Jump to content

tantric superman

Legacy Members
  • Posts

    6,441
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by tantric superman

  1. Again, someone explain to me how we can't engage in scads of good will and assistance to South Africa and India, outside of forcing the pharmas to waive their intellectual property rights? Strikes me as short sighted as fuck. And also pretty poor goddamn planning on the front end -- we could have anticipated how it would look if some of these countries were on the short end of the stick and weren't getting vaccines.
  2. Yep. Filthy lucre is a powerful incentive.
  3. That's totally understood. Literally all American business is built upon infrastructure and "heavy lifting" by American educational institutions. That being said, the headlines imply a waiver of intellectual property rights -- a forced contractual waiver. Are we changing the contract we made with these guys after the fact? And is THAT good public policy?
  4. Now I don't feel so sorry for that guy about 5 minutes into the opening scene in Pvt. Ryan who was holding his entrails and yelling "Momma!"
  5. How is it in our national interest to punish private companies who developed the vaccine? What does this have to do with getting the virus under control at home and abroad? We certainly can assist the manufacturers in producing more vaccine without making them waive intellectual property rights. We can give a trillion dollars right now to Moderna and some drug manufacturers and tell them to get the stuff to India in a jiffy and the Indians would love us long time.
  6. Explain to me how pharma didn't develop the intellectual property we are asking them to waive. "Helping fund and produce" doesn't mean that the us govt developed any intellectual property. I'm asking out of curiosity because I haven't studied in depth the development of the vaccine, but right now, my understanding is that the US Govt. didn't get in the way, and funded the development. They're were not contractual promises that we would own the underlying intellectual property. In fact, we were letting the pharma companies lose with the understanding that they would maintain the intellectual property rights.
  7. Exactly. Why would we support any lessening of intellectual property rights for the companies that got us the vaccines so quickly?
  8. Seems like the one thing in the world we should be protecting, and indeed, giving a double secret bonus to.
  9. That's a horrible idea. Terrible is what it is.
  10. Back when I though Woody was just weird like in ha ha weird. Pretty effective opening to his best movie.
  11. Finest killers of men and indians...
  12. You dudes wearing Longhorn shirts looks like little pumpkins. Keep on posting, kemosabees.
  13. I'm not following this thread too closely. My only concern is that after what I heard in that ad, Mija may be overthinking her TPS reports.
  14. The world needs more women, like Olympia, who can forgive infidelity.
  15. Oh, Latin American what-not. Well moving on, it all seems like cancel culture to me.
  16. Hispanic is perfect because it doesn't include any Brazilians, or Dutch.
  17. I got Latin cancelled, so no, that won't work.
  18. I'm not sure about that. Latino started to be used in the late 40s, I think. And Hispanics is just derived from a 16th century Hispanicus and started to be used in the 70s. I doubt there is a derogatory background to their origin. And tell your friend it's either Hispanic or puto. His choice.
  19. You told me not to read the article and now you want to focus on the article. We'd probably be better off if you didn't go out of your way to disseminate stupidity. But I'll take it that you don't think a complete reform of Arabic grammar isn't required in order to be sensitive to the concerns of the LGBT community. Just like a complete reform of Spanish grammar is not required to tolerate some news agencies and speakers to use shorthand in certain instances.
  20. I am. And suggesting they get the fuck over it because the claim is pretty silly. Not that their maybe some people who claim that it is morally defective. But it's clearly semantically unclear. Hence, the attempt to find an alternative, no matter how hamfisted.
  21. No, overt racism like lynching and burning crosses and shouting racial slurs and being shot in the back by Texas Rangers always seems worse to me.
  22. On your advice, will not read the article. But not sure how you get "sufficiently LGBT friendly" as being "woke". If woke means "open to the concerns of others" and "not an asshole", then I guess it's good to be woke. I've always though woke implied some level of overkill - something beyond an attempt to make others feel more comfortable. Stated more plainly, people SHOULD be sufficiently LGBT friendly.
  23. It seems pretty simple. I would think that latinas and latinos of various gender identities might have an issue with the generic term "Latino", so "LatinX" seems like a reasonable, efficient suggestion for reference to the collective group. I think Latini and Latine and Latinu all have a bit more rhythm. Maybe LatinQ is reserved for all the fucktards in Texas who voted for Trump. But to me it's not any more controversial than referring to a mixed group as "you guys". The language is fluid.
×
×
  • Create New...