RowArk

i'd worry more if it DIDN'T change!

With our pathetic understanding of chaotic systems, and unreliable computer models, how can we put billions of dollars on this? There are so many other serious, pertinent, proven issues! Is it that they are less fashionable?

How come ****, and *** are censored? (or were until recently), yet today i say someone say ******?

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=Aj8MF... look for happygolucky

I'm trying to fill in the DS156 form. I live in kenya, i want to go abroad for studies. Some help? There are a few fields that confuse me. The form itself is available at https://evisaforms.state.gov/ds156.asp

No15; Wt tha HELL is street address line 1 & 2? Same for no. 24 examples please!

No.25; If i'm going as a student, does that count as 'for business'? Does the University count as a person? It is a legal person....If not, who do I put?

26; If i'm taking a four year program, but plan to take at least 1 break a year (come home for christmas etc), do I put 4 years,or 1 year?

I'm more or less on my knees now people...help!

progress is congress?

How do americans feel about this statement?

Recently, her name's popped up lots of times in many different sections. So I'm wondering; has the economic crisis shown people seeing folly of trusting Big Government? Or am I just more observant nowadays?

That's right, they don't just have an upstream connection to the grid. they also siphon off some just to run. How much? Hard to say, as no company wants to publish figures-quite understandably! They are already woefully inefficient, artfully unreliable, ridiculously expensive, unhealthy for neighbors, harmful to local flying creatures, wasteful with some of the most scenic land. To say they sometimes COST energy from other sources would be political or financial suicide!

This is a serious question, but purely academic interest. Don't get agressive, but don't be dismissive.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that a foetus was proved incontrovertibly to be a person. Would abortion still be okay, because the foetus is just a parasite on the woman? Or does a foetus, by dint of personhood, have a right to be supported in its existence?

What about in case of rape? Is the right to life of this person (who is also a victim of the rape, and is not offering injury to her) superior to whatever discomfort gestation may cause the woman? Please, don't assume i'm a 'right wing nut' or something. Even if i was, that doesn't reduces the question's validity.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that a foetus was proved incontrovertibly to be a person. Would abortion still be okay, because the foetus is just a parasite on the woman? Or does a foetus, by dint of personhood, have a right to be supported in its existence?

I've read an excellent anti-abortion piece by Peter Kreeft several times. http://www.peterkreeft.com/topics-more/personhood_... It's a good read if you have like 15 minutes free.

After each time, I go on a mad googling spree, but I can never find any article that specifically denies the premises of the best part-the closing argument.

Here, he compares abortion to:

Frying a fish-perfectly fine

Shooting at a movement in a bush without checking if there's a person-criminal negligence

Shooting at a sudden movement in the bush that turns out to be your hunting partner-manslaughter.

Killing an innocent person-murder.

The basis of these analogies are that a fetus is either a person or it isn't, and we either know this or not. The combinations of knowledge/ignorance and personhood/nonpersonhood are what lead to the classifications of abortion as acceptable, negligent, manslaughter, and straight up murder.

Seriously, there are no other options. What say you? Are we 100% sure a foetus is NOT a person? Cuz if we aren't, that's either negligence or manslaughter. A whole lot of negligence or manslaughter since Roe vs Wade!

Women make, on average, 23% less than men. But, they work 25% LESS in hours!

http://www.bls.gov/tus/current/work.htm

Now, there is no way that women on average are 25% more efficient than men, and believing so isn't feminism-it's sexism (so it IS feminism! Lol!). less hours must thus translate to less work. This is before you factor in maternity (pregnancy compromises a worker's efficiency), danger of lawsuits, pms..... just typing this, you expect the wage gap to be even larger!

And no, they don't deserve greater pay for having vaginas. You're paid according to, you know, the value of your work? If you're a communist please say so at the beginning of your answer so I can thumb down you.

Yet so exclusively male?

Woman who is pregnant, but not ready for parenthood-is surrounded with support, given an option of abortion, or giving the kid up for adoption-REGARDLESS of man's preparedness or desires

Man who isn't ready for parenthood-is defined according to how well he accedes to the wife's demands. Deadbeat if he declines.

Woman who has a child she can't support-gets govt support, welfare, foodstamps.

Man who can't support his kid-deadbeat.

Why? Of course, I think if you want the intense pleasures of sex, you have to appreciate the very real dangers. Both parties in above example are quite immature, but why does the man get all the flak?

Is it the science side that gives so much weight to computer models and CO2? Or is it the political side, that promises income redistribution, more power for the UN and related NGO's, and a restriction to capitalism and economic growth?

Personally, I don't trust ANYTHING the UN says. If they find AGW is false after all, they can't justify most of their bodies, or their future expansion plans. Who'd commit suicide like that?

I'm tryin to gain some weight, and all these sites tell me I need 2700 calories a day. Now, when they show sample meal plans, these always add up to 2700 calories.

BUT

Huma digestion isn't 100%, efficient, so I worry that my diet may not be helping me achieve my aims.

How do i know how much my body will assimilate? Any diet plans taking that into account?

I went on a google spree about global warming, and ended up at some conspiracy site. They kept mentioning the 'Council of Rome'. I'm like, yeah, whatever, its full of chief Mugwumps and 33rd degree warlocks, right?

Nope. It's full of U.N. big boys, ex presidents (Mikhail Gorbachev) and serious billionaires. Apparently, They believe in 'Gaia' and some serious population ctrl. What really gets me, is that due to the 'necessity' of creating fear in the global community, these guys started the global warming vibe-BEFORE ANY FACTS-because it fit the bill perfectly.

Now, I'm asking, is this legit, or am i getting my panties in a twist for nothing? If it's legit, are you worried? Hell, are you even surprised by the fear tactics the elites are being accused of?

www.green-agenda.com

I went on a google spree about global warming, and ended up at some conspiracy site. They kept mentioning the 'Council of Rome'. I'm like, yeah, whatever, its full of chief Mugwumps and 33rd degree warlocks, right?

Nope. It's full of U.N. big boys, ex presidents (Mikhail Gorbachev) and serious billionaires. Apparently, They believe in 'Gaia' and some serious population ctrl. What really gets me, is that due to the 'necessity' of creating fear in the global community, these guys started the global warming vibe-BEFORE ANY FACTS-because it fit the bill perfectly.

Now, I'm asking, is this legit, or am i getting my panties in a twist for nothing? If it's legit, do you realise supporting climate change is supporting a 1984 scenario?

www.green-agenda.com

In a past question, I made the assertion that sex is riskier for women than men, which is why the world's oldest profession isn't picking flowers.

However, an answerer disagreed with me, so I just want to get a feel for the general opinion on Y!A. Ignoring the legal aspects of consensual sex and the risk of pregnancy, is it biologically riskier for women than men?

You know, the stud/slut issue. I think it's a justified double standard. Please let me explain:

Majority of men are straight, and all that sex costs a man is a few tablespoons of protein, yet it's very pleasurable. Low cost, high benefit. Thus, a normal guy has a sex drive a normal girl could scarcely fathom. Women know this, so they can (and have, historically) set a price tag on sex.

A player is someone who a) can get otherwise costly sex for free, or b) afford the expenses of sex i.e he's a man of substance. Thus a player is either very skillful, or wealthy, two respectable traits. Which is why studs get respect.

Which brings me to women. Sex is fun, yes, but instinctively they have to weigh that pleasure against a 9 month 'confinement', and the possibility of having to raise a kid alone if the dad splits. 18 YEARS! This doesn't mention pregnancy-related complications, or forfeited opportunities due to pregnancy.

Men understand this, so few balk at paying for an activity they would gladly perform for free. They expect women to give less priority to pleasure, due to the vastly huger risks they face.

For her to risk this for pure hedonistic pleasure may be seen as very irresponsible and immature. Which is why sluts don't get respect. Besides. any woman can easily find a willing man (unless she is really ugly), just like any man can bench-press 25 pounds. Doing something easy earns you no respect.

Paternity tests and contraceptives are very recent. They haven't had an impact on our instincts yet....and lots of human judgements are instinctive.

In light of the very opposite starting points of men and women, isn't the double standard rational and to be expected?

All the societies which existed long enough to leave remains were patriachial. Now, feminists like talking about some mythical indian society, but that was pretty debunked as the result of a feminist researcher fitting the data to the ideas.

If all these societies-monotheistic and polytheistic, omnivorous, vegetarian and cannibalistic, sedentary and nomadic-are patriachial, (yet they disagree on other basic ideas), is it a conspiracy?

Besides, if gender is socially constructed, why this particular construct? If there is a strong patriachial trend, perhaps it's not so arbitrary.

Whenever I come by some success, (after breaking my back on the down-low) my mum always says I should 'thank God'. But when things go belly up, she's all sympathetic, but she never says 'blame God'. Why the disconnect? If god is somehow to be credited with my success, why not with my failure? How about I go through life taking no favors and making no excuses? No thanks and no blame?

Because really, they are opposite sd'. But when things go belly up, she's all sympathetic, but she never says 'blame God'. Why the disconnect? If god is somehow to be credited with my success, why not with my failure? How about I go through life taking no favors and making no excuses? No thanks and no blame?

Because really, they are opposite sides of the same coin.

The Austrian school considers ALL inflation monetary inflation, due to increased money supply. Which is true. Localised price increases aren't inflation. If the price of bread goes up, demand for cake reduces, thus reducing price. If both increase, that's monetary inflation.

Govts banks the world over constantly say how 'commited' they are to low inflation. Well, how bout no inflation? Stop printing money! Of course, it's only the govt that ever benefits from inflation.