The Glade 4.0

It's not obvious, that's why I asked. I'm just trying to ascertain why it's okay to overlook funding military conflicts you don't agree with, but not okay to overlook a single issue you disagree with in an otherwise very helpful company.

Yes.

"Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver" ~2 Corinthians 9:7

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

Considering that the rate of deaths (not counting other serious complications) from pregnancy is a good bit higher than the chance of death by firearm in the US, i'd consider it a distinct chance.

It's also worth noting that deaths as a result of pregnancy are increasing, having doubled since '76.

Oh, I'm not a fan of our child support system.

I'm just saying they're on two different levels, it's like comparing apples and oranges.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

I'm going to quote both of you here.

I've clarified that post twice earlier, and yet people still keep misconstruing it.

So once again: It had nothing to do with laws and enforced giving, and reticence therein. It had to do with the manner and tone used to convey their opinions.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

Who's overlooking anything? As it stands, I can't really do much about either.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

It seemed to me that you were okay with/dismissing the military part of it. If I misunderstood, sorry.

Not really dismissing anything, no.

_________________
"It is true that democracy undermines freedom when voters believe they can live off of others' productivity, when they modify the commandment: 'Thou shalt not steal, except by majority vote.' The politics of plunder is no doubt destructive of both morality and the division of labor."

I was restating my position in the hopes that you'd see that you're not going nearly far enough if your argument is that "gays" should be able to "marry" in the interest of equal "rights". I don't care what they call it.


Such as?


That would be one opinion. I disagree.




Except, that's not what the picture denotes. See my suggestion about swim lessons a few posts before yours.

It may be funny as long as you think about it beyond the immediate gratification of weak snarkrage.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Sales tax for items sold, property tax on properties they own, corporate income tax on the tithes and donations they take in, investment tax on investments they make....

The last total figure I saw was to the tune of $71 billion in subsidies and direct government money to churches per year.

And then, of course, there's the 2.2 billion the federal government gave to churches directly by the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in 2009 alone.

As to government grants for scientific and technological advancement, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I figured that would likely be the case.

_________________
Darksiege: You are not a god damned vulcan homie.

Just for go-forward info:

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

LOL, is that what they tell you? "No, really, I'm a virgin! I just, um, take birth control for the, um... period relief!"

Yeah, 'skee, I wish you'd backup your bullshit claims with some links to studies.

If his claim was that most women who use contraceptives do so for medical reasons BUT NOT also for sexual purposes, the study fails to back that up.

What the study backs up is the idea that most women who use contraceptives do so for BOTH purposes, unless you think 155% of women take contraceptives.

If most women who take contraceptives tell you they do it for medical reasons BUT NOT for contraception, then most of them are lying.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You're misinterpreting Farsky's statement. In his experience, a very small percentage of women take the pill ONLY for contraceptive purposes. This is actually backed up by the study, as over half (58%) of users take the pill for that as well as for non-contraceptive purposes.

Man I cannot tell you how many times my sisters laid up for days on end writhing in agony over cramps. I thought they were exaggerating until all my girlfriends and ex wife did the same! Oh wait...

_________________

Before she hit menopause my fiance's mom would regularly get cramps so bad that she wouldn't get out of bed all day.

No, I didn't. I was clarifying and expanding on something he seemed to be saying but wasn't totally clear: that taking contraceptives for birth control as opposed to medical reasons is not mutually exclusive. When a female claims to be taking birth control for medical reasons, that's usually only a half truth. I cited the same study in the Sandra Fluke thread, for the same reason.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's a very unusual situation. My wife takes birth control too partly to help with ovarian cysts. That's not the main purpose though. The main purpose is us not having a 5th kid. She doesn't need the contraception for the cysts; its just a benefit. Less caffine intake helps her more than pills do.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Omg ya'll are talking about periods and cramps and ovaries??? Where the heck am I?

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

Are you the menstrual fairy?

_________________

I think I wondered into the wrong online forum....I was looking for a group of grouchy men who have been spouting the same angry political rants at each other for the past decade or so....it looks like I wandered into some sort of hippie commune instead where the guys are all sensitive and knowledgeable about menopause and ovaries and monthly cycles....I'm sooo confused, lol!

_________________
"Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day has enough trouble of its own." Jesus of Nazareth

Lets have fun with some statistics...

Average number of days of horrible cramping per year – 36
Number of days preventing Acne or other medical reasons per year – 365
Average number of sexual partners in a life time for women aged 30-44 – 4 *
Average number of times a woman have sex in a year – 89*

*Mosher WD, Chandra A, Jones J. Sexual behavior and selected health measures: Men and women 15–44 years of age, United States, 2002. Advance data from vital and health statistics; no 362. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. 2005.

FTFY

_________________
"It's real, grew up in trife life, the times of white lines
The hype vice, murderous nighttimes and knife fights invite crimes" - Nasir Jones

I'm not aware of any general Federal Sales Tax, but if they're selling stuff for profit, and there's a Federal tax in place, sure, tax it.

I don't believe there should be a "property tax", and I'm not aware of any at the Federal Level.

I think taxing a charity on donations received is a good idea.

If by "investment tax" you mean capital gains, in theory I have the same problem with charities paying a capital gains tax as I do with individuals paying capital gains taxes. In reality I think making the Catholic Church (for example) pay a US CGT would be rather problematic as they would just invest overseas (Italy, for example) and would result in a big hit to investment firms in the US as that revenue would disappear.




I'm not aware of what monies The White House Office of Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships gives to churches each year, and why, but I don't think the Gov't should be giving money to churches (or other private entities). My understanding is that billions of dollars are paid to churches annually for services rendered, and while I understand it, I still don't like it.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko