Mod me redundant, but I feel that deserves to be repeated.
Maybe I don't get it, but the last time I checked, we don't really understand how the brain works. Bits and pieces of its operation, yes, but the big picture? Not even close. How is it, then, that some can claim to have such complex aspects, in this case, learning, figured out on a genetic level? Wouldn't that be like someone who barely knows jack about the immune system claiming to have found a genetic reason as to why some people are allergic to cats?
Wrong. Epic fail. DNA determines what we are, not who we are. Saying DNA determines what we are is like looking at a blueprint of an office building and trying to determine what type of business will operate there.
If your self respect comes from what you are, not who you are, you've got problems. I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, I do think people should be proud of their culture and other intangibles (ie patriotism), but not physical make-up like melanin content and genital location.
Why the hell should working class Americans be able to afford an automobile?
That's why. We have to eat, and get to work, too, and to do that, it must be affordable. Damn near everyone who says that either doesn't need a car to get where they need to go or can afford their cars (relatively) easier than others. Try seeing all the aspects next time.
Imagine your whole life is changed because you met one girl. Everything you thought mattered is irrelevant, and the only thing you want is to be with her, and take care of her. You get comfortable, it looks like you can make it happen, you work so hard, she smiles, she laughs. You start to realize you never really knew joy or happiness, and that you truly understand what life is about now.
That happens to millions of people. Yeah, it hurts for a while, but you either move on, or you get so caught up in yourself that you keep dwelling in something that happens to everyone.
Your life is now nothing. The pain is massive. Emotional pain can strip you of everything; no form of physical torture can compare. It will consume and destroy you; if it passes a certain point and you DON'T kill yourself off, you'll be left a hollow shell incapable of really recovering. You'll live a life lost, where everything seems pale and insignificant, incomplete, and you smile at the simple things when you can but still find no satisfaction in the finer joys of being alive.
What? You're joking, right? That's pretty self-centered, ain't it? To compare something so temporary with actual torture, to say that something so common will take all joy out of your life. If what you say were true, NO ONE would be happy.
When someone's already having emotional trouble, and is going through a hormonal/emotional development stage, and is lacking emotional growth experience to cope, they're ripe for crafting this exact situation. Probably not enough to really trash their life if they survive it, but enough to make it obvious to them that life isn't worth living right now.
No. If someone really kills themselves over that, they were either raised to think they're the only human in existence, or there is something else massively wrong in their lives. I'm not trying to sound cold to the girl, but as far as I can tell, suicide is caused more by self absorption that this 'pain' you speak of. Either way, the parent poster is correct; suicide is not a natural response to bullying.
Would it be as big a deal if someone did this through the mail? I don't see why new technology also needs new laws, so I would hope there would be no legal precedent set for computer specific harassment.
As to evidence that ivy league schools provide better education than the thousands of crappy state schools in the USA... do I really have to provide evidence of this?
Nope, we'll take assumption as fact. Actually, if you look at the sta...wait, what's this?
There is a very large difference between candidates from highly ranked schools (ivy leagues included) and those from unranked, high-school-level-2 state schools.
Oh, you were simply trolling? My bad, I'll let you be.
The difference is that the students in top schools are usually smarter and harder working.
Citation badly needed. When you cross reference US census data with Ivy League statistics, it becomes evident that the spots in top colleges actually go to the wealthy students. Coincidence? When they're getting over ten thousand applicants and only need roughly 10%, as is common of Ivies, that is highly unlikely. You are either severely mislead, or simply a classist fucker. I'll assume the former, and inform you that the myth you believe is baseless and quite disgusting.
What's the real difference between an Ivy League degree and a state school degree? A shitload of money and some elitism. If you're looking for a practical difference, you should spend your time looking for something more probable, like a bigfoot.
True enough, but be honest with yourself. If there's are books about not collecting stamps, organizations dedicated to not collecting stamps, and websites all about how to not collect stamps, and movements to preach the greatness of not collecting stamps, guess what not collecting stamps has become?
Ha! I got a flamebait mod. I must have offended one of the humorless schmucks I was talking about.
Anyway, I forgot to add to my last comment that the default reason for your proposed system should be something like 'Don't agree, but just too dumb to make a decent counterargument.' That's probably the real reason behind the average downmod anyway. Well, aside from the overrated mod your comment got. I guess someone just hates you.
While we're on the topic of mods, I think some work needs to be done on the Funny mod. Say some one is modded funny four times and troll once, that person loses karma. I'm fine with funny mods not giving karma, but I think they should at least act as buffers from losing it. For example, a score of two funny mods and three troll mods would be the same as one troll mod. I know it isn't that important or anything, it just irks me when a funny person loses karma because some people have no sense of humor.
It came from businesses and governments that could have used the money for better things like improved medical care, more efficient farming, distribution and markets.
Key words there. Just like you could have given all the money that you didn't need for your own survival to charity last month. But you didn't, did you? The problem with you whole argument is it is based on what people 'could have' done. That's very illogical. Then again, so is comparing the deaths of thousands of people with using a particular OS. And, since it is obvious that you're a hypocrite (see that part where you didn't give half your paycheck to charity), I'd be willing to bet you'd change your tune about human lives being worth less than Teh Great Linux if such a conflict ever came to your backyard.
Open source is great, but some of its proponents are just fucking retards.
A civilized country doesn't kill their people, period.
Riddle me this: Does a civilized country allow harm to come to their citizens through inaction? I wonder how many killers, people that we are 100% certain are murderers, leach tax payer dollars in prisons, while others can only afford the most basic of health care? It seems to me a civilized society would know who's care should come first. (Hint: It's not the homicidal danger to society.)
The numbers than some of the ivy league colleges have and essentially sit on is staggering. Yet the costs of college keep going up further locking many out of the loop.
If you can't afford an Ivy League school, odds are you didn't get accepted anyway. Not that I condone anything those bastards do, just saying. Also, because anytime someone uses that argument against the Ivies, they always pick a student from the very very small minority of students who aren't from the top economic grouping and get a free ride to use as a counterexample, because they think the exception disproves the rule.
Microsoft is a company. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a charity. They are separate entities. It is not Microsoft's job to save the world, their intent is to make money. Whether we like it or not, that's just the way it works. Your expectations of Microsoft seem unreasonable.
If I invite someone into my house, but then ask them to leave, consenting to leave -- but only in a few months -- doesn't hold water.
How so? Same concept, different timescale.
Where, upstream in this thread, did I accept any other definition of "individual"?
Individual, existing as a distinct entity, being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole. An embryo is a distinct and unique entity. The fact that it is currently dependent on another is irrelevant. Heres a question: If you've got a tapeworm subsisting off you from the inside, does it cease to become a unique individual separate from yourself? Or does it literally become you?
Slashdot Mirror
Genetics is becoming the new astrology
Mod me redundant, but I feel that deserves to be repeated.
Maybe I don't get it, but the last time I checked, we don't really understand how the brain works. Bits and pieces of its operation, yes, but the big picture? Not even close. How is it, then, that some can claim to have such complex aspects, in this case, learning, figured out on a genetic level? Wouldn't that be like someone who barely knows jack about the immune system claiming to have found a genetic reason as to why some people are allergic to cats?
Our DNA is basically a blue print of who we are.
Wrong. Epic fail. DNA determines what we are, not who we are. Saying DNA determines what we are is like looking at a blueprint of an office building and trying to determine what type of business will operate there.
So, the question is, can we fix this?
Who said people are broken?
Kinda like those guys who keep finding genetic links to damn near everything?
What's left of a person's self respect?
If your self respect comes from what you are, not who you are, you've got problems. I'm not entirely disagreeing with you, I do think people should be proud of their culture and other intangibles (ie patriotism), but not physical make-up like melanin content and genital location.
Why the hell should working class Americans be able to afford an automobile?
That's why. We have to eat, and get to work, too, and to do that, it must be affordable. Damn near everyone who says that either doesn't need a car to get where they need to go or can afford their cars (relatively) easier than others. Try seeing all the aspects next time.
You're aware that scientific people consider eugenics to be out of vogue, right?
Not disagreeing, but you could have said that, too.
Imagine your whole life is changed because you met one girl. Everything you thought mattered is irrelevant, and the only thing you want is to be with her, and take care of her. You get comfortable, it looks like you can make it happen, you work so hard, she smiles, she laughs. You start to realize you never really knew joy or happiness, and that you truly understand what life is about now.
That happens to millions of people. Yeah, it hurts for a while, but you either move on, or you get so caught up in yourself that you keep dwelling in something that happens to everyone.
Your life is now nothing. The pain is massive. Emotional pain can strip you of everything; no form of physical torture can compare. It will consume and destroy you; if it passes a certain point and you DON'T kill yourself off, you'll be left a hollow shell incapable of really recovering. You'll live a life lost, where everything seems pale and insignificant, incomplete, and you smile at the simple things when you can but still find no satisfaction in the finer joys of being alive.
What? You're joking, right? That's pretty self-centered, ain't it? To compare something so temporary with actual torture, to say that something so common will take all joy out of your life. If what you say were true, NO ONE would be happy.
When someone's already having emotional trouble, and is going through a hormonal/emotional development stage, and is lacking emotional growth experience to cope, they're ripe for crafting this exact situation. Probably not enough to really trash their life if they survive it, but enough to make it obvious to them that life isn't worth living right now.
No. If someone really kills themselves over that, they were either raised to think they're the only human in existence, or there is something else massively wrong in their lives. I'm not trying to sound cold to the girl, but as far as I can tell, suicide is caused more by self absorption that this 'pain' you speak of. Either way, the parent poster is correct; suicide is not a natural response to bullying.
Would it be as big a deal if someone did this through the mail? I don't see why new technology also needs new laws, so I would hope there would be no legal precedent set for computer specific harassment.
Yes, giving to the poor is such an outdated notion, let's dismiss the entire thing. /sarcasm
The only reason to create your own "league" is because you can't compete with everyone else.
This comment really deserves to be modded to +6
I didn't mean to imply that the Ivies were shitty, merely overrated.
As to evidence that ivy league schools provide better education than the thousands of crappy state schools in the USA ... do I really have to provide evidence of this?
Nope, we'll take assumption as fact. Actually, if you look at the sta...wait, what's this?
There is a very large difference between candidates from highly ranked schools (ivy leagues included) and those from unranked, high-school-level-2 state schools.
Oh, you were simply trolling? My bad, I'll let you be.
The difference is that the students in top schools are usually smarter and harder working.
Citation badly needed. When you cross reference US census data with Ivy League statistics, it becomes evident that the spots in top colleges actually go to the wealthy students. Coincidence? When they're getting over ten thousand applicants and only need roughly 10%, as is common of Ivies, that is highly unlikely. You are either severely mislead, or simply a classist fucker. I'll assume the former, and inform you that the myth you believe is baseless and quite disgusting.
Yeah, I guess that is true. It's just like how a good generic brand will still sell less than a shitty name brand.
What's the real difference between an Ivy League degree and a state school degree? A shitload of money and some elitism. If you're looking for a practical difference, you should spend your time looking for something more probable, like a bigfoot.
Someday, the (intelligent and well educated) descendants of those you call 'unintelligent' will probably be saying the same thing.
True enough, but be honest with yourself. If there's are books about not collecting stamps, organizations dedicated to not collecting stamps, and websites all about how to not collect stamps, and movements to preach the greatness of not collecting stamps, guess what not collecting stamps has become?
Ha! I got a flamebait mod. I must have offended one of the humorless schmucks I was talking about.
Anyway, I forgot to add to my last comment that the default reason for your proposed system should be something like 'Don't agree, but just too dumb to make a decent counterargument.' That's probably the real reason behind the average downmod anyway. Well, aside from the overrated mod your comment got. I guess someone just hates you.
While we're on the topic of mods, I think some work needs to be done on the Funny mod. Say some one is modded funny four times and troll once, that person loses karma. I'm fine with funny mods not giving karma, but I think they should at least act as buffers from losing it. For example, a score of two funny mods and three troll mods would be the same as one troll mod. I know it isn't that important or anything, it just irks me when a funny person loses karma because some people have no sense of humor.
It came from businesses and governments that could have used the money for better things like improved medical care, more efficient farming, distribution and markets.
Key words there. Just like you could have given all the money that you didn't need for your own survival to charity last month. But you didn't, did you? The problem with you whole argument is it is based on what people 'could have' done. That's very illogical. Then again, so is comparing the deaths of thousands of people with using a particular OS. And, since it is obvious that you're a hypocrite (see that part where you didn't give half your paycheck to charity), I'd be willing to bet you'd change your tune about human lives being worth less than Teh Great Linux if such a conflict ever came to your backyard.
Open source is great, but some of its proponents are just fucking retards.
A civilized country doesn't kill their people, period.
Riddle me this: Does a civilized country allow harm to come to their citizens through inaction? I wonder how many killers, people that we are 100% certain are murderers, leach tax payer dollars in prisons, while others can only afford the most basic of health care? It seems to me a civilized society would know who's care should come first. (Hint: It's not the homicidal danger to society.)
The numbers than some of the ivy league colleges have and essentially sit on is staggering. Yet the costs of college keep going up further locking many out of the loop.
If you can't afford an Ivy League school, odds are you didn't get accepted anyway. Not that I condone anything those bastards do, just saying. Also, because anytime someone uses that argument against the Ivies, they always pick a student from the very very small minority of students who aren't from the top economic grouping and get a free ride to use as a counterexample, because they think the exception disproves the rule.
Microsoft is a company. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation is a charity. They are separate entities. It is not Microsoft's job to save the world, their intent is to make money. Whether we like it or not, that's just the way it works. Your expectations of Microsoft seem unreasonable.
who discover that the real cure for cancer was inside of them all along!
So it's a movie about cannibalism then?
If I invite someone into my house, but then ask them to leave, consenting to leave -- but only in a few months -- doesn't hold water.
How so? Same concept, different timescale.
Where, upstream in this thread, did I accept any other definition of "individual"?
Individual, existing as a distinct entity, being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole. An embryo is a distinct and unique entity. The fact that it is currently dependent on another is irrelevant. Heres a question: If you've got a tapeworm subsisting off you from the inside, does it cease to become a unique individual separate from yourself? Or does it literally become you?