anchor
stringlengths 100
28k
| negative
stringlengths 105
28k
|
|---|---|
It has been a month? You need some time to grieve this. This kind of change is a big loss. I'd try to stay sober for it if you can, so that you can process all the emotions that come up over not being with her.
The things you say you want - someone to share you day with, to buy a house and have a family with - these are still things you can have, they are out there for you, just with someone else. And that is the part that hurts and that is the part that will hurt for a little while, it is okay to hurt.
Keep putting yourself out there when you are ready, and you'll find someone else.
If you continue to feel down or worse instead of better you could talk to your doctor about how you are feeling. Depression is a part of grief, and even though she didn't die, this is still a grief. But if it impacts your ability to have a good quality of life, there are options out there to treat it, even if it is situational depression. There are always options. | That's a good place to be in. Its a turning point. You want to get help and are open to it and reaching out for it. There is no quick fix (even the drugs for depression take months to take effect) but one day you may look back on how sad you were and not recognize that person. Oh you will still get sad, everyone does, but you will have coping mechanisms and realize that it is temporary. That may be a cheesy way of saying it gets better but I'm happy for you that you are reaching out and think you will do great.
I'm pretty shitty but I hope its more situational and when I am through it I hope to be better. |
I will say this: many girls do. I talked to several who have asked guys out before so it does happen.
Relevant event: about 10 years ago, back when I was 12 and in the 6th grade, I actually had a girl ask me out. Unfortunately, I only starting to leave the 'girls are icky stage' and it was a girl who had previously tried to show interest with the grace of any young child in such a situation (And thus had made me rather dislike her). As such, I turned her down rather harshly. Thinking back on it, I rather regret doing so as, for the very least, she was probably crushed by me doing so in such a fashion, but, as stated, women do sometimes ask guys out. | Temporary passions:
Math (I legit tried to give a crap about calculus, algorithms and so forth for a brief moment in time)
Fitness (It comes and goes in kicks, such as the one I'm on now)
Parkour/Martial Arts (Despite not being particularly good at either, I have gone into modes where I learn practice drills, techniques, philosophy, and so forth)
Programming (same as math) |
Except Dems have lost votes in pretty much every state where the Baptists are concentrated specifically because of their stance on issues of equality for gays and people of color and non-Christian religions.
So obviously, you fucking dingus, the Dems actually do give a shit about the gays and their rights. Otherwise they wouldn't pass actual laws protecting them, they would just shout a bunch of bullshit and never actually do anything like the Republicans and fiscally responsible budgets they never fucking pass. | You could also get a voter's/State ID though.
Probably also issued by your DMV, but doesn't let you drive. But it does let you prove you're over 18/21 pretty much anywhere, so if you have no reason to get a license or are medically unable to, a State ID/Voter ID will cover it. |
> Like, that is part of the problem...I have no idea what plans to make. I tried to make dinner plans and she is out of town this weekend.
Uncertainty, in a nutshell. Some people seem like they can handle it pretty well. I'm not convinced I'm one of those people :). So it goes. Best of luck to you both, eh? | >we should refrain from calling zygotes/blastocysts and fetuses "babies" until they're at the developmental age of viability (around 6 months).
This is kinda the point. Are they babies? We don't know. If you don't think they are, then fine, don't use the word. But like I say, I'm not going to gamble :P |
We use the criteria <PERSON> gave us. Do the things Scriptures claim God did line up with the way of the kingdom of God that <PERSON> described. With this criteria, the parts of the Old Testament that claims God does or asks for evil things, such as genocide, should be called into question. | This is from Mere Christianity. One of the things to remember about <PERSON> is that he was a Lay Theologian speaking to the layity and common men rather then a Professional Philosopher writing to other professional philosophers. He generally uses how the words would be understood by the common men of his era. He also summarizes and skims over places where a more detailed explanation would be a distraction. Imagine for a moment if in middle school science, instead of skimming over the details of how relativity works, the teacher used his time to try and explain in detail the math of the Lambda-CDM model. It would be out of place and useless to his audience.
>The quote from <PERSON> contains a lot of question-begging. How is he defining "right," and if God gave people their sense of "right and wrong," then why do they all have different senses of right and wrong.
In Mere Christianity, <PERSON> does not go into depth on this one. His response is that certain things, such as bravery and loyalty are good in all cultures and things like cowardice and double-crossing are bad in all cultures. "Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or
four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked."
>Lewis' Bible says that it is "right conduct" to beat a woman to death with rocks if she has sex before marriage and that it was "wrong conduct" not to slaughter all the Amelekite babies. Is the Bible to be trusted on these things.
This would be Lambda-CDM question.
>The argument from morality fails for two reasons - one is that everybody has a different morality and the other is that we already know that what we call "moral" feelings or "conscience" have biological. evolutionary causes.
<PERSON> would argue that we do all have the same morality even though it may differ in particulars and that morality is different from our biological instincts given to us by evolution because it is the decider between them. He uses the illustration of a piano keyboard, that which tells us what note to play can not be it's self a note. |
Personally, I think you were doing alright and I was completely supporting you right until the point where you posted it on Facebook. What were you hoping to achieve by posting it on Facebook? If you really wanted his behaviour to be changed/questioned, then you should have shown it to a) your parents, b) a person associated with the school board, or c) to a group of adults associated with the school who are on roughly equal ground to the principal (e.g., vice-principal, lead teacher). Posting it to Facebook gave completely the wrong message and yes, it was inappropriate.
While I disagree with how your principal is treating you (based on your biased account), I think you should have treated it differently. But now the past is in the past and it is time to find a way to move forward. | If I were the bio-mom, just the fact that you refer to the child as “my daughter” would be enough to piss me off. The child is NOT your daughter. She’s your fiancé’s daughter with his ex.
In addition, you’re really mean to film that and then post it online. As a parental figure, you’re supposed to put the best interests of the child first. If this is the best you can do, I feel sorry for the little girl. |
I won't say that the problem with severely unskilled workers doesn't exist, but I don't think that removing minimum wage is the solution. We already have an abundance of jobs that pay minimum wage available, the goal should be to find a way to provide incentives to work for that minimum wage rather than live in poverty and/or on government assistance programs.
These jobs are already, as you mentioned, low-skill and require little or no educational attainment. In many cases even the mentally and/or physically handicapped can do them. The above mentioned workers don't have incentives to do so as they've found alternative ways to get by that don't require them to do these jobs (and they are usually shit-jobs that suck to work at, which doesn't help). If you make it so that a company can pay $4 an hour instead of $8 an hour you are not providing any additional incentives to get these people to work and continue working, in fact you're doing the exact opposite. | First, there is a difference between *political discussion* and *political advertising*. The reason that we have to be careful with laws in that regard is that sometimes the difference between the two is subtle, but that doesn't mean they are the same. Second, we already have laws that regulate political advertising in certain circumstances and by certain groups. Some of these laws easily pass muster (no campaigning outside a polling place during an election), some do not (see Citizens United).
So now that we've established this is simply a matter of degree, we just need to figure out where to draw the line. I believe we should draw the line at #7 above. As for how we should draw the line, that's an issue of engineering a law that protects free speech by individuals but prevents the corruption of the democratic process. Maybe it's hard, but that doesn't mean it's not right.
The best way to do this is to make clear the distinction between individuals and LLCs -- allow individuals to do what they want, but ban LLCs from political speech outside of clearly marked (and equal) airtime. This would include LLCs acting on behalf of individuals (so millionaire <PERSON> could try to pay MSNBC to advertise for <PERSON>, but it would be illegal for MSNBC to do so, not illegal for <PERSON>). LLCs are a good place to draw the line because they are not people, and therefore not entitled to civil rights. The purpose of an LLC is to shield its owners from liability, so it seems natural that it should not enjoy the rights of a person (since it does not share a person's aversion to liability). If the wealthy owner of a LLC wants to use a company for political speech, he is welcome to have a company that is not a LLC. However, there is a whole host of reasons why no one would ever find this palatable, since LLCs are so integral to the modern economy.
EDIT: I should clarify that I mean LLCs *and other* limited liability entities, which of course includes things like publicly traded corporations. This means that pretty much the only things excluded would be sole proprietorships and individuals, with the key boundary being limited liability. |
>computers
The difference comes from meaning. When a human being syllogizes, let's say specifically, "All men are mortal. <PERSON> is a man. Therefore, <PERSON> is mortal.", there are two aspects which are not applicable to a computer.
The first is the reference of the symbols. A calculator or a computer rearranges symbols according to pre-defined rules. It can do this quickly and quite well, in some functions better than a human. But it cannot itself define the symbols, because it is an accidental (in the philosophical sense) arrangement. There are wires, symbols, even programs and algorithms, but none of them are of themselves "about" anything, until and unless a human gives meaning to those symbols. A book full of text in an entirely unknown language dissimilar from known language families (like if I just made one up from scratch) would be unintelligible. There would be no way to connect the symbols to the meaning. This will always be a problem for computers, by virtue of what they are. If a strong AI acted in such a way as to convey real intelligence, I would take it to be evidence they had a soul, not the other way around that we do not. Material objects and processes simply cannot properly explain reference.
The second is the actual reasoning itself. Once we have the terms, we connect them in a very special way, according to reason. If I syllogized and said it was true "because my dopamine is being triggered" or because "Mars is in the House of Aries" or because "the wavefunctions of the various particles making up my brain have collapsed into the present state", all of those would be explanations for how I causally came to say or believe what I did, but none of them would ensure truth-value. To reason "If x, then y. X. Therefore, y." is on the basis of the thing being true, and not something else. Other explanations are disqualifiers, like when we say someone says they believe something "because they're just being emotional" or "because they were raised like that", we generally are being dismissive, not supportive, of their conclusion. But without a soul, there is no way to avoid this. Everything is either determined or random--but it cannot be chosen and reasoned. This undermines all argumentation. | For example, the letters of the book are in a certain order although they might be unordered (non-existent in the first place, but we omit this as of now). They are in a certain order like reflecting a specific number, like the CC. So the question was relating to that.
Some people say that if there is no reason that the constants might be different, then there will be no reason to assume that there is one who encompasses these things with the ability to make the very observed specifics.
However, a relationship like this which we observe will exist only within an encompassing being which encompasses the whole of it. Because its parts have no meaning without the entirety. And if there are no prior processes as most atheists use, then there is nothing in the very first place to link those things other than a creator who has consciousness. |
So we take the kids who are intelligent and excel in school and teach them that working harder gets them nothing? Instead of being the best they can be, they should aim for a grade slightly better than the dumbest/slowest/laziest kid in class? You have devised a way to completely discourage the intelligent from learning.
If this had been the policy at my school I can pretty much guarantee the dumb kid would be picked on/beat up a lot, and I would have figured out that I could put in almost no effort and end up in the same place as if I had tried. | The reasoning behind only being allowed to cause enough damage is that you are defending yourself, not punishing the other person. Once you make the transition from stopping an attack to attacking someone it makes you guilty of battery as well. If the law was as you (and many other people) want it to be, then you could claim that somebody that bumped into you on the street was assaulting you and you defended yourself by cutting their head off with a rusty spoon, vs the way it is currently written where you call them a fuck-head and walk away. |
See the problem was that he was definitely the most social out of all of us, so usually he would be the one that made first contact, and would introduce us to all these different people. He actually got laid a lot to be honest.
It was certainly selfish when it came to girls he liked, but he's always been a really good dude otherwise, and has grown up a lot since then. We confronted him over this eventually, and we made a rule that he could only call dibs on one girl at a time. | No it shouldn't. It should be to leave her alone, because there is no way that a single person that reads /r/adviceanimals would have any chance in this situation, and they'll just make her incredibly uncomfortable and probably ruin her day.
You don't have to interact with women just because they are attractive. |
>In your post you say that ℕ is a set which is an actual infinity, yet it is (by definition) created by successive additions. Who is in the wrong?
I would disagree with the quoted premise, so I would say that it is wrong. I should be noted however that <PERSON> (from whom the premise originates) avoids this problem by being an anti-realist about mathematical entities. That is, he would say something along the lines of "No collection of entities which actually exist (e.g. moments in time) can be an actual infinite. As ℕ does not exist it is not a counterexample to this."
>Since 2 here is the total of an infinite number of parts, does that make it an actual infinity? Looking at the limit of partial sums, that would be a potential infinity, right?
It's a matter of how you want to interpret infinite sums. If you are the type of person who has no problem with actual infinities, it's true that you can interpret them either way. However the upshot of this is that the finitist who denies the existence of actual infinities can still make sense of infinite series, sequences etc. by denying the validity of the former interpretation and thinking of them only as limiting processes.
So from the point of view of the finitist the distinction is not worthless, and it should be noted that you can't dismiss the finitist as just wrong. After all ZF requires an Axiom of Infinity in order to get actually infinite sets like ℕ, and anything provable in PA is provable without this axiom. | >I don't really see any evidence in the post chain. I see opinions.
Then we have reached an impasse.
>Cold logic isn't morality. You have a responsibility toward your own child... or are you saying that objectively, that responsibility is untrue?
I am saying that that responsibility only goes so far. For example it is my responsibility to take care of my child, but if the situation goes that the child would suffer significantly less than the others (including possible psychological damage) then yes, my responsibility is greater to prevent those from suffering.
> You have given no evidence that the local maximum is anything except subjective.
I don't know how to make it any clearer.
>And when freedom abridges this SLH morality of yours? Which wins?
I have said, multiple times, it depends on a number of factors, three of which I listed in the last post. I don't know how to make it any clearer.
> The argument to prosecute a spouse-murderer becomes exceedingly weak.
This does not follow. One that murders for little or no reason is highly likely to kill again.
>I should volunteer my firstborn and my mother for invasive and lethal human testing
This interferes with their freedom of choice, you cannot volunteer them. However, I do agree that in this system someone volunteering themselves for this would be considered morally good.
>By strict least harm, we should look into the math of proatively assassinating people who have mental tendencies that might lead them to do something bad.
While that decreases the suffering, it is not the best route to deal with the situation. To prevent the suffering both of those who have these tendencies, those that love them, and the victims, it would be more prudent to research ways to cure these mental illnesses or predispositions. This would decrease suffering more in the long run.
>If any of these examples are wrong, please explain to me how your moral view would resolve it.
I have solved them to the best of my ability using this system. |
You don't really have to. "Science" isn't an institution which provides answers, it's a method of asking questions. If we ask the question "at what pressure and temperature does diesel combust" and we hypothesize that value, we can build an engine. If the engine works, you were right. If it doesn't, you pick a new value and start again. This method of self correction works across all fields and eventually leads to the scientific laws which, if they keep predicting our observations of nature correctly, we can say we "know." There is never 100% certainty, but as this is the only epistemological system which operates under the assumption that we can be wrong, it's the best we got. | The strongest argument means you have to walk in my shoes and view from my eyes. Say you believe two things, that God exists and his judgment of you is heavily dependent based on your beliefs, and that life begins at contraception. If you believed these things (or to a lesser extent just the second thing), it's really hard to say abortion isn't murder. All life would be precious in your eyes, both fetuses and prisoners on death row have as much right to life as the pope or your favorite pastor. If you can't understand that view point, then you won't have your view changed. But that's ok. |
maybe he just likes cereal or oatmeal for breakfast. not everybody's stomach can take bacon, eggs, waffles, and toast. Given that she's getting up to pack lunch I doubt she'd begrudge him a few minutes cooking if that's what he wanted. Besides, if you're like my grandma, you don't go back to bed, you do some volunteer work or clean the house or mow the lawn. | at my work it's common for a few of us to pass along messages to the day crew, "K, I'll let him know." The other day there was a bee flying around inside the building and the boss told us to just ignore it, as according to her bees only live 3-4 days. <PERSON> says, "<PERSON>, I'll let him know." |
Ok, maybe break that down further. What does that entail? Eating better? Getting out of the house? Making sure your living space is clean?
I think a big part of the problem might be that it seems too big. So focus on one thing. When you get that one thing under control, you'll feel better and it will make it even easier to go on to the next.
You say you know that you can do it, so trust your gut instinct and start applying yourself to it. | What is a "reasonable accommodation" that means that the work still gets done and you can deal with the issues on your end?
There is no law on the books that means that someone who physically can't do the job reliably can't be fired ever. No, if a disabled person can't do the job then they can be fired for it. If there is another way, then they might have an obligation to try that first. I just don't know what that would be. |
> No proof that Korean did Cyber attacks.. This attack was on Sony, which is a Japanese company.
The F.B.I is going to make a statement saying it was North Korea, today. The cyber attack was carried out on Sony Films's American division which produced the movie.
[North Korea did it.](http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/17/media/the-interview-sony-theater-owners/index.html?hpt=hp_t1)
> Nuclear weapons are more dangerous than cyber attacks. Even crappy Nuclear weapons.
The fact that they tested nuclear weapons twice should have been enough reason to attack, however, they have zero capability to launch a nuclear attack against the U.S and it's really doubtful that they could even hit South Korea. We need to stop them before they develop the capability to use the few nuclear weapons they possess.
> Maybe. But Korea doesn't operate alone. If you want to destroy Korea because of some silly move attack, why would other countries feel safe? Korea is a historic place that would be a very bad idea to carry out over a movie.
It's not about the movie, it's about the capability that North Korea demonstrated when they launched a cyber attack over that silly movie. They showed that their cyber capabilities pose a real threat. They can use that capabilities to attack infrastructure or banking systems. They did do that with South Korea. [2013 South Korean cyber attack](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_South_Korea_cyberattack) The longer we don't do anything, the more their capabilities improve and the more brazen they get. | I pulled the trillion number out my ass. You tell me, how many generations it should take to witness evolution. I'll go with whatever number you tell me to expect.
We can then setup an experiment to prove evolution in bacterial cultures. We can setup a thousand bacterial cultures and run them for twice the generations you said, then look at the results.
> Evolution isn't predictive. It's explanatory. The <PERSON> model isn't either. You can't explain how a creator does it because you have no evidence for it.
So if I come up with my theory about how god created the earth in 7 days, placing the fossils in the places they were found, then how is your evolutionary theory better than my theory? Neither of these theories can predict what will happen in the future. |
There used to be lots of mostly Mexican people here. Other south and central Americans too, though. But when the economy crashed in 2008 lots left and haven't returned. Don't know if it's because of economic or political reasoning. We had many undocumented workers.
They did lots of construction, housekeeping, back of house work. (The ones I knew anyways). | Also, unless your rent is $3 or $4k per month, that $150 late fee may be excessive. It's hard to claim that a late payment costs a landlord $150 in administrative expenses. Late fees are supposed to be reasonable compensation for added work, not a punishment for late payment. $150 on less than $3k rent is just greedy.
If you get dragged into court over this you might win that argument. It varies judge to judge, though. L |
How exactly am I intolerant of creationists because I think their beliefs are absolutely ridiculous? I'm not advocating anyone round up and shoot creationists, or that we forcefully "convert" creationists, or even anything as mild as suggesting creationists shouldn't be allowed to speak their opinions. (This is, of course, different from stating that these clearly religious beliefs should have any kind of official recognition in, say, public education.)
And furthermore, I *am* making a point- you shouldn't try to argue with creationists by tackling their beliefs directly and exposing where they're contradictory or just plain not very good at explaining things, because they frankly don't seem to *care* about it. If they're convinced that the Bible tells them the literal truth, they're just going to keep on believing and coming up with *ad hoc* explanations in more and more convoluted cycles. Better to strike at the root of the matter- just argue that you can't take the Bible literally. | How is posting your views on an open forum to like-minded individuals bullying? If you don't like what's on the subreddit, don't go to it- simple as that.
Please. How many atheists have knocked on your door recently to tell you you're doomed to eternal damnation if you don't believe what they do? How many wars and genocides have been carried out in the name of atheism?
Theists are historically disrespectful of other people's beliefs. And by disrespectful I mean "will kill you and your family if you disagree." Does this mean all theists are disrespectful? Of course not. Your average person on the street is more likely to be understanding and respectful. But the religious institution is not. It's the groupthink that enacts the real evil.
I don't see the point of your abortion example. I guess I believe that you can disagree with someone and still be respectful? Just my two cents. |
**Here's a sneak peek of [/r/CasualUK](https://np.reddit.com/r/CasualUK) using the [top posts](https://np.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/top/?sort=top&t=all) of all time!**
\#1: [Summer in London](http://imgur.com/oZYKGId) | [103 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/comments/6fkxpa/summer_in_london/)
\#2: [BBC Radio Cornwall and BBC Radio Devon are kicking off over Pasties](https://i.redd.it/xso7n5nrjz3z.jpg) | [186 comments](https://np.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/comments/6hlqes/bbc_radio_cornwall_and_bbc_radio_devon_are/)
\#3: [ITT : We all pretend we're Americans.](https://np.reddit.com/r/CasualUK/comments/6d8c4w/itt_we_all_pretend_were_americans/)
----
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot, ^^beep ^^boop ^^| ^^Downvote ^^to ^^remove ^^| [^^Contact ^^me](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=sneakpeekbot) ^^| [^^Info](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/) ^^| [^^Opt-out](https://np.reddit.com/r/sneakpeekbot/comments/5lveo6/blacklist/) | http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7536918.stm
"Something which has never occurred since time immemorial; a young woman did not fart in her husband's lap,"
It's also the *oldest* known joke of any kind!
Q: How do you know it's joke
A: The academic historian who compiled the list of oldest jokes used the criteria that the 'punch line' had to be unexpected given the original context. The start of the joke is in a high register but it apparently switches to an informal register (I can't confirm I don't speak ancient Summerian but I take his word for it.) The Mesopotamians were a funny bunch it seems, there's a story elsewhere in their literature about a man who has his house burned down to cleanse it of 'demons' and then realises he's got no where to live. |
With United (and presumably other airlines) here's how it works.
If you book really far in advance, you get to pick your own confirmed seat. That seat is your seat, you're getting on the plane.
As the flight fills up, there won't be any free picks left. You've got two options:
1. Pay for an upgrade (like economy plus, which ranges from $20 to $80 depending on flight specifics) and pick a seat. You'll be getting on the plane.
2. Don't pick a seat and, "your seat will be assigned prior to boarding". These are the people who MIGHT get bumped.
United (and other airlines as well) oversell seats in this last bucket by about 103% give or take. On average, a few people miss the flight for whatever reason. By slightly overselling, they can still fill the plane to capacity. But every now and then, everyone shows up. Then people get bumped.
The moral of the story is if you NEED to be on a plane, make sure you have a confirmed seat. Book early, or pay for the upgrade. Neither is the end of the world if it's that important for you to be on the flight. | What I'm trying to do (sorry about lack of clarity!) is compare two types of decisions made while drunk.
Some people decide they're okay to drive even when they're clearly too drunk to drive safely. This is a bad decision and not one they should make, one they will likely regret making.
Some people decide they're okay to have sex even when they're clearly too drunk to think clearly. This is a bad decision and not one they should make, one that they will likely regret making. However, in this case, a person can't do it alone. In this case, it's up to the other person to decide for them. (for clarity's sake, we'll say the drunk is a woman and the less drunk/sober person is a man) Should he accept this woman throwing herself at him just because she's saying she wants it? Or should he recognize that she probably isn't capable of making that decision in her current state?
Personal responsibility is a factor, yes. A person should learn how they act when they're drunk and decide ahead of time whether or not they'll drink to that point. However, in the moment when they are drunk, all that doesn't really matter. That's more just their personal issue that they need to sort out. It's up to another person to refuse their advances or avoid suggesting sex in the first place. |
Shitty drivers should be called out on, and using your horn is one thing. Taking matters into your own hands - becoming judge, jury, and possibly executioner - and possibly killing them just to exact revenge. That's not calling out a shitty driver. That's attempted fucking murder. Yes, the sports car driver is posing a danger to others. OP posed a danger to the sports car diver. Literally proving my statement "you're no better than him" to be true. I do petty shit like this, too. If traffic is bad and lanes are merging and people keep shooting up ahead to get ahead, I'll merge into both lanes and stop them. But I won't run them off the road and possibly fucking kill them to do it. <PERSON> should literally be tried for attempted murder. I'm all about calling out assholes and correcting them, and we need to call out <PERSON> for being an asshole on par with the original driver. Fair is fair. <PERSON> is not in any kind of position (as far as we know) to be dealing out justice. He's a vigilante and that's not okay. | I remember a dream where my brother and I were breaking into a house because he had a sweet pinball machine. We even brought a bag for it. Then my brother trips the alarm because he grabbed a vase. Cops instantly showed up. My brother has vanished. I'm fucked so as the cops come rushing in, I get ready with my shotgun, but they don't even really acknowledge me. They just come rushing in and take positions at the windows, ready to handle some house robber that's yet approaching. They didn't realize it was me because apparently I'm a police officer. So I decide to shoot them before they realize I'm the guy they came for. I aim my shotgun right into the side of one dude's head and pull the trigger. He gets blasted with sand. He's like, "WHAT THE FUCK!" and I remember wondering why I brought a shotgun as a weapon because all they shoot is sand. So I laugh awkwardly and they all treat me like I'm an idiot with bad prank humor. |
>We should do all we can to encourage people to A) follow current laws B) believe what they want to believe and then C) feel free to express those beliefs in an honest and constructive way.
I think you are right (Though I don't think there is a honest and constructive way to express hate). But the problem is that I see some forms of religious speech as actively against the current laws. | I'm late for this discussion, but here is my opinion anyways.
>CMV: There needs to be more critical discourse surrounding Islam in Western Society.
I would instead say that the discourse surrounding Islam needs to take the complexity of the situation into account.
> 1. Comparisons between christianity are faulty.
You say and then start to immediately compare the central (human) figure in both religion. Yes, on the one hand <PERSON> was more violent then <PERSON>. On the other hand <PERSON> didn't have the option of large scale violence because he wasn't a political leader. <PERSON> also didn't start out violent. If he had been killed by his enemies early on, would he perhaps be regarded like <PERSON>, a victim of violence?
I could go on with how <PERSON> is a pretty violent figure in prophecies about his second coming. Or we could ask at what point in history Christianity turned violent and why.
I agree that it is wrong to dismissively say "Well, Christianity is violent too." and leave it at that. But we can compare Islam and Christianity and look for similarities and differences to better understand why we face the situation we face today.
>-2. The current situations in many majority muslim countries - such as issues of apostacy, punishment for 'crimes'(such as being raped and suffering stoning), the treatment of homosexuals and women, the prevelance of extremism and so forth. Whilst I don't ignore the geo/socio/econmical politics that lend to these issues, I believe that Islam is a fundamental aspect of the conversation.
Well, Islam *is* a fundamental aspect in the conversation. And as far as I can tell it is a conversation Muslims are having. I would suggest that those who want to participate in this conversation need to familiarize themselves with the different opinions among Muslims and their reasoning. As strange as it may sound, I want people to try to understand *why* some Muslims think apostates should be killed and others think they shouldn't, both sides using the Quran as support.
> -3. [...] A common phrase I hear is that 'the majority of muslims are peaceful'. My response to that is that the majority of Germans were peaceful pre-WW2, [...]
Germany from 1918 to 1933 (and beyond) is actually a good example. Germans during this time were very politicized. Communists, social democrats, democratic liberals, nationalist liberals, conservatives, monarchists, far right conservatives, fascists. These groups were fighting each other with changing alliances constantly. Several times cities were in civil war like states from time to time. The Nazis managed to gain power only through a mix of populism, trickery and violence against their opponents. (And the support of influential conservatives who hoped to use them as pawn.)
The Weimar Republic era seems to be a time in which history could have gone many different paths. Especially in many Arab countries the situation today seems to be comparable. There are very dangerous Islamist factions who could win and do much harm, but there are a lot of other factions as well. Most of them Muslims.
> -4. It is not racist to criticize Islam.
Depends on how you go about it. Judaism is primarily a religion as well, but it is quite possible to be racist against Jews.
Wikipedia defines Racism as: "Racism consists of both prejudice and discrimination based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples." Cross out "biological" and you have the (insert group)-phobic. Criticism of Islam can be prejudiced and can argue for discrimination of Muslims. In that case it is Islamophobic. If it does neither, it is not.
>-5. The vast, vast majority of terrorist attacks over the past decade or so have been performed by islamic extremists. I believe that islamic belief is one of the overwhelming reasons in terms of responsibility for these attacks. I find the notion that the actions of some muslims are not in some way influenced by islam as ridiculous.
I'm not sure if the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the past decades have been committed by Muslims or if they just got more media coverage. Either way, two things about this:
1. If a Kurd places a bomb in a Turkisch government building, was this attack really influenced to a noticeable degree by Islam? (The terrorist in this case is Muslim after all.)
2. I am pretty certain that there has been no terrorist attack by Muslims that didn't also have an equally important political motivation.
>-6. The way in which those who are critical of islam are treated. It is disgustingly unjust that those who criticize islam in the west are subjected to fatwa's and deathtreats by influential muslim imams in the middle east.
Completely agree. Please note that many people who have fatwas and deaththreats against them are Muslims.
**TL;DR** Islam and Politics is a very complex topic. While we shouldn't be afraid to criticize, it is much more important to truly try to understand the situation. We should also remember that Muslims are having the same debate and it is worthwhile to look at their positions. |
It's hard to describe accurately. You feel warm in your chest, but not hot. Just like, pleasant. And your head sort of feels... tingly, almost? Then you just don't really give a shit about a lot. You ramble a lot, then you comment on the fact that you're rambling, then you ramble about how much you're rambling, and how interesting it is that you don't give a shit that you're rambling. And when I say you don't really give a shit, I mean like, not a single fuck. That thing about girls appearing more attractive isn't really true, but you A: Enjoy their company a lot more, and B: Start thinking along the lines of "If we made out I think I'd enjoy it just 'cos why the fuck wouldn't I?" That's how few fucks you give. The stuff about forgetting an entire night is exaggerated a lot of the time, but still true. | Plus, grow the fuck up, and don't have a crush. Either you like a girl and you ask her out, or you don't, and you don't. Don't fuck around in the middle, because she might be swept up by somebody who wasn't a child about it.
Here's basically the three step plan you should have to ask a girl out. You notice you like her more than a friend. Then you find out if she isn't taken. Then you ask her out. How do you ask a girl out? Hey, I'm planning to go to <insert movie here> <insert day here>, wanna go with me as a date? Done, you're either in or you're out at that point. Keep in mind, make it clear it's a date (my tip, use the word *date*), not a friend thing, this will help you avoid really fucking awkward situations (going for the kiss at the end and her being completely caught off guard comes to mind).
Seriously, stop being such a little bitch and ask a girl out when you like her. Either you try, fail, and move on, or you're forever stuck in some sort of purgatory where you're imagining a possible future you could've had (and the babies would've looked amazing, I know).
I've made the mistakes noted above myself, and even though I might not be dating a lot lately, by I now I do know how the "game" is played. Without any bullshit. |
It seems that the right of a group of people not to be forced out of their homes through intimidation, starvation, violence, rape, or other means, should be considered a basic right included in the concept of human rights defended by the UN. However, the UN does not consider these actions a violation of international law as long as they do not reach the level of genocide. How was this decision reached? I know the term "ethnic cleansing" was not coined until well after the UN Charter, but was this known by another name before then?
| Can this also be applied in a wider context? For example, it is to my understanding that a significant number of Americans sees gay marriage as a goal in gay emancipation. Does that mean there will be less activism or even a backlash with respect to gay rights, when the gay marriage issue is settled for good? |
And that's great, I respect your resourcefulness. Nothing wrong with used and free stuff granted it's in decent condition. My biggest point is the parents that misappropriate the funds for unnecessary items and find themselves in a pinch come the end of the month. And I agree, I don't think either parent has a right to monitor the other outside of illegalities, but IMO it would only be beneficial for everybody if the CS funds were in an isolated account that the non-custodian could monitor. I'm not even saying this should be the default, but if one parent can show cause and perhaps get a subpoena for this option, why not? | Oh, forgive my assumption then that's my bad. And surprisingly it's usually quite well. These types of disputes are more emotion than law, so the parties at issue actually communicating is the best overall solution as long as both sides are trying to be their own version of reasonable. So to take the current example If <PERSON> were here in my office I'd call the parents from my own phone since they've blocked her, let them know what's going on and that they've seriously breached the law and a talk needs to happen as long as nothing irreversible has taken place. If <PERSON> just calls the police maybe her and parents never speak again, obviously a long term consequence over an issue that a conversation could have possibly cured. If the parents agree to back off and give <PERSON> details of the dogs whereabouts then that's a disaster averted. Most people want to try to be reasonable with other people. Especially more so when it's people you're going to be forced to interact with the rest of your life (family, neighbours etc.) The idea is the law should be the last resort when all reasoning has already failed not "no screw that you've done me wrong and I'm coming for your ass" |
> trying to make things not real to make room for non real things
I'm not, if there is sufficient philosophical ground to hold property dualism then it may be the case. I don't think there is, but there are other intelligent individuals who do. What I'm saying is that IF there is ground, the response of "well how does it work" isn't a good response because we know just as little about the alternatives. | > Or you can reject that and so we are up to a long journey ...
I guess we're on a long journey because ethics exist, you can't just ignore ethics and intention. Sure, morality will differ from person to person, but if we're talking in the context of our society, then we have a framework to work with. Therefore you can't just ignore ethics or intention, they are relevant to the discussion. |
Depends on the area, obviously. I grew up in a middle class area and in high school a lot of kids' parents bought them cars. Some kids were given older cars when their parents bought new ones. Ranging from really nice late models to cars on their last legs. I had to buy my own. I knew better than to even ask. My mom would have laughed me out of the room. | I do! I hope you love your next car as much as you have with your older one. Safety is a major factor and of course you can't keep pouring money into it. I understand the sentimental value though. My mom had to do the same with her 13 year old Honda. I grew up to that car but she needed a more reliable one. |
My background is economics/psychology, so this may be off-topic. Anyway,…
Humans generally don't enjoy violence in literature/art *as such*. Most of the time, it's a depiction of the ["myth of pure evil", as social psychologist <PERSON> describes it](http://experimentaltheology.blogspot.de/2006/05/psychology-of-belief-part-2-myth-of.html). "Pure evil" has several distinguishing features which makes it rather easy to recognize, once you know what you're looking for. This kind of "evil" is rare in reality, which is why <PERSON> calls it a myth.
As a reaction to evil (any perceived moral transgression in reality), violence is accepted, and often morally required. In other words, violence is the expression of an intutitive judgement of justice. When the good cop kills the bad perpetrator, we feel good, because we want to live in a [just world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis).
In fact, there are good reasons to suspect that violence in most forms is at least partially motivated by moral concerns. For more on this, see the recent book "[Virtous violence](http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/22963789-virtuous-violence)". Here's an [introduction by one of its authors](http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/people-do-violence-because-their-moral-codes-demand-it/). | I'm terribly sorry for your loss, all the more so given that the pain was amplified by <PERSON> and his church. Others in the comments have already addressed this indirectly, but it's worth asking yourself: *what do I hope to accomplish with this act?*
- If your goal is to vent your spleen, I'm sure everyone can understand that impulse. Unfortunately, the person you consider responsible for your pain will no longer be around to be told off—pretty much by definition, in this case. As you observed yourself, this would almost certainly be a criminal act. Do you want to risk fines or jail time for *this* asshat? For one thing, that seems to elevate his importance, and ideally this man and his misguided followers will become nothing more than a historical footnote within just a few years.
- Is your goal to undermine WBC? To convince its members to reconsider their positions, or at least to discourage new potential-members from joining? This act, as others have pointed out, would likely be counterproductive: members would simply see this feeding their persecution complex, which would strengthen their sense of righteousness.
- Is your goal to get some kind of closure to the pain caused by the protest at the funeral you attended? That's a worthwhile goal, but I wonder whether this would be an effective way of getting what you want. Another thought experiment to consider: what do you imagine the person whose funeral WBC protested would advise you about this?
- What might be the personal cost to you of focusing on your anger and pain? Your anger and pain is real and well-earned, to be sure. But you might consider the [allegory of the two wolves](http://www.firstpeople.us/FP-Html-Legends/TwoWolves-Cherokee.html) and ask yourself which one you would be feeding:
>An old Cherokee is teaching his grandson about life. "A fight
is going on inside me," he said to the boy.
>
>"It is a terrible fight and it is between two wolves. One
is evil - he is anger, envy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity,
guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority,
and ego." He continued, "The other is good - he is joy,
peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy,
generosity, truth, compassion, and faith. The same fight is going
on inside you - and inside every other person, too."
>
>The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather, "Which wolf will win?"
>
>The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."
I am sorry for your loss and your pain. I wish this might be an easy way for you to find catharsis, but I expect the strategy you're describing might be risky, wouldn't give you what you want, and it might backfire in terms of any goals in terms of undermining WBC itself.
And at the risk of being presumptuous, let me suggest an alternative: instead, visit the grave of the person you lost, and try to find closure there. Away from the screams of the ignorant, you might finally find a moment of peace denied to you at the funeral.
Whatever you decide, best wishes, OP. |
No disrespect intended here. I definitely understand your feelings.
This argument uses the fallacy of the excluded middle. Sometimes, there is an option in between "hit her" and "submit to murder", and that option is to run away. Regardless of how satisfying it may seem to counter a violent threat and dole out punishment to an aggressor simultaneously and instantly, how would the man feel one year later if he ended up giving her a concussion that night?
| I can do my best to give an example to the best of my ability, but please respect that this is my anonymous account. This is a local story that would inadvertently give away the location of where I am. This is essentially where my argument stemmed from as well.
Recently, a man was charged in my city with manslaughter, I believe. The surrounding evidence regarding the event that took place were not enough to warrant a case for self defense. However, the guy he killed was almost unanimously hated by the community. While starting one of his regular non-life-threatening confrontations, he was shot and killed. The current defense strategy revolving the murderer is simply framed around how that victim was a bad guy already and so he ultimately deserved it. |
Not really, that would still be classified as a consequence. It would make sense that an eternal being would deal on an eternal level. That would mean we have only to options on the eternal spectrum, go to heaven or go to hell.
The harshness of the consequence doesn't make it any less of that. | Anti theists can and usually are atheists but the two terms have little to do with each other as most definitions of antitheism do not require atheism at all.
The problem with r/atheism is that the supposed atheists are actually confused anti-theists. There isn't much discussion of atheism, just how to destroy theism. |
Your company can fire you for nearly any reason they want to, including your use of the word (with either the -er or -a ending). There's not much you can do, especially since you've already been terminated and it's been 6 months.
It's hard to imagine you ex-coworker has any damages against you, but if she DOES sue, make sure you don't ignore it. But definitely don't stress about it unless she actually follows through on the threat.
Non-legal advice: There is no reason to disclose the reason you were fired (or that you were fired at all) to future employers. | Unless it's an automatic suspension of license, I would NOT submit to a field sobriety test (ie. the "touch your finger to your nose" kind). You can be convicted of DUI solely on the officer's interpretation of this test. Yes, even if they then do a breathalyzer and you pass!
In most states, you can refuse the physical test, but you must blow the breathalyzer (or the blood test).
You CAN refuse to answer any questions. If you do, it is more likely you'll be ticketed for whatever he can ticket you for (illegal parking, etc.). It's also much LESS likely that you'll say something that could cause him to arrest you for something worse.
I'd answer as few questions as you can. You can also ask, "officer, did I do anything illegal?" and if they say "I'm not sure yet" or "no", then you can ask if this is a consensual conversation, and if not you can please just leave (or, "am I free to leave"?). When asking these questions, it is important not to sound disrespectful.
The general advice is to not talk to police, any more than you are required to.. but also be prepared for them to start swinging their cop balls around and making it more difficult for you. |
employee still pays! sure the employer writes the check. But if it didn't exist, salaries would be higher (in theory). Just as the employer-paid portion of health insurance in the end, at least in part, results in lower salaries for employees.
So OP is entitled to it. No reason not to claim it in my mind. | lots a great comments here. As other people have noted, gun bans work great in other countries but I think it is safe to assume OP meant USA. Yes, the prohibition of goods in the US has proven repeatedly to be an unmanageable public policy with few or no benefits (alcohol, pot) Also, the 1990's assault weapons ban was so poorly executed that no statistically significant reduction to the incidence of mass killing and shooting death manifested.
But nobody is actually passing gun control measures at least until 2014 so wtf? Also there are some supreme court rulings preventing the other (non-gun control) measures like a national gun registry from going through, even if congress wanted one, which they don't (yes I am talking about democrats like NRA sponsored candidate and senate dem leader <PERSON> not just R's.)
A gun buyback and gun bounty program would have more science behind it and would stay far from running afoul the US Constitution |
During election time, incumbent Congressmen tout the money and jobs that they have brought into their district, and opponents try to claim that they could do even better. Voters love for Congressmen to improve the local economic situation in this way.
However, there is nothing good about this because it is merely a displacement rather than growth. A zero sum game.
When tax money is used for your Congressional district, it merely displaces tax money that could have been used elsewhere. Is the decision to use it in your district and not some other district the best economic choice? Highly unlikely. It's just based on politics, not any objective economic analysis. It's really just a form of political currency.
Yes, the taxes must be spent somewhere, but to reward a Congressman for bringing the money to your district is really just selfishness or ignorance of economics. | If you are incapable of addressing a debate topic because of some personal obstacle, then do not address the topic. You are contributing nothing to the question then, as you can't even bring yourself to entertain the question.
Regardless of how you feel about it, it is a common debate tactic to make assumptions to get past these personal obstacles that do not contribute to the topic at hand.
A popular debate topic is whether or not it is morally permissible to kill one man and donate his organs to save five other dying men. We make the assumption that the organ translate is guaranteed to work, that their blood types match up, etc because those are irrelevant parts of the conversation. It has nothing to do with what is *actually* bring asked.
If that bothers you, you apparently are incapable of participating in debate and should not be surprised your conversations are cyclical. |
While your comment may sound extreme to some, the notion here that people should understand is that <PERSON> brought up the issue of environmental sustainability. Sustaining the population is not a priority here. If a population of 300 million is considered unsustainable, OP and Trollsofalabama are saying: well, why not have 150 million instead? The way to get there is up to you - sterilization and war are certainly way too extreme for most people, but there are other ways, like education, a "reproduction license" (just like you have to pass tests to get a driver's license) , a child tax (taxes increase dramatically for families with more than 2 children), etc. With the same resources and technology, a country with 150 million will have a smaller negative environmental impact than if it had 300 million. That's the argument. No one said sustaining the population is important. Who said 300 million is the right number? Who said population always has to grow? If it can be decreased peacefully and ethically, why not? | Wait wait wait. When professors bring in grant money, as far as I know, most of that money goes to the professor's lab (Edit: schools often take a cut). This may not be the case with patents and things like that, I have no clue. But at least half if not more of the research being conducted in universities will never yield patents nor make money for the university. Researchers bring fame and renown to the school. They are able to collaborate with each other and enrich each others' research, which is one of the reasons schools want the best researchers possible. Also, better researchers = more highly ranked department = more students want to attend.
I don't think more money will solve the problem. The issue at hand seems to me to be the system itself: how we rank universities. If all the professors who did research suddenly stopped, expenses at universities wouldn't go up. In fact they'd probably go down since the university would need much less space.
Unless you mean hiring great instructors on top of existing research-oriented faculty (which actually, most schools actually do, in the form of "lecturers" or "adjuncts"). |
I think I see what I'm dealing with now. You've never even tried medication. You think that this worldview that you have that everything is crap is normal because that's all you've known. You know how I know you've never tried medication?
>If I wanted to lie to myself by altering my perception of the world I live in I might as well do ecstasy every day.
That is completely illogical and semi-incoherent. Either that or you have absolutely no idea what ecstasy does to people either. Medication isn't "a happy pill." Being on medication doesn't make me only feel happiness. I'm still sad, I'm still human, and parts of my personality I forgot about were able to come back when I was no longer crushed under the weight of my own anguish. And another good sign you don't fully understand the comparison you're making: people on ecstasy feel sad all the time. Ecstasy is largely a massive release of serotonin all at once, so these people feel *everything* a lot harder.
What makes calling someone mentally ill dismissive? Are you dismissive of other mental illnesses? Do you think it's dismissive to call someone who is having paranoid delusions a schizophrenic? If not, what's the difference? People treat depression as a mysterious neurological disorder because [according to the Mayo Clinic it is one.](http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/basics/causes/con-20032977) Do you think that the Mayo Clinic is choosing to devote its resources to researching depression if it thought it was an unsolvable problem? I'm from southeast Minnesota; there are way more politically expedient and way more profitable things they could be researching.
So the people who are suicidal who don't have an illness, you think that makes it more ok for them to take their life? If it's non-clinical, there is likely a concrete reason for that, and do you think these people are incapable of working through their emotions? Do you think you're incapable of that? And I *do* think it's selfish for a clinically depressed person to take their own life. If you're willing to acknowledge that there may be a clinical basis for the problem, then there is likely a clinical solution (or at least attempts/progress for one).
I agree that people with intense psychological/physical issues so strong that they want to kill themselves should be treated as victims. I don't want victims to die. I want victims to survive, I want them to be able to show other victims that life can be lived, and is worth living. How much more terrifying would life be if *everyone else who had your mindset was dead.*? It's not just the people who love you, it's other people like you around the world. It's the iamambience who lives in Oregon who sees that he's not alone in the world, and maybe life should be lived. That person may be able to go on and make the people around them live a better life. Do you gain nothing from sharing in the human condition?
And obviously a wildly different circumstance, but if you think that people can't be called selfish for making their own life decisions than nobody can be called selfish. The businessman who chooses to give himself a $100,000 raise instead of hiring new employees is looking out for HIS life and HIS family, but the reality of the matter is he's being selfish by not putting himself so much higher than everybody else. We see the person in this metaphor as selfish, and he doesn't know the people he's hurting. Imagine if members of his own family, people who cared about him and wanted the best for him, were unemployed and he refused to give them a job. Wouldn't that make this person look even more selfish? | >Those rules like do not murder, lie, etc were meant to protect ourselves and establish order because sin would've caused us to destroy the world.
I'm not just talking about laws like "don't murder." I'm talking about all 613 commandments that God gave to the Israelites and told them that they were to follow them forever - and punished them for not following. You're saying that God gave us impossible to follow laws, then punished us for not following them, and then took them back even though He said that they were meant to be permanent?
>However, those rules are impossible to follow completely because we are all going to continue to sin.
[Deuteronomy 30:11-14]. God Himself said that it's not impossible to follow the laws. And besides - where does it say that following everything perfectly is required? God gave us the opportunity to repent and improve ourselves. He never said that we're screwed if we're not perfect.
>Jesus never said that it wasn't good to follow those commandants but he gave us a new commandant. "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. Also, love your neighbor as yourself.
Those aren't new commandments. They're from the Torah. [Deuteronomy 6:5] and [Leviticus 19:18].
>What was the <PERSON> supposed to be or do in your opinion?
He'll be a teacher, and military and political leader, who will rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, return all the Jews to the Land of Israel and to the observance of the Torah, and usher in an era of world peace. <PERSON> didn't do any of these things. |
> And if we lived in India I could point you to the exact same, except they believe the miraculous healings are evidence for the divinity of <PERSON>.
Except you're basing your conclusions purely on hearsay. I'm operating on personal experience. You're readily disregarding any possibility that I might be right based on your own inane logic that says because people somewhere else claim the same thing I do, we must both be wrong.
> No the challenge is for these things to be objective evidence they need to be testable and repeatable in nuetral non-biased settings. Let one of your faith healers accept and win the Randi Challenge and then we may have something to talk about
By putting down strict ground-rules for what you will and won't accept as evidence, you're making my point for me.
> Do you have another definition? Write it out
I've already told you that I have evidence I can show you, but you've already disregarded it based on your own subjective criteria (ie. people in India claim the same thing). It's amazing how you're actually demonstrating my point as you try to argue against it.
> No I won't if it meets the criteria set forth, in the definition of evidence. It must be testable by anyone with the proper equipment. It must be repeatable by anyone, it must be observable by anyone, it must be observable by anyone. If you say you must have faith first than of course it isn't objective evidence but subjective evidence. Subjective evidence exists but is always trumped by objective evidence.
It is observable and testable by anyone, as long as they can meet the criteria required. You don't claim lightning doesn't exist because it's unobservable under blue skies. You must meet the requirements to observe the lightning (ie. find the right type of storm, travel to that location, etc.). Just because you don't want to meet these requirements doesn't mean that lightning doesn't exist.
> It is foolish to state we need objective evidence of the safety of a plane before allowing it in the air over our cities but for the meaning of all existence subjective evidence is good enough.
Nobody is talking about subjective evidence.
My point was, and is, that unless we can agree on what comprises valid evidence, all this talk about specific evidence is pointless. | > There was an "if" at the beginning of that
Right, that's why I called it a hypothetical.
> But I stand by what I said after, that it's not the only theory of mind that would reject those members. <PERSON> and <PERSON> would say there's no such thing as mental states at all.
But they wouldn't say what you said in your objection.
&<PERSON>; Regardless of the reality of mental states, philosophy of mind is a huge quagmire, and appealing to the possibility of non-physical minds to defend essentially ordered series leads us down quite the rabbit hole.
I haven't done this. First, my illustration assumed physicalism. Second, it was an illustration, not a demonstration. Third, as I already noted, there's no need to bring up philosophy of mind here, as any B which supervenes on A gives us a relevant example.
> Then if the example was bad from the start, is there a good example of an essentially ordered series that does not rely on abstract realism?
If B supervenes on A, A's founding of B is essential rather than accidental. So pick any example of a supervenient relationship you like. I gave the example of mind in a physicalist ontology, as this is perhaps the most famous, widely excepted and widely discussed example of a supervenient relationship I can think of.
> The presence of the physical material of apples supervenes on the quantity, in this case (2).
On the quantity of apples you mean? I don't see how quantity of apples is an abstract.
It seems to me more fitting to say that the quantity of apples present is founded on the presence of the physical material, rather than vice-versa. But anyway, that's the kind of tangential dispute I am trying to avoid, since it's not the issue at hand. As I understand it, the issue at hand is whether there's any such thing as an essentially, as opposed to accidentally, ordered relation. An essentially ordered relation is when A founds B such that B is sustained by A, as opposed to an accidentally ordered relation which is when A founds B such that B is autonomous of A once founded. It seems evident to me that there are such things as essentially ordered relations, as it seems evident to me that we say of some things that they would cease to be if what founds them cease to be. Most people say this about mental states with respect to their founding by neural states (this is a physicalist claim about mind, not a non-physicalist one as you alleged), and hence the utility of my initial illustration. If you object to the specifics of this illustration, but you like the illustration that the presence of the physical material of apples is founded on the quantity of apples present and the former would cease (or, more generally, change) if the latter did, then, even if I don't think this is the best illustration, anyway it seems like we agree that there can be illustrations of such a relationship.
If we reconceive <PERSON>' hand-stick-stone example as a series of inertial interactions rather than as a rigid body, then the founding of the motions of the stick and of the stone by the hand no longer seems obviously to be an essentially ordered relation, as we might prefer to say that the stick, or indeed a miniscule part of the stick, obtains a quantity of inertia from the hand, and once possessing this quantity moves by virtue of itself possessing this causal power, without needing to be ongoingly sustained by the existence of the hand. But this only makes sense if matter exists, composing the stick and stone, which has the potential for exercising the causal power of inertial motion. So the hand-stick-stone interaction is founded by the existence of this matter, and this founding is essentially ordered, unlike the relation of the motion of the hand to that of the stick, which is accidentally ordered. The matter doesn't create a hand-stick-stone interaction that can exist out there by itself, without the matter, once it has been created, but rather the matter serves perpetually as the being of the hand-stick-stone interaction; if by some miracle the matter suddenly vanished, the hand-stick-stone interaction would vanish with it. This is the same idea I was indicating with the philosophy of mind example: that neural states don't found mental states in the sense that mental states, once founded, continue on on their own, but rather that neural states ongoingly found the mental states, they are the being of the mental states, and if ever the neural states were suddenly gone, so too would the mental states.
> Shouldn't that be an open-and-shut example of an essentially ordered series to an abstract realist?
Sure, and to everyone else too I'd think (setting aside my objection to the order you've given to this relationship), as I don't think it's obvious that we're dealing with abstracta here. "Two" is surely an abstract, but "the presence of two apples" doesn't seem to be. |
My favorite band was nearby back in August and I went and saw them by myself because I had no to go with either.
I enjoyed myself, but admittedly I would have liked to be with other people.
I was seated in between 2 couples and it got to me a little. And seeing groups of friends walk around made me sad.
I rather have gone by myself than not at all though. | My life's never really been normal. It's just taken so many awful twists these past couple weeks it's felt like a very long dream that just won't stop.
I did meet someone who I share a lot in common with recently though and have a date with her this weekend. So that's nice. I'm pretty excited about it.
How've things been going for everyone here? |
Gotcha, thanks! I was confusing it with the situation where you contract someone to perform a duty (like repair a house), but if that contract is broken you would just get your money back, correct? So applying that logic to this situation would just mean that OP doesn't get paid?
It seems like there is a pretty close parallel between "I'll pay you $x to repair my house" and "I'll pay you $x to sit at a register for 8 hours a day" Is the key difference just the time requirement? | I'll add to this. I did a little research and added up the populations of all the countries that had universal health care (whether that be single payer or multi payer) and it came to be an amount similar to the population of America. I just wanted to know if the argument <PERSON> had that "The United States isn't Denmark" was a reasonable argument.
I'd agree that a national program in the United States would be difficult to implement because of the vast population. But if each state is responsible for implementing some kind of system that would work in that state I think it can be done. |
It's tempting to assume conspiracy, but think about the 2012 Republican Primaries. If you thought people like <PERSON> and <PERSON> were fakeouts designed to make us feel better about Moderate <PERSON>, you would have expected at least one Republican on that stage to accept the compromise of 9-1 budget cuts to revenue increases. None did. You would have expected at least one of them to defend gay soldiers when one was booed by the audience: none did. You would have expected at least one of them to say that Obamacare, reminiscent of <PERSON>'s plan, the Heritage Foundation's plan, and Romneycare, and having been approved by the Supreme Court, is not a great socialist evil that must be destroyed: none did.
<PERSON> has a history of screwing over his own party. Reading about the modern GOP House especially, you'll find that they've been very ineffective because they don't all agree on everything. This knowledge makes it much easier to believe that <PERSON> is, if not sincere, at least not a plant. He has his own constituents who he panders to. | The question was whether we ever had anything approaching an attempted coup by the military. In the Washington example, the military was considering a coup. In the <PERSON> example, the argument is that <PERSON> wanted to go above <PERSON>'s head. With the Shay Rebellion, it was angry veterans. The US military opposed the Shay Rebellion. Therefore it was not a potential coup; it was a rebellion. |
Give it another 10 or 15 years, and the Google driving car will be the Google driving truck.
No need for an operator. Even if it costs $250,000, you'll make that up in two years by the time you take into account fuel economy (robots will be better at managing fuel) and insurance (robots will be cheaper to insure as they'll make less mistakes. Then when you start talking about how robot trucks only need to stop for fuel and maintenance and aren't bound by the rules on breaks and sleeping, and it makes even more sense -- you can run your rig nearly nonstop.
It'll take longer for people to switch over to driverless cars, but for the trucking industry it will happen nearly overnight once they're available. It just won't make economic sense to hire a driver. | By saying this:
> since we took it, it's ours, regardless of by which means.
You're condoning the use of force to acquire goods.
Any other scenario where goods are taken by force should be "ok" to you then. If you get mugged, that should be ok. If your house is robbed at gunpoint, that should be ok.
Viewing it otherwise would be a double standard and logically flawed.
In the real world, we do force people to pay compensation -- that's what going to court is often about. It's not a foreign concept in terms of looking at the scales that are smaller than "war." |
Regardless of what's going on in his head, things aren't going to happen between you two. And if they do, this guy sounds super hard to deal with. Spend your time on someone who's going to treat you a little better and give you what you need. Don't be friends with him - at least not right now while everything's so fresh. Maybe in a few months if you've gotten over him, then you can be friends, but for now, NO. | Find something like a hobby, a new TV show, or some sort of activity to keep you busy. Or if you're ready to get back into the dating scene, find someone you can be with that'll help you keep your mind off of him and help you to eventually move on entirely. The longer you go without talking to him, the easier it'll be to ignore these urges and eventually they'll fade away. Whatever you do, you have to make sure that you stay strong so you can be happier in the long run. |
while <PERSON> lived, extremely. Guys like <PERSON> and <PERSON> were spies operating at the very highest level of american government. They even managed to snag a congressman for a while. As to how much they accomplished, it is extremely hard to say, but the plain fact of the matter is that the US was enormously deferential to <PERSON> throughout the war, and given the large number of operatives at such high levels, it is hard to imagine they weren't influencing policy in that direction. After <PERSON>'s death, things went downhill. <PERSON>'s secret speech and invasion of hungary did a lot to dampen the appeal of soviet communism, and his dismantling of cominform broke up an effective organization. | <PERSON>. He was the top general of the Reichswehr, the post WW1 German army that formed the core of the much larger german armies of the 30s and 40s. It was his system of organization and training that enabled so much success against so many materially superior armies for so long. he ought to go down as one of the greatest generals in history. |
The Articles of Confederation worked so well the first time around, yeah?
I think the government as defined by the constitution is very, very, very effective IF implemented as written. The problem is that it is not. The actual manifestation of our government is not a result of what the Constitution calls for but an abuse of the systemic inefficiencies which exist in any system curated by man.
Otherwise, the key limitations in allowing states to fend more or less by themselves is the sharp divide between rich and poor and how that would further polarize the nation. You would have 10-15 states finding success and a wasteland of plight in Mississippi and the like. Either your successful states would see massive overpopulation due to mass exodus of the poor states or you'd see a dissolution of a union as the rich states told the poor ones to fuck off.
>We would of course be keeping the provisions for a standing army/navy, but giving a large majority of rights and responsibilities back to the states, letting people live as they please in their state, maybe even letting it go by city, as so many more liberals live in urban centers wanting more progressive politics and rural citizens wanting to be left alone.
This is the interpretation to be had based on most of the commentary, but it's pretty flat.
Major cities already ARE the forefront of progressive movements. Most people living in a Top 10-15 city have much of the social progression they seek, with the political barriers being about providing this progress on a wider scale, outside of their sphere of influence or pushing further change on the fringes of the issues. On the flip side, rural areas "want to be left alone" only so long as it benefits them. They gladly accept the government aid provided by the overwhelmingly liberal donor states. They want to have their cake and eat it too.
If you loosen the bond provided by the federal government, you would be encouraging a divergence between the competing factions. If you're seeking to dissolve the nation, this is the way to do it.
(It's only tangentially relevant but I like to mention this when applicable: Ideas like this and their execution fall squarely into the plan laid out in ["The Foundations of Geopolitics"](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundations_of_Geopolitics) which lays out a plan for the return of Russia to superpower status. This includes weakening America's political influence and in the book it says Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism..." - I only point this out because this type of separatism is something our enemies are encouraging and by the nature probably a bad idea). | Absolutely this. The idea of fanatical devotion to some mystic warrior's code was and still is today, somehow, incredibly misstated often.
The average citizen in Japan would not be moments away from disemboweling themselves because they violated some obscure rule in a code they weren't even taught at length. In a modernized and prosperous country as 1940s Japan, the average Japanese person had a lot to live for.
The 'chasm' in cultural differences and mindset is often overstated for effect so I'm glad others can help weigh in on stopping this misconception that Japanese people pursued almost insane ideals of warrior's honor or glory in general. |
> For example, if you have a vision from God that tells you to no longer eat pizza, under prima scriptura you should follow it. Under sola scriptura you can safely ignore it.
pizza is made with leavened bread, and frequently contains both meat and cheese as toppings. so... i think you picked a bad example? | > So, if someone can make true predictions without God's intervention, you call him a prophet anyway?
> Also, if someone uses science to repeatedly make accurate predictions, is s/he a prophet?
The above passage is referring to non-scientific predictions, and assumes that consistent true predictions can only come from God.
> If God can know the future (or cause the future) and share it with another, then why can't another being do the same?
Because another being is not God. |
It really hit me. We had all gotten pretty jaded at this point in the class (we had to watch, read, or listen to 10 hours of media every week for this class as homework so we had seen a lot of shit by this point in the semester) but this is one of the things that was still able to shake me up.
They said that the ground around that area moved for days from people who weren't fatally wounded and were buried alive. | Or you could just buy a god damned New York Times subscription and support the journalism that you enjoy so much.
Seriously. People fucking complain all the damn time about how news media is all clickbait these days. This is why. They have to make money somehow, and page views/ad revenue is currently the best way to do it. If you like their news, SUPPORT IT. |
Verizon is advertising, on their own website, for $65 a month, yet it's showing as well over that. That's deceptive and shady as fuck. That's one reason I'd never go there. I've heard too many horror stories of bullshit bills.
Even if it were possible to get the advertised price, it's bullshit that it's going to require some special knowledge or work to get it there. I'm not a computer idiot and I can't get the bill to be what is advertised. | Do you make the schedule for employees? The few months I worked at Walmart, I fucking hated the schedule. The customers were okay, the rest of the workers were cool, the work itself was acceptable, but the fucking schedule made me quit that place.
I never knew what my shifts were because management changed it almost daily. I'd have to work one day until 11pm and then had to be back the next morning at 7:30. I'd often be scheduled 7 or 8 hours but then half way through my shift I was told to go home because it wasn't busy. |
And skilled trade work does still require specialized education. But here's the difference: My 4-year lib arts degree qualifies me for a range of different types of jobs, whereas a trade education in, say, welding only qualifies me to be a welder. So yes, my education was a little more expensive and time-consuming, but I still have more jobs available to me as someone with a *general* education than I would if I'd gone to a trade school instead. | Here's one way to think of it: imagine that, for all intents and purposes, a cop gathering evidence illegally is a private citizen. If he commits a crime (like breaking and entering), he can and should be prosecuted for that crime. And if he brings a bloody knife (obtained illegally) to the station, then it should be exactly as strong of evidence as if the bloody knife were brought down to the station by a private citizen. |
I put lotion on constantly. Full body after every shower, and on my hands pretty much every time after I wash them and other random times during the day, as well as before I go to bed because that's 8 hours without.
Between that and the huge amounts of water I drink, my skin is amazing. People think I'm a teenager and I'm in my mid 30's.
So yeah, lotion is good. | No joke. Most of the time if it's actually a violent assault, someone will just say what happened. They punched me, tackled me, knocked me over etc.
Not always, but typically, people go with assault when they feel they've been wronged and are going for sympathy and once looked up assault on Wikipedia and took it out of context when it says any touching or hitting with something. |
They are persons. A court has had a case that attempted to grant personhood to a non-human animal, and the ruling came back that legal personhood is *not* limited by species, but by moral agency and ability to take on the duties of being a member of a civil society.
There are no general cognative inpairments that are noted as prevalent among mutants to the point that they would not be considered legal persons. | Before money, people either gave each other stuff in pre-agricultural societies, or kept accounts of who owed what to whom.
Governments coin money and use it to pay soldiers and for government functions. The populace has to pay taxes to the government in the governmental currency. The value of a coin is always greater than the value of the metal the coin is made of. Currency has value because it is the only thing that can be used to pay taxes. |
Well the acual election would be impossible and what I mean by this is the Democrats haven't elected a traditional white guy since 1976(Carter) and what I mean by this is even <PERSON> ran as a young hip guy who was brining change, he was even given the term the first Black president, because he was seen as an outsider(grew up poor in the south).
The reason the Democrats need a traditional minority to run is, because that's the only way they can get minorties out to vote, example is the 2008-2014 elections. In 2008 the Democrats win the Presidency, House, and Senate with minorties showing up in record numbers in 2010 minorties don't show up the Republicans re-gain the House, 2012 <PERSON> runs minorties show up the Republicans lose seats in the house, and in 2014 when Minorities sow up in traditional lows the Republicans win the house and Senate.
Look at the 2000 and 2004 election even when polled people thought <PERSON> and <PERSON> would make better presidents, <PERSON> still got his people to out vote the Democrats main voter group.
This is why if <PERSON> or <PERSON> win the Republican Primary the Democrats will pick a Latino VP to balance out the voter groups. | > How can you treat someone as an adult if they can't legally do adult things?
Well let's go back to what you said.
18 you're a adult, but you're not adult enough to drink. How can we say someone is a adult but not fully treat them like one?
Some States are even increasing the smoking age to 21.
You can enlist and go to war at 18, you can lead soldiers to their death at 18, but you're not adult enough to buy alcohol or cigarettes.
We can take this system the other way.
At 17 you're not adult enough to vote, buy alcohol, cigarettes or many other things, but you are adult enough to know right and wrong and pay for your crimes.
At 17 you are adult enough to know that rape and murder is wrong, and you will be treated as a adult for committing those crimes. |
> Now, 2 months before the baby is due, they are demanding I move out.
They're not the landlord, they can demand the body of christ for all the good it does them. Just ignore them.
But since the landlord *can* terminate your tenancy (with proper notice), might want to start sucking up to them and/or see if they'll let you sign a lease. | > He's probably got no gear, I was going to suggest to him a snowmobile tour in the state that you go out on a trip with a tour guide, they provide all equipment if you need it, and the sleds.
Do that if he continues to pester you. And don't offer to join him, just tell him that he should go on a tour guide trip, since they provide the gear.
Since you've already told him you go alone, keep on deflecting/rejecting with that answer. "Sorry, I'm going on a solo trip" or the plain ole "sorry, I'm busy that weekend (that he wants you two to go together)."
If he really pushes for you two to go together, just tell him plainly that snowmobiling is a solo thing for you so you'll have to decline.
Never say "maybe next time" or anything that indicates that you *will* go with him, just not *this* time. |
I'm still unsure if this is a scam, I doubt he had money, he was the kind of guy to move to another country to evade taxes. But what is to be gained if this was a scam? An address, name, email? I don't know why I'm really skeptical. It makes me seem bad for wanting to respond if their is possibly any money involved but I'm also wondering about if there is a legal obligation to respond regarding "court" I don't know... I mean yeah, any money is nice. Am I bad person? hahaha | I don't get this, why do people fall for these? I remember something about sounds too good to be true... I mean its like penny stocks, if they/it was a real way to get rich quick, a. literally everyone would be doing it, and b. They wouldn't be sharing the secret. |
I agree discrimination is a problem, but doesn't the market naturally punish it? If you pass up a superior employee because of their race or sexuality, then you're putting yourself at a disadvantage. In the long run, at least, those companies will fail more often than the companies that choose the best candidates regardless of those irrational factors. | One can be well educated and intelligent without ambition to earn more money. Not all of us give a shit what we get paid as long as we can do what makes us happy. Keep throwing your superiority complex around, though, it definitely makes you look educated and intelligent. |
Sometime in the last couple weeks, I saw on MSNBC a print journalist (or opinion writer?) discussing his idea that on many issues there is a political *consensus* that is not the political *center.* He gave at least two examples, drawn from the same poll if I remember correctly. A majority of Americans favor legalization of recreational cannabis, and a majority favor mass deportation of undocumented immigrants; neither of these are so-called centrist positions. He was on TV to discuss an article he wrote about there being a consensus that isn't the center.
I'm trying to find his article, or his name, or at least the poll he was referencing. Google has not been helpful, so I'm hoping that someone here happened to read the article, or saw the same segment on MSNBC. I know this is a long shot but any help would be appreciated. | The President picks candidates for the Supreme Court, arguably the most powerful institution in our government.
I've read a few articles, [such as this one](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/28/us/presidential-election-could-reshape-an-aging-supreme-court.html), that make some very good points about the current makeup of the Supreme Court. We have four justices in their 70s, and most Supreme Court decisions these days tend to be 5/4 splits. In other words, four justices are likely to die of old age within the next eight years, and our next President will be picking the replacements. Do you *really* want a Republican president picking up to four anti-gay, anti-trans, anti-almost-everyone bigots to join the Supreme Court?
We're not voting for the President. We're voting for the Supreme Court justices they are most likely to appoint. If a presidental candidate like <PERSON> has good policies, that's just icing on the cake. |
>Why not? We've observed empathetic and moral behavior in animals before. There are animals that show understanding of fairness and unfairness, that show sympathy and empathy. So why isn't a dog maiming a squirrel and leaving it to die a moral matter?
Does morality flow naturally from empathy? A mentally ill person can have empathy and still harm someone. Would morality really enter the equation?
>Which burden have they met? The way I typically see this play out is:
That only restates the above but even less rigorously. It doesn't add to the discussion. And considering the objection is that the argument was not rigorously formulated enough, a flippant straw man rewording will hardly suffice. Especially considering that is not and has not been my conclusion.
>I will agree with <PERSON> and you that whether or not evil is pointless is an argument we have no means of winning at the moment, but that's not a default victory for the theist; they shouldn't be allowed to dodge it entirely by shrugging and saying "Mysterious ways." If they are to assert that the pain and suffering has a purpose, they must demonstrate it.
That's not the argument. The argument is you fail to meet your burden. There are no default positions. That's a term you should simply get rid of. Your argument hinges on there being pointless evils. The existence of pointless evils haven't been demonstrated. So the argument fails. Nothing more, nothing less. | >Your logic relies on <PERSON> losing, but ignores that <PERSON> also lost, and by a margin orders of magnitude larger than <PERSON>, who garnered the most votes in the popular vote. Your argument relies on what could’ve happened had <PERSON> gotten more votes while ignoring what could’ve happened had <PERSON> gotten more votes. Your logic is contradictory.
But you're missing the threshhold of relevancy. If <PERSON> lost the election but managed to get say 8% of the vote, it would be a huge loss for the Democratic party, pretty embarassing of a result and would mean a major shift in the democratic party away from whatever they did so wrong to get only 8% of the vote. People who donated to her campaign would be upset about the results and may not donate again next time, losing them some of their large funding.
If <PERSON> lost the election but managed to get 8% of the vote, it would be the largest victory for the Libertarian party, telling them whatever they did this election they should do more of, while the results themself are enough to get them on the debate stage next election in addition to making it much easier to secure funding.
<PERSON> needed to win to not fail. <PERSON> just needed to lose by a massive margin that is less than the even larger margin every other Libertarian loses by to not fail. |
Europe never had prohibition. Tipping started as a result of prohibition. Eateries made a large amount of money from alcohol until it became illegal. Income to these establishments dropped which rapidly dropped wages below a living standard. "Bribes" were offered to wait staff for better service and we're finally accepted at this time out of necessity where as before these "tips" were considered insulting ("buying" someone)
It became ingrained in our culture and was here to stay because after 13 years it just became "the way it was always done." | Basically all the above. Especially for Germany it relied almost entirely on imports for food. Suitable land to farm has been the achilles heel of German history since their unification and it drove them into ruin in the two world wars -- especially in the first. By beating Russia and creating a Ukranian puppet/buffer state she hoped to get an influx of food from their grain fields but that took until Spring 1918 to occur -- right when their offensives in the West were grinding to a halt and the 100 Days was about to begin which would win the war.
Britain quite literally starved the Germans out and what little remained had to be used sparingly. Do you give it to the citizens on the home front or do you give what you can to those fighting on the front so they can be in the best shape? Which front do you sacrifice? The Germans decided, as did everyone else who had to decide, the soldiers needed the food more. Only 1/3rd of the grain was given to the non-military personnel who comprised 2/3rds of the total population. As for other staples they only had 15% the amount of meat available compared to pre-war levels and that number for fish & eggs is in the single digits. While the rural areas could cope with this (as they grew their own food and just sold off the rest) the urban areas were devastated. When I say men were starving to death on the job in their factory, I'm being serious. Dysentery, starvation, and murder over a few ounces of bread were not uncommon. Germany was a country that relied on imports to survive.
<PERSON> talks about this in depth in his work *The First World War: Volume I: To Arms* in numerous chapters so if you want more I'd suggest going there. |
It's worth asking how much of a choice that is.
Leaving means you are quite literally *shunned.* You would give up friends, family, *everything* you've ever known. Other religions behave similarly, culturally -- Mormons, certainly -- but few do it as formally as the Amish.
So it's a heavy choice to begin with. [Rumspringa](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumspringa) might give you a chance to get out into the "English" world and see what it's like to not be Amish, but if you want to stay in the community, you're going to have to make a decision.
And Rumspringa begins at age 16. You'd have minimal exposure to the outside world until then. Imagine the culture shock -- suddenly, while your parents might not *condone,* say, getting drunk every night, they won't outright *forbid* it. So there's this huge, strange, alien new world out there, but you'd have to give up *everything* in your sixteen-year-old life. Where will you go? What will you do?
Or you can do what 80-90% of them do, give up (most) technology, join the Church, and keep your family -- including your new bride, since marriage is when Rumspringa ends.
I can appreciate what they do to make this at least somewhat of a choice, but I don't think it's as simple as you put it. I mean, it's better than Islam -- shunning apostates is a lot better than beheading them -- but that's not saying much. | I can understand your aversion to letting them know you're gay. I wouldn't imagine for a minute that they'd be the understanding bunch you'd want. I would definitely keep it under your hat. Telling them, "Oh, by the by, I'm gay," on the first day is just going to make yourself look pretentious.
Anyway, it will eventually come out, either through action or simple observance. When that happens, the trick is to do nothing. Do not act guilty or scared. If you *act* it, people will *assume* it. So the trick is to carry on like, "So? What's your point?" It's worth noting that a lot of homophobia probably stems from this fear that straight dudes (at least in my experience) have: straight dudes have this notion that gay guys want to fuck them. It's stupid - they wouldn't indiscriminately fuck women any more than gay dudes would other dudes - but that's probably the source of the discomfort. Just go about your day, do your thing, and ignore them. You're not obligated to like your flatmates, or even to socialize with them to any large degree. Just be polite, uphold your end of the bargain, and make sure they uphold theirs.
What this really boils down to is learning to cope with discrimination and confrontation. It sucks, but look at it this way - this is not going to be the last time you get shit for being gay. It's going to happen for the rest of your life, sorry. So you had better start learning to cope with it now. Best of luck and keep your chin up. |
> A post like "That nigger president" on a post about <PERSON>" would be a clear case of it. If the masses, and rightly so, think it doesn't add to the conversation most people wouldn't see it.
I've seen a lot of below-threshold comments that are actually anti-racist, as I pointed out to someone else. It only takes a small group of racists with alt accounts to downvote your comment before it goes below and almost no one will choose to see it. That's the reality. It goes both ways. | > By this I mean I could be talking to someone about the issue of racism in our society, and they may mention that black people can be racist too, thereby derailing the conversation and ignoring the problem at hand.
It's a test. They want to know if person 1's motives are a) to end racial prejudice, discrimination, etc or b) pro-black, anti-white no matter what, so they're bringing up a situation which they feel will clarify that depending on how person 1 responds.
|
I found your example of prayer to be troubling since it showed that you were operating under a false understanding of prayer. You tested that thing which Christianity does not teach, found that thing to be untrue and are using it as an example to argue against Christianity. I don't have enough evidence to universalize this claim but still the evidence I have suggests that you are ignorant of what Christianity actually teaches. I do not know if you were better informed that you would accept Christianity but at the very least if you were informed your criticisms against Christianity would be against... Christianity instead of a strawman that only exists in the imagination.
So yes, it is true that merely asking God for a million dollars and a cure for cancer does not grant a million dollars. But these are not the stated purposes of prayer. Prayer, as defined by Christianity, is about transforming ourselves to God's will, not getting God to grant our wishes.
Now this can be tested. I don't know if it has been but would be willing to bet that if you had a test to measure the relationship between prayer and adherence to Christian standards there would be a positive relationship. | Most parents have a hard time looking at their kids as anything other than theirs to instruct and be in charge of. Also they might figure that it came to their house, it was sent to their son so they think they have the right to open it. They don't obviously but having that discussion will go nowhere.
Having a rationale discussion with them about this is futile since they thought they had the right to open the letter and they did. Further more they have no right to get mad about the contents of any letter since it was not their letter to open.
Here is the best advice you will get. Do not even bother having that "right" conversation with them, it will go nowhere. Get a P.O. Box to use whenever you are not in school since you said you use your school box for everything else. Go down to the Post Office and make sure that anything addressed to you goes to the PO Box or your school. |
a lot of places in the world are actually suffering from the opposite, places like Germany and Japan have decline populations, people simply arent having enough children. In the long term this can be just as troubling, or moreso, than having too many children.
Also, advice that depends on the majority of people purposely ignoring the advice is terrible advice.
If you want to give better advice stick with these ones:
"If you want to raise children, still consider adopting one as well as having your own" | but the problem is determining those numbers on a large scale is impossible without supply and demand to figure out who want what and how much when and for what.
Lets say there will always be limited sour dough bread, how do you decide which 5 people in the village get the sou dough bread. How do you decide how much resources should be put into making sour dough bread?
With spy and demand its easy, the price of something highly limited like sour dough bread would go up (or down) until its balanced with the demand. If there is massive demand and limited supply there would be massive incentive for others to make more, therefore dropping the price back to equilibrium.
|
> But it's almost hypocritical for the religious to say that their religion is only good
You could also say it is hypocritical to say one's nation is the best nation, or one's baseball team is the best baseball team. But what does that accomplish? Should the Germans hate their nation and culture because of what their ancestors did? I'm an American; should I hate my country for all the shit it has done?
It serves no purpose other than to guard against the same mistakes and evils to dwell on what ancient one's nation has done in the recent past. It is even of less purpose to dwell on atrocities and injustices of the ancient past in a way that paralyzes good going forward.
Again religion is a social reality we all need to live with. For the most part pointing out past sins of a religion's god has little effect on changing the social reality of the religion. Social reality is changeable for good when you can get society to dwell on what is good about their present reality and on expanding to include others.
If a Christian does good because of the good Samaritan story, but ignores <PERSON> and the Amalekites what do we care? The good still gets done. | It looks arrogant for a group to say they are better, get better rewards, etc because they belong. Unless there is some type of pitch, like a navy SEAL can beat my ass and kill me without me knowing, I don't know what makes someone better
And that atheist group sounds fucking arrogant |
It's not an atheist model, even if many atheists hold it, because the word atheist does not imply any beliefs abit the afterlife, see buddhist example. If you're going to make proposals in metaphysics, you're going to use the right words to address the positions you intend to address. "Most atheists are physicalists" is not a defense.
You seem not to understand [logical soundness](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soundness), which is astonishing considering the level of logical operation you show otherwise. Unicorns are completely possible. We know this to be true. There's nothing physically wrong with a horse with a horn. We simply haven't discovered a unicorn.
So to say "we have discovered unicorns" isn't true and thus can't be a premise in a *sound* logical argument.
In the same way, LDL may be possible, but we don't know it to be true, (you even admit we can't) and therefore it cannot be used as a premise in a logically sound argument to reject physicalism.
It's the same reason we can't reject evolution because unicorns are possible.
Don't embarrass yourself by linking to the Wikipedia on MT. Instead, read what I've typed and think, and maybe you'll catch on.
> Have you ever studied graph theory?
Not explicitly. Can you give an example with time on an axis and a function and it's inverse such that a loop is formed? | &<PERSON>; Thanks for clearing that up. It's good to know that you've definitively settled a pretty significant issue in metaphysics.
frankly, if debating the mathematical necessity of physical laws following from the basic properties of matter is something you guys are still doing, this is not my fault. normal academic disciplines moved on from this kind of thing a few hundred years ago.
&<PERSON>; What I insisted was that if there's an omnipotent deity, that deity can perform actions that are not in line with the actual laws of physics (nomological possibility). I fail to see how that's just "semantics."
because you offered this as an explanation for why something physically impossible would be possible, physically.
> if a non-material substance like the mind is not logically incoherent,
you are, of course, defining properties of material as non-material substances. is "pink" a substance? |
You absolutely need to see a dentist. The tooth is going to get infected and you're going to get an abscess. It's going to hurt like nothing else. Call your local dentist and ask about payment options. There are services in place to help people afford dental care without insurance. It's generally in the form of a loan so you don't have to pay all at once. | This is a very bad attitude to have. Show up in court with this attitude and you'll be leaving without your daughter. You need to realize that her dad has absolutely equal rights to your daughter until a court says otherwise. Withholding her from him is not going to look good when you get to court. |
>If mankind truly is naturally empathetic, or social, or pro-social, or cooperative, I sure as hell don't see it.
I feel like this is the crux of the "solitary" part of your argument. I'm not sure if we should be providing you with specific examples because you've missed a lot of obvious evidence, or if you've seen all of the same evidence we have and have rejected it out of hand. | >I want to emphasize first off that the military IS NOT the same as the civilian world or regular government jobs. Equating the two is unfair to both sides.
Maybe not, but it's useful as a comparison. In practical terms it may be completely different, and feel free to point out if something doesn't work in the real world. As a thought experiment, I think it's fair to draw comparisons to make a point. Not to mention, it seemed like you were equating military and civilian contractors in your last point.
>You're operating under the assumption that women bring something to the table that compensates for their disadvantages.
I'm operating under the (correct) assumption that **some** women do bring something to the table that **some** of their male counterparts would not. Imagine everyone gets a number assigned to every possible part of their personality and physicality. Would you rather have a man with a 100 in physical prowess but 0s in loyalty, intelligence, and reliability, or a woman with 90 in physical prowess, but 100s in the previously mentioned qualities? If there are no women in the military, the man is taken in every time over the woman. This is an extreme example, but at what number is it ok to sacrifice important character traits for pure physical ability?
When a woman is pregnant she can't deploy. Oftentimes when a woman is pregnant, she can't work, either during her pregnancy or after, and her college/work training is wasted. Maybe she even starts a family and never returns to work. Should we stop training women and admitting them to university?
>You frequently cite that eliminating women from the military would eliminate 50% of the talent pool, which is untrue.
I'm calling the population the talent pool. If the military doesn't higher women, who comprise half of that talent pool, they are absolutely eliminating half of that talent pool.
>It is fair to assume that men and women are roughly equivalent mentally and are capable of the same skills.
Yes, but it is **not** fair to assume that **all** men and **all** women are equivalent mentally and skill-wise. Some women are very high on the bell curve mentally and skill-wise. In a perfectly efficient system, these women would replace men who are very low on the bell curve mentally and skill-wise. If women can't serve, this does not happen.
I remain unconvinced by your "they can join civilian contractors" argument. I still believe that having other options is not a reason to take away one of those options. What if we imposed a law telling women they could not be vet's, but that's okay because they could be pet store owners and work alongside the vets? It's not a perfect comparison, but I hope it makes my point clearer. |
White overseers in the South usually did not own slaves. They frequently lived on the plantation and never went home per say.
In the antebellum South, slaves were mostly the property of large plantation owners.There were small farmers who might own one or two slaves but this was not the norm. Most whites were dirt poor and relied on subsistence farming in order to survive.
Children of slaves and their owners were usually treated as just another slave. Some slave owners may have given them better treatment by placing their child as a domestic servant and not a field worker but this wasn't always the case. It was rare that they freed their own child. | China isn't going to join a war in North Korea. They would be pretty much shunned from the international community and even their military power would not be enough to save the North Korea regime.
Why would Russia help China? The two countries have historically hated each other going back to the Soviet era. Russia has nothing to gain from helping China. In fact, they would have a lot more to gain from attacking China and preventing the Chinese from spreading their sphere of influence over more countries that Russia concerns itself with.
This all pointless conjecture though because China isn't going to help North Korea. They might have came to their aid 30 years, but not now. |
First of all, the parents aren't fighting about having a child. The fight happened before it was born. Under the current system, the court process is to determine how much money is owed in child support. Only under your system is there a fight harming the child.
Secondly, you mention that a life of debt and poverty isn't worth living. I agree. This is why child support is usually adjusted based on the father's income. If he still can't make payments then special considerations should be made so he can repay the debt when he is able, the answer is not to allow him to be totally free of responsibility. That's an argument for reformation of child support law based on financial hardship of the owing parent though, not what you originally stated which is that a man should be able to pay his child $0 based on the fact that he never wanted it. It's a different argument.
Thirdly, you mention all kinds of issues you have with CPS and that's fine. Perhaps those issues really do exist and run rampant. I'd believe that. But the answer to this is not to allow a father to absolve himself of financial responsibility for a mistake he made, the answer is to give those organizations greater support, attention, and funding. | 1) They have to prove you owe the money. You requested proof but they haven't proven that yet. Someone else here could probably tell you how long you have to wait before contacting the credit bureaus and demanding that it be dropped from your record because they haven't sent proof.
2) If they come up with proof, and you actually are on the hook? Debt collectors want to get something. Anything is better than nothing and they are usually willing to negotiate a lower payment. Explain your financial situation and tell them that you would love to make good but can't at this point in your life. Ask them for a lower pay off, with a payoff plan. Make sure it is something you can afford. Tell them you can pay 10% ($300) at $10 per month. If they won't play ball, then let it go and take the hit to your credit. With such a low income and everything else going on in your life, your credit score isn't much good to you right now anyway. Eventually they'll sell the account to a debt collector who will be willing to work with you. |
> The collapse of state societies
Thats the thing though, if we were just talking about state societies the largest answer would be war; hands down it would be war.
The process you entail most certainly is A cycle you see during some state society collapses, (the fall of rome and persia were great examples of these cultural fluctuations). But in other examples and especially non state societies; not so much. Prime example is the one OP used. Easter Island we see some evidence of wars, but mostly overuse of resources (same with quite a few early agricultural societies). During the Bronze age collapse it seems most signs point towards a mix of climate, volcanos and earthquakes disrupting most of the mediterranean and middle eastern cultures.
I guess my answer was more towards thinking about the question in a broader context than just state level civilizations, because actually as far as we know the oldest cultures around are hunter gatherer cultures, yet they are not the norm, rather something kept that as a viable way of life and culture for the people who live it. | That is a lot of questions, but I will see about answering some of them.
First of all, the Italian states were certainly the dominant naval powers by around the mid 12th century as they gained control of trading routes through the crusades and even more so through taking over Byzantine trading routes. Much naval warfare in this period was focussed on boarding the opposing ship or ramming it (at least this was my understanding). Though there was also [Greek Fire](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_fire), there is an image on this page of a Byzantine ship with essentially a flamethrower.
As for the Normans, they would have used essentially Viking Longships, you can see images of them being built and used on the [Bayeux Tapestry](http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost11/Bayeux/bay_tama.html) (they are in the middle of the tapestry). The Anglo-Saxons made no move to engage the Normans on the sea.
Here is also a small section of wiki on medieval naval warfare. [wiki](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warfare#Naval_warfare) |
You have school counselors right? Maybe talk to them about your concerns, you could try to talk to the principal if they'll let you. Focus on the most important complaints here, you're unlikely to get a lot of sympathy for a teacher telling you how to sit but regularly leaving the class for ~20 minutes and having a 0% despite turning in all your work is definitely something I would try to talk to someone about.
I would start with a counselor and your concerns about your AP track. | Have you tried to talk to the teacher? I would do this first and if she doesn't address your (very valid) concerns about the fairness of her grading practices then go talk to the principal. It would probably help if you had at least some of your old assignments with grades on them. |
We are a compound republic. Not only do people have a say, but states as semi-sovereign entities of power have real power in the legislature (senate) and get a vote in the electoral college by receiving equal electors (one for each senator). This makes the smaller states have a heavier weight of representation in both congress and the electoral college.
It's on purpose because states matter. We have deemed the entity of Wyoming to have equal importance with California on some level, because geography shapes ideology and policy. This nation is simultaneously united and separated so our founders deemed we use equal and proportional representation together.
If we drop the electoral college for the purposes you give, we might as well drop the senate. The 17th amendment already stripped the states of near all true representation in the senate, why not just get rid of it all together? Then presidents can just campaign in the big cities across the country and never see a farm again. | I understand the confusion and anger associated with this election, but that's why we need to make sure there is a check-and-balance with representation.
If you want the state to turn a different color, get more people out there to vote in the election. Make the state matter. That is what the nation is, a Union of States with State power, not a collective government with districts beneath it. |
Dishonored 2. Almost done first (non lethal) run. Had to redo 3 missions because of glitched bodies, well one mission 2 times before I googled wtf was wrong, and once because I left a body in a not so safe space.
Also some overwatch. Thanks for asking :) hope you enjoy yourself | Now I'm curious what was edited, I even saw the comment but accidentally activated a macro I was using and had to come back.
Anyways, in a work environment it's more common than you might think, at leas tit was for me.
Every once in a while a person would ask me what i am, t which i'd lie and say I'm Christian (I'm actually atheist, but I'm not telling that to people irl). to not cause any problems. They talk abuot something religion related and, well it's like being forced to talk about a book you don't care to read.
Sundays were the worst obviously. People would complain that I'm working on a Sunday while placing their order, have bagfuls of pamplets, booklets, an entire magazine or two. It's pretty annoying to lie about that kind of thing over and over. I guess you wouldn't know too much about it since you said it's pretty much taboo in Finland (OH! THAT's what you edited!). Of course I know nothing about how true that is, so if I misunderstood I apologize.
Now then, I may kind of break the taboo, but I think it's neccesary to understand about what the guy in the video did and how I (this IS because I'm an atheist) is wrong. Idk if you believe in <PERSON> or believe he's our lord and savoir, but imagine that you do. Now that you're thinking about that imagine yourself in a position where everyone around you believes in kali, talks about Kali in someway everyday, and if they find out you don't believe in Kali you're likely to become a social outcast.
Now you're working at this TB and you get something like this guy did, except for instead of <PERSON>, it's <PERSON>. Obviously, since it's pretty much against what you believe, you don't want to say it. Guess who the lucky person is to hand out the order? You may be able to make an excuse, but it's not too likely. Also you can't try to pawn it off onto someone else because then they would question why you have an issue with saying it. So you're pretty much forced to open up a likelihood that you'll be found out and pretty much become a social outcast, or be forced to say something that goes against what you want. If the person who put you into that position isn't an asshole, then me and you have very different definitions of what an asshole is. |
What are the real benefits of religion? To society, I mean, not individuals.
Charity? There are secular charities.
Education? We've already established that it's actually the tax dollars doing the educating.
Community? There are plenty of secular communities.
>"The government should spend no money on it and, although I acknowledge this isn't politically feasible, ideally stamp it out."
Agree with the first part, don't agree with the second. I don't care if people want to believe whatever they want to believe in private. It's when their beliefs affect me that I have an issue.
All of the opposition to gay marriage is rooted in religious belief. All of the opposition to abortion is rooted in religious belief. All previous opposition to contraception and sex education for teenagers is rooted in religious belief. All of those things have done very real harm.
Church and state are supposed to be separated, and that means *separated.*
>Religion is the only thing where "Not everyone believes in it" is enough to make it forbidden and obsolete.
I'm not sure what this sentence means or is referring to. Can you elaborate? | What makes the existence of the ability to feel pain a good enough reason to keep something alive?
Honest question.
The way I see it, dead animals feel no pain, so it shouldn't matter if we kill them (as long as we do it quickly and painlessly). Or, if you're opposed to death, then I don't understand why it's okay to eat certain types of vegetation, the harvesting of which means certain death for that harvested. Either way you play it, the vegetarian is wrong.
Finally, without significant protein intake, we wouldn't be humans. Eating meat is what allowed us to evolve into the intelligent beings we are, and there are millennia of specified machinery inside us steering us to eating meat. It is how we are designed to operate. So unless you protest lions eating gazelles, you should probably not get so judgmental about humans eating cows. |
A person aims and pulls the trigger of a loaded gun at another person head. The person is killed. The shooter ought to be held morally responsible for the death.
Two men are walking on a sidewalk. Man A decided to cross the street, however, he does not look both ways and is struck by a car and killed. Man B saw the car, but did not warn man A(thus saving his life) is man B morally responsible for man <PERSON>'s death?
A person should not be morally judged on an action they don't commit. | > But is it moral to ban someone who has done nothing wrong just because their religious believes are not the same as yours? Can you deport all people from the country just because of their generic heritage or the color of their skin and still say you are morally right? Can you punish and jail someone for using their constitutionally supported right as a citizen and believe you are on the moral high ground?
Do you believe there is an answer to these questions?
I believe morality is objective therefore my answers would be no, no, and no.
If morality is socially derived, however, the answer to your three questions would be "yes, as long as it's the majority opinion."
P.S. - I agree that we shouldn't adopt our moral code from the bible (or any other religious book for that matter). That said, if you deny the existence of a personal god with moral character I do believe the entire concept of morality as we know it crumbles. So my personal view is not one of Divine command theory, but one in which morality finds its *grounding* in the *nature* of God. |
That only applies to buy-and-hold, not day trading.
And in any event, you lose money if you buy on a company that doesn't earn as much as inflation (or that earns less than the price tag suggested its future earnings would be).
The corporate and wealthy traders have the more accurate pricing because of their better information access, and their per trade volume gives them more opportunities to hedge and minimises transaction costs as a percentage loss.
There is no way a M+D day trader will make money out of the market on the whole. | I don't. I didn't say he would have definitely been voted down.
The comment I was replying to said that "it's a given that he would have been confirmed", and I was just doubting that assertion, so the burden on proof is in the comment making that original assertion of certainty. |
Something is missing from the story. There are no tax deductions, or tax income from early withdrawal of the principal for a Roth IRA. Only taxes and penalty would be due on the interest. This doesn't change what you should do about the $14k, but it doesn't make sense now | > These scientists searched for something they couldn't see, hear, feel or otherwise detect for nearly 50 years, because they saw unexplained phenomena in their observance of the world.
I'm not sure you understand how this process works. There is a scientific understanding of the world, and that understanding makes certain predictions. If we see a birds nest full of eggs in a tree, it makes sense to expect to find a bird somewhere. When the particle was theorized, the scientists were saying "based on how things are behaving, we expect to find a particle with these properties". They didn't decide to look for it out of thin air; there was a lot of evidence that pointed to it existing. |
Either she is playing games or she isn't getting the hint, somehow. Probably the former, but frankly, I would just be blunt about it. Next time you have an opportunity, in person if you can, just blatantly ask if she wants to go out with you _on a date_. She can't bullshit around that, and it she doesn't say yes you know she's not really interested.
Frankly if she finds a way to bullshit around that you should cut your losses and move on. It sounds like she's taken anyway but asking her out couldn't hurt. | To begin with, *you* didn't hurt him, she did. Maybe going forward you can just steer clear of breakups in general, but if you were friends with both of them it's reasonable to share information on status and so forth.
She's the one who apparently turned shit around and made you look like an asshole. Further, it's on your male friend to differentiate between truth and fiction. If he's so out of his mind that he's going to believe only one side of the story, definitely steer clear of both of them because neither of them sound like your friend now. |
> Then plenty of places are breaking federal employment laws.
Wouldn't be surprised if this is the case.
> Any of those documents are also sufficient to get you a voter ID.
Having the documents sufficient to *get* a voter ID is not the same as actually having something sufficient to *be* a voter ID. In many cases people will have all the documents they need but are unable to get to the DMV during the right time period because of working multiple jobs or not having access to the transportation to get them there, or being able to pay the fees, etc. | > I don't believe that anything the entertainment industry creates has any financial value, because things are only worth what people are willing to pay for them, and if something can be gotten for free without causing harm to anyone's current assets it's financial value is 0.
What someone is *willing to pay* is different from what someone *is paying*. Not many people pass up free stuff, but that doesn't mean it should be free.
|
It's not hypothetical to assume we won't be free to love or reject relationships with anyone. We wouldn't even have to know a god exists. I can't fly, but that doesn't tell me a god exists. I have no clue how you get from preventing murder and rape to a world with no other discomforts and we're forced to be robots that love god... there is ZERO connection. | If people claimed <PERSON> can't lie, you don't think it would be a good question to ask his followers how they know that?
Maybe God would lie because he's the a bad guy who is entertained by toying with people. Maybe he'd lie about an afterlife to make people feel better about death.
Even if God couldn't lie, there's no reason to assume his followers didn't lie when writing "holy" books about God. Christians have no skepticism about the bible. Almost every Christian believes the entire bible is true prior to even reading the whole thing. |
People keep talking about how funny it was! In one awards category it was up for best comedy. I totally missed that part of the movie I guess. There were a few dry jokes but a comedy? The Terminal yeah is mostly a comedy though and I love that movie too.
I can't watch anything with out subtitles anymore either. Damn hearing loss. | I'm only pointing out that the average person is far more concerned with shallow entertainment than that which is really important. Also that it's interesting to see the push back from people in turkey over what is really a much smaller issue than what we just discovered out nation is doing.
Sorry for trying to use humor to get through to people. Well not really. |
1) Why do you need a point? The idea of a point is just a human construct. Other species keep living without one. I don’t see what’s so bad about enjoying life without a purpose.
2) We don’t all just devolve because of something called game theory. All morality is nature’s emulation of game theory, since even if you don’t care about purpose or right or wrong, things that observe the laws of game theory survive better and propogate and evolve. Getting what our evolutinary instincts and drives want makes observing the golden rule the optimal response in most cases- non-zero sum games are the best games to play. Even if you come to the intellectual realization that these things are pointless, you can’t escape them. You’ll still feel cold, hungry, bored, like you need to shit, guilt, horny, etc and it will be torture not to just go with the flow of those impulses so we do what is easier and just answer them. This is why sufficiently intelligent psychopaths actually don’t break the law and engage in altruism despite it seeming like a paradox on the surface. | That’s a huge meta-ethical question I’m not qualified to answer but I’ll try a hot take.
The most popular method for granting moral status is cognitive capacity. For a utilitarian who wants to maximize pleasure and minimize pain, the ability of a being to suffer and to enjoy is of the utmost importance.
There are also intention utilitarians — they believe that rather than maximizing pain and pleasure, we should maximize freedom. So here the ability to form plans and have desires and goals becomes important too.
Then ability to reason morally, which is a more deontological (rule and duty based ethics) idea. This has a nice sort of golden rule quality to it— we give moral consideration only to those who could possibly give moral consideration to us.
Then, because ethicists don’t only care about the present, but the future, we grant some moral consideration to beings that can potentially develop cognitive capacities — infants, people with brain damage who may recover.
A world with more healthy happy people in it is preferable to a world with less healthy happy people from a utilitarian perspective (arguably— population ethics is complicated).
Then there’s the whole school of thought that grants moral status based on relationships. Here it’s not individuals that matter but communities and networks. We grant moral status to the coma patient not because of harm that might occur to the patient, but because there is a community that the patient was part of and that still cares about them.
Finally, we can just broadly give moral status to members of certain species — this is less for logically consistent reasons than for practical reasons. You can objectively tell if someone is a or is not a biological human being, whereas all the other criteria can get very subjective.
These are very broad strokes and I’m probably am leaving out some major elements that I don’t even know I’m leaving out. |
A gradual increase would only lead to a large influx of guns being purchased while it is still low leading to unregulated private sales.
Restricting one gun will not change anything. You can shoot up anyplace with any kind of gun.
Again gradual action will only cause market influx and unregulated private sales.
If you want to make suggestions think them out. | Your entire view is that most people shouldn't vote. That there should be tests on who is qualified to vote and who isn't. Once you place extra tests before people can vote or even to determine if people should vote you are placing barriers to people voting.
That is restricting a basic right. You can't vote because of some arbitrary reason has been used to take the right of voting away from people throughout history. |
> In what sense, given the above 3 points I have outlined, is this morally wrong?
We have found a more benign way to create wealth and development.
The purpose of slavery was not to create suffering but to gather resources.
Much more wealth can be gained by employing people and having them as consumers, this makes a much more valuable society.
Choosing a worse option with more suffering is both stupid and immoral.
If in the future we come up with a better market which creates wealth for humans autonomously it might even become immoral to make people work for their resources, until then this is the best we can do, therefore moral. | > no good reason for it to be legal
It is the system's role to facilitate growth and prosperity by redistributing the money or capital. The way this is currently done is to convince consumers with money and unsatisfied desires to give it to a business fairly making both parties happy.
No entrepreneur could start a business without doing the marketing required (word of mouth is the main one) and that means no new businesses and no new loans for those businesses which would require a new model for the capitalist society... If no one used money or had any desires that can be satisfied with it then capital wouldn't redistribute the same way as it always had.
the difference between need and want is up to the individual not you. |
I personally run hot, so I welcome a cold toilet seat. Also let's me pretend someone else's sweaty ass wasn't just on the thing.
I get tripped up though when I fine across an electrically warmed seat. I want to like it, but it just feels wrong.
Don't get me started on padded toilet seats... Unghh... | I can stab you with a pen. That's illegal, but carrying a pen is not.
Also. As far as I know self defence isn't illegal. Although carrying a weapon is.
A weapon requires ability and intent to be classified as such. Hence why you say your knife is a tool. If you say it's for self defence you're admitting intent to harm. Making your tool a weapon.
It will boil down to the cop and context though. If you're drunk off your ass carrying a knife, you're less likely to get away than if sober. |
One of my friends left a dead fish in my mailbox a month ago. Today he told me two of my closest friends are planning to pelt me with water balloons when I get out of my car tomorrow. I won't be around tomorrow, but how can I prank them before they get a chance to get me? Also, any ideas on proactive pranks? Even if it costs some money. | Thanks! Definitely some challenges and some close calls. If they find out I'm a guy, it won't be good. Going to the waterpark in a bikini was hard; fortunately it had enough coverage. Also, the apartments aren't big so I've been staying in the same rooms as my roommates and their sisters. Ny roommates and I are cool being naked around eachother, but I have to keep it hidden from their sisters. The sisters have no problem changing in front of me (not that I'm complaining), but I have to be super careful about them seeing my lower half. |
I normally don't ever notice usernames because I use the dark scheme of the reddit is fun app, so usernames are slightly lighter charcoal grey on a slighter darker charcoal grey background, with the white comments in stark contrast to everything else.
Arrows are still colour-coordinated depending on up or downvote, though. | I've actually driven away without my keys.
It's the same push button start, and while you can't start the car without the keys, you *can* drive the car without the keys. Then, if you shut your car off, it'll happily shut down and strand you wherever you just drove to, because you don't have the keys to start it back up. |
Good job! Keep it up, it might be tough at first, but you can do it.
I smoked for 3 years, and I was able to quit cold turkey, just like that. I also had a huge weed smoking habit, like, there was a point in time that I would be smoking a quarter oz + a day.
One day I just had an epiphany, and realized that this is not what I wanted in life. It's been about 3 years now. My roomates still smoke weed/cigarettes, and I have zero urge to do so.
You can do it, you just have to have the mindset that you don't need it, it's *not* addicting, and it's *all in your head!* Good luck! | I remember that when we were kids, we used to listen to a "ganstar style" rap & hip-hop. Especially our local music in this genre, was pretty much street oriented with underground feeling, and you could relate to lyrics.
These days, the same artists, still make "rap" or "hip-hop". But it's basically just some kind of dance music, aimed for kids at some parties, it's hard to find some real rap these days.
Edit: I was listening my old cd from like 2001 one day, and my younger brother, he's 15, came up to me and he was like "what is this sh*t?" And it was the same artist he kept listening every day, just back in the good old days.
|
You've missed the entire point of why the law punishes the refusal to provide services to gay people. Note, this same logic is why you can't discriminate against serving blacks etc. That reason is because it disenfranchises people from being able to participate in society. Obviously, whether some particular bake will bake a cake seems petty but then if you allow that, where do you draw the line? Note, that it wasn't so long ago that the "moral" conviction was used to support segregation as Southern Baptists etc would point to the bible as proof that god kept the races separately (in their continents of origin).
So, its all or nothing. Everyone has to be inclusive or you get a patchwork of exceptions invariably created by people who want to discriminate.
At that point, there is simply no connection with the death penalty drugs. | Unlike you, a lot of people donate to those in need fully by choice, not by being taxed. You have demonstrated you don't do that unless the person in need meets a rigorous set of standards. Essentially you're saying that you'll only help others if the government forces you to. Perhaps you imagine everyone thinks this way, which explains your views. Please consider that you are doing the thing you hate others to do. You have no obligation to help people in Texas, but your attitude is ironic. Essentially saying they could have used "bootstraps" by voting better; you're mad they didn't "help themselves." So much irony. |
Yeah dude, I'm aware of what cultural relativism is. And it's bullshit. Some things are _not_ ok. Slavery is not ok, even if your culture says it is. FGM is not ok, even if your culture says it is. Child brides are not ok, even if your culture says it is. _Glorifying violence_ is not ok, even if your culture says it is. *Suppressing sexuality* is not ok, even if your culture says it is.
> Acknowledging that people have a different set of values than me and being okay with that isn't lacking a spine.
A blanket approval of different values for no reason other than "it's the _culture_" is just plain wrong. Flat out. | I'm not suggesting that it should be above the law, I'm suggesting that "complete freedom of speech" isn't a useful phrase to use in the same argument that you're using "as long as it doesn't violate the law".
If the law restricts your speech, you don't have complete freedom of speech, _and that's ok_. It just means you're arguing about what the law should be.
If I say "You have the right to freedom of speech, except if it violates the law" and then I pass a bunch of laws that say you're not allowed to talk about anything, do you still have freedom of speech?
To go back to your OP:
>I believe a good balance of free speech (being able to say whatever you want) and consequence (being able to be punished for breaking the law) would be more effective than a system where you're limited to how you express yourself or a system where there would be absolutely no check on your limitless speech.
This doesn't make sense, "a good balance of free speech and consequence" _is_ a system where you're limited in how you express yourself. If you have any kind of laws that limit how you express yourself, then you don't have completely free speech. |
>Neither is Baltic, Balt
Get. A. [Grip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balts)!
>Po pravici ne vem točno. <PERSON> po očetovi strani in <PERSON> po mamini sta rojena istega leta in sta zdaj stara 78-80 nekje. <PERSON> po očetovi strani je mlajša in je stara recimo, da 60 let. <PERSON> po mamini strani je preminil lani aprila v ne vem katerem letu starosti, 70-80 menda. Oboji imajo kmetijo kot so jo imeli vse življenje.
>TIL Slovenian is really similar to the bits of Polish that I know.
>Them Eastern Europeans all sound alike.
>*Slavs
>Yes, Estonian slavs too.
>But not Swedish Slavs?
>In Sweden, only vikings. And <PERSON> law.
>As if you didn't have any Slavs ;)
>I'm just trying to poke and find out whether you actually consider Estonians Slavs...
>Not really, **you're one of the three Baltic countries** (Baltländer) to us.
You were the one to deviate from linguistic/ethnic terms. | Central Europe in the 20th century is full with good examples. I take one: [Transcarpatia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zakarpattia_Oblast).
I'll include not only the different "owners" but the names of those owners, which could appear on newly issued documents.
**I. Part of Hungary -1919**
I/1.: The Austro-Hungarian Empire, up to 31. October 1918
I/2.: The independent Hungarian Kingdom, 31. October 1918 - 16 November 1918
I/3.: The Hungarian People's Republic 16 November 1918 to 21 March 1919. (On the 21 December 1918, the territory becomes the Ruska Kraina autonomy)
I/4.: 21 March 1919 - april 1919 still an autonomous territory, now part of the Hungarian Soviet Republic
I/5.: Czechoslovakian/Rumanian occupation april 1919 - 10 september 1919 (during which for a short time the Hungarian Soviet Republic recaptured part of it)
During 1918-1919 the short lived West Ukrainian People's Republic laid claim on the area, but never occupied it.
**II. Part of Czechoslovakia 1919-1939**
II/1. Part of Czechoslovakia, without autonomy 10 september 1919 - 9 october 1938
II/2. Part of Czechoslovakia, with autonomy 9 october 1938 - 2 November 1938
II/2. The southern territory becomes part of Hungary, the rest is part of Czechoslovakia with autonomy. 2 November 1938 - 14 march 1939
**III. Independent Transcarpathia 14 march 1939 - 16 march 1939**
**IV. Hungarian Kingdom 1939-1945**
IV/1. Part of the Hungarian Kingdom: 16 march 1939 - 23 november 1944
IV/2. Part of the Hungarian Kingdom, but under Soviet occupation 23 November 1944 - 29 june 1945
**V. Soviet Union 1945-1991**
V/1. As a independent member of the Soviet Union 29 june 1945 - 22 june 1946
V/2. Part of the Ukrainian SSR 29 june 1946 - 1 december 1991
**VI. Independent Ukraine 1991-**
Since the independence of Ukraine (1 december 1991) Transcarpatia is still a county of Ukraine. There was a vote for an autonomous status in in the early 90's, where the autonomy got an overwhelming support, but it never materialised.
**TL;DR: Transcarpatia was part of 5 different countries and people there could have held 9 different passports during the 20th century.**
|
Nah, fuck that guy. He made a commitment, gay or not, and he fucked it up. This man deserves *no* pity from anyone, he did it to himself. Own your own actions and if you're gay then just say so. It still would have sucked for the girl but at least she wouldn't find out like this.
I would have gone with the Dad. | I feel like she's the one overreacting though. She says "*it's better to forget about it*" yet she deletes you from Instagram and says it's better to hang out with other friends. It's fine if she wasn't looking for a relationship right now but you probably would have understood and continued to go on as friends. If I were her I'd just laugh off the awkward moment and actually let it go. Just makes for a funny story later.
Sorry guy. I hope things blow over and she can stop being so dramatic over this little thing. You didn't do anything wrong, just what you felt was right in the moment. |
Store is different. Thats like saying you owe for a sip of water at a drinking fountain. You know you should have been paying for this, you inquired about it, no one ever told you or implied it was a courtesy, a gift or free nor did you ever think it was. This is no store.
> The summer home analogy is flawed in that I have to do something illegal (entering the premises) to get any benefits.
ah heres the rub and why I said you may have committed a crime here. It is a growing crime around the country to access bandwidth paid by others withoout their permission. You knew your roommate wasn't paying for the bandwidth, you knew you didn't get permission from the payer/owner. You very well may have committed a crime by using that password.
So lets do a gentlemen's wager. Ill look to see if you did commit a crime and if so you acknowledge that and ask no more questions trying to get out of paying. If it isn't illegal in your state, I will gild you. Deal? | I think thats why I am confused. People will insist its this or that type of story but apply that to everything.
Its like, I keep hearing its a collection of different stories but a lot of people seem to give the books the same treatment and say its written different as their reasoning.
I appreciate the insight. I just can't tell what is supposed to be myth or not when people will say anything is possible through <PERSON> or <PERSON> dying and coming back to life saves us from hell.
I'll have to just leave it be I guess. I keep asking to understand how others think but every time I do it just gets more and more confusing and I understand less.
Regardless, I learned more so thank you! |
>So do I think people should give a portion of their pay to educate, heal, and make the lives of my countrymen better? Yes.
no you're missing the point
I think people SHOULD donate money to a charity I like
I dont think people should be FORCED to do it
government is force. plain and simple
the question is ...what are you okay with the government using force for?
are you okay with the government using force to stop a murderer?
I am too
are you okay with the government using force to make someone pay for an overpriced crappy(objective) college degree? Im not
you're acting like the fact that you're pro education and hospitals means that you're a moral person
everyone is for those things... its just you think the only way to get them is by using force on other people
| >That's the definition of how HUMANS are held accountable.
Yes, and if I were a victim of God - as a human- I want him held accountable.
>Would you rather he had not created humans at all? Or created them without free will?
I know this will sound crazy, but bear with me here:
***how about not creating a place to torture your own creations for all eternity?***
If the dude wants to be loved and worshiped that badly, you'd think he could do it without all the horrible.
>Any number of reasons. Simple curiosity jumps to mind.
I'm curious about aliens - does not mean I'm going to assume they exist and defer to what I think they want...
>I don't cut off that logic at all. I simply understand that God has different standards.
By human standards - he is a very evil being.
By God standards - is something to be praised and worshiped.
There is no problem there, clearly.
|
From what I've been told, Zotero seems to be the standard for free software for organizing research. I haven't quite been systematic enough to use it to organize my notes, but I see its potential. I've just been told that before I start grad school, I should have some kind of system in place, so I funnel all my PDFs and JSTOR articles there for future reference.
Barring that, Evernote is also super handy as a free multi-platform notetaking software, which I use to clip articles I've read online.
Both have Google Chrome plugins that speed the note taking process. As they're both free, why not give them both a try? | Congratulations! I'm in pretty much the same boat. Started college in 2006, that didn't work out, finally came back and tried again. I'll graduate in two weeks with straight A's, I'm presenting a poster on computational neuroscience on Wednesday, and I'm putting the finishing touches on an undergrad thesis on Chikungunya virus that the school will publish for library circulation. After I graduate, I'll be applying to medical schools.
I totally know how you feel. I had a combo of a sleep disorder and ADHD, and my life was pretty screwed up by them early on. Now I've figured out how to structure my day-to-day life so as to compensate for my disorders, and the treatment is helpful. It's really an amazing feeling to suddenly be confident in your abilities, and to feel like you can get things done. Genuine congratulations from one former failure to another.
"You may have a fresh start any moment you choose, for this thing that we call 'failure' is not the falling down, but the staying down." |
> With the ultimate point being that just because what you feel is real to you, doesn't actually make it real to others, nor does it make it a positive, beneficial feeling that should be entertained by others.
First, numerous studies (MRI and dissection) have found physical differences in the brain structure of transsexuals that are either closer to the subjective sex than natal sex. That's a real, objectively true evidence. Second, changing hormones changes your sex, at a biological level. There's more to sex than chromosome karotype, as the plethora of intersex conditions demonstrates. There are plenty of scientific papers related to all of this.
Finally, of course being trans isn't a positive, beneficial thing. It'd be simpler to just be cis. But you can't change gender identity. It's like conversion therapy for gay people. It doesn't work, and it causes a lot of harm. The only other way to deal with the mismatch is to change the body. And it tuns out that improves the quality of life for trans people significantly.
As far as being "entertained by others," if that refers to the actual transition, it's my body, I'm the one who has to live here, so I get to decide how to address this particular dilemma. If that refers to social relationships... What good does a sneer of disapproval do? What good does harassment do? Half of us (trans men) will be more or less completely invisible after transition. You won't know we weren't born male. That'll go for an increasing fraction of trans women too, as we won't be forced into the closet until we're 50 years old and just can't stand it anymore. Our weird medical history is none of your business. For the people who can't pass, or who are currently in the process of their transition? I'm not sure why you think treating them like regular people is asking so much. Why just being polite is so damn hard.
| > If they set the prices at the same time with a goal profit margin in mind, then they could have offered a slightly lower price for everyone instead of giving women a "discount" and still had the same profit margin.
This is patently false. First, if the program is mostly men, we're probably talking about a miniscule amount of money overall. Second, all you would need is for the strategy to raise enrollment by ONE student to be more profitable over charging the "man's price", and far more profitable over charging everyone the "blended" price.
> You could argue that going after females is a viable business strategy, but realistically doing so will lose out on males IF there is reasonable competition that shoots for the same profit margin but has one slightly lower price for everyone instead of a higher male price and lower female price.
You seem to be implying that their strategy is failing and losing them money against competitors. I guarantee if that's the case, they'll change it. I also highly doubt that's the case.
> either way it was most likely well thought out with the goal of charging men more money than women for the same service.
You dispelled this argument yourself by pointing out the presence of competition. Clearly OP has done a cost/benefit analysis and finds the price reasonable without the discount. Either they are already competitively priced OR their is limited competition. I would assume at least some of the former.
&<PERSON>; The problem with being pro diversity in the way that you describe is that it is inherently discriminatory. It's great to say that you want more diverse ideas and personalities in your workforce, but the second that you start grouping ideas and personality types with different genders, races, ages, etc., you are being discriminatory and careening off toward white men can't jump territory.
Huh? What? Ever seen sales numbers of male vs female salespeople when marketing to a female-dominated industry? You do not have to be discriminatory to see a value in diversity. That's a myth.
> I'd also like to point out that the specific example you gave about why it would be better to have more women amounts to "because there is a gender bias in another industry that we deal with and the female sales reps favor one gender over another".
It's one of many examples to have diversity. You ever work with corporate sales? You target for rapport. At my least-favorite jobs (a collection company), that included female reps for the sleezier bank execs. I didn't like that, but I got it. I'm *not* suggesting anything that far... but diversity means you have more opportunities for rapport.
> This strikes me as being very pro-discrimination and anti-equality.
So, the alternative is lose the market. And we're not talking about excluding men from our team, just being optimistic about a hiring pool where women aren't rare. Why? Do you think we should be *keeping* programming male dominated just so nobody can ever give out discounts to anyone?
Do you feel the same way about veteran-favored hiring, military discounts, senior discounts, paramedic discounts, etc? If not, why not? |
> It is not practical to believe that the 2nd amendment will be altered anytime soon.
I already agreed to that. And pointed out that it's not the only way to affect the situation. But if you want to create a theoretical situation in which you eliminate some quite practical solutions that some states are in fact considering at this moment (see Florida), then you're welcome to do that. But then it's fair to call it what it is: a very theoretical invented scenario. | > you are guilty before being innocent. Under this system, you are a bad parent before being found a good one; this is sonething inherently unamerican and wrong.
I can agree with that (understanding what an American means when he calls something unamerican). But then why should couples that wish to adopt ever be denied the chance? |
My experience in research is neither deep nor in this field. I can't tell you why. All I know is that it doesn't make sense to date a hominid off of soil layer given we bury our dead and contaminate the bodies with foreign soils and materials. I assume at least some of these materials should have decent potassium isotopes to date.
Yes genetics, but expression of genetics is tied to environment. A short person might have tall genes that simply never received the materials to fully express it. For example, it's known that children of immigrants to first world nations are typically taller than their parents. They didn't get new genes, they had the nutrients to fully express them.
Go to any classical or medieval ruins in Europe and this becomes very clear. The scale of shelters is different. | Simple answer is regression.
So with correlation, you have two variables that are related in some form or fashion. They might be related directly or through a third unknown variable. Regression analyses is based off of prediction. It takes one of those variables and manipulates it to see if the other variable changes.
Though the key to regression is **prediction**. Ideally you can run a controlled experiment to yield results, but in cases of cultural analyses, running an experiment is next to impossible. |
Absolutist positions likes yours belie a lack of understanding about parenting.
The fact is that children are complex and constantly adapting, so your discipline toolbox also has to be complex and constantly adapting. Any specific technique could be great or horrible depending on the situation and the child.
Spanking is just one of many discipline techniques that can be abusive but can also have an effective role to play if used correctly. For some examples of others:
1. Timeouts are fine. Locking kids away with no attention for hours or days is not.
2. Sending a child to be without dinner is fine if they refuse to eat what you make. Starving your child for days is not.
3. Having your children be competitive can help motivate them to do things (like the most chores) is fine. Tying your love and care to their competitive sports performance is not.
For me, good discipline is mostly about consistency and purpose. You have a clear objective you are trying to achieve and you reinforce it at every opportunity. This means my wife and I talk often in order to have a discipline plan in place and present a united front.
When you act out anger, it really doesn't matter what technique you choose. They are all going to be inconsistent and lack a defining purpose besides alleviating your anger.
| You forgot to tell us why you think homosexuality and incest are comparable.
First, not all incest is the same. There are serious power issues between a parent and child or an uncle and a nephew, but not as much between twins, and even less between cousins. I would draw the line at intergenerational incest because of the potential for abuse and the abdication of the role of responsible parenthood/guardianship.
Long-lost brothers and sisters and kissing cousins are far less serious issues, and generally I don't see the point of objecting if they seem seriously in love.
However, it's also perfectly valid to reject something because society would harm or ostracize you for supporting it. That once applied to homosexual relationships but that fact is rapidly changing. I also don't see any ground getting pushed for incest rights, so we can safely assume it's not a pressing moral issue of our time. |
I used to collect National Geographics. One summer I didn't get a job, so I went to live with my parents. I spend all day in the library since they don't have reliable internet or AC in their house (they don't even have dishwasher or washing machine. Take that /r/frugal.). Their local library let people bring in old magazines and other people could take them. One day someone brought the entire 1976's magazine [in their own case](http://thumbs4.ebaystatic.com/d/l225/m/mQW_r553HWuTueGUMglPtdg.jpg). The librarian said no one really take the magazines anyway and I could take all of them if I want. Then over the summer that person brought more and more of them.
A few months later when school started I saw a Craigslist ad of someone wanting to give away years of National Geographic. I took all the ones I don't have. I eventually got married and moved across the country, so I had to leave my collection behind (my parents bought a McMansion after the housing bubble using the money they saved from not paying for internet or AC or any other luxuries. My National Geographics took up most of the space in their built-in library).
Last month I walked by a book store with a cart full of old National Geographics for 50 cents each or 5 for $2. I picked out several dozens and got a discount for $10. Now I have the money and space to complete my collection, but my parents won't give them back to me because they are reading through them =/
I guess the coolest items are all the free posters and maps (the huge ones you can hang on your wall) and how they changed over the years.
I have no idea how to preserve them. | I had a dream twice about an alternative earth were there was no Northern Africa and Turkey. In it's place were a bunch islands. The first time I went to one of those island nations, it was old and active civilization that practice slavery. They mainly enslave African women for breeding. The second time I had this dream of this area (yesterday), I was one a different island and was at their national museum for vacation. Their history was a generic Polynesian style mix with South Asian culture. I also met <PERSON> twice in the time same dream. |
Retail pricing is directly relevant to insurance prices, since this is what payments and reimbursements center around.
Remember that healthcare and health insurance are two different things.
I believe premiums have risen mainly because of newly mandated coverages in the ACA. Where as before the ACA, if you were a single guy with no children, your policy would not include maternity coverage. Under the ACA, every policy must include maternity coverage.
If you compare it to buying a car...The new car you want has a price of $20K. This includes $2K for some fancy onboard touchscreen navigation system. You tell the dealer you don't want that, a simply stereo will do, but the dealer tells you sorry, its mandated by the government that all cars sold must have this, so you have to pay the additional $2K for a feature you don't want or need.
Additionally, you must recongize the difference between employer provided plans under the ACA and individual plans under the ACA. | Let your insurance handle it. Notify them and cooperate with them when asked. That is what you pay them for.
Police reports are not gospel, nor are they assumed to be 100% correct. Insurance adjusters do their own investigations and will determine between them liability of each party. Also, clerical errors happen, even on police reports. They can be corrected at any time without necessarily invalidating the report itself.
Just because an accident victim is seemingly fine at the scene of the accident, does not mean that they will remain so. Some injuries take a bit of time to show up. It is not unusual in the slightest that the girls were seemingly fine at the time and are not now.
The PI lawyers will almost certainly settle for the policy limits of your brother and/or your parents (as he was a minor). Again, let your insurance handle it. Your brother done fucked up, and it's likely going to cause a bunch of hassle, but your insurance company will handle it for you. Just tell the insurance company any time that anyone contacts them regarding this accident, and tell the attorneys to only go through the insurance companies. |
Spacetime manipulation.
Or just time manipulation becuase space and time are kinda 2 things.
Actually take long naps, proper sleep. I can pause time and walk around to places and get some exercise without 1) being late 2) being tired, as I can wait until im rested again. Steal food like the degenerate I am. No fear <PERSON> every test or dangerous situation, guy with a gun aint shit when I move him in front of his own shot and he shoots his own knee out, dont need to study, just read the answer in time stop mode. I can speed time up, if I ever need to. I can last as long as I need to in bed, or sports, similar to the resting up. I can say im a prophet, use rewond time to predict shit, and stop/slow time for miraculous suoer human shit.
But id probably keep it to myself, be a selfish little shit, and live the easy life I think I want but cant know for sure because easy is boring and boring makes me want to kill myself.
Long rant over, sorry for it. | If the male is in charge it can work for a while, they will both go after each other every chance they get until one "wins", its what they do. Half the time they are fucking each other on the side, its just unconscionable to the male mind, probably so we don't kill the bunch of them and die as a race.
I have had a friend make the argument that female humans don't really have free will in the way males do, they really are slaves to their instincts and by defalt we are also, if we live with them. fucked if I can defeat his logic it is depressing as hell.
Get away from the crazy for a while and you can get some perspective, to live with a woman is to be in a battle, no battle no attention for <PERSON> no attention makes <PERSON> a fucking psychopathic tyrant with tits.
Ever wonder why old divorced guys don't give a shit about anything? Half the human race is criminally insane and everyone seems to think they are the nice half... when the mask comes off enough times you sort of have a epiphany, they hate us for nothing we did and will never stop, ever. |
[This wikipedia article mentions that we can estimate the population of the city of Rome from ancient guide books.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_demography)
Here is the quote:
>Evidence for the population of Rome itself or of the other cities of Roman Italy is equally scarce. For the capital, estimates have been based on the number of houses listed in 4th-century AD guidebooks,
Anyone have any information on what the nature of these guidebooks would have been?
Were they typical tourist pamphlets?
Was the average Roman literate?
Were these guidebooks printed and mass produced?
Any information is greatly appreciated as I am quite astonished to learn of these ancient 4th century guidebooks.
| I'm guessing this post, [Was there every plans for Germany to include the Netherlands into the German Empire?](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2abr9b/was_there_every_plans_for_germany_to_include_the/) can fill you in. /u/davratta says in the thread I linked:
>The Netherlands was part of the Holy Roman Empire until <PERSON>V tried to stamp out the Protestant Reformation. This started an Eighty year long war. In 1579, 17 provinces in the Low Countries signed to Treaty of Utrecht. In 1581, the seven north western most of these provinces formed the Dutch Republic. A map published in London in 1618, shows the British seemed to think The Netherlands was an independent country, the Hapsburgs did not recognize that fact until 1648.
On that last bit about Eastern Prussia and Silesia. Well, both were owned by the Kingdom of Brandenburg-Prussia! Silesia was conquered by <PERSON><PHONE_NUMBER>.
On that last bit about Eastern Prussia and Silesia. Well, both were owned by the Kingdom of Brandenburg-Prussia! Silesia was conquered by Frederick the Great, and Eastern Prussia was actually the Duchy of Prussia. The Kingdom of Brandenburg acquired the lands of Prussia after the death of the last Duke of Prussia, who left no male heirs. |
> But, after getting hauled in front of the FBI and multiple tribunals, she got hacked. A second time
The DNC got hacked, not <PERSON>. There is no proof that <PERSON>'s personal email was even hacked in the first place. She stored it improperly, but it wasn't shown to be hacked.
> Most importantly however, the DNC would probably not have had the resources to protect itself from a Russian hack (I'm assuming), but the United States used to have strong institutions with clear procedures and rules
If it's true that Russia is behind the hacking, there isn't much you can do. Remember when the Office of Personnel Management was hacked? The government can't even keep itself secure. If a major country wants to hack your stuff, they will hack your stuff. | > I doubt jury duty is more productive or enjoyably use of time for people called upon to sit on juries compared to say, recreational drugs or flying a kite or enjoying a movie.
That's an argument for abolishing (or not introducing) juries, not for forcing people to waste their time.
> It would be impressive if you can dedicate up to an hour of your time to vote on the day of voting but fail to spend 5 minutes reading up on what the general overviews of the political parties are.
People are forced to vote. People are not forced to inform themselves. Why would those who don't care do anything beyond what they must?
> As opposed to them being in a system where they would have voted for party they would have supported on a voluntary basis despite not knowing that party's creed.
No, as opposed to not voting because they don't care about politics. If they don't think politics are important, why should they have to waste their time with it? There are, after all, lots of things some people think everyone should concern themselves with; why should politics be the one topic for which that should be compulsory?
> Either way, it still encourages political parties to take a direct unyielding stance for the sake of taking a direct stance
Does it? Then why are the largest political parties in countries with voluntary voting so often accused of lacking a distinct profile? |
Subsets and Splits