zapatos

I beg to differ. Laws are created to both punish and prevent. You don't have to kill someone to have broken a law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_(crime) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attempt

Explain WHERE. For christ sake I only get these vague comments about me being wrong, when I'm asking as much as I can for people to tell me where and more importantly how. You would think on a forum that prides itself in logical thought that it wouldn't be this damn hard to accomplish. Justin, Look at the sentence you left out of the quote: Which directly referred to: At which I shrug my shoulders and think "that is the price we pay for freedom". I never said the cost was cheap did I? The intellectual dishonesty was in not addressing my comment, but instead dismissing it under the pretext that requiring money from citizens to fund some aspects of society is an infringement on 'freedom' and therefore not a valid argument. As I said, I don't object to you having that opinion, but to dismiss it as you did rather than offering some justification that this particular government requirement is more onus than other government requirements was my objection. And while you probably did not intend it this way, your off handed dismissal of my comment was taken by me that my comment was not worth your consideration, thus resulting in my rather poor response back to you. My bad on that.

What I said was "Rather than being a man and taking a critical look at your own country... (on this issue)." I did not call you "less than a man". If you are going to quote me, please quote what I actually said. And your opinion of whether or not I am much of a man aside, the manly trait I had hoped to elicit from you was not one of idle threats, but of honesty, integrity, and compassion. I don't object to your opinion, but what I do object to is your apparant lack of intellectual honesty and integrity in arriving at that opinion. Dismissing the comments of others with a shrug and a cry to 'freedom' shows neither honesty nor integrity.

Rapscallion

Enough already! How many times are you going to tell us all this stuff? We get it. You don't have to keep repeating it.

Food, water, air. Food. All humans are recycled. Your atoms will eventually be a part of something that is not you. While I have no evidence, I'm going to go ahead and definitively say no.

hot diggety dog dressed to the nines the cat's meow the bees' knees a dirty copper my dogs are killin' me heebie jeebies a cup of joe what a tomato! he's light on his feet

Ok, that is fine. Getting back to my first question: So the body does not match the brain regarding gender. On what basis have you determined that the brain is at fault and not the body? How have you determined that it is a mental illness and not a body illness? In other words, from a scientific perspective, how did you determine that in a MTF transgender person, that the brain was wrong to think of itself as female? Couldn't the brain be correct in thinking of itself as female, but the body did not develop as expected? There are obviously many cases of bodies not developing to plan. The reason I ask is because labelling someone as mentally ill without evidence would probably be considered reckless.

Well, in my scenario, I am the one who is invincible, not you. And it's not punishment, just the price you have to pay in order to open another thread on pro-girl sexism.

I think I would make you do the cleanup from the Boston Molasses Disaster, including helping all the pretty girls clean off their shoes, before you are allowed another thread regarding "pro-girl sexism".

So the body does not match the mind. On what basis have you determined that the mind is at fault and not the body? If a person has decided that while capable of reproducing, they choose not to, are they also mentally ill?

Actually I thought up the sarcastic cheerleading on my own and did not duplicate iNow. It wasn't until I got to the line of USA! USA! that I realized I had already seen it in this thread and decided I should acknowledge iNow for thinking of it before I did. But I was not trash talking this country, I was trash talking you by mocking your pathetic cheerleading of this country. I made a point of how preventive medicine costing $0.03 per day could save the healthcare system in the US hundreds of thousands of dollars. Rather than being a man and taking a critical look at your own country, you chose instead to shrug your shoulders and cry Freedom. As if the price of freedom is $0.03 per day. As if we would not have freedom in this country if we modified our healthcare system. As if shifting how money is already collected and distributed is somehow an attack on freedom. As if freedom has anything at all to do with what I said. I thank God our founding fathers consisted of the men we had rather than the sniveling apologetics today who don't have the balls to question their own country. They think they are supporting this country but are in reality doing it a great disservice. I can still hear the crowds chanting USA! USA! when Bush 'explained' the Iraq war by saying that Iraqis 'hated Freedom and freedom loving Americans'. Pathetic. Both Bush for saying it and the crowds for accepting it and not requiring anything further. I only feel bad that I didn't think of the sarcastic cheerleading before iNow did.

Har! I'm a poet and I didn't even know it.

I think you misinterpreted the replies.

Great counterpoint. I stand in awe. Yes, freedom. And don't forget these: bin laden is evil! Support our troops! School prayer! Lamestream media! Barack HUSSEIN Obama! NATURALIZED CITIZEN! ILLEGAL ALIENS! My wife yes, my dog maybe, my gun NEVER! Evolution is only a THEORY! USA! USA! USA! (with a nod to iNow)

Yes, I agree. The broader point I was trying to make was that the emergency room is not a substitute for health insurance. Supplying me with a lifetime of blood pressure medicine is cheaper to the healthcare system than the expense incurred if I have a heart attack. And waiting until a person develops a problem due to something like diabetes before treating them is not just an unnecessary expense to the system. I know this is less an issue with you, but it does significantly lower the quality of life for the person affected, reduces their productivity, etc.

This question could be asked of much of the population of the world. I think it is rather naive to believe that anyone who feels they have problems could somehow "just be happy" with whatever their situation is, siimply by having a happy thought. "I'm in prison, my kids hate me, I have nothing to look forward to. But what the heck, I'm just going to go ahead and be happy!" "I'm stuck in traffic, will miss my flight, and have to sleep in the airport tonight. But what the heck, I'm just going to go ahead and be happy!" It just doesn't work that way. Often times the solution is to change your situation. "I have no education and no job prospects. But rather than just try to be happy with my situation, I'm going to enroll in school and try to change things."

This is not quite accurate. Whether or not you receive treatment without insurance depends in large part on what it is you are walking in with. While it is true you can receive emergency treatment (and not just anywhere as many hospitals will send you elsewhere depending on the circumstances) there are many things that you cannot get treatment for prior to it being an emergency. Diabetes Congestive heart failure High blood pressure Cancer Heart disease Alcoholism Peripheral artery disease etc. (This is a very long list) My blood pressure medicine costs $0.03 per day. A visit to the emergency room during a heart attack is going to cost a bit more. Some things you cannot get treatment for at all. Hip replacement Knee replacement Preventive dental work Preventive anything, really. Health screenings Chronic pain Poor vision Physical or Occupational Therapy after a stroke A walker if disabled. etc. (This is a very long list)

That is what you get when you ask the question on a science site; accuracy instead of simplicity. The problem is that 'white', 'black' and 'latino' are not so simply defined or even have a definition that is agreed upon. And how many genes you get from which ancestor varies. It is like asking "which shade of blue is better, navy or royal?". It doesn't lend itself to an easy answer. But if for you and your friends you want to define 'white' as 'the race his mother is', etc., and you want to assume that genes are distributed evenly, then go ahead with 1/2 1/4 1/4 as being the correct answer. This sounds like more of a math question than a genetics question anyway. You'd get a better answer if you just asked "what percentage of genes come from which ancestor?".

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but... Your friend has 1/2 of his genes from his mother and 1/2 from his father. His mother can only give up 'white' genes which makes him half 'white'. His father can give up 'black' or 'latino' genes, but he doesn't have to give up half of each. Your friend could have inherited from his father all 'black' genes, all 'latino' genes, or more likely, something in between.

I think it was fair of KALSTER to close your account. You seem to me to have identified an imaginary problem, perpetrated by no one in particular, against no identified victims, and support sexual violence against those you've identified as the innocent, while supporting those who commit the sexual violence. I agree with KALSTER that you should seek professional help. Given your views I would never allow you near my nieces.

I'd be honored.

And it is this attitude I fear that will continue to hold this country back. When people fight to keep something as basic to human survival as healthcare a privilege, but insist the right to bear arms inviolate, we cease to move forward as a society. It seems to me as if people are becoming more selfish, caring only about themselves.

I can only hope that you are not responsible for the welfare of anyone. You either have no concept of what goes on in the real world or completely lack empathy. I cannot think of what else could lead to these kinds of comments. Some people, through no fault of their own, are not capable of providing for themselves. Emotional problems, mental problems, social problems, physical problems, abuse by parents/spouses/siblings, environment, old age, young age, dementia, Asperger's, divorce, cancer, and just plain bad luck can all lead to people not "living up to their responsibilities to provide for themselves". Yes, letting them "suffer the consequences" does seem harsh. I can only hope you do not run your family this way. "She's 18, if she cannot find a job in this economy to pay for dental insurance, that is not my problem. Let her suffer the consequences and bear the pain of that cavity. Sorry if I sound harsh." In my family, we all are responsible for each other and help each other when in need. I don't expect a lot out my country, but I do expect the basics, such as fighting for me when I need protection, eliminating barriers to my ability to fend for myself, and helping me when I cannot care for myself. If our government cannot do even that for us, then what good is it? I suspect that you never complain about the government providing roads for you to drive on, police to protect you, the military to guard your borders, firemen to protect your house, or any of the other services that they provide, that happen to be of use to you. But as soon as it is something that you personally don't need, then it is every man for himself. "Why should I have to pay? I'm having a hard enough time providing for my own!" Bullshit. When you start advocating everyone taking on the INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY of providing for their own personal protection in place of a police force, then I'll get on board with you for everyone providing their own health care.

Sorry, I thought it was rather obvious. Your entire post was dedicated to the proposition that: I then showed a picture of four objects that are not different from each other, even though they are observed at different places at the same time. Thus disputing your claim.