Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

dancer

Members
  • Posts

    260
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dancer

  1. Are they all good so should just watch all Australia seasons starting with season 1 and go through all? Or any in particular not worth it?
  2. I would rearrange the discussion a little and compare getting the vaccine to using proper birth control Government should do what it can to ensure people are able to get the needed information, the information they need to make responsible choices If after having the proper information, someone chooses to be irresponsible (e.g., don't get vaccine, don't use birth control) and an unwanted outcome happens (gets sick from COVID, gets unwanted pregnancy) then they should have to deal with the consequences (no medical treatment for COVID, no abortion allowed) Sometimes it isn't just "being irresponsible" but something else that caused the adverse result (e.g., couldn't get vaccine due to medical condition or age, got vaccine but had breakthrough infection, used birth control but pregnant anyway, chose to get pregnant but dangerous medical issue, pregnant by rape) - in those cases we should help them (provide medical treatment for COVID, allow abortion)
  3. That is not necessarily the reason. Let's for a moment take all issues about morality out of the equation, and take out all beliefs about when life begins, and take all religious beliefs out, etc. And instead look at it purely from angles of logic, responsibility and efficiency. My proposed abortion law would then be: - If the pregnancy is the result of unprotected, consensual sex and there are no health issues, then no abortion allowed - society should not spend any money or time on this abortion, the parents should take responsibility for their actions - If the pregnancy is the result of consensual sex that occurred while birth protection was used, that the couple made a responsible good-faith effort to prevent a pregnancy but it didn't work - abortion should be allowed to occur so long as it is done in a reasonable amount of time from the time the pregnancy is discovered - If the pregnancy is the result of rape - same as above - abortion allowed if soon after pregnancy discovered - If there are significant health issues - material danger to the mother and/or baby - abortion should be allowed if done in a reasonable amount of time from the time the health issue is discovered I'd be OK with that law
  4. I agree with this, but to add a wrinkle - to what degree? Is it absolute? Hypothetical example: Assume the US president had the power to influence the world to create one of two outcomes (and there was no challenge to this power, nothing others can do to ever counter or reverse): Outcome A: The quality of life for every US citizen (on scale of 1-10) permanently becomes 10, while that for everyone outside the US permanently becomes 3 Outcome B: The quality of life for every person in the world permanently becomes 9 In this hypothetical, which should the US president choose?
  5. Similar in some ways, and agree to the general principle. Not 100% akin due to causes of the missing means. - I can't be a professional basketball player because I am not tall enough - that is genetic, can't fix that, just have to live with it - I can't be a senator because I am lacking family connections and money - I was born into that, it would be pretty hard to change, just have to live with it - I can't be a fighter pilot because growing up I didn't have any role models who were people who looked like me who were fighter pilots so the interest was never sparked, or I couldn't get the education needed because I had to drop out of high school to support my family - well these are things that maybe can be changed in some way through outreach programs, improved social services, etc. (without in any way changing the standards that need to be met) Just saying there is middle ground here - doesn't have to be "this is 100% a meritocracy, opportunity is fair to all, there are no issues" or "system is 100% against minorities, whole system has to change"
  6. You are saying here that if one has the ability, then they have equal opportunity. Let's accept that as 100% accurate. I think that leaves the question - does everyone have the same opportunity to get the ability needed? I am sure the answer to that is no, that there are some individuals that simply don't have an equal opportunity to gain such ability. And there are many possible reasons for this, including family situation, class, role models, environment, culture, religion, etc. Sure the possibility of an opportunity might exist for all, but it might be much smaller for the situation one person is born into vs. another. Not saying I have any solution here, but maybe that is where the issue lies, rather than any concern that those who have the ability aren't given their opportunity.
  7. Rather than say "nothing" and "everything", isn't it possible that these results are caused by a combination of BOTH community/leaders/culture/choices AND institutional/historical practices that disadvantage certain groups? And, is it possible that there are even causal links between the two - that some of the problematic aspects of community/leaders/culture/choices are to some extent the result of institutional/historical practices that disadvantage certain groups?
  8. Searching for places to stay, I see some place "Chalet on the Lake" in Stevensville. Looks like a nice place to stay from the website, but can't always trust that. You happen to know anything about that area?
  9. As someone who knows nothing about Michigan and did just look at a map before starting this thread, yup. I assumed the best places to go were on the west side, but if someone wanted to convince me the best place to vacation was Devils Lake or Ann Arbor or Lansing or Kalamazoo or whatever else is within 2 hours of Marshall, I was happy to listen and learn!
  10. I need to visit someone in Marshall, Michigan at some point between July 7th and August 14th. Trying to figure out the best way to turn this into a week-long vacation. Thinking I want to stay some place that is within 2 hours of Marshall. What are some good options? Will be with my wife and teenage daughter. We like the beach, good restaurants, biking, walking around some nice town, parks, kayaking, relaxing. I know nothing about Michigan at all...simply looking at the map I am guessing there should be good options along the cost of Lake Michigan, something between Grand Haven / Holland / Saugatuck / South Haven / Lake Michigan Beach / Benton Harbor. Are there any nice resorts at any of these locations? I guess another option would be some AirBNB along one of the many smaller lakes that seem to be all over the interior of the state. Are there any particular areas that would be good? And wherever I end up staying, and recommendations for day-trips in that general area? Any specific sites to see? Thanks for any help!
  11. One could view the "problem" with the court as the makeup of the court being significantly different ideologically than the makeup of the country. That if the citizens of this country are roughly 50/50 conservative/liberal, the best thing for all of us would be a court that is also roughly 50/50. (And some might say our citizens are now more than 50% liberal, so to have court 67% conservative representing citizens that are less than 50% conservative is both inappropriate and illogical, and highlights a problem with our system.) I guess there are a number of related issues: Is it best for the country as a whole for the court makeup to be closer to that of the country, or not? (Assuming of course only qualified justices are appointed regardless) If so, are there better ways to achieve this than increasing the number? Such as Some way of identifying and/or producing judges who are completely (or almost completely) unbiased, and somehow ensure that over time these are appointed? Some way of adjusting how the court appointments are made, so that it is not based on just who happens to be in power at the moment someone dies but rather is structured in a way to achieve ideal balance?
  12. What do people mean by increase representation? 1) Hire the black candidate over the white candidate when the white candidate is more qualified for the job? 2) If the white candidate and black candidate are perfectly equally qualified for the job, hire the black candidate? 3) If there are not enough black candidates who are qualified, determine whether there are any structural issues that cause this and try to address those issues so that there are more qualified black candidates? Some here have made posts saying they are against #1...OK, agreed...but is anyone arguing in favor of #1?
  13. Thanks. I don't know much about co op programs...taking a quick look, I see that CMU and GA Tech both seem to have highly rated co op programs, so something to investigate more
  14. There seem to be some people knowledgeable of engineering here, so maybe I can gather some info to help my daughter make her decision. Looks like she will be deciding between Rice, Carnegie Mellon, GA Tech and Illinois. Just looking at things like US news rankings, Rice is listed higher up on the "national university" rankings, while below the other three on the engineering-specific rankings. Then when looking at specific majors she is considering, CMU is ranked highest for computer engineering, while GA Tech is ranked highest for aerospace engineering. But putting aside rankings, and putting aside cost and location - what are some other pluses/minuses for these schools that can help one make a decision? Are any of these clearly better or worse than the other? I think some things that are very important to my daughter are being around students who are smart, working under teachers that she can respect, getting good opportunities for summer internships and jobs upon graduation, and being in a collaborative environment where everyone tries to bring each other up (as opposed to a cutthroat environment where each kid is looking out for themselves). Does one of these schools fit that profile better than another?
  15. For me it is not about policy at all. Biden may very well be cognitively impaired. He may forget things or lose track of things. But I think he knows that he does not know everything, and I think he has tried to appoint reasonable, knowledgeable, responsible people to positions as needed, and will defer to experts to handle things where he lacks knowledge or ability. Trump, on the other hand, appears to think that he knows everything, and seemed to appoint people based on whether or not they would say "yes" to him rather than their qualifications. And rather than defer to experts, he seemed to try to impose his own views above those of the experts. To me, that seems to be the most important difference between the two, and there is no question which I preferred when faced with those two as the choices. It has nothing to do with the policies of either. Now, would I prefer someone else who was mentally sharp, on top of everything, able to speak well, knowledgeable AND who appointed and worked with the best people? Absolutely, 100%, no question about it.
  16. To me, it is not "I as a non-gun owner am not impacted" but rather "I as a non-gun owner find it very hard to understand the impact on gun owners". I think there are big cultural differences that make it difficult to communicate and understand each other and figure out everything I think even better than "remove the people who want to kill other people" would be "prevent people from ever wanting to kill other people in the first place" - is there anything we can do to get there?
  17. You are saying: "ban assault weapons" = take away rights, and "lock up people" = take away rights So both "take away rights" and therefore we should be more alarmed by taking rights away from many than from few I think some instead view this as: "ban assault weapons" = take away rights that some view as very small/unimportant/strange/at-odds-with-the-rest-of-the-world rights, and "lock up people" = take away an extremely large/important right And therefore they can believe taking away a right they view as large from a few people is much worse than taking away a right they view as small from many people I think it is very difficult for some people, those who, for example, have lived in a populated city their entire life, have never owned a gun, have never hunted and have never been in an isolated place, to understand the importance some other people attach to gun ownership. As one of those ignorant people, I am trying to get a better understanding from reading some of the posts here. I can appreciate that some specific items discussed such as banning certain types of guns, etc., would likely not have any material impact on lives saved. What I wonder is, if we could somehow push a magic button and remove gun culture from our country entirely, so that gun ownership, gun usage, glorification of guns in movies and video games, our desire to own guns, our conviction that owning guns is our right and taking them away infringes on our rights, etc. simply didn't exist or was severely reduced to be in line with many other developed countries, would we be better off or not? Would something else just replace gun violence? Would people living in isolated places be less safe, or more? Do people who live in isolated places outside the US now feel unsafe because they don't have guns, the way some in the US say they would feel without guns? And I know from some other posts you had you might say can we say the same about tobacco or alcohol, but what I think is different there is many other developed countries also have tobacco and alcohol, but they don't have the same gun culture as we do. Why is this so important to America? I understand why it was important to America in the 1800s, but why is it important now? I guess maybe it is so ingrained into US culture that it has become part of what defines America, and therefore maybe cannot ever be different.
  18. Question on this process. Some schools conduct interviews with applicants, either with current students or alumni doing the interviews (over zoom these days). Obviously it would make sense for the applicant to send a timely "thank you" after these interviews. The question is - if the applicant didn't know to do this, and just now realized they never sent a "thank you" email to the alumni who interviewed them 13 days ago - is it better/worse to send a "thank you" now or just forget it? Could sending a thank you this late be worse than doing nothing, as it might call more attention to the tardiness?
  19. I don't think anyone at all is saying "less total money" in the aggregate (or if anyone has actually said that, I missed it) I think they are generally saying reallocate the same total money. Or perhaps some are saying spend more money in total (with higher taxes), but the percentage for police should be less and the percentage for things that would help the police / take things off their plate (such as mental health professionals, social services) would be more.
  20. Here is a comic circulated recently about some equity issues, centered around specific profession (actuary), seems like it could be relevant to some of this discussion: https://cdn.ymaws.com/www.blackactuaries.org/resource/resmgr/newsletters/a_tale_of_two_actuaries.pdf
  21. That is a decision where reasonable people can certainly disagree and I understand both sides. One side can argue one should choose the "most qualified" person. That there are degrees of qualification, that someone who is perfectly qualified for a position should not have the position if someone else is more qualified. (Assuming one can even determine strict rules as to how to measure "qualified", which of course don't exist) Another side can argue there are many that are "qualified" - thinking of qualified here as a yes/no - and as such you should choose among those qualified based on other factors. Given the many issues that have arisen regarding both gender and race in recent times, and the fact that both women and POC are and have been tremendously underrepresented in our government, I think it is very understandable that, assuming there are many qualified female POC to choose from, that is what is best for this country. Of course if you believe Harris is not qualified, that is a different story - and again an area where I assume reasonable people can disagree.
  22. Let's say for the sake of argument Biden has dementia (not saying he does, but for hypothetical). If my choices are A) A person with dementia who will surround himself with qualified people and defer to their judgment, letting experts run their areas of expertise, or B) A person who believes they know better than everyone else about everything, and will fire / threaten / overrule those that disagree I think to me the choice is pretty clear (and has nothing to do with "blind hatred")
  23. I am definitely the opposite. I guess I very simplistically view primary roles of congress and president as - Congress - these people decide the laws, important for them to have very strong opinions that align with their constituents and to fight for their point of view, to argue / convince the other side, negotiate, compromise, etc. to get the best laws that represent what the people of our country want and need - when electing congress representatives, I think it is very important they believe in what I believe, and want to get done what I want to get done - President - should be the chief executive, the person ensuring the process is fair and everything runs smoothly, they should not be making all of the decisions and really best if they don't impose their opinions at all but rather should work to ensure the best people are in charge of all aspects of the country and defer to their expertise, encourage compromise, represent all Americans, unite all of us as a nation that we can be proud to be a part of - so when electing the President, I don't care about their personal policy beliefs at all, but instead focus on their ability to lead, their ability to unite, and it is vital their behavior is something our children can look up to and emulate, something the world can respect I don't care if the president is pro-life or pro-choice, or for open borders or closed borders, or for universal healthcare or not, etc. Let my congresspeople represent my interests on those topics. Give me a president that is a leader, a uniter, someone I can point to and be proud to call our president. Is that too much to ask?
  24. This is simply not a true statement for all. It is possible it is a true statement for some people in some circumstances, but not fair to state this as fact. Let's say my town has a $10m budget for police, and those police do everything from catching criminals and preventing crime to dealing with homeless and harmless mentally disturbed people. Let's say our original plan was to increase the police budget from $10m to $11m. But instead we keep the police budget $10m and invest that extra $1m in social workers instead. The police focus just on catching criminals and preventing crime. The social workers focus on homeless and harmless mentally disturbed people, as well as on helping neighborhood kids find their path in life. And let's say by allowing the social workers to do this, some homeless and mentally disturbed people improve their lives in a way that prevents them from committing a criminal act in the future, and some kids end up on a better path that does the same for them. In this fictional example, the work of the police is made easier, as some of the burden is shifted to others, and the number of criminals the police have to deal with goes down. This is an example of what some people mean by "defund the police" - shifting a portion of the budget from police to other services with the intent of improving the results. If I believe in this example of "defunding the police" it does not at all mean I am anti police or that I want them to lose their jobs. And it does not mean I don't appreciate all that the police do for us, that I don't applaud all of the examples being posted in this thread. If anything, I think I am pro-police in that I want to make changes to society that would help make the job of police easier. Now you can of course argue you don't think this fictional example would work, or that it would cost too much, etc., and there can be healthy debate there on what can or can't be done. But please don't lump together everyone who says they want to "defund the police" as all being people who are anti-police or want them to lose their jobs.
  25. Buy a photo mat at home, day 1 hand it in to guest services, last day of cruise they return it to you with all the main character signatures - great cheap souvenir without having to ensure you wait on all the lines to get each character to sign individually.
×
  • Create New...