[flagged]
2,876 karma · joined October 7, 2012
The faculty should take this opportunity to make the Universities drastically reduce the dead weight of administrators who have grown much more than faculty and produce no value.
- Identifies universities illegally racially discriminating
- Provides all the data needed to prove it
- Removes all the PII
NYU has no moral ground to stand on. They got owned by the nicest possible hacker.
I think he introduces these ideas without fully fleshing them either because 1) he's testing the waters to see the public response, and to start a conversation; 2) he may not have all the details anyway and he starts with the first step.
When someone else bankrolls your defense by spending almost a trillion dollars a year that leaves quite a lot of the budget for other things, doesn't it?
The social welfare experiment has negative expectation. That's partly why the Europeans are importing young migrants from 3rd world countries who despise them -- they are running out of people who pay into the ponzi scheme.
I can't wait for Trump to exit NATO and show that the European king really had no clothes after all.
Also, it's easy to have social welfare when you have a homogeneous high-trust society... The more migrants the EU lets in, the more you see the whole thing deteriorate.
There's no such thing as "free" anyway, it's always paid by someone else. Pension at 60 is unsustainable, free education just devalues it, making it harder to fire people makes it harder to hire people, etc...
Europe is in economic decline, it's in population decline (as many other western nations btw), it's becoming more authoritarian (the UK prolly arrests more people for social media posts than Russia nowadays), and it's failing to compete on the world stage.
Maybe it's time to cut down the $700+B/year of spending on NATO and let the proud Europeans pick up the slack?
Hilarious.
Oh great, another "expert". Yeah, if only we put you in charge things would've been totally different, right?
I think it's pretty clear by now that the reaction to the disease has been grossly mishandled by the so called "public health experts" which acted against evidence that was already available at the time (children not in serious danger from COVID), or which made up evidence (vaccines stop infection, etc..).
> However, that would have required very decisive/heavy-handed and coordinated action across the world. This did not happen, and so there was no stopping the thing.
Exactly. So whatever you said about stopping the spread is unfeasible in the real world.
>> In the usual case, where pregnancy did not result from sexual assault, the child himself, and his need for shelter and nourishment in the womb, is a direct result of actions taken voluntarily by both parents.
> Just as possibly the most basic human right there can be - bodily autonomy.
You have bodily autonomy. You can choose to have or not to have sex (which may or may not lead to pregnancy). Abortion is a medical procedure and is not a human right.
On the other hand, when it came to the COVID vaccine, the Dems were very quick to ignore the bodily autonomy argument based on bogus claims.
An example from the Australian Human Rights Act: > No-one may be subjected to medical or scientific experimentation or treatment without his or her free consent.
So what? It takes two to tango.
> Also, what happens with rape victims?
They should be able to get an abortion. I'm not anti-abortion in all cases.
> Also, you are literally less likely to die from donating your kidney then a women giving birth. Do you really have no empathy whatsoever? Giving birth is brutal, you have a no matter how disgusting it is to write but technically a parasite growing inside you sucking out every resource you have causing often life altering changes. And we are not even at birthing.
Let me quote a paragraph from [0]:
When a woman is pregnant, the situation is different. In the usual case, where pregnancy did not result from sexual assault, the child himself, and his need for shelter and nourishment in the womb, is a direct result of actions taken voluntarily by both parents. The need to live in the mother’s uterus for approximately forty weeks is also not an extraordinary measure, in the way that the term is generally used. It is a basic human need — every single person who has ever been born required it. Just as the newborn has a specific claim against his parents due to the fact that they created him in all his helplessness, so too did he have a claim against them before he was born, for the same reason. It is true that the heavier burden falls on the mother during the prenatal period. Men simply cannot directly provide what their children need during the first forty weeks of their lives. (I would advocate requiring fathers to indirectly provide as much as they can by compensating mothers for their medical bills, lost work time, and other expenses during pregnancy.) The fact that women must shoulder more of the parental obligation during pregnancy than men is regrettable, but does not negate the obligation. If someone claims that “women will always need abortion,” note the implicit assumptions. The first is that our ability to bear children is, and always will be, a handicap. The second is that we can never hope for our society to adequately adjust to the needs of mothers so that women will not feel the need to abort. The third is that violence against certain of our fellow human beings is an acceptable, even necessary way to solve social problems.
[...] But I find the acceptance of abortion as a response to a sexist society to be inconsistent with humanist ideals. Humanism values the inherent worth and dignity of every human being. It affirms that moral standards should be based on the effect of our actions on our fellow human beings. It embraces the use of reason and repudiates the use of violence to settle disputes. Abortion is an ancient, backwards practice which is not worthy of those ideals. Legal or not, we must progress beyond it.
> I am also a guy by the way, but that is exactly why I believe that the only opinion we should have on the issue is to listen to women, and the only voice we should have is to shout over old men deciding on a topic not concerning them.
Oh please, not this argument again. First of all, there are women who are also against abortion, this has nothing to do with "old men". Second of all, we are all human and are capable of empathy (well, except the psychopaths) and just because you are not a woman doesn't mean that you can't reason about things that affect women.
[0] https://infidels.org/library/modern/debates-secularist-abort...
Yes, it was also hilarious to see Democrat politicians vacationing in Florida maskless while their constituents had to follow illogical mask rules back home. Heck, in some cases they don't even pretend to care about these rules themselves (see MET gala and the countless of "parties" these politicians went to maskless).
> now want to legislate what happens in a woman's uterus in the name of "protecting life"? What a joke.
The supreme court did not ban abortion, so your argument is moot here. I'm personally OK with abortion in the early stages. But I'd argue that there's a line where a woman's "bodily autonomy" ends and a prenate's bodily autonomy begins where abortion becomes more than the equivalent of removing an appendix.
I never said they were. But if you're going to make an argument about bodily autonomy then how you can you be OK with forcing people getting a medical treatment they do not want?
Vaccination protects you from the disease. Vaccinating a 3rd party does not, we've been over this already.
The COVID vaccine was in fact experimental and it only received an "Emergency Use Authorization" by the FDA. How about you check some basic facts before you respond?