Meh, I got a cheap tablet that has done me good for what I wanted it to do. I don't expect something like that to stay up to day with technology when I buy it.
> once you have that sort of money, there are only a couple of reasons to run it up any further:
Your reply seems to indicate you didn't read what he said, but instead read your own meaning into it. Your #3 doesn't make sense as a reason to "run it up any further".
No. Why would you? The casualness with which the question is put makes me curious, but my home keys are generally something I use in the door at home, not at the store.
While some people certainly don't think that Twitch should do anything at all, I think most people have a problem with how poorly it seems to be implemented thus far. False positives are the biggest thing that pisses me off about any system like this. Hurting legitimate content creators is not acceptable.
Please do not treat pedophilia like it is a sexual orientation. Also, please do not try to compare homosexuality to pedophilia — you clearly don't know what you're talking about and the underlying implication is quite offensive.
I don't think OP was trying to offend. It was a purely logical assertion that sexual attraction does not correlate with rape/molestation. You could have put any form of sexual preference there and it wouldn't change the meaning.
I think the point here was that [and I could be wrong] we shouldn't assume pedophile == child molester because pedophilia is currently classified as a mental disorder but more importantly, as a sexual attraction to prepubescent children which does not in any way indicate a tendency to cause harm. For all you know, in 60 years, we might start seeing moves to accept pedophilia as a socially acceptable sexual orientation as we did we homosexuality. Let's not forget the dark history of homosexuality's acceptance into society too soon as traces still linger even today
Again, purely logical statement and not intended to insult.
In what sense is pedophilia not a sexual orientation?
It's generally deemed a socially unacceptable orientation, just as homosexuality was in many societies until only recently, but it's an orientation nonetheless. It's a useful metaphor with a lot of parallels to be drawn.
In any case, the parent comment was only using the metaphor to illustrate an important point; that being sexually attracted to a certain group of people, and actually molesting members of that group, are two wholly separate things.
Referring to someone convicted of molesting children using the term for someone who is merely sexually attracted to children is a significant misrepresentation.
No. Pedophilia is a psychiatric disorder or paraphilia; not a sexual orientation. This is thoroughly discussed and documented. The APA has changed any such notation in the DSM.
The APA are not the ultimate arbiters of what is and is not a sexual orientation, and if anything, the fact DSM-5 referred to it as a sexual orientation lends credence to the view that it is as such.
Sexual orientations and psychiatric disorders are not mutually exclusive.
Bear in mind for much of history society treated homosexuality akin to a psychiatric disorder (Edit: It was in fact classified as a mental illness in both the first and second editions of the DSM, released in 1952 and 1968, so let's not treat the DSM as gospel)
I'm going to reply here singly, rather than to each of the three that replied to my post above.
Please be clear that the article described the description of pedophilia as a sexual orientation in the DSM was an error - not a mind-changing. There was no "credence" lent to it being viewed as such; it was mistake and was admitted as such, and corrected. It was intended to read "sexual interest", not sexual orientation.
“In fact, APA considers pedophilic disorder a ‘paraphilia,’ not a ‘sexual orientation.’ This error will be corrected in the electronic version of DSM-5 and the next printing of the manual,” the organization said. The error appeared on page 698, said a spokeswoman.
The fluidity of the APA DSM is not something that is worth arguing; we can all agree that definitions change and have changed. I'm operating under the current set of definitions and primarily wanted to make the point that likening paraphilic disorders as "sexual orientations" is typically hurtful for reasons that probably don't require explaining.
You realize these documents are not carved in stone like holy scriptures, right? DSM is in its 5th edition already. Homosexuality used to be treated (or still is in other cultures) as paraphilia or worse. Who knows, maybe in 50 years from now pedophilia will follow suit.
> According to the DSM-5, pedophilia “refers to a sexual orientation or profession of sexual preference devoid of consummation, whereas pedophilic disorder is defined as a compulsion and is used in reference to individuals who act on their sexuality,” NeonTommy wrote.
Basically, the term that they use in the DSM is "pedophilic disorder" (changed from "Pedophilia"), which is a classified disorder.
In order for it to be discrimination, it has to be 'unjust' - There is nothing unjust about having larger people pay more because it costs a business more to fly them. If anything, it is unjust that smaller people have to subsidize the cost of others.
You're allowed to discriminate against even "protected classes" of people if it actually materially affects their performance. If a woman is actually pregnant and can't lift heavy things, and that's part of the job requirement, then you're allowed to not hire her. If a heavy passenger is actually costing you more money for fuel, you'd be allowed to charge that person more for fuel. This is moot though, since height and weight are not protected categories and you can already discriminate against them all you want!
You could make a fair argument along that line if you measured the cost. Just having the baby means a few weeks off at most since there's nothing gender-specific about childcare, average person has about two babies, a couple months out of decades of work, you could reasonably argue that women should make about a quarter of a percent less than men.
My point is, don't bring up a flawed argument that's used to support unfair discrimination to attack another argument. That's nothing more than a strawman.
I don't see how this analogy fits, or what you mean about society, but there's a slight bit of difference between charging someone for direct costs, and jumping to conclusions based on fear, stereotypes, or gender.
There's also a difference between charging someone for actual expenses, and charging someone for presumed future expenses. And there's a difference between someone being charged for what they use, and someone being paid, or not, for purely indirect costs not related to their performance while on the job.
Now, if a 120 lb woman was charged twice as much as a 120 lb man to fly, your analogy might be more applicable.
Paid maternity leave is an actual expense, if it happens. But you were talking about salary. And it is unfair and discriminatory when equally capable women are paid less than men, regardless of the reason it happens, and there are many other reasons than the probability of a woman having a child.
While those facts are true, they don't improve the quality of your analogy, the situation you're bringing up does not stack up the same way as (theoretically) charging someone per pound to fly on a plane. There might be reasons that charging by weight is discriminatory, but you're not convincing me.
> There might be reasons that charging by weight is discriminatory
Charging by X is always discriminatory (on the basis of X), the questions are whether it is morally or legally acceptable discrimination, not whether it is discrimination at all.
It's all a point of view thing - If you're more liberal politically, you tend to trust government more and the free market less - If you are more conservative, you tend to trust the free market more and government less. Assuming Drew is more liberal, it makes sense that he would trust an all-powerful government over all-powerful corporations.
Same here - Any account I don't care about has a password that can be easily typed using only my left hand. Everything else has a large randomized password that I don't even know.
Is it though? I know standards are important, but what does it really cost a browser maker to be able to resolve paths with backslashes? Similarly, is it really that big of a deal to support background-position-x and y? The prime example of something should have been a spec from the beginning.
I'm not arguing for or against, but the list seems to use language as a basis for cultural diversity. While language might have a correlation with cultural diversity, it doesn't seem fair to use that as an argument for what countries are more culturally diverse. Also, how countries report their numbers greatly impact these sorts of assessments. Lastly, comparing more tribal-based countries with modern countries also makes it tricky.
