Maybe, but for the same expense I'd rather go to (non-profit) Harvard than (for-profit) Trump University.
All the best universities are non-profit, for the obvious reason that it allows them to keep massive endowments, which are spent on better education instead of being paid out to investors.
Effective birth control isn't recent - it was a reasonably flourishing industry and concept by the 1850s (including rubber and skin condoms). American birth rates plummeted from 1800 to the mid 1800s because of this.
Modern innovations have certainly made birth control more convenient, but I think the biggest changes have been social.
A mass shooting occurred today by an unknown person. Don't worry, authorities are rounding up people with similar profiles for extra surveillance/interrogation.
There are a number of factors (particularly in premodern societies) that produce the imbalance, but polygyny particularly exacerbates the imbalance (and, from a pre-existing state of polygyny, then, monogamy reduces it) because polygyny means that the most successful males are each able, in their reproductive prime, to secure, with social support, exclusive reproductive access to multiple of the most desirable females, which increases the expected ratio of females successfully reproducing in that generation to the number of males successfully reproducing.
(Because of the biology of reproduction, this would seem likely to be the case even if, in institutional terms, the practice of polygyny was balanced by equal practice of polyandry, but historically that wasn't the case anyway.)
Under monogamy, women who previously would have become part of a powerful man's harem now reproduced with a man who previously would not have reproduced, therefore reducing the female/male reproduction ratio.
Typical privileged male trying to talk over a woman in tech's lived experience. Instead of screaming at her that she's wrong about everything, how about listening for once?
Do you think people should get fired and ostracized for donating to Planned Parenthood? They literally murder babies. What kind of person thinks murder is ok, and would donate money to help an organization systematically murder? This kind of person does not belong in a position of power, full stop.
They abort fetuses, they don't murder babies. A baby has gone through the process of birth while a fetus has not.
I understand that this won't change anyone who's already formed an opinion on abortion but lying about your opposition shows a weakness in your position.
I think the grandparent is making a point about perspective and POV, one that you have conveniently proved by responding with an argument in absolute terms.
To some people, Planned Parenthood aborts fetuses. To other people, Planned Parenthood murders babies. I personally am much more in the former camp than the latter. But would you want the people who believe the latter to get you fired from your job because they read your Hacker News comment and plaster it all over conservative newspapers that "wavefunction is an apologist for baby murderers!"? I certainly wouldn't.
The nuance that always gets lost in these discussions is that different people have different points of view, and the same words may mean different things to them. Combine that with the lynch mob mentality and you have a powder keg.
For the record, I don't think the author was actually trying to defend that point, but instead to highlight how when taken out of context or in hindsight any one of our behaviors could in the future be seen as a real, unambiguously "wrong" act.
Thought experiment: Let's say hypothetically scientists discovered a drug or "vaccine" that a pregnant woman could take, which would guarantee that a male child of hers would not be gay (I'm operating under the assumption that homosexuality is caused by genetic or environmental factors and is not a free choice of the individual).
Would you be opposed to pregnant women taking this drug?
At what point does a set of reproducing cells become an "offspring"? It's a hard question to answer and there's no bright line. I understand the opposition's argument, and I don't feel nearly as much animosity towards them.
There is no legitimate argument against gay marriage.
I'm gay (& partnered, fwiw), and I'd have to agree that there certainly aren't any good arguments against gay marriage; at least, not any arguments we'd accept in a wealthy, industrialized, western society at the beginning of this millennium, but do keep in mind that the great, great majority of the world does not agree with that assessment.
So, what makes an argument legitimate? In order for one to suggest that there is no legitimate argument against gay marriage, you'd have to rationalize what it is that we in the west know better than those living in less-wealthy, less-industrialized societies outside our corner of the globe.
I don't know that we need to go that far. In the US we take the stance that people should be free to do what they want unless what they want to do interferes with other people doing what they want. Where people conflict in their desires is where the law comes in to settle the matter. Whether that system is good or not is an open question, I guess, but it's what we have.
Using that as a rulestick, no one will be negatively impacted by homosexuals getting married. Studies have been done, plenty of places around the globe have tried it with no negative consequences. The courts agree. There's no government interest in preventing gay marriage.
Sure, keeping in mind that I don't disagree with any of that -- is this a stance that we've just adopted within the last ten(ish) years -- because if the issue of gay marriage were really that simple, wouldn't it have always been legal?
I would argue yes, it should have been. Just like women and minorities should always have had the vote and slavery was always immoral. But they all required periods of strife, and now anyone who argues against those positions is rightly shunned.
In order for one to suggest that there is no legitimate argument against gay marriage, you'd have to rationalize what it is that we in the west know better than those living in less-wealthy, less-industrialized societies outside our corner of the globe.
Most of those other societies incorporate substantial religious influence in their legislative and/or judicial processes. It doesn't require "rationalization" to demonstrate that this is harmful to human progress.
As an atheist, I agree, but asserting that the rationale behind prohibiting gay marriage is mostly religious isn't supported by evidence. More than a quarter of the world's population lives in countries that are majority-atheist without being any more supportive of gay marriage than those of us in western, more-religious countries.
EDIT: Apparently that's a little contentious -- only 47% self-declared atheist (http://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/RED-C-pres...), but given that 9% of those surveyed did not respond to the question, the majority of respondents to this specific survey question did self-proclaim themselves as atheists.
Naw -- not really illegal; although it's probably politically complicated to be religious: "No state organ, public organization or individual may compel citizens to believe in, or not to believe in, any religion; nor may they discriminate against citizens because they do, or do not believe in religion." (Article 45 of their 1978 Constitution).
Even today -- decades after the state/social pressures against religious affiliation disappeared -- most former soviet states still have very large atheist populations.
> Do you think people should get fired and ostracized for donating to Planned Parenthood?
Yes, I think people, in a position where PR is a part of their role such as CEO, that work toward things that cause substantial outcry that prevent him from doing his job, should probably not be in that position.
Or are you saying that you'd think someone working against the ideals of Planned Parenthood in their own time would be suited to lead it?
You might disagree with the reasons, but the reality is, he couldn't do his job because of the outcry. So, the fundamental question becomes: Do you think someone should get fired for not being able to do their job?
