quote:You posed your question in response to my question. Normally this would mean the point of your question was a response to my question.
What? It's me wanting to know what you mean by 'stranger' so that I can answer the question. That's what the point of such a question actually 'normally' is.
Man, you get really weird when this sort of defensive reflex ... whatever it is mode kicks in with you. What do you mean by "stranger?" How do you define it? Having a definition of that is pretty central to being able to answer your question in a way that would clarify anything!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This thread drift has somehow warped my mind into reading "stranger" as "strang-er" (rhymes with "hanger"). Thanks, guys.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:You posed your question in response to my question. Normally this would mean the point of your question was a response to my question.
What? It's me wanting to know what you mean by 'stranger' so that I can answer the question. That's what the point of such a question actually 'normally' is.
Man, you get really weird when this sort of defensive reflex ... whatever it is mode kicks in with you. What do you mean by "stranger?" How do you define it? Having a definition of that is pretty central to being able to answer your question in a way that would clarify anything!
Good grief you can't possibly be this dull.
When I originally asked the question I clearly indicated why I was asking it by saying.
quote:I'm not sure whether we are quibbling about what constitutes a very large number and how confident we can be that its a problem, or if there is a real disagreement with the underlying premise.
Before your post I clarified this in a response to kate
quote:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: [QUOTE]Originally posted by kmbboots: How many is "a large number" and what do you mean by "strangers"?
That's what I meant by "quibbling". I'm sure people will disagree about what constitutes a very large number of strangers. Are you saying that there is "no number of total strangers" that would cause you to be concerned or are we arguing about where to draw the line?
Since that didn't make it clear, my definition of stranger and large number are irrelevant to the question I was asking.
What I was trying to determine was whether or not there is any reasonable definition of stranger and very large number for which you would consider my statement true. I was asking this so I could understand the nature of your questions. If your answer to that question is no, then its pointless to talk about what I meant by a stranger or a large number, because you will disagree regardless.
If you need to ask how I define stranger or what I consider a large number, you haven't understood what I'm asking.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:You posed your question in response to my question. Normally this would mean the point of your question was a response to my question.
What? It's me wanting to know what you mean by 'stranger' so that I can answer the question. That's what the point of such a question actually 'normally' is.
Man, you get really weird when this sort of defensive reflex ... whatever it is mode kicks in with you. What do you mean by "stranger?" How do you define it? Having a definition of that is pretty central to being able to answer your question in a way that would clarify anything!
Good grief you can't possibly be this dull.
Rabbit, this is coming from someone who fundamentally agrees with you (I definitely think that having sex with a lot of strangers is generally not an admirable trait, and I probably define "lot of strangers" more strictly than Sam would, too)... but I want to let you know that your tone is coming off pretty unnecessarily sharp in this thread. Sam can be a little aggravating at times, but you seem to be getting more agitated than is reasonable. It might be a good idea to step away from this thread for a little while to cool off?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I guess then, the answer is "not necessarily". For some people in some situations, sex with one person that they know very well shows terrible judgement and will ruin their lives; for others a new partner every weekend could be a quite responsible way of managing their relationships. So unless we are talking about what I would consider "unreasonable" numbers - say too many to get anything else done or enough to indicate some medical issue - then no.
But I am not sure what I am disagreeing with as your point seems hard to pin down. Without knowing what you mean by "sex with a large number of strangers", and {i]why[/i] you think that shows poor judgement and impulse control, I don't know whether I disagree or not.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess then, the answer is "not necessarily". For some people in some situations, sex with one person that they know very well shows terrible judgement and will ruin their lives; for others a new partner every weekend could be a quite responsible way of managing their relationships. So unless we are talking about what I would consider "unreasonable" numbers - say too many to get anything else done or enough to indicate some medical issue - then no.
So you do think that it shows bad judgement for a person to have sex with so many strangers that there are clear negative consequences in other aspects of their life . Did I understand that correctly?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or even with one non-stranger. Or even non-sex.
ETA: In other words, all sorts of activities can show bad judgement. Activities that can be good in other contexts. I don't think that sex is in a separate category.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Or even with one non-stranger. Or even non-sex.
ETA: In other words, all sorts of activities can show bad judgement. Activities that can be good in other contexts. I don't think that sex is in a separate category.
I didn't say it was in a separate category. I should add that my original comment was in the context of political sex scandals. I never intended it to be a general commentary.
Failure to accurately weigh the risks against the rewards is the essence of bad judgement. In this political climate, a politician is risking his career by engaging in casual sex. I thinking risking your career to get a blow job for a hot young staffer is pretty much the essence of bad judgement.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I thinking risking your career to get a blow job for a hot young staffer is pretty much the essence of bad judgement.
Especially if you're wasting your poor judgment getting one of your staffers a blowjob. I mean, he's hot, he can probably get it on his own.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: $20 million Gingrich didn't ask for.
We can expect more and more of this, and it sucks Sucks SUCKS!
The dream is that if Obama get elected again, he might still get to put one or two more people on the Supreme Court, and then maybe this thing can be readdressed in a few years and overturned...but that scenario strikes me as highly, highly unlikely.
Not unless states go on a jihad of campaign reform laws, or they push through a constitutional amendment. Though I have to say, this is clearly a non-partisan issue. Process stories don't have the same ideological flare that say, taxes do. If Occupy was smart, they'd already be all over this in some way, though I fear overt support would poison the well.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Total derail, but it's about a primary candidate so this is the thread for it:
I just read a George Will piece from a few weeks back where he rips into Newt, and one passage where he talks about Hunstman really struck me.
quote: Jon Huntsman inexplicably chose to debut as the Republican for people who rather dislike Republicans, but his program is the most conservative. He endorses Paul Ryan’s budget and entitlement reforms. (Gingrich denounced Ryan’s Medicare reform as “right-wing social engineering.”) Huntsman would privatize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (Gingrich’s benefactor). Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends. (Romney would eliminate them only for people earning less than $200,000, who currently pay just 9.3 percent of them.) Huntsman’s thorough opposition to corporate welfare includes farm subsidies. (Romney has justified them as national security measures — food security, somehow threatened. Gingrich says opponents of ethanol subsidies are “big-city” people hostile to farmers.) Huntsman considers No Child Left Behind, the semi-nationalization of primary and secondary education, “an unmitigated disaster.” (Romney and Gingrich support it. Gingrich has endorsed a national curriculum.) Between Ron Paul’s isolationism and the faintly variant bellicosities of the other six candidates stands Huntsman’s conservative foreign policy, skeptically nuanced about America’s need or ability to control many distant developments.
Here's the full article, if you care. I knew Hunstman's positions on some of that stuff, but I'll admit I was ignorant of some of it. Between this and his affection for science, I find myself fond of the guy, and really baffled by his portrayal at the beginning of the debates as a conservative who disliked the Republican party's shift to the "far right." I'd characterize almost all of the things on Will's list as examples of Huntsman being more to the right than the frontrunners, not less. Bizarre.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's funny. In the rest of our lives, I think few Americans would reject the idea that cash gifts will frequently create a sense of obligation, of entitlement and subservience, between people, even very close people such as friends or family. Even *especially* between friends and family.
And yet somehow, when it comes to politics, this side of interpersonal relationships is somehow...sidestepped or forgotten, or less important somehow. I wonder if maybe, just maybe, that side of things is avoided by politicians because the money is, well, going to them? Heh.
That opinion of mine, along with my personal opinions re: recognizing what kind of political system we've got, are the two reasons I get *really* frustrated when people simply counter that money is speech, and we can't ever ever ever EVER infringe on free speech because of how important it is. Makes me just wanna shake 'em and shout, "If you give your brother $10,000 when he really needs it to get a great job, you're not *ever*, not even subconsciously, gonna want *anything* in return, ever?"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, you're missing the part where the great job your 10 grand helps him get is working for the construction company that is already on track to build your new house. And you believe your brother really knows his stuff, so the house will be even better.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, people donate to candidates that are already saying things they like, who they expect will do things they like. Why is this hard to fathom? Why do we need for there to be a nefarious partnership where the candidate changes his mind because of the donation. Isn't that risky? What if they change their mind again?
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another thought. I've worked with several startups over the years. We didn't approach VCs and say "What do you want us to build? We'll do it if you invest in us!"
We approached them and said "This is what we're going to build. We think it will sell and make lots of money. If you agree, invest in us!"
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I've said it before and I'll say it again, people donate to candidates that are already saying things they like, who they expect will do things they like.
I don't believe this is always true. But even if I generously grant this, donations go a long way towards making ridiculously terrible candidates surprisingly viable. Look at, for example, what they did here in Wisconsin.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: $20 million Gingrich didn't ask for.
We can expect more and more of this, and it sucks Sucks SUCKS!
The dream is that if Obama get elected again, he might still get to put one or two more people on the Supreme Court, and then maybe this thing can be readdressed in a few years and overturned...but that scenario strikes me as highly, highly unlikely.
Not unless states go on a jihad of campaign reform laws, or they push through a constitutional amendment. Though I have to say, this is clearly a non-partisan issue. Process stories don't have the same ideological flare that say, taxes do. If Occupy was smart, they'd already be all over this in some way, though I fear overt support would poison the well.
Getting rid of Citizen's United and tighter controls on lobbying is certainly something I've seen the Occupy movement hammer hard on. At least at the protests I've attended, and heck *I* brought it up when I was interviewed about it.
Sorry to cross post something from another forum.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dan, in your construction analogy, only the houses that the wealthy people like will get built. Since houses are analogous to laws and government what we end up with is government for the wealthy. Direct bribery or indirect, the result is the same.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
For that to be the case you need to accept the idea that people like the Kochs are only interested in politicians that help them and screw over everyone else. And, similarly, that conservative economic policies help big businesses and screw over everyone else. I understand that you believe that. I don't. I sincerely doubt I will be able to persuade you. So I think we've pushed this line as far as it will go.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: I've said it before and I'll say it again, people donate to candidates that are already saying things they like, who they expect will do things they like. Why is this hard to fathom? Why do we need for there to be a nefarious partnership where the candidate changes his mind because of the donation. Isn't that risky? What if they change their mind again?
I think you are overly naive about this. Corporations and Trade organizations very frequently give sizable amounts to both democrats and republicans. Here is a list of the top 100 political donors. You will note that almost all of them give substantially to both sides of the aisle. Quite a few, such as Walmart, JP Morgan, Citigroup, and Pfizer, give nearly equal amounts to democrats and republicans. Every politician I know agrees that the way to get donations from the big boys is persuade them you are likely to win. You can't get anything for your money if you back a looser. If you look at the history of contributions over the years, it clearly supports that idea.
But even if you were correct and big donors are usually idealists who are simply putting their money behind candidates who share their ideals, do you think the same is true for most politicians?
Do you really think there are not a lot of politicians who will adopt a position or vote a certain way because they think it will attract big donors?
Do you really think that the average politician won't set aside more time to meet with and listen to a big donor than to the average voter?
And if spending lots of money on advertising doesn't really have any influence, why aren't there any viable candidates who don't spend a lot of money? Why are so many donors and candidates spending millions on something that's totally ineffective? If it didn't work, shouldn't the invisible hand have eliminated it?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:For that to be the case you need to accept the idea that people like the Kochs are only interested in politicians that help them and screw over everyone else.
When people like the Kochs are underwriting libertarian think tanks while simultaneously lobbying politicians to use eminent domain in order to build a pipeline that will connect their Canadian oil sand business to their Texas oil refining business, I'm not sure how anyone could doubt that their primary interest is to get politicians to help them and screw over everyone else.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I think it's likely more a case of 'Help us!' and, well, stuff after that really isn't considered very much. If it screws other people over, alright, if it doesn't that's fine too.
quote:I've said it before and I'll say it again, people donate to candidates that are already saying things they like, who they expect will do things they like. Why is this hard to fathom? Why do we need for there to be a nefarious partnership where the candidate changes his mind because of the donation. Isn't that risky? What if they change their mind again?
Perhaps this is true for individuals, but as Rabbit has noted it's just flat-out wrong for the sort of big groups we're discussing. Anyway, even on an individual level, you think someone who donates to a campaign whose candidate later does something they don't like won't feel angry and betrayed, of have a good chance of feeling that way? Those feelings don't exist without a sense of entitlement. Also, in the point you're making, when people give money to something/someone, there won't be any sense of obligation if they already agree with them...?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You posed your question in response to my question. Normally this would mean the point of your question was a response to my question.
What? It's me wanting to know what you mean by 'stranger' so that I can answer the question. That's what the point of such a question actually 'normally' is.
Man, you get really weird when this sort of defensive reflex ... whatever it is mode kicks in with you. What do you mean by "stranger?" How do you define it? Having a definition of that is pretty central to being able to answer your question in a way that would clarify anything!
Good grief you can't possibly be this dull.
So, why are you acting like this? Do you have a particular reason to be dropping down into the attitudes you usually sharply criticize and react to?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You posed your question in response to my question. Normally this would mean the point of your question was a response to my question.
What? It's me wanting to know what you mean by 'stranger' so that I can answer the question. That's what the point of such a question actually 'normally' is.
Man, you get really weird when this sort of defensive reflex ... whatever it is mode kicks in with you. What do you mean by "stranger?" How do you define it? Having a definition of that is pretty central to being able to answer your question in a way that would clarify anything!
Good grief you can't possibly be this dull.
So, why are you acting like this? Do you have a particular reason to be dropping down into the attitudes you usually sharply criticize and react to?
Sam, I made 5 separate attempts to explain that my definition of stranger and what I considered to be a large number were irrelevant to the question I was asking. I'm sorry if you can't understand why that could cause exasperation. Since you won't answer my question, I'll pose some specific scenarios.
Consider this extreme example. Some person is involved in a kind of anonymous sex ring where people randomly meet in a dark room to have sex with total strangers. And this person is doing this daily, maybe even several times a day. Saying going out for a quicky during lunch and then again after work. Without knowing anything else about the person, would you consider this kind of sexual activity to show bad judgement? Would such behavior suggest the person had a problem with sexual impulse control?
[ December 16, 2011, 08:13 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sam, I made 5 separate attempts to explain that my definition of stranger and what I considered to be a large number were irrelevant to the question I was asking. I'm sorry if you can't understand why that could cause exasperation.
By now you know I disagree that the definition of strangers is irrelevant to the question. If this is all it takes to get you exasperated to the point of hypocritical insults just because I have the same desire for clarification that boots does, then, okay! I learned something about you today, I guess.
quote:Without knowing anything else about the person, would you consider this kind of sexual activity to show bad judgement? Would such behavior suggest the person had a problem with sexual impulse control?
1. show bad judgment: no 2. suggest problem with sexual impulse control: yes
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. show bad judgment: no 2. suggest problem with sexual impulse control: yes
I find that combination of answers perplexing. I'm not sure whether the important distinction is between bad judgement and impulse control or "show" and "suggest".
This behavior is very high risk for all kinds of serious bad stuff like STDs, unwanted pregnancy, being robbed, raped, assaulted or even murdered, unwitting involvement in prostitution or sex slavery or some other serious crime.
You are going to need to define what you mean by bad judgement. Choosing to take that kind of long term risk for transient gratification is virtually by definition bad judgement. I can see that this bad judgement could result from a variety of things besides poor impulse control, but I'm quite confident in saying it shows poor judgement for a large number of reasons that have nothing to do with morality.
I guess I can imagine some rare circumstance that could justify ignoring any long term risks, like maybe the person has incurable cancer and is certain they will die in a two months (but is still healthy enough to have sex several times a day) or maybe the person has been offered $100 million if they have sex with a thousand anonymous strangers this year or is being forced to do this to save a child that has been taken hostage. If you are answering no because you think "show" means 100% certainty and you think there could conceivably be exceptions, you are presuming something about my choice of words which is incorrect. If your objection is to the word show, is there a word that would change your answer to yes. Would you be comfortable with "beyond reasonable doubt", "highly likely" or "strong indication"?
What if I put a numeric confidence level say "show with at the XX% confidence level"? Is there some value for XX for which you would answer yes? If so, roughly what number would that be?
[ December 16, 2011, 12:11 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Choosing to take that kind of long term risk for transient gratification is virtually by definition bad judgement.
By that logic, people who skydive or ride ziplines or take elevators (in lieu of the stairs) are fools.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait a second, in the scenario Rabbit described, it's not bad judgment? Aside from the health risks which can be mitigated, what of the much higher risk of violent crime?
It seems such a strange answer you gave I'm wondering if you're serious.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Choosing to take that kind of long term risk for transient gratification is virtually by definition bad judgement.
By that logic, people who skydive or ride ziplines or take elevators (in lieu of the stairs) are fools.
Then again, when you skydive, you don't run the risk of a small, defenseless clone popping out of your body if your parachute fails and you smack into the ground.
Let me also note that reports of contracting incurable and communicable diseases of the genitalia while skydiving have yet to be confirmed by an unbiased, scientific panel of experts.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Choosing to take that kind of long term risk for transient gratification is virtually by definition bad judgement.
By that logic, people who skydive or ride ziplines or take elevators (in lieu of the stairs) are fools.
Fool is your judgement not mine.
A single bad choice does not make one a fool. In fact, I believe I have repeated several times in this discussion that it isn't reasonable to presume that people who shows bad judgement in one aspects of their lives, will show bad judgement in all aspects of their lives.
I also didn't say any kind of risk, I said "that kind of risk". I'm not sure how you are interpreting "that kind of risk" but if you think skydiving, riding zip-lines and taking elevators is comparable in risk to the scenario I described, you are very much mistaken. The risk of being killed in a single skydive in the US is 1 in 60,000. The risk of being killed in an automobile accident in a year (for the average US citizen) is 1 in 7000. I can't tell you the exact risk of the scenario I gave above but the risk of contracting HIV from a single act of protected sex with an HIV positive person is 1/5000 and that's only one of the many risks involved so I think its pretty safe to say that the risks associated with that scenario are a lot higher than skydiving.
I should add that the ability to accurately assess risk is one of the key factors in exercising good judgement, so if someone really thinks that the scenario I described is comparable in risk to taking the elevator -- I question their judgement.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
One last thing Tom, do you see bad judgement and good judgement as some sort of binary function such that any poor choice equals foolishness? I certainly don't. Choosing to take the elevator instead of the stairs (as a regular habit) isn't a particularly good choice, but it certainly isn't remotely as bad as choosing to take heroin or gamble away your life savings.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:1. show bad judgment: no 2. suggest problem with sexual impulse control: yes
I find that combination of answers perplexing. I'm not sure whether the important distinction is between bad judgement and impulse control or "show" and "suggest".
It's 'show' versus 'suggest.' It certainly suggests the extreme likelihood of bad judgment — pretty bloody likely, in fact — but if as you say that's literally all we know about the person and the situation they might be in, it does not provide for the instant diagnosis based on her private habits, especially given that we don't know of the controls or precautions of anonymous sex ring, or whether she actually has to concern herself with the potential of having a baby.
We pretty much just had the conversation on hatrack about making the full-bore diagnosis of someone based on limited information anyway. And hey, this is what happens when we come up with invented scenario stuff, so.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What sorts of controls or protections could a private, anonymous sex ring possibly have? The lack of controls and precautions, aside from those taken by the individual participants themselves, is pretty clearly implied in the word 'anonymous'.
And goodness, while I agree Rabbit was getting a bit snarky, you are being super weasely here, Samprimary. I'm still not sure if it's intentionally provocative.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that Samprimary is being particularly weaselly. He could be interpreting "anonymous" as being unknown to the person who was having sex, but screened by some trusted third party.
At any rate, we have a better idea of "a large number" and "stranger".
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're right, 'screened by a trusted third party' was clearly what involved in what Rabbit was suggesting, I can see that now.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying that. I am saying that without the context, it is hard to know. I think that the Rabbit has, sort of, clarified that she wasn't making a general, "people who have unsanctioned sex are reckless addicts" kind of a statement, but that wasn't so clear early on in the discussion. Life in general carries risks that people find acceptable. Sex is no different. I, for one, find casual sex a more acceptable risk than jaywalking.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if the anonymous sex ring is set up by a group that ensures every participant is STD free and has a contraceptive implant, then Rabbit's example survives and the most common problems people have suggested basically evaporate.
On the other hand, I still would think such a person had poor impulse control and was generally kind of skeezy. So, there's that.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I don't think that Samprimary is being particularly weaselly. He could be interpreting "anonymous" as being unknown to the person who was having sex, but screened by some trusted third party.
If he's doing that, he's being deliberately evasive. I think by now I've made it clear what I'm asking and he's quibbling about the details to avoid committing himself.
quote:At any rate, we have a better idea of "a large number" and "stranger". [/qb]
You really still don't get my question do you. I was not trying to define stranger or large number with that example. I tried to pick a very extreme case of "sex with a large number of strangers" not because I think that's where the line should be drawn but to determine whether you think that even in such an extreme case its not fair to say it shows bad judgement. If this case wasn't extreme enough for you, is there one that would be? Because if you don't think it shows bad judgement for the most outlandish examples of "sex with large numbers of complete strangers" then there isn't any point in me trying to define what I mean by stranger or what I mean by a large number. You disagree with the basic idea, no matter how its defined.
That's a very different discussion than a discussion about how much casual sex a person can engage in before it shows bad judgement. If that's the discussion you want to have, I'm not interested. I'm never going to say, "having sex on the 4th date shows bad judgement but if you wait to the 5th date you've shown good judgment." Or that having sex with 10 strangers is prudent, but anything more than that is bad judgment. That would be idiotic. There is full spectrum of sexual behavior and a full spectrum of better and worse judgement.
I'm sure you and I see that spectrum differently. We've already had that discussion a number of times; we don't need to repeat it. What I was trying to determine is whether you see a range of more and less prudent sexual behaviors at all or you really think prudence is irrelevant to the question.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Same reason I would think someone who skipped out on their lunch hour to knock a few beers back, or skipped out on their lunch hour to play World of Warcraft, had poor impulse control and was sort of gross.
Being that obsessed with something so ultimately unfulfilling is kind of pathetic.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Huntsman would end double taxation on investment by eliminating taxes on capital gains and dividends.
Christ, I hate this talking point. "Double taxation," which isn't necessarily a bad thing in the first place, only occurs when the capital gains being taxed were earned on investments in US stocks. Foreign companies (if they operate overseas) were never charged US income tax in the first place, so the capital gains tax on that income is the first chance the US has to get a share of it.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I think by now I've made it clear what I'm asking and he's quibbling about the details not disagreeing with my underlying premise.
I answered your question. People asked if I was serious. I clarified. I brought up good points in my clarification. They relate to the underlying premise.
You can stop calling me deliberately evasive now, thanks.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
As I pointed out earlier, a large number of studies have found a strong correlation between this kind of high risk sexual behavior and difficulties with general impulse control. Suspecting an impulse control problem in such a case would not be unfounded or unreasonable.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I answered your question. People asked if I was serious. I clarified. I brought up good points in my clarification. They relate to the underlying premise.
By your definition, nothing can ever be "shown". If you think that is relevant to my underlying premise, then its really pointless for me to keep trying to explain it to you. You are simply unwilling to understand.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Is it consensual?
Yes.
Then I do not see how it is anyone's business as long as political power is not abused to do it beyond trivial "Hey look, Imma senator. We get a +1 to penis girth as a class bonus."
IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
