PaRa$iTe

Maybe for the children, but not so often for the people who're married, and who ultimately are the ones to decide whether they want a divorce or not. Not all couples have children, too. And if the situation is so bad that the divorce doesn't work properly (that is, people accusing each other of random stuff, sue each other, etc) then staying together would probably not be a plausible option.

Let's see.. the Medieval? ;P I really doubt divorce was legalized because lawyers wanted more profits. If it happened for another reason, then it is the religious who're "on the offensive", since they're trying to change the current system for one with less human rights. If they wanted to re-establish slavery, would lawyers who oppose them be on the offensive? I mean, slavery used to be commonplace, and I'm sure that black people with lots of money who employ lawyers pay off much more than slaves you're allowed to shoot if they get annoying. Divorce exists because marriages, when they go wrong, else can ruin people's lives, the lifes of their children, and the aforementioned children's families and kids too when the traumas kick in.

I am using AceFlyer's quote here; I assume that it is correct. It seems that either my English sucks more than I thought, or there's something you've missed

The whole POINT with socialism is that the people who actually work should end up with the money, rather than the sexy butt who's telling them to work. I'm not quite sure what Franklin Roosevelt proposed, but it sounds similar to what I thought of yesterday. That is - when people who're unemployed register for welfare, they are also given a random job somewhere instantly. There's always some job that needs to be done. If the government doesn't have any free spots, they could just give them to the highest bidder ;P Of course, for this to be at all reasonable, the amount of money recieved on welfare should definitely be increased. This may sound costly but isn't, really; free workers should at least partially compensate for the increased expenses. People who're unable to work for one reason or another shouldn't be denied the money, though.

Yup. Partially because removing unhealthy components, or cooking in such a way that there are none, is expensive; partially because eating healthy food is a trend, and the people who do are willing to pay lots for it.

I'm not sure how they think that making half of the commonly used words offensive would reduce use of offensive words. I'm pretty sure most people would never have thought of "Black hole" and "racism" in the same sentence (at least seriously); now, though, it's been magically turned into a potential racial slur; not only that, but the more of those they find, the easier it will be for most people to recognize new ones. Whatever they think they're doing, they're just making the problem worse by emphasizing the notion that black = bad as well as pissing everyone off.

Good luck come back alive

The problem with free trade is that it works on a global scale, not a national scale. The people who PAY for stuff still benefit from this - consumers get cheaper goods, and employers get cheaper employees. The world as a whole benefits, but right now, the US fail to hit the crossing point between supply and demand on two different graphs: goods prices and employee salaries. In essence, it works like a company which sells burritos for $50 a piece.

This almost made me lol. Although it's probably too obvious a PA Also, these aren't even quotes out of context anymore, just plain edited stuff.

As has been said before, sexism is an old issue. And it concerns people who're considered "us". Racism is aimed at "them"; it's much easier to strike down upon apparent attacks at "them" than at "us" - the latter is ridiculous, I mean, we are doing great, everyone can see that! Not only that, but differences between sexes have been deeply integrated into the Western culture; we're BROUGHT UP to be different. Because of this, even some women - especially in the Bible Belt - support a sexistic structure. Also, there's the whole sex thing, encouraging a view where men and women are different creatures. This is why sexism isn't generally viewed upon as as big an issue as racism, which is more obviously just color hatred. The past of racism might also be a reason - slavery, genocides and such are now obvious wrongs even if the subjects wouldn't be human, causing people to realize much more clearly how bad racism can be. As I see it, in today's society, they're pretty much equally bad. The reason I speak out more against sexism is because racism isn't as OFFICIALLY an acceptable at!@#$%^&*ude. I find it ridiculous how women get less paid for doing the same work as men, yet reactions are limited to "steps will be taken so that their salaries will be nearly the same in 15 years' time". At least here, racism is more stealthy - different-looking people just don't get the job, and some other reason is given to get rid of legal problems. This is just as bad, if not worse, but way less obvious. Regarding the difference in body fat, it's not necessarily a disadvantage for women, since body fat can be used as an energy source (allowing women to up their endurance). Other than that, men tend to have a physical advantage (yay for hormones).

The phrase "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts" always bugged me. It can mean so many different things. Now, if you mean that specialized people, who by themselves would be worthless, can act together as a group and actually do something, I agree. If you're implying that society is more IMPORTANT than the people in it (long live It's A Great Thing To Die For Your Homeland Even If It's A Dictatorship And Everyone Hates It) then I disagree. Society is what happens when you put a lot of people together in a certain place under certain cir!@#$%^&*stances. No more, no less. If the people in it die - so long, society.

Unfortunately, yes, the age structure in industrialized countries create a situation where you can never completely eliminate the "class system" (else, most of those positions could most likely be filled with students looking for some extra cash or independence). However, that does not mean that the life of the "lower classes" cannot be improved. Of course, not everyone can have the same base salary - that would be way too unfair. But I fail to see how the work of a random VP somewhere would equal that of a hundred normal employees. Working harder-than-average should be a way to earn some extra cash, not a survival necessity. As for me, I don't really care much about money. I just need enough to afford my limited social life ;P. Nevertheless, I don't think being a burger flipper would earn me enough money for that, unless I worked double shifts. And in that case, I wouldn't have the time. Fortunately, I won't have to (I hope). But there are people who're born into a situation where they WILL have to, regardless of their work ethic and motivation. Now, they might work hard enough and get better jobs in a few years - but they've wasted a few years of their life doing absolutely nothing except for flipping other people's burgers, not of their own choice, but because they had to. That's their youth we're talking about, and no matter how succesful they are, they'll NEVER get it back. I'd rather stay in my current position for the rest of my life than work my !@#$%^&* off till I'm 30 and reach millionaire status at 60 years of age. Honestly. Monetarily, you'll probably be better of than I. But that's simply because I don't give a !@#$%^&* - if I have to choose between the job I like, and the job that gives me three times the salary, I'll pick the first option anytime if it's at all a plausible option. As a person.. well, rating personalities is a total waste of time. But I honestly think I'd be worse off as a person had I been born into another kind of family. Then again, you being different, you might think my lack of concern for money is a major personality flaw. Who knows. On a sidenote, we're going way off topic here

Nice post, NBV Yeah, some people do take it way too far. Breaking the law to survive, however.. it seems fairly obvious to me that mostly anyone would do that, within certain limits. Would you not tresp!@#$%^&* on private property when runing away from a gang of knife-armed thugs, even if it's technically illegal? (Yeah, I know it isn't the same thing; but then again, in a way, it is.) Good point, and I agree. You need to consider what the problem is though; for example, it could be that the system would just need more money to work (I strongly doubt it, but it could be at least partially true). The one we have in Finland doesn't work perfectly, either, but the gap between the haves and the have-nots is way smaller here, yet we remain a semi-succesful country, so I assume it's worth something. And one of my points, in the previous posts, was that I'm strongly opposed to a system where you need to work for 30 years in a !@#$%^&*ty job to make it into the lower middle class. The problem here is that nobody is prepared to create those jobs. The private market won't, because abusing the poor in developing countries is so much cheaper, plus it's legal. The government won't, because showing left-wing tendencies equals political suicide. You're probably more accustomed to the life of the poor than I am, true, since I'm lower middle-class or so (we always had a small black-and-white TV, and I've been using discarded computers from my dad's work place since I was 13; however, we live 3 ppl in a 2-bedroom apartment and we can't really afford a car). This can be an advantage for you in some situations; however, as you said yourself, it can also make you harder for poor people; since you managed to leave the Pit of Poverty you seem to expect everyone is. That's true, in a way. I really doubt free money would help everyone; most probably, the more available, the more leeches there would be. Unlike you, I believe that money does change people, just not for the better. However, middle-class people tend to commit less crimes, in general, than poor people do (then again, rich people seem to do drugs as if there's no tomorrow *cough* celebrities *cough*). Is this because some people are born criminals and therefore God makes them poor? I doubt it. Money doesn't make people better, but it gives them a chance to make themselves better; the poor don't always have this chance. It's futile to expect a short-term solution, but after a while (a generation or so) the previously poor families should be !@#$%^&*imilated by the middle class. I highly doubt they would form secretive ex-poor brotherhoods, the rituals of which would include burning government money and making blood vows to teach their children how to abuse society. I suppose it's about priorities. I just don't think you should have to work your !@#$%^&* off to get in a situation where you can actually live, not just survive. To me, the ideal situation would be one where everyone, not just the lucky half of the population, would have something, not just struggle so they could stay at zero. My family hasn't ever lived off welfare, but that's because, well, my parents' families didn't live off welfare either. I got something of a boost - being born into a family which could survive, I got a chance to live up to my potential, such at it was - I'm not a perfect person, but I believe I'm highly ethical, and I'm and A+ student. I don't believe I could've done that if I'd had to work days and nights through elementary, being told by my parents to pick-pocket tourists so that they could afford to buy vodka. I'm aware of the luck I've had. This is why I want others to get the same kind of "boost" (yeah, talking in video game terms might be lame, but I believe you understand my point). You, on the other hand, were born into a poor family - you didn't get the "boost" (or w/e. I'm starting to hate the word) yet you managed; because of that, you seem to think that anyone who doesn't is incompetent. Let me just ask you one thing - don't you believe that with a better start in life, you might've been even better off?

Because, most likely, they will have to prioritize survival over homework - after they get home from school, they spend the next ten hours collecting scrap metal for money. Read above. Because they need those extra hours in order to get food more often than twice a week. Because they aren't educated, and there are LOTS of people like that, employers aren't likely to care much. If they need some extra money for the month, why not fire a poor guy - there are a dozen more out there willing to work for half the salary. I assume you mean addicts here. There are lots of rich people with bad habits, too - the difference is they can afford it, just because their great-grandfather was smart. Still, they're not to blame; it's ok, they're rich. Because the one dollar a day they earn isn't enough for proper food. I have yet to see why this state of affairs would be desirable. You tend to state this as a fact - "This is what the world is like, live with it.".While I can't complain about my own situation - for example, I do well in school, I don't have problems with jobs, and I manage my money well - I disagree with your implied at!@#$%^&*ude that inequality should be status quo in a thriving democracy. Call me an idealist if you will - I'd rather see it that EVERYONE was born with at least a pewter s!@#$%^&*. You know as well as I do that if those of us who have had a bit of luck in the great game of life just made an effort, we COULD make this happen; unlike me, however, you seem to enjoy your elevated position. I don't need poor people as targets for my contempt. Why should I? The rich ones suffice. On a sidenote: No, I don't approve of poor people dropping out of school, or stealing, or suchlike - far from it. I would personally never do any of those things if I had any other option. But I understand the fact that people do those things, just as I understand the successful people who treasure what they've earned. Being ethical is a luxury you have when you get a chance to consider the needs of someone else.

True. Would like to see how many percent of the helmet-wearing people suffer serious head injuries compared to a similar percentage for people who don't use helmets. I doubt it would be as extreme as 10 % versus 90 % - but I'm sure that those wearing helmets would still be at an advantage.

Indeed. But using a car doesn't much increase your chances of dying, if you drive carefully - you could just as well be ran over on the sidewalk. However, you can very much EXPECT something to happen if you constantly eat high cholesterol food for decades. Not only that - eating high cholesterol foods has no benefits (except, possibly, that it tastes good) while a car increases mobility, and may be required in some lines of work. That's why these are completely different issues. Same thing with a bike - there are times when it's by far the best transportation device. Not counting experience-related advantages ("using a bike is fun" or "unhealthy food is tasty"), there are many situations in which using a bike is to be preferred over other options, while there aren't any I can think of where that would be true for cholesterol.

Why NOT wear a helmet when biking? Sure, it might look stupid or something, but hey, why take the risk? Yes, you could say that to pedestrians too. I suppose there's no real reason NOT to wear helmets when walking, even though I'm 100% sure that walking is less dangerous than riding a bike. It's just a question of how small the risk has to be before the nuisance caused by precautions is too annoying. I mean, theoretically someone could bomb your house now - the chance is very small, but it COULD happen. So why not spend your entire life in a cushioned room in a bomb shelter, only eating the food you make and distilling all your drinking water? Personally, though, I know that since biking onroad makes me a part of traffic much more than being a pedestrian does, and because it's quite easy to fall when biking, I think wearing a helmet is worth it. Still, sometimes I just don't bother, since the helmet is uncomfortable. Shows how stupid I am, I guess. The reason I don't wear a helmet in the car is it shouldn't be necessary. I wear a seat belt and there's an airbag. If the collision is strong enough to kill me despite those, then a helmet wouldn't save me. The car hull should endure MOST projectiles that my helmet could stop (possibly, though, a falling rock might be slowed down enough by the windshield). A bicycle doesn't have a protective exoskeleton. And a car doesn't fall over just like that.

@darkhosis Hawaii statistics, anyone? Gun ownership isn't the only factor, of course. Poverty, population density, and such. The "race correlation" is probably caused by tension between "races" rather than by one skin color being worse than another in any way. Statistics can be widely abused. However, I'd like to cite you: "three are so low that they're comparable to many european countries". Funny such a sentence should appear in an obviously pro-gun post According to wikipedia, a homicide ratio of 1.2 (the lowest of the high gun ownership ratio states you mentioned) would place 26th in the world. Which I assume should be a GOOD placement? I mean, it's the United States of America, Champion of Democracy, and not only that, but also a specifically selected low-homicide area. (Not that I can talk, Finland has 2.75 ;P)

Armed criminals aren't really much of a problem - yet I believe our gun control is stricter (haven't checked, though), and I know that we're not allowed to use anywhere near as much violence in defence of property as Americans are. It might be different in the US, but here in Finland, the MAIN problem is when ordinary people get drunk, go home for their gun, and return to the bar to shoot everyone who pissed them off. Giving everyone guns would not solve that problem - banning them would.

You're exaggarating the Scandinavian demographics. As for Finland, according to Wikipedia, "Foreign citizens comprise 2.3 percent of the population." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland#Population Also, Sweden, which definitely is a Scandinavian country, doesn't have nearly as strict an immigration policy. According to Wikipedia, 12% there are foreign-born - and I doubt this counts those who were born in Sweden but whose parents were immigrants.

Who was it again who said "A country is that which has a monopoly in legal violence"? (Or something like that, manual translation is hard)

Great game. I 've played it on GC only, got the collector's edition thingy when i bought the console. Since I had no memory card at first I kept playing the first few dungeons all over again. Though how the !@#$%^&* do you manage to die while playing it if you've played enough to get all stuff? O.o With all the fairies those bottles can give you.

0.455 =< n / 2^x <= 0.46499.. 59/128 would be good enough.

I recently read in a newspaper that the EU and the US are planning an agreement which would let the US get personal information about people from Europe. Hmm. I sure hope this won't happen, the flight passenger thing was bad enough.

You'll need to define patriotic here though. If by patriotic you mean always choosing what benefits your own country the most, regardless of what else it causes - then it is, in my opinion, possible to be too patriotic. In fact, even if it just means you love your country, excessive patriotism can be embarr!@#$%^&*ing, and have negative impact on foreign relations (as it annoys the people you're talking to).