>>386634

Same as it ever was. Why do you think libraries are so harassed about giving out who checked out what book?

>>386648
If in 100 years we openly go back to that sort of Cold War fanaticism, mankind will never make it off this tiny rock.

>>386659
Well, yes. That much is a given. I know we've made some amazing leaps and bounds, but I think you're overestimating mankind here a little.

>>386666
Other than pessimism making you look cool, do you have any rationale behind the thing you just said?

Also, the Cold War was the biggest reason our space program went as big as it did. America is most motivated by having someone to hate--which is why our politicians have made sure to keep us at war for 90% of the time we've been a country.

>>386669
I don't care about looking cool. We both just have different outlooks on life. You think humanity is amazing and grand and kindness and human intellect trumps all and I think humanity is awful and despicable and base desires like lust for power and wealth will forever drive it. You think Kids Helping Kids, I think child soldiers. You think Star Trek, I think Metro 2033. We're just very different people, you and I.

>>386670
See, all of that is irrelevant, though. The question isn't "Is mankind wonderful," it's "what is the course technology is going to take." Technology will eventually make it relatively easy to colonize at least the near solar system, and that means people will do it just to prove they can, and occasionally out of greed.

And I don't know how you got a message of "Humans are wonderful" from "Our country is mostly motivated by hatred of outsiders and has been since it was formed."

>>386670
Yeah, I don't think I've seen any more posts before now that I would truly classify as "wow 5edgy4me" but good job.

I feel like both of your approaches are a little outdated though. Assuming Humanity is Net "Good" or "Bad" is, well, actually one of the biggest problems America has, imho. We all want to draw this line between absolute good and absolute evil and then declare where we fall on that axis. But the truth is that we're all a mixture of good and evil, and it's the pressures of our environments that cause those aspects to emerge or submerge based on the situation. Declaring that we as a species fall on either side of this imaginary line we've drawn suggests not a full comprehension of the topic. It isn't as simple as that.

>>386673

Where do you see that kind of technology developing?? We still don't know if it's possible for humans to survive long voyages in zero gravity. We still don't know what kind of deadly radiation astronauts might face outside of Earth's sphere of influence. We still haven't built any spaceships that aren't essentially a WW2 submarine. We haven't had any human travel further than the moon. Since the last Apollo mission in 1972, there haven't been any humans further away than low-Earth orbit (the ISS is a mere 230 miles above the ground). We've basically given up on that front. To point, all of the exploration in the last 30 years has been done by robotic probes and rovers. There isn't any point in sending out humans to harvest resources from asteroids or other planets when robots can do it better and cheaper.

As for other star systems, everything we know in modern physics tells us that traveling faster than the speed of light is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE. With that, it becomes unfeasible, not to mention unprofitable! There is absolutely no company that is going to launch a sub-light-speed venture to a "nearby" star system where the payoff won't be coming for a thousand years.

Humans simply do not live long enough to give a flying fuck about what happens further away than a couple decades from now, at best. The only way I see anything happening is if an extinction-level catastrophe is forecast to hit the world in a generation or two, and humanity has to unite like never before to save our collective skins. Even then, it will probably just result in war.


My general outlook on humanity is like this guy: >>386670 but far worse. Stripping away all the bullshit and delusions, I've found myself to be — at the core — composed of nothing but hatred and tears. I've found everyone else to be that way, too.

Mankind is awesome and wonderful. Also, it is shitty and terrible. Both are true, we are capable of acts of despicable horror and selfless good, and everything in between. Labelling out whole species as "good" or "bad" is every bit as retarded as when you see aliens in sci-fi looking and behaving exactly the same as each other. Shit does not work that way

>>386676
There are several one-way trips to Mars currently being planned worldwide, including a Reality TV show following a colonization attempt and a program by the Russians to launch death row inmates into Space Australia. And Virgin is planning to build a hotel on the moon, as well.

And via space stations and the like, we've had live in space long enough at this point to know that the effects of long-term life at zero-g, while possibly presenting some complications, are not inherently life-threatening.

>>386682
connected to those projects is another group of scientists working on bringing life from mars to earth. Also may lead to a era of transmittable Vaccinations via the internet to small home labs.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2013/11/18/geneticist-craig-venter-developing-fax-machine-copy-life-mars/L9H9PAP02nYmf7za1rdyKP/story.html

>>386634
>A fact which has been proven because stories have already run in a couple of blogs about writers being afraid to search for potentially loaded terms on google for research about their books for fear it might get the Government's Goons on their backs.

Oh you'll love this.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/27/nsa-spied-porn-habits/3765279/
>The National Security Agency collected evidence of online sexual activity and visits to pornographic websites as part of a proposed plan to harm the reputations of six people the agency considered "radicalizers,"
>The targets, all Muslims, are described in the document as examples of how "personal vulnerabilities" can be learned through electronic surveillance, and then exploited to undermine a target's credibility, reputation and authority
>However, the agency identifies one of them as a "U.S. person," which means he is either a U.S. citizen or a permanent resident.
>None of the six individuals targeted by the NSA is accused in the document of being involved in terror plots.
Anyone ITT who thinks this can't be used against any person who challenges a regime, you're a fool. And if you think you won't ever have a disagreement with the next 15 presidents, stop and think what will happen to your children or grandchildren who do.

>>386659
Not really, do remember that most of the technology we use today came about during a cold war and a world war, the lesson being that nothing can stop technological progress.

These things are cyclical too, so don't think we won't have a major change. Who knows, maybe in a century we'll be speaking Chinese, and we all know how enlightened their leadership is.

>>386746
If true, that's incredibly disturbing on so many levels. Like not just in the sense of "I'm not happy about that," but in the sense of "That is a genuinely horrifying abuse of power to eliminate free speech."

>>386749

It shouldn't surprise anyone. The FBI wanted to set up Martin Luther King Jr. Of all people to get caught in bed with a girl in order to destroy his credibility.

>>386753
And they tried to make Fidel's beard fall out.

Modern difference is that they have dirt on everyone and their grandmother, plus it's all computerized so they can ruin a life with a push of a button.

Hard to believe they wouldn't try to ruin lives of a bunch of muslims for shits and giggles.

I'm glad people are finally standing up against Putin's bullshit.
I just didn't expect the treatment of homosexuals to be the main trigger.

>>386852

Radical feminists trying to at…

An extraordinary demonstration has taken place in San Juan, a provincial city in Argentina. In brief, a gathering of 7000 feminists attempted to attack a cathedral, which was defended by 1500 men. The men did not attempt to physically attack the women, but linked arms and formed a barrier. And the feminist women? They spat on the men, sprayed them with aerosol spray paint, performed lewd acts in front of them, draped their underwear over them and generally behaved as if they had been seized by some primitive or savage spirit.

During the attack some men were visibly weeping. None of them retaliated against the abuses heaped on them.

>>386882
So the story here is "Some dudes got annoyed by some women in front of a church and started crying over it?"

>>386883
No.
An anti-abortion rally planned to storm the church and burn it, and the men held a wall against it, so they were sprayed, spat on, assaulted, and beaten by feminists, who proceeded to burn an effigy of the pope and have an orgy while cursing Jesus.

I'm a lapsed Catholic, and even I'm getting a strong 'Alexander Anderson' tingle up my back. Heathens need'a cullin'.

>>386886
Funny, you didn't mention them being beaten the first time you described the scene. I also don't understand why anti-abortionists would burn a church--one would expect they would find allies in the church.

>>386890
I'm not the first poster. I did a bit of searching.
http://eponymousflower.blogspot.com/2013/11/argentine-catholics-defend-cathedral.html
http://www.lifesitenews.com/horror-mob-of-topless-pro-abort-feminists-attacks-rosary-praying-men-defend.html
I wish there were more international news reports to give you, but there aren't any.

>>386890
Also I mis-spoke. A pro-abortion rally.

>>386890
>Funny, you didn't mention them being beaten the first time you described the scene.
I'm not that guy, just thought it was a funny story.

Pic related, the feminist in the red box is a porn star that does horses, supposedly because she hates men too much. Funny shit.

>>386875
So what are you having trouble understanding?

kill all men.

>>386899
hey now, cutting out prospective clients that way.

>>386899
How bout now?

>>386901
>kill all men
>dramatic rise in rampant unconstrained lesbianism
>fuck you pay me

what, like i've not thought this through or something

>>386917
>mysterious virus sweeps through ba'gina-d population
>cure is in a Vlasic Pickle Jar
>humanity dies as the human race gives up and just watches RomComs into oblivion

>>386921
kill all men

>>386922
Fuck you! I'll kill myself!

>>386922
oh wow that cant be a real product

>>386937
holy shit just use your shirt or a rag

www.npr.org/2013/11/26/247392814/supreme-court-will-take-up-contraceptions-case

So...contraception mandate is going up to the SCOTUS. That's going to be fun. What do you guys think of the situation?

Frankly, I'm pro-coverage, but not without some concerns; on the one hand, I find fault with both sides' arguments. On the no coverage side, they're acting like providing an insurance plan that offers coverage of certain medications they disapprove of is the same as being made to buy them for their employees. Religiiously neutral laws of general applicability that incidentally infringe on religion are generally kosher; Reynolds v. U.S.; Employment Division v. Smith.

On the other, it does raise some free exercise alarm bells with me in regards to free exercise--must one check their faith at the door when they enter the marketplace? Does the state or the believer get to decide whether compliance with a law violates their faith? --and, in their defense, "not paying for it" =/= saying you can't have it. Plus, as this article points ask ( http://ideas.time.com/2013/12/04/are-women-fighting-the-wrong-fight-on-contraceptives/), is this the right contraception fight? Could we circumvent it entirely by making the pill OTC, as it is in many countries?

I'd like to hear your thoughts.

>>386959
I favor making vasectomies or tubal ligations covered, but not day to day stuff that's already dirt cheap and/or free like condoms. Really, of all the contraceptives they intend to cover, only the morning after pill is really worth it.
As for the religious bollocks side argument which everyone seems to be focusing on... it is a tad unfair to make them do things against their faith when it isn't even a human rights issue.

>time
The daily birth control pill causes way more problems than condoms, environmental and otherwise, we should really be phasing it out.

>Contraception

I favor a dystopian approach. Everyone is sterilized at birth, and when you become an adult and are REALLY REALLY SURE you want a child, you can have a (free) surgery to undo that, after passing months-long tests for basic knowledge, psychological stability, financial capacity, and practical ability.

The only downside is that it's only really implementable in first-world countries, which are already seeing declining birth rates. The actual result would be that the poor fuckers in Africa and Asia would continue multiplying like bacteria and eventually overwhelm the world, anyway. Still, it's better than what we have now. We can just eliminate the "undo" part and have the tests for adoption. You want a child, you'll get a baby from China or something. Almost as good and a lot cheaper — to quote Calvin and Hobbes.


>Religious arguments

Faith should be kept one's own private business. Just because it's crucial to one's own life doesn't mean anyone else need care about it, a bit like an asshole.

Also, religion should NEVER NEVER NEVER be allowed to interfere with the lives of others, even in a small part. I don't give a flying snake's hemipenis about whether some sad sap business owner thinks doing something that doesn't affect his life in the least infringes on his "religious right", and nobody else should, either. Not allowing an employee to do ANYTHING on the reason that it offends you is right on the edge of a slippery slope. It's no different from me saying I refuse to provide the minimum wage to blacks and gays and latinos and whoever else because they offend this religion that I just made up five minutes ago. Last I checked, that kind of bull isn't allowed in the USA, so why should refusing to provide something basic (and dirt cheap) as contraception be any different? The only argument they have outside of the religion one is "I just don't want to pay it". Well, tough cookie, shithead. Suck it up; you own the business and thus have the responsibility.

Next thing you know, they'll be refusing to provide health insurance!

Oh, wait, they already do that. Disregard.

>>386968
>Problems with the daily birth control pill
I didn't realize there was a daily pill. That must be very ineffective: miss one day and you might be screwed. I thought most birth control methods for women were longer term, but I'm not well versed in all the varying methods.

I do think that we could get by with making vasectomies and tubular ligations covered, but it is somewhat baffling that cheap birth control for women isn't more of an OTC product. I also find it hard to believe that anyone really thinks there's a specific provision under the ACA where companies would have to pay for condoms (unless someone can point me to one). Those are so cheap that many clinics just give them away for free. I don't see this as companies having to specifically dole out pills or rubbers. This is allowing an employee the choice to use the healthcare provided by their employer as needed/as that person sees fit. I don't buy the right of companies to force a child on a woman because they don't believe in safe sex. Saying that it's for religious purposes in any respect instantly degrades the companies leg to stand on, in my mind.

You get to practice religion freely so long as you do not infringe upon the rights of other people through your practice. This is a pretty clear violation of that, and personally, as I go through life, it's getting more and more annoying to have to cater to people who use the "Invisible Sky Man told me and I have to suck his dick" argument as an actual rational reason. And it's even more frustrating when the people using that argument literally fail to see how their beliefs are injurious to others.

>>386982
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill

Female birth control is hormone based, allowing over the counter purchase of any such product would be unwise. There are drug interactions, major side effects, it can affect other people or the environment if disposed of improperly, and of course it sets a bad precedent.

>>386968
>it is a tad unfair to make them do things against their faith when it isn't even a human rights issue.
The only way they're doing something against their faith is if it's against their faith to provide compensation to their employees that their employees are allowed to use how they want. Insurance is not something the owners of the company are providing themselves, it is one of the ways they are paying their workers. It is none of their goddamned business what their employees do with their compensation.

>>386993

>bad precedent

I agree that the pill is a lot less inoccuous than the time article would indicate, but still, "allowing adults more leeway in regards to what the choose to put in their bodies" is a bad precedent. The risks of OTC purchase could be mitigated by waivers, or requiring, as in some countries, a doctor's screening to be cleared to buy OTC.

>doctor's screening to be cleared to buy OTC.
That's not exactly OTC, if you include limits it's basically prescription.

And you have to include limits because the issue with hormonal drugs is that a person so inclined could buy 100 packages and dump them all in a lake, making dozens of species locally extinct. And that's just estrogen, if you get into other hormones it starts being even more dangerous.
Can you imagine what pure epinephrine could do to people? Putting some in the water supply would be worse than any terror attack.

>>387001
That only makes sense if you ignore the part of the government in it, which is why people are complaining in the first place (separation of church and state). It's not like someone can take their health insurance money and go buy a Honda... it's pretty much earmarked for things the source of the money (companies) would consider blasphemous.

>>387004
The government's involvement consists solely of saying "Hey, when you compensate your workers you have to actually compensate them and not fuck them out of fair pay by using Jesus as an excuse to try to control other people's lives."

>>387003
>"allowing adults more leeway in regards to what the choose to put in their bodies" is a bad precedent

Since when? We put tons of chemicals in our foods daily. Giving people control over what they put in their bodies is kind of a huge deal. It's driving the incredibly pointless drug war right now. Besides, what kind of nut would poison the water supply in this day and age? That's some saturday morning cartoon shit

>>387015
since >>387004

And the water supply thing is just a simplified example. The more dangerous thing could just be overuse and improper disposal.

>>387027
Problematic dumping of pills is the biggest problem? Aside from potential bad reactions to the pills? That seems, again, incredibly arbitrary and like some cartoon villain shit. Somebody would literally have to go out of their way to do that shit. And tons of medications already get flushed into the water in America, which gets cleaned and fed back into your house tap, or bottled. Unless there's something I'm missing here about the sewers and our water treatment, that scenario seems incredibly unlikely, and at the very least I would be more concerned about industrial runoff from the production of the medication over some nut deciding to pitch all their birth control meds into a drinkable water supply. Which could happen regardless of whether these are over the counter or not.

Daily Show was pretty great tonight.

>>387087
Pollution by non-native chemicals is still the number one problem facing the environment. Everything else takes a second seat, and the majority of other problems stem from it. It's not arbitrary or "cartoon villain" shit just because you've never heard of a major environmental problem, we've been feeding our livestock hormones without proper regulation and it's been devastating the environment (which again is still a problem even if you haven't heard of it), and there are far more humans than livestock, we are everywhere, and we are much harder to regulate.
http://toxics.usgs.gov/pubs/FS-027-02/
So far the issue is being kept in check by three factors:
1. Currently it's prescription only, so it can't really be overused, and it limits the percentage of population that uses it.
2. The human sourced pollution is localized to urban regions of a few developed nations (~12 million women in USA, <100 million worldwide)
3. Other sources of pollution are localized to plants and farms in these nations.

If you make it OTC it's harder to justify any regulation, even among farm animals or industrial runoff, and other nations will follow suit. Imagine if the three billion people in Asia looked to our model and decided it's a good idea to control their birth rate with hormones or to pump their cows full of milk producing hormones?
I'm not overstating things when saying that global unregulated use of hormones and hormone mimicking compounds is dangerously unwise. Since all vertebrates depend on estrogen as a sex mediating hormone it has the potential to make all higher animals and many plants that depend on them simply stop reproducing. It would be on par with the late Devonian mass extinction... and that's just with widespread use of estrogen, not even including many other hormones and steroids which could become popular.

So in summation, we should be phasing out the use of hormonal birth control and hormonal use in industry, not expanding on it or deregulating it.

>>387110
Okay, so it's affecting the environment simply through general run off? That makes much more sense. When you use the example of someone specifically buying things to dump them, that actually sounds ridiculous. The concept of unregulated usage affecting the environment simply through existence makes more sense in terms of scale and viability. The idea that a few nuts just dump shit like that is what is cartoon villainy, and when you portray it like that, it's hyperbole to say that that is the problem.