HBKXNCUO

20 ms·

121.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
People who advocate for laws that address child neglect are using intolerant speech, are they not? They are literally saying that we should be intolerant toward certain choices made by other people. Should such speech be forbidden?
122.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>They are private enterprises which are free to act in however they want with regards to the service they provide as laid out in their contract. Are they also free to only do business with people of certain races? The "private enter
123.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Would you advocate tolerating, say, parents neglecting their children in various ways that we think are harmful to development? Or would you instead try to spin those forms of child neglect as acts of intolerance?
124.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Why should people tolerate things which they don't think it's in their interest to tolerate? If, for example, people believe it's harmful to their children to see people performing sexual acts in the street, why should they t
125.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>He's vocally questioned if the democrats are "traitors" during public speeches[0], a wild accusation even for US political discourse. Spare me. How many people have said he should be investigated for being a Russian plant
126.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
About the only thing you've listed that could possibly be construed as being fascist is being vocally anti-free press, and he's done almost nothing to hinder the press beyond tweeting about them. Making false claims about immigran
127.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>If what you care about is something other than economic prosperity, you have to use other tools other than economic analysis. Right, it's a political issue. We are not slaves to an economic system; the economic system exists to ser
128.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>Economic efficiency is almost synonymous with reducing rents I wouldn't dispute that. >Shocks to the supply curve change equilibrium points in markets. There's elasticity of demand/supply. I'm not really sure what
129.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
On which point related to economics do you think we disagree?
130.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>I've made an argument in kind, this is an argument of degree. Yes, of course it is. The degree to which you restrict participation in a market matters. >its just as much rent as any positive effect on real wages. What does that
131.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>the value-wages of everyone else. Yes, but when "everyone else" just means certain groups of high-skilled workers, owners of large businesses, government employees, and people reliant on government benefits, because they'
132.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
It's certainly true that immigration has a positive effect on GDP, at least in the short term, and in the long term depending on other circumstances, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's in the interest of everyone or even
133.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Yes, and one whose bags of money has given him a vastly disproportionate say over the actions of the government. You can call it extortion if you want, I guess. Provided it's in the interests of the American citizen to restrict access
134.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
To the limited degree that that's true, that's too bad for the American employer. The American citizen wants the government to put those restrictions on the American employer, and he is the one the government exists to serve, at l
135.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
By hiring a lawyer to represent you.
136.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
You said there is no recourse after talking about a situation in which no one has recourse against the employer, i.e. if you get fired out of spite for looking for a new job. There is as you know recourse if you're fired illegally, as
137.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>There's absolutely no recourse. Why would a person expect to have recourse against a government which exists for the sole purpose of furthering the interests of a group of people to which that person does not belong?
138.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
She lived in a foreign country run by foreigners and administered by a government created for the sole purpose of serving the interests of those foreigners and their posterity. If those foreigners have decided for whatever reason to restric
139.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
I think having kids is a goal for a lot of people, e.g. the girl that is the subject of this thread. >She has a career, and wants to get married and start a family sometime soon. Her boyfriend is a great person to be around and she adore
140.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Of course, but you also don't want to tell young women they have all the time in the world to settle down. If they want multiple children, and by the time they're 25 they still haven't found a man they expect to marry, they r
141.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
That is impressive. Congratulations on your soon-to-be newest addition!
142.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
They are bad odds if having children is very important to you, and if you want multiple children.
143.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
There is plenty of evidence that younger women (<35) get pregnant more easily, have easier pregnancies, and have lower risks of complications. After 27 or so, the odds of it all going well start to decline. After 35, which is about when
144.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
A) 5 years is a looooong time to be trying to conceive. Trying unsuccessfully to conceive is quite stressful. B) You can't tell when you're 25 whether you're going to be in that lucky group. If having children is very importa
145.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>there's a ton of fertile years left. There might be, there might not be. There will likely not be many years left where the woman is most easily able to conceive a child.
146.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Some women can certainly conceive well into their 40's. Many cannot after 35. Each year after ~27-30 increases the chance that you will have difficulty conceiving.
147.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
The period during a woman's life when she is most likely to have the least difficulty conceiving a child. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_and_female_fertility I'm not sure what you mean by "higher risk
148.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
It does if you're a woman who wants to have children. There are of course expensive ways to increase fertility after it has started to decline, but they're far from a guarantee. The point, though, is that if a woman is still just
149.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
Not as far as fertility is concerned. 25 means only a couple of years left at peak fertility.
150.
by HBKXNCUO 7y ago
>I don't think that's true You don't think tens of millions of voters and future voters are have watched political videos on YouTube? >but even if you could prove it, it doesn't matter. You keep saying it doesn&#x2

More ›