So, because we have laws licensing pharmacists to keep them from selling mercury and crack and stuff, we can justify making them do anything we -- no, anything you want them to do. We'll just make them, because we can, and because you want it!

It's people like you who give extreme libertarians so much ammunition for shooting down common-sense protections. Regulate an inch, they warn us, and someone will think (s)he's a ruler. Better to sell heroin popsicles at the Seven-Eleven than to let some shrill ninny dictate our every choice to us.

Luckily, you're just one bleating sheep, and nobody with any sense will listen to you. That's not to say you won't find an audience in Broadsheet; you could probably make wool blankets for the entire Army by going through this forum with some shears. However, you will fail, and you deserve to fail.

You have a point. I miss Ed Anger's pig-biting mad essays. Whoever wrote those had a real ear for parody.

Sadly, the authors on Broadsheet are dead serious.

If you can't figure out the difference between a garbage collector employed by the state and a private pharmacy, then you fail at basic knowledge. Of course, you're writing for Broadsheet, so you won't stand out.

Cool, we'll just get rid of the licensing system. Then when people die of messed-up medicines and quack nostrums, we'll make you deal.

Shhh. Don't interrupt Xanthro's power trip. (S)he will make up laws and oaths at need, and we mustn't question it.

I guess I'd have to find another fucking pharmacy.

Like, you know, in the hospital or something.

Right, because it's the law's job to make sure that no imaginary circumstance you can ever conceive will ever befall any woman (let's not pretend you care about men). And anyone who says otherwise is a liar and evil and a misogynist and a big meanie!

Time for us to break out the shears and see what color your wool is.

You really don't understand shit, do you? Where is this imaginary place where there is only one pharmacy?

You can imagine any bizarre hypothetical you like. It doesn't make your argument sensible.

But go right ahead - keep making an implicit argument for the deregulation of pharmacies. That'll work out really well.

And on that basis, many of the respondents here should be stripped of their right to vote.

Or will you be telling me next that your imaginary town gets no mail service?

Were you not beaten enough as a child?

What gives you the idea that the state is in the business of chasing after your stupid hypotheticals?

You're not disempowered, you're spoiled rotten. Time for reality to set in.

No, dear blitherer, the state should not be in the business of ensuring that "woman" have anything they want within easy reach.

Most Salon women are a pack of pampered, entitled brats. You fit the profile.

Yeah, because birth control is utterly urgent on the scale of a day or two!

You're an idiot. Stop hunting in a panic for some stupid hypothetical to make your non-point. You suck at it.

I think government come up with laws in all sorts of ways, but the way we should do it in a free society is to balance the likelihood of your hysterical man-bashing crap hypotheticals with the damage done to individual rights.

That process largely involves ignoring the input of idiots like you, and that's a feature, not a bug.

But since Broadsheet's army of retarded monkeys at keyboards has failed to produce a reasonable case for anything, and have failed to answer the many reasonable arguments advanced against them, the thread is effectively over.

Accustomed as I am to certain types needing the last word, I cheerfully give it to you. Have fun with your failure, and know that your stridulation will accomplish nothing.

Maybe misspelling basic medical terms is a symptom of something. I am one of two physicians who make up a paradox. Call me and I'll let you know my number.

Far more women die of obesity-related disorders than of disorders related to excessive thinness. If anything, women need to lose weight, not gain it.

Why don't any of you care about fighting this? Instead, you laud people like Velvet d'Amour, who encourage our mindless, groupthinking women into digging their graves with a knife and fork. Shame on you!

If it saves just one life, it's worth it!

The respondents who whine about thinness being as unhealthy as fatness need to learn to read. Far more women die of obesity-related disorders than of thinness-related disorders. Just because you're insecure about your own chubbiness doesn't mean you're not encouraging women to lead unhealthy lifestyles. Stop the madness! Stop encouraging women to die!

Don't you care about women?

Because it's the hit dog that yelps.

Howzabout that, Hillarious ones?

You may think of yourselves as second-rate royalty by virtue of your genitalia, but you're not entitled to anything. You certainly don't deserve to win an election by virtue of being female, overly entitled, and angry.

Stomp your little feet all you like. It won't change a thing.

T! L! D! R!

If that's your idea of a well-thought-out position, then you're hopeless.

Show us how Obama's campaign used sexism. Don't just assert it, show it.

Amen to that. The BMI tends to score false positives on weightlifters and the like, but not on pudge-packing porkers like this one.

Shame on Salon whiners for not caring more about women's health.

What's sexist about that letter?

Yes, it's so cute when feminists give a sly smirking remonstrance to women who do wrong. Hepola wouldn't be nearly as forgiving if the offenders were men.

You should be careful with things like this. When women's offensiveness is treated as cute, so will their attempts at serious participation in society. Until feminists accept that an equals sign has two sides, there won't be real equality.