Theoretically speaking, sure. Things like that seldom work out so seamlessly, though.
Yes, although I think we could do well to be a little more creative than just taxes and regulations.
If a gap exists between people with the same occupation, qualifications, performance, and investment, then I'd say that's criminal, yeah. I don't suspect that's common, though, and I don't think legislation to address it with sweeping strokes would be beneficial.
Frankly, as far as I'm concerned the word "gender" doesn't really mean anything all that important, so I really couldn't care less if people want to have two or two million.
No.
"The media and academic elite," aren't unanimously anything, but sure, that hostility is definitely out there.
I don't see how.
Depends.
__________________
Last edited by NewGuy01 on Jan 11th, 2018 at 05:25 AM
A lot of these positions for or against come from either a misunderstanding or deliberate fudging of statistical concepts like "correlation" and "causation".
__________________ Join the new Star Wars vs. forum: Suspect Insight Forums (not url'd for spam prevention)
In the UK 60% of people below the poverty line are from working families, and 41% of homeless people are employed. In the U.S the statistics are similar. So the answer is no, definitely no.
It's not particularly ethical, justifiable, or necessary in this day and age. But I still eat meat myself so...
Not in anyway that couldn't be achieved without taking away their liberty.
Yes, though I would also add education to that list, as some people get very confused by this, and need help understanding.
Only if its a a result of clear gender discrimination, which we have laws for. Ideally the problem of the gender pay gap should be dealt with internally by raising awareness and without legislative intervention.
Only if you conflate sex with gender (though even then, not really), if you don't, as they are not the same, then no, the science does not support it and facts don't care about your fee fees.
No. Only if by choice and if its of some benefit to them skill wise or something.
Lol, I'm sure some of them are but to say yes unanimously would only confirm a bias.
Lol, no.
Yes, and so life expectancy can be improved and rampant overspending done away with, as most countries have already worked out.
Wait, that can't be right. If you adjust for fatal injury the United States has the highest life expectancy in the world. So, certainly, our healthcare system cannot be at fault.
You have to show metrics which account for fatal injury. Violence rates have no correlation to the strength of a healthcare system. And there are numerous studies which have concluded that our healthcare system is not responsible for our life expectancy.
1)Disagree, affirmative action is simply reverse discrimination
2)Absolutely Not! Where does it start and where does it end
3)Disagree. The system is definitly rigged in favor of the super rich, and it's only getting worse.
4)Agree. Eating meat is cruel and unnecessary. The human body did not evolve to eat meat.
5)Disagree
6)Agree 100%
7)Agree
8)Im assuming this refers to humans, then yes, only two
9)Disagree, but those who refuse to work AND ARE ABLE TO should not recieve any public assistance
10)Disagree, the media and elite are against the poor and glorify the rich and fameous
11)Is this question a joke?
12)Yes, healthcare should be a basic human right
__________________ There are more humans in the world than rats.
Harry is right, we have to account for the fact that Americans like killing each other and are bad drivers. However according to the most recent data seemingly available:
Well, before I dive deep into the data, I think it is worth noting the second half of the statement you quoted.
So, accounting for fatal injury certainly had a marked effect on the outcome. But, I think you are seriously misrepresenting the study. The study finding that,
So, just accounting for three causes of injury has a significant effect on the result. But, injury is not the only effecter of life expectancy. Jessica Ho and Samuel Preston have a massive study where they look at all of the predictors of life expectancy. There are two other factors which they note of import. The first variable is other causes things like smoking and diet which cannot be attributed to our healthcare system. (Preston, Glei, and Wilmoth 2009) finding that,
And this is of course because the US has the highest rate of smoking over a 50-year period ending in the mid-80’s. And of course, the U.S. has extraordinarily high rates of obesity (OECD 2008; Cutler, Glaeser, and Shapiro 2003). There is also the issue diet which plays a crucial role in our life expectancy. Meat consumption is inherently linked with life expectancy, and the US has a tremendous amount of consumption.
(please log in to view the image)
And of course, there is a marked difference in time horizons in the studies cited. Your study focuses on just one year where my study looks at a 19-year time horizon. And when Ho and Preston looked at this exact question they found:
I could regurgitate "Sapiens" by Yuval Noah Harari and try and pass it off as my own opinions (I would fit right in here) and appear like a college-bound pseudo-intellectual as all these 12 issues are covered in it better than the answers here. Or I could just snigger at the lack of education that abounds. I think I'll snigger.
He is a good writer and an interesting mind. I once went to a lecture from Dawkins many moons ago when I was at a College of the University of London, I found it less interesting, freethinking and informative than one by Alan Moore. Hey ho.
So you remember the sections where Harari covered these 12 points then. Of course, you do...
KMC Community Forums
Jan 9th, 2018 11:07 PM
http://www.killermovies.com/forums/f95/t402312.html
