CharonY

Nope, I was referring to the quote above.

Using an evolutionary argument is problematic as there is little evidence that replicating what we assume to be food that our ancestors have been eating has massive health benefits. In fact, there is evidence that instead human populations show rapid adaptation to various levels of agriculture (such as wide-spread ability to digest lactose). Also, it is difficult to separate cheese intake with all the other food intake to isolate the health effect specifically. Hence, any strong declarations should be viewed with some level of skepticism. That being said, there are studies that indicate higher cardiovascular health in individuals with higher dairy intake (study in Luxembourg). Case-control studies did not find a strong link between cheese intake and altered cholesterol (in some case there were benefits, as already highlighted) and in some cases they were associated with reduced intima thickness (which is related to atherosclerosis and cardiovascular syndromes). Indications of negative effects are more indirect and include that they are a significant source of sodium and fat. Though by skimming the lit I could not find a significant association with actual negative health outcome. In fact, a recent meta-analysis indicates an inverse relationship between cheese consumption and cardiovascular events and stroke (which are related,Chen et al.Eur J Nutr. 2016). Thus the current state of science does not support the blanket notion that all dairy products (except yoghurt, but why?) are harmful and in some cases may actually confer benefits.

Depends a bit on the donation rate. At small numbers (and with larger diversity) it will be disproportionately difficult to find at least one matching donor.

In case of African Americans two factors are relevant. First there are fewer African Americans and hence, fewer donors. Second is that African Americans tend to be more genetically diverse and of mixed heritage.

I am utterly at a loss why one would discount preventive care as cornerstone of modern health care. If something improves public health, reduces risk of poverty and is cheap, why would one object to it? What are the downsides? As Moon pointed out, the only argument seems to be a religious one, which is clearly not a great basis to implement health care policy (yet precisely this is happening). As others pointed out, insurers actually like to cover contraception as it results in savings for them . On top of it, contraceptives save ~ $19 billions in medical costs each year (Trussel Contraception 75 (2007) 168 – 170). Whether certain other aspects are covered by health insurance or not are, in my opinion, distractions. After all, the main reasons to decide on what to include in effective health insurance is whether it offers health benefits (a clear yes on contraception and many preventive care measures), possibly relative to its cost (where contraception is also a clear winner).

The author of the blog seems more concerned about his own thoughts rather than Nietzsche's which is rather telling. Also for translation his use of Gewissen for conscience and Gut und Boese (good and evil, rather than bad) clearly have put his thoughts into the realm of morals.

Critical review of information is a hallmark of the inquisitive mind. Active denial is not. And I am not interested to fuel anyone's inflated ego. I will add that philosophy is the formalization of thoughts of a given time and with rare exceptions are not self contained. It is difficult to understand Nietzsche without at least a cursory look at how he saw Kant (mostly via Schopenhauer). Or his stance on religion as source of morals and his quest for something to supplement it.

Reading is obviously not understanding. And even low level understanding should allow a coherent contextualization, which is clearly missing. Insisting specifically that one has read a text many times is rather slightly embarrassing. This prefaces the sentence in question and clearly states what is weighed with scales. Things that are good or bad, i.e. moral qualifiers. He laments that people use these values without questioning them. Where kant found a source, Nietzsche questions them. He mocks the certainty that certain people, esp. religious people have in this regard. Missing that context is astonishing. Of course it could have been mitigated by providing a coherent alternative explanation that demonstrated some actual thoughts on the document. Or reading about Nietzsche and figure out his interpretation from there. Or read what other who work on that topic have written. But as you deny yourself information as you only accept what you already assume to be true, learning and broaden your horizon will be immensely challenging. My condolences.

@sherado thanks for clarifying that you obviously did not follow the story at all. Saves significant amount of time if one does not have to assume that an actual discussion is possible.

I have seen some cohort studies that have showed elevated risk due to marriages among cousins. While the risk for a variety of defects have ~doubled, the absolute risk was overall not terribly high. I.e. in the low percentage points, IIRC (e.g. 3% base chance to 6% with cousin marriages, on the high end and ~0.6% to ~1.8% in some others).

Not going to address all the points but : This regulation was made by GOP lawmakers to specifically shut down abortion clinics. It was not made with health issues in mind. Conversely, there are many meaningful regulations without which we would put patients in danger. I also contest that theses regulations are what drive costs up, as in the UK, Canada or Germany hospitalization costs are much lower and their regulation is at least every bit as strict. If propose to get rid of legislature that were implemented for political rather than medical purposes that should be on the chopping block. See: TRAP laws

@zapatos, I think your distinction is quite arbitrary. Based on surveys by the NFSG especially among teens the pill is used for non-pregnancy related functions. But even if we ignore it, health policy should not be about nitpicking definitions, but about health outcomes. To me it is limiting one important aspect of women's health but imposing no similar restrictions on male's health (and neither restriction should exist). Vaccines are preventative, and there is no discussion regarding whether they should be covered. More to the point, the reason why it is excluded is not because it is preventative, but for religious motives. Which in turn basically means that control of specifically the female body should be subject religious restrictions, whereas the male body is apparently not.

I didn't. I merely pointed out that it is hypocritical to selectively limit one. You seemed to argue that there is good reason to do so. Which I found puzzling as you started off with: Which seemed to indicate that you agreed that health care should take care of the needs of both genders. And again, the fact that there is a discussion to limit one aspect only, is hypocritical. Also, not to mention idiotic from a medical point of view as contraception has an enormous impact on women's health.

My argument is that a) health plans have to cover preventive care (such as diagnostic tests and vaccines for example) and for good reason b) the pill is used for many non sex-related reasons including control of menstrual cramps, endometriosis, primary ovarian insufficiency and polycystic ovary syndrome to name a few c) pregnancy is a high health burden . Considering the medical relevance of one vs the other I maintain it is hypocritical to selectively limit access to one of them

Neither of us is equipped to achieve this goal.

Why would the latter?

Even if it was relevant, overinterpreting an interview and derive some grand theory is the what a conspiracy theorist would do. And their right to wrong ratio is not something to be proud of. Crossposted

The hypocrisy is that the former is available and rarely (or at all) being challenged, whereas the latter is. IIRC the US laws do not force employers to provide benefits or health care as such. However, under the ACA employers with more than 50 fulltime employees would be subject to fees, if they don't. The provision in OP allows them to op out of services that run against their religious beliefs (though it basically boils down to termination as well as prevention of pregnancy, which can be summarized as idiocy).

Considering your tendency to ignore dissenting views, which are crucial to critical analyses, I will carefully raise my doubts here. I assume you misspelled the first name wrong (twice) and mean Michael Mann?. And even so there are quite a few Michael Manns to sift through. Regarding the topic I assume you mean Michael E Mann who became the focal point of attacks that ultimately proved to be baseless? If so I will double down on my doubts.

Actually here Nietzsche is not referring to cognitive function. This is one of the many stabs at Kant's morality. With the latter being the key point Nietzsche is trying to make. Kant discusses moral worth using the example of a grocer. I.e. the good-willed grocer who measures accurately out of duty is praiseworthy, whereas the one who is doing it out of self-interest (i.e. not wanting to lose customers) is not. In Kant's morality right and wrong are defined by the fulfillment of duty or obligation. Hence, when caught, it is expected that the grocer would blush, as they are caught in violating their duty. Now Nietzsche changes and extends this imagery and now uses the scales as a metaphor for assessing moral weight of action (i.e. scales of morality). Those with crude scales thus won't even blush when called out. Here, he is criticizing the universal morality offered by Kant. Of course, the whole passage is not about that alone. Rather he builds an argument for the need of a more rational approach to morality. Due to his prose and the fact that he often utilizes various characters to build an argument as a whole rather than have a character speak his specific thoughts, he is one of the philosophers that are almost impossible to interpret on excerpts and quotes alone. In a in interesting way, but for other reasons, the same could be said for Kant.

Ah, yes an Honor's in the US would typically involve some lab work (in experimental sciences, obviously). The German system is more streamlined, requiring all Bachelor's to do labwork and write a thesis (as far as I know). But overall, depending on where you are all three variants, coursework no thesis, theoretical thesis, practical work and thesis are potential options for bachelor and master's.

I certainly would not call them insights. Rather, just some basic concepts that stuck with me since the days long gone when (as so many young lads) I was interested in Nietzsche (and Kant as well as their famous disagreement in the concept of morals).

Regarding Nietzsche: Nietzsche is one of the perpetually misunderstood philosophers who has, fascinatingly enough, been co-opted (or claimed to be co-opted) by polar opposite political factions. It is interesting that Bloom was mentioned, as he saw and attacked a rise of moral relativism of the left and he saw Nietzsche's philosophy right at the front of it. In that context one should add that it was a time when the left were abandoning the determinism of Marxism and Bloom saw it replaced with Nietzsche's anti-bourgeois stance. However, as many will know, Nietzsche (or a contorted version of his philosophies) had been claimed by the fascist in the 30s, emphasizing the hierarchicial aspects of his philosophy. And certainly enough, the modern far-right are now co-opting this element of his philosophy (if one bothers to read the stuff Spencer and his ilk are saying). This is somewhat hilarious (in a sad way) as Nietzsche famously nurtured hatred against anti-Semites (which caused him to break with Wagner) as well as German nationalism. Also his view on authority is multi-layered (where he e.g. criticizes uncritically practiced morality) So in many ways Nietzsche was both, deeply entrenched in the thinking of his time, yet deeply skeptical of their forms and ramifications. In some ways the tendency of Nietzsche to mock and criticize certain structures and contrast it with certain thoughts while packing it into elaborate prose made him vulnerable to divergent interpretations. That being said, as OP offers no insights into the thoughts behind the post, I am not sure what is to discuss here. What I would say is that it is very difficult to gain insights into Nietzsche without actually reading at least most of his work (minus the crap distorted by his sister). And even then, one is likely to misinterpret things rather frequently, which makes reading about his philosophy after reading his philosophy almost mandatory.

Like an Honor's thesis?

It depends on the department and/or company. More generally, it depends on the composition of a given group as well as the organizational structure. The question cannot be answered with yes/no but for the most part it is one of degrees. Certain stereotypes are more widespread in certain areas than others. In some cases measures against them have been effective, in others they may actually lead to persistence or spread of stereotypes. Also, often times stereotypes (belief about a group of people) can be more widespread and ingrained into a given organizational structure (say, in a work environment where there have been traditional gender roles) than actual prejudice, though the former certainly can foster the latter. Stereotyping is a very human form of categorization, so in a way it is a natural way to deal with a complex environment. As such , it is not something that is specific to science or tech, it is just in a number of areas there are severe gender imbalances. Unfortunately, an aspect of stereotyping is that we use positive correlation as a way to strengthen stereotypes. Thus, if we assume that women are less willing or able to get into tech, we take the observation of imbalance as a validation of the given stereotype.