As I said in my original post, everyone obviously understands that the percentage isn't 0, and understands why.
But the idea that homosexual couples have less children than heterosexual couples isn't something that really needed study.
Also, this was in the late 90's, you're probably not going to find anything on google about what I specifically saw because that's just how the internet works nowadays.
Dude, so right that I can't slam that upvote hard enough...
I'm just saying, if we can't have exactly a 40 hour work week, and we can't do it exactly for every person alive, then obviously the 40 hour work week failed over the 100 hour work week and we just shouldn't have tried.
The blogger had to be scouted by the agency, which used agency resources, therefore the blogger is totally liable for that risk!!!!!oneoneoneneoneshiftoneshiftoneshiftoneshiftone.
--
Imagine a world in which the risk is taken on by yourself and not others... but of course that's totes not possibru...
No one is saying that current laws aren't bullshit, they obviously are.
The point is that that if Uber goes away, it won't stop people from paying for rides.
It's a bit like claiming if Hershey's claimed that people would stop eating chocolate if they couldn't abuse their relationship with local governments to get water rights they have no business having.
Noooooooo, people will still like Chocolate, it's just that more "moral" companies will replace them.
If anything, the value of chocolate will go up and that's perfectly acceptable.
If I were to engage with you in a serious manner, it would imply that I agree with your view that the only morality is that which is in the constitution.
But I fundamentally disagree with that argument. And I mean _FUNDAMENTALLY_. I cannot agree that these practices in a country that doesn't have the 13 amendment are ok. I just can't.
I mean, I understand your argument. You believe these things should be ok in all countries that haven't explicitly outlawed it. But it's why we're fundamentally opposed. I believe it was reprehensible even BEFORE these countries outlawed it.
I mean, I get it, this is "arguing in bad faith"... "THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT". Of course it isn't because it's morally reprehensible. Of course that's not what you meant.
but...........
If the logical implications of your statement results in something morally reprehensible, than maaaaaaybe the statement itself is morally reprehensible...
juuuuuust something to think about from a "bad faith actor".
I would like for you to define 'free will' in such a way that it cannot, in any way, include slavery. And you must do so by not explicitly defining it as 'not slavery'.
Thank you, I took the same issue you did when reading this.
There are not "truths" in mathematics, it's literally a system of logic with definitions at the bottom (axioms) and then a following of the results based upon the agreed upon logic.
I don't know, anything that implied dogs being raped would have been rejected by me, a layperson who grew up with dogs.
Your argument seems to be more about "because some people were duped, it's ok to assume reasonable people were duped" and that doesn't seem right to me.
Maybe this particular study, but I have to say I believe it in general.
I remember working for a manufacturing company where I drove a forklift (during the summer).
One of my most vivid memories is walking into the breakroom and seeing on the television a scrolling banner that declared homosexual couples were less likely to have children than heterosexual couples.
And I remember everyone in that room laughing their asses off. And it's not as if no one in that room realized the reason for the study was so they could take into account things like adoption, etc. It's that the result was so obvious, even taking that into account, that it was amazing that someone was PAID to come to a conclusion that everyone knew without the money.
And this is the crux of the problem with "science". It wants to be "interesting", so it will literally try to drum up something against what "everyone knows".
So the idea that what everyone over generations "knows" is generally more applicable than "science" is not surprising at all.
I guess slavery is worth having since someone, somewhere, "chose" to do it...
Wait, what's that!?!? Are you saying it's acceptable for society to make decisions for those who don't have the leverage to protect themselves?!?! WHAT?!?!? Say it aint so Mr Magoo, say it aint so...
Cause I hurd if you ever make a decision for another human being you're immoral, making all parents immoral. That's just how this shit wurks my brutha!