - Blacks, Gays, and Jews. There's less of a "firestorm" for other groups. Are you actually defending Don Imus? Crickey, I figured from the abortion thread you'd have these sorts of views, but this goes further than I had imagined. Lord knows that I'm no fan of people like Jesse Jackson, but I also know the types who invoke their names in this sort of conversation. More whiney ass white, straight people who can't even recognize their own white, straight privilege. Are you feeling oppressed by that nasty political correctness? You're probably the type who complains about reverse racism, too. "I can't use the word [hide]f4g[/hide] anymore!!! I'm so oppressed!" OT: More here: http://scienceblog.com/35610/gay-mens-bilateral-brains-better-at-remembering-faces-york-u-study/

Lol wtf, I made a thread about this probably like a year or so ago and it got locked because the content "wasn't suitable and inappropriate." It was titled, "Incest, Bestiality, and Polygamy". Venomai and I had many conversations about this in private, and I'll post his thoughts for starters. I have them because after the conversation was locked, we sent messages back and forth No. See below. Why? What makes you think that it would still be distressing/harmful to the individual if there was no social stigma against it? I am arguing for the distinction between pedophilia (as a sexual orientation) and child sexual abuse (CSA). Even here, you assume that since I am arguing for pedophilia as a sexual orientation, I must also be "condoning the act" of CSA. Assumptions like these contribute to an unnecessary social stigma and deter objective research on the topic. It's crucial for the public to understand that the vast majority of convicted sex offenders (including those on the news) are not actually pedophiles. The assumption that the term pedophile denotes an "aggressive rapist" is as incorrect as it would be for any other group, be it homosexuals or heterosexuals. "Pedophilia" is a mental disorder (a psychological affliction), as you seem to understand, and as such it should be seen as no more of a crime than psychosis, schizophrenia or for that matter homosexuality (which, might I add, was once labelled a mental disorder). Defining pedophilia as CSA is a horrible standard that most psychologists have come to avoid. (Note that the same issue is often seen with the term zoophilia; laymen are quick to equate it to bestiality.) The label of "mental disorder" (or lack thereof) should in no way be seen as a standard for the law. This would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the DSM. Furthermore, society has always had a strong influence over what is and what is not labelled a "mental disorder" in the DSM. This influence became quite clear after the reclassification of homosexuality in the DSM. This was from April 2009, so it's been a little over a year since it was locked and subsequently deleted. Have the rules changed since a year ago or something? Speaking of Venomai, I miss him.

For the past 225 years the United Sates constitution has guaranteed the right of anyone arrested to be formally charged with a crime - it has always been that way, and for the foreseeable future will always be that way. Once you are arrested the police have 24 hours to charge you, and despite any conspiracy theories you may have heard to the contrary there has never been any serious attempt to change this basic right. Oh hai: http://washingtonindependent.com/38335/obama-bungles-bagram It's not some conspiracy theory, Snipersas. I know how much of a right-wing hack that you are, and how much you love authority (except when it comes to guns, amirite?), but please, spare me the inanity. The US charging and detaining people without charge for years at a time has been why there was so much outcry against Guantanamo. Are you going to argue that we didn't torture, too? Not to mention that Joe Lieberman also introduced legislation that takes this even further, with his good 'ol buddy John McCain: http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/04/mccainlieberman_bill_destroys.php

Cyber terrorism is certainly a very real and potent threat, but once again Joe Lieberman, every Republican's favorite "independent," tries to solve this problem with stupid and dangerous means. The President of the US already has too much power, most of which has been willfully given by the "checks and balances," and the neo-Cons just want to give that branch more. It's ridiculous. An open and free internet is the one key that the proletariat has against the bourgeois corporate class, and it needs to stay that way; corporate control over the media has made cable news an absolute disaster and this is our only access to real and educating information. Tapping into our phone and email lines is a bad enough infringement on our civil liberties. That will be nothing compared to the removal of net neutrality. Thankfully, Obama and the FCC have been fighting the good fight and trying to keep it that way--although he's been horrible on the civil liberties front and has continued to argue that the US has the right to detain people without charge--but AT&T and Comcast have been lining the pockets of our Senators trying to reverse that. Net neutrality needs to be codified into law, and no company/corporation NOR any COUNTRY should be able to attack it again. Is John McCain a co-sponsor? He's usually along for the ride with anything that Joe Lieberman presents, especially when it comes to foreign policy and terrorism.

The fact is, marriage in the legal sense has absolutely nothing to do with the church anyway. These idiots claim marriage is sacred and that God wouldn't approve, well, wtf does God have to do with legal implications? Hell, why do Christians even get legally married if all they care about is what God thinks? Just hold a ceremony in a church, and in the eyes of God, you're married. Hypocrites; they're just hiding their hatred of gay people behind the veil of religion. They always reveal their true feelings when they talk about gay people being all up in their face, or even with funerals! Check this out from November last year: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/11/national/main5608892.shtml It just shows that it's NOT about marriage, and it's just about how they think gays are icky. Same thing with hospital visitation rights. Why deny them that? Oh, right...

Local, I know what you're saying, and I kind of agree, but it's kind of like saying, "I'm a white straight male and I'm feeling discriminated against!" It's the same argument that religious folk make: I don't mind gay people, just get out of my face with it with your pride parades! Or, "why don't straight people have straight parades?" It's just nonsense designed to hide their homophobia. They're in your face for a reason: it's been a long time coming to where they can be open about who they are as people without being persecuted, and it feels good. That's why the depression and suicide rates among gay people are so high: they're shamed into hiding it, into hiding who they are. "Being in your face" is a way of expressing that joyful feeling of finally being able to be out and about. Not to mention that as more people come out of the closet and are open about it, the less discrimination society has against them: Poll: With Higher Visibility, Less Disapproval For Gays Ending the closet is the key to equality.

I know! I know! I know! Pick me! It starts with an F!

Why should gays not be aloud to adopt? What's wrong with it? Allowed* I think Shadow was being sarcastic; he hates religion and is from Canada, after all. In case anyone's interested, though: Study: Children of Lesbians May Do Better Than Their Peers

Surely someone such as yourself knows that while statistics are just, without biased, that they are used to justify bigoted means. This isn't like traveling to a third world country and being temporarily disallowed to donate. It's permanent so long as you call yourself gay because your partner, who might be your only partner, completely healthy, isn't your gender's opposite. I'm sure they're still working on refining the testing process, but it isn't happening fast enough. And they shouldn't be allowed to get away with it in the meantime. Does the end justify the means? To me it doesn't. Oh yes, I certainly am aware of that. Like when people say that "Of course homosexuality is harmful? AIDS!!!" is obviously just some person scapegoating statistics to line up behind their bigotry. It's asserting their own conclusion and finding numbers to justify it. That's the opposite of science and research. It doesn't apply to lesbians, but gay or bisexual men. You say it's not like traveling to a developing country, when statistically, it is more or less the same. Piercings and tattoos get you deferred for a year. IV drug users are also banned. Not because people with tattoos or piercings all have AIDS or because blood banks hate those damn punk kids, it's just because they are a higher risk. In the US, straight people do not share the same risk as gay men. In other countries, that's not necessarily the case, but in the US it is. In the end, though, I do not support the policy as it currently stands. It can and should be changed in some way based on new research. http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/topics/surveillance/basic.htm

Why do you agree on the ban? And yea that .pdf is pretty spot on. (Heck when I put my proud to be gay thing in the middle of my sig people accused me of pushing my gayness onto them on the forums. *sigh*) Well, it's just what the scientific research says. I am NOT in favor of the status quo, as I said, I think they can streamline the policy according to focus on individuals rather than the demographics. So I do favor changes, but I don't favor on outright elimination of it. They test a sample of every pint of blood donated, yes. The argument that the accuracy of testing today makes this irrelevant is tough, because yes, testing is very accurate, but in the small percentage of false negatives (which do happen), the presence of higher risk translates to higher risk of a false negative leading to transmission via blood supply. One could say do more testing, redundant testing to make sure...well, okay but that is expensive. It's a statistical decision, its not bigotry. Yeah it sucks but the numbers obviously still justify it. The statistics aren't fair or unfair, they just are.

Heh, a lot on the left beside me disagree with the blood donation ban, but I'm supportive of it. That said, I think the stigmatizing effect of the policy justifies an immediate change that is streamlined according to the panel's recommendations, namely that a policy be implemented that focuses more on individual behavior than what demographic you belong to. The panel voted against "immediate" changes in that policy even though they recommended what seems to be a more sensible alternative. Also a good read is this: http://sap.mit.edu/content/pdf/heterosexual_privilege.pdf

Lol, is L0rd trying to say that sexism is over in the Western sphere of the world (US, Europe, etc)? That's all I really got from his post: sexism outside of the Middle East is dead in the water and women are equal. Oh, and that things that are manly depends on the culture (even though the creator defined "manly" things to do on the site), which as Snickers documents, is a crock of [cabbage]: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EjuXbYW6KmE Homophobia aside, do you think this commercial is sexist? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qh1nZ5lfcco

I like how people think I'm complaining about the holiday, when in reality I'm making a critique about the idea of it, why it's there in the first place, and its ideas about what is and is not manly. For example, why isn't "Spend extra time with your family" on the list? Is being a good father not manly enough for you? Of course not, it's not associated with manliness because of how patriarchy dominates our society. THAT is what I am criticizing. The holiday isn't the problem, it's its manifestation in the first place. Your lack of understanding of this nuance explains the problem in itself.

Just more evidence of the gross dominance of what is "manly" in our patriarchal society. What does it mean, exactly, to do manly things or be "manly"? These aren't "manly" activities, they're just part of our sexist culture to drive home the point that man = macho masculinity.