Slashdot Mirror

In order to maintain public calm, the word 'Freedom' is no longer to be used in it's archaic sense. Freedom now means: 'Conducting one's life in accordance with the wishes of our Glorious Leaders'.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=pornograp hy

next

I do not think it means what you think it means.

You misspelled "all intensive purposes".

Just because I'm daring to contradict often-repeated and populistic mantras of young people? The more you repeat it, doesn't make it any more true.

Listen, drugs are bad for you m'kay? I'm not disagreeing with that premise, what I am saying is that you are clueless on this topic and it shows. Leave the anti-drug campaigning to someone with a clue. If you ever tried your little "don't do drugs" speech on a classroom full of teenagers they would laugh you right out of the place. Kids have very effective BS detectors and they can spot a poser a mile away.

That is your words, not mine. You react on what I say and want to make me to look stupid so you don't have to think about the implications, thus you put words in my mouth. It simply goes against your set of beliefs and you react instead of pondering on it and act.

I don't have to try to make you look stupid, you do a fine job of that yourself. Anyone with the tiniest amount of familiarity on the topic can see you are talking out of your ass here. Your conclusion that "drugs are bad for you" is perfectly fine but the rationale you used to arrive at this conclusion is completely flawed.

This is from the people I've heard who have lived on the street as drug-addicted criminals, giving intro-talks to schools etc. True, it's not my own experience (thank god!), but what they said is this: The worst cases you see on the streets is those taking harshis almost every day. Like every day, for years. They become so slugish, can barely walk and think, and suffer worse than the heroin abusers with their bad knees. They might be in the minority and really, really bad abusers of the substance, but they are the ones suffering the most permanent damage. This is what I remember was said and it sounded plausible at the time.

Take a look at this link and take note of the part where it says "did you mean...".

Let me re-iterate that there are far FAR worse drugs than hash that are very common. Hash is a walk in the park on a sunny day compared to something like meth.

Thanks for your thorough medical explanation. So the drug itself is harmless, right? This is what you are implying, even if it's not true. Why do you want to spread a lie? Why not look up on research on THC and think about what you say next time before you correct somebody else's weak medical knowledge?

Reefer MADNESS!!!@#! Brain rot inc!

This is just getting silly. Take a look at what you wrote.. Somehow, what I say makes me "uncool", so I must be a virgin and unexperienced. While those people who say things you agree with are of course "cool". How broad-minded!

I'll tell you what's not cool: speaking from ignorance. Let's see in 2 posts your story has changed from self-experimentation a few times to second hand heresay from homeless addicts. Next post perhaps you will tell me you in fact heard about the dangers of hash on a 60 minutes special.

Real fun is to do what is best and feel good about what you contribute to others, among other things you can come up with. Drugs is not really fun: It is short-time pleasure, and long time problems. While real fun is short-time hardship and long term benefits.

Actually you are wrong... drugs can be incredibly pleasurable and often are. Unfortunately they can also do great damage to your body in the process and subsequently are not worth touching. The risk effectively exceeds the reward.

I also believe in everybody making their own informed choices, war on terror/drugs be damned. People should respect other adults to make their own informed choices, government should stay as much out of private lives as possible and is only making the matters worse. But I will oppose lies and misinformation, no matter how popular they are. These are the real enemies, the viral misinformation and unclear populistic arguments.

If you oppose misinformation then you must have one hell

What the fuck is a Virii?

Oh wait, do you mean Viruses by any chance?

Fucktard.

reference.com != "the dictionary"

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=patent

Why do pretentious Americans ALWAYS write 'ad hominem' when they mean 'personal'? Do you ALL get taught the same shite in your crapulous public schools?

Despite the trollish nature of the parent post, it does contain a valid question. Dictionary.com has a pretty good summary. It is a tactic frequently used in debate by the party with the weaker argument - rather than focusing their assaults on the ideas being discussed, they focus them on the person presenting those ideas. It's also a good indicator of when someone has lost the argument before it's over. Unfortunately the appeal to pathos is very effective in situations where people aren't equipped/don't care to evaluate the merits of each argument.

Oddly enough, this sort of argument is widespread during election years.

this is the first documented instance of spaghetti code, predating Basic by several centuries.

Dude, c'mon!

I guess I really _do_ need to use a smiley for every fucking joke here, don't I? Geez.

I said often. And I wasn't refering to pork barrel products either. I'm talking about local polcie departments and agencies that aren't getting money for teh war on drugs.

It's called irony. The use of words to express something different from and often opposite to their literal meaning.

I suggest you tell the world about this essential tool. Or at least everyone in the US. It's very useful, and it will help them understand why many other English speaking nations often appear to be saying the opposite of what they mean.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=+intelect

it's

1. Contraction of it is.
2. Contraction of it has.

Well, it would help if you were to say which usage of the word you had in mind. Although if you find atmospheric pressure to be in the same class as religion, we can probably assume definition A) The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena.

If so, would you be open to the idea that you are projecting your own viewpoint onto "educated people" as a whole? Materialism as defined above is a rather narrow and extremist worldview. It's great for winding up your classmates at school, or drunks at a party, but taken exclusively it's rather too limiting to form the basis for any useful ontology. In this respect, it has a lot in common with its philosophical mirror image solipsism in that it willfull invalidates fifty percent of human experience.

And, just as Samuel Johnson refuted Bishop Berkely, so it is almost trivially easy to refute materialism as a philosophy: it takes no account of information. I can communicate the number "four" to you in a number of ways: I can voice the word (in a variety of langauages); I can send a pattern of electrons over a computer network; I can hold up a number of fingers, I can inscribe a number of different patterns on paper or other substances. All these will send the ideal of "four" from my brain to yours, but the concept of "fourfoldness" is implicit in none of these things.

Then there is mathematics whereby it is possible to construct purely abstract systems with no reference or application to physical reality.

Going a degree more mystical, there is the question of preception: it's all very well to exlain my perceptions in terms of enzymes and electrons, the fact remains that there is an "I" to whom these perceptions are presented. There is even support for this in orthodox physics in the consciousness causes collapse interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

I could go on, but that's enough to make the point.

Summing up, materialism can be useful but any supporting arguments tend to be circular since they have to disregard all non-materialist evidence. This would be acceptable if there was anything approaching the consensus you suggest, but that seems unlikely in the extreme: try telling your wife/GF/S.O. that "love" is nothing but an emergent effect arising from a combination of hormones and sensory stimuli. The chances are you'll get a quick grounding in why approx. 50% of the population has a problem with that proposition.

The point I'm getting to here is that Materialism is a religious belief. One of the defining characteristics of religious beliefs is that they take certain propositions on faith, both in the absence of evidence, and in the absence of any test that might falsify those propositions.

Interestingly, this makes atheism into a religion, since just as the theist professes a belief in a God in the absence of evidence, so does the atheist profess disbelief in the absence of any evidence. Agnosticism has the benefit of withholding judgement until evidence can be presented. However it is difficult to reconsice Meterialism with agnosticism since materialism tends to reject "God" as a valid concept for debate, and it's hard to define agnostic without reference to "God".

So I wonder which is most important to you: a rationalist world view, or your materialist religion? As you start to think of it in those terms, it becomes difficult to reconcile the two increasingly antagonistic viewpoints.

The world has always contained too much information - computers and the internet have just allowed us to finally have access to it. We've reached a critical level of receiving information (that was always there, just not accessible), and from here on out society needs to work on filtering/categorizing/organizing/etc this information. There are too many books to read, movies to watch, music to listen to, and quack theories to debunk in a single lifetime. There always was, and there always will be. No possible suppression tactic, save global totalitarianism, will ever work.

What the world needs now...is filter, sweet filter.

: I don't think ANY child should be given free
: acess to a spellchecker until he or she can read
: and write at a college level. It's meant to
: allievate your work, not do it for you.

Ahem .

To be fair, "bacterium" is actually a Latin word. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bacterium

Tehcnically speaking, no "burning" occurs in a nuclear power plant. And, while the waste is dangerous, there isn't very much of it, and it can be (and usually is) isolated from the environment.

Technically speaking, in the jargon of the field, you are wrong. See burn and pay particular attention: 2. Physics. To cause to undergo nuclear fission or fusion.

Yes, I checked a real Merriam-Webster, too, and it agreed, as does m-w.com.

Just because a person opposes homosexual behavior does not make him/her a homophobe.

homphobia n. 1. Fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men. 2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

Certainly the original poster's tone fits that definition, as does your implication that homosexuals are "sinners".

I'm tired of giving homophobia a pass. It's no more acceptable than any other form of bigotry.

No, it's not. Just because you say it is so does not make it so.

What if Dictionary.com says it's so?

Ajax the bleach and the Amsterdam football club Ajax are named after Ajax, a Greek warrior. At dictionary.com you can find the proper pronunciation. It turns out there are two Ajax's, one a hero, one a coward.

So it comes down to what the scotus du jure thinks.

I sure hope the SCOTUS is de jure. Perhaps you meant to say the "SCOTUS de jour"?

So it comes down to what the scotus du jure thinks.

I sure hope the SCOTUS is de jure. Perhaps you meant to say the "SCOTUS de jour"?

You seem to be trying to make a totally different point than the one you originally picked up. Please see conversation, the exchange of thoughts and ideas.

Writing something factually correct is one thing, construing it as a counter example to another point with no direct logical relationship between the two does not a valid argument make. Rather, it stinks of ego-sticking your own opinion to others', much like the one who tries to shout loudest in a crowd believes that because they shout loudest they are most correct.

Libel: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=libel
1. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.
2. The act of presenting such material to the public.

This is a published piece of writing. It is false (claims that most linux developers spend their nights writing windows viruses). It damages a person's reputation (see virus claim above).

Thus, it is libel. Libel happens to be illegal in the United States. Whether or not you think it should be illegal is another matter entirely, the fact remains that it is.

Because what you described is agnosticism

No. Absolutely not. You're mistaken about what agnosticism is. Look it up.

An agnostic claims that they cannot know if there is a god or gods.

An agnostic does not say "I hold no belief in god or gods." They're trying specifically to avoid that position and the position of holding a belief. I am of the opinion that this is impossible, and agnosticism therefore must be a wholly included subset of atheism or theism.

The choice between a theist and an atheist outlook is a completely black-and-white question and issue; either you believe, or you don't.

If you do, you're theist; if you don't, you're atheist. End of story.

Lack of belief in the healing powers of crystals/pyramids is called "ambivalence."

Ambivalence is not being able to decide, which is something else again. It certainly isn't "a lack of belief" as you claim here. Look it up. Lack of belief is the no confidence position. Disbelief is a position of confidence; one is saying "this is not so, because [fill in your reasons here.] It is the negative, or "anti-whatever" position. Belief is also a position of confidence; one is saying "this is so, because [fill in your reasons here.] It is the positive, or "pro-whatever" position.

The supernatural, by definition, is something that exists outside the natural universe.

You're mangling the definition to fit your understanding. That something is purportedly supernatural means that it exists outside the universe, yes. That is what limits our understanding and our tools to measure the supposed thing, whatever it might be. But that doesn't mean such a thing exists entirely outside the universe, nor does it mean that it cannot have effects inside the universe.

If that were so, the term supernatural would be completely irrelevant and no one would use it -- it would mean absolutely without effect, in any way, shape or form. Ghosts could not manifest, gods could not make worlds and turn people into pillars of salt, banshees could not scream. And the supernatural is the domain that these things are conceived in. Are you willing to redefine "supernatural"? If so, what domain are the superstitious (again, derived from supernatural) talking about when they talk about, for example, ghosts? Do you see what you've done here? You've not only made the word "supernatural" meaningless, you've disenfranchised "superstitious", "superstition" and "" as well.

I honestly think that you need to do some reading. You have made three separate claims here based on significant misunderstandings of well-known and commonly used words; atheism, ambivalence, agnosticism, supernatural. If you want to argue a position, you're going to at least have to use the same language everyone else does. If you want to re-define a word, I might accept that, but you have to justify why you're doing it. is the etymology misunderstood? Is the common understanding other than what is being portrayed by the other party? In either of those cases, you can find backup for your assertions. For instance, I simply checked dictionary.com before I replied to you to make sure that I was rock-solid in my understanding of the words that your argument was based around; that puts me in a very strong position in our discussion, because both the etymology and the common definition back my assertions.

North America and South America (wtf happened to our friends in Panama, Belize, Honduras, El Salvaador, and the other Centroamerican countries?) are *NOT* independent continents: they are the same mass of land, with the detail that man build a cannal in the istmus of Panama.

Our friends in Panama et al are in North America. Central America is a subset of North America. But you must have learned your geography differently than me. You did not name the continents as I was taught. Perhaps you should check http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=continent and tell us what it says?

Maybe we do know what the word 'sexist' means.

Just to be sure:

1. Discrimination based on gender, especially discrimination against women.
2. Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender.
sexism

You can't say "It's not sexist because it's applied to both sexes" and then pretend you know what sexism is.

(...) some of us are defective (...) our imaginations are superior to the idiots of the world who don't exercise their brains (...)

I find it fascinating that your offensive drivel got rated "Insightful" while my post pointing out the difference in how genders are portrayed got rated "Troll" and "Flamebait". You're right, some of us are obviously defective.

I challenge you to go to a movie and not find a stereotype about women that's far worse than anything in a video game.

That would be easy, but it's not the point. I agree that most movies are even worse than games, but it hardly matters as it doesn't make games any better.

Most games are sexist, whether movies are sexist or not.

The stereotypes in games are that your fate is completely dictated by your appearance - UNLESS you're female. In which case it's dictated by your outfit.

I'm afraid I don't quite understand your point. How is Mario's fate dictated by his fatness? how is Killer7's Smith's fate dictated by the fact that he's old, disabled and in a wheelchair? How is Wario's fate dictated by his ugliness?

The only person here being sexist is you, because YOU are the one implying that any kind of treatment of women that isn't flawless is gender-biased.

That is utterly absurd. First of all, it's not "any kind of treatment". It's consistent sexism. Second, you can't pretend that the fact that all girls are pretty and slender while there are all kinds of males in games isn't "gender-biased".

Mod me down all you want for this, I'm sick of people leaping into an argument about gender and claiming to be the knight in shining armor just to gain the favor of the female audience.

That is even more absurd. The only females on Slashdot are males pretending to be females :-)

Besides, it's utterly pointless to gain favor of the female audience since I'm never going to see them in real life anyway.

Maybe that's hard for you to understand, but it really is my opinion that it's wrong to only show females in sexist roles. That doesn't make me any less functional than you. I love to look at scantily clad chicks with big boobs, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't have more diverse roles for female characters in games.

1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body: secular music.
3. Relating to or advocating secularism.
4. Not bound by monastic restrictions, especially not belonging to a religious order. Used of the clergy.
5. Occurring or observed once in an age or century.
6. Lasting from century to century.

Now, where does this "Heathenous" come from?

I've never understood the ridiculous claim that atheism is a religion.

stop quote the religion of Atheism.

This is the definition of religion:

1a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
1b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Which of these definitions do you claim that atheism fits?

If you are a materialist, and I think that includes most people who consider themselves educated, there is no essential difference between atmospheric pressure and religion, not because nature is willful but because neither are people in any distinctive sense. Religious fervor stems from neural stimulation, which stems from stimuli and brain structure, which stems from genetics and environment... and so on back to the big bang, which stems from nothing and is utterly mystical.

See Also: consequences.

Liberal means the almost exact opposite of what they are.

v. guided, guiding, guides
v. tr.

1. To serve as a guide for; conduct.
2. To direct the course of; steer: guide a ship through a channel.
3. To exert control or influence over.
4. To supervise the training or education of.

uniform
adj.

1. Always the same, as in character or degree; unvarying.
2. Conforming to one principle, standard, or rule; consistent.
3. Being the same as or consonant with another or others.
4. Unvaried in texture, color, or design.


n.

1. A distinctive outfit intended to identify those who wear it as members of a specific group.
2. One set of such an outfit.

Compare: Vocation vs. Vacation
Get one:Vocabulary

Compare: Vocation vs. Vacation
Get one:Vocabulary

Compare: Vocation vs. Vacation
Get one:Vocabulary

As long as no person imposes any restrictions on what they will or will not do then their liberty remains intact. The only things that permanently limit liberty are the laws of physics.

Threat of physical harm may not always dissuade someone from doing something as you should know from all the stupid things people do getting themselves hurt (ie. skydiving, mountain climbing, etc.).

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=whinging

I would definitely think twice before making an ass out of myself, too.

What you do now is all that matters. The future is already a mess. Let the things of tomorrow think for themselves.

The future of UNITED STATES is hell, and I don't mean Hell Michigan. All these problems wouldn't happen if there were no corporations. It's difficult to demand to be responsible for your own actions. Now, in any cause of UNITED STATES, I may be held responsible for the actions of a corporation. Name the most used products, and you will find the conspiracy. DRIVER LICENSES; because it is immoral (licentious) to exercise your duty of movement the common ways. Military-enforced Insurance, because you are estoppeled for drafting a Promisory Note in exchange for property damages.

Now my friends are being fined for not registering their bicycle with DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES. If it demands money, it is not law; it is commerce. Is not the President for a corporation known as UNITED STATES, not to be confused with the united States of America?

USC TITLE 28, 3002
  15, "United States" means
      (a) a Federal corporation

acknolage

I'm not sure what you were going for with this atrocious spelling, but it certainly gave me a good laugh.

Not mute. Moot. :-)

Not mute. Moot. :-)

You should take your own advice.

I'm sorry, but religion doesn't cover atheists:

http://www.onelook.com/?w=religion&ls=a:
Quick definitions (Religion)

# noun: a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny
# noun: institution to express belief in a divine power

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=66&q=reli gion:
      1.
                  a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
                  b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
      2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
      3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
      4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

And no, atheism is not defined as being actively pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. Some atheists may be that way, but not all, and it is not necessary to be a hardcore anti-theist to be an athiest; atheism is merely a lack of belief in a deity(s).

Atheists do not practice religion.

The word of the day is pedantic.

Thank you.

Says you, dipshit.

Interesting. Dictionary.com does return a result for "stupider" and doesn't even say it's nonstandard usage. Not checking your sources, then, looks stupider than the grandparent's use of the word to begin with. While you go over there to look it up, how about using this link to get there.