"Anti-semitic" was defined as "anti-jew". Not because it made sense, ever, but to give hatred of Jews a scientific sounding touch. It wasn't Jews who came up with that term, you know. And "misappropriation"? That IS the original use, you're the one trying to misappropriate it.
It's not like before that it used to mean being against semitic people in general. And you know why? Semitic is a language of families, and that's an unlikely prejudice to have, to be against "semites". It's not like they look or act very alike, it's just that their languages shares a common root, and unless you're a linguist or ancient history buff, you wouldn't know or care either way.
That's how anti-semites got away with using that word for meaning hatred of Jews, in the first place: it was utterly unused. And the best you can hope for to make it unused again; I'd be all for that. I think it's fine to talk about people who hate Jews or Arabs, and the type of racist that is kind of the standard in my mind: who hates anyone who is too different from them in appearance or culture. But one thing you cannot hope for, not on the watch of anybody worth shit, is to claim "anti-semites" refers to actually existing people who are against semites. These people do not even exist.
So.... somebody who isn't a fucking DOOFUS, someone who knows how to look up how words came to be, is "a racist of the most dangerous type" to you? You fucking what? And you're even pointing fingers at the Jews for a word that people who hated and persecuted them invented, basically. Well, why not go all the way; once you crossed the line of being a complete tool it's all the same, right? Also, I see there are too many idiots with moderation points -- it'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. Dumb on, people, dumb on.
The more empathic someone is, the more difficult it will be for them to consciously allow a certain number of probable deaths or injuries.
No, the easier it will be for them to "feel for" ALL affected. This includes the positively affected. If a decision saves the lives of 1000 while killing 1, empathy doesn't mean "feel for the 1, ignore the 1000".
Also, how is selfishness more rational? How would a sociopath do ANY calculation other than "does it give me what I want, fuck everyone else" --- ?
Someone has to decide whose suffering to alleviate, and whose to ignore. People who are too empathic can't; at best, they'll make decisions based on whichever crisis is most heart-touching to them
Bullshit. There's plenty of strong people who just happen to have empathy, too. You just don't know em. Just like there's plenty of weak-ass sociopaths. You just don't recognize em. How does that quote go? "Gentleness can only be expected from the strong."? I think you have it exactly upside down, and good luck with that.
If you think sleeping with a bunch of girls is "going far", then yes, in whatever world where that makes sense you contradicted my statement. Everywhere else, not so much ^^
Wow. This was the best post I read on here in ages... like a summary of things I wasn't fully aware of, and/or couldn't put my finger on. I was eating while reading slashdot, and I actually forgot chewing during your post -- a silly thing to say, but it's true ^^ Thank you very much! Any author or book suggestions you might have, I would gladly have 'em:)
Money without personality doesn't go very far. Personality goes a long way, even dirt poor. Money AND personality... well... women dream about that.
And why wouldn't they? Just like men with neither money nor personality like to dream about how every dude with more personality and/or money than them must have some defect. Sometimes, just sometimes - that defect is you.
In other words... you know you won't be able to, but you can damn well make up some crude accusative story just to make your lame self feel better about it. Gotcha.
if you can't trust your government then you live in a very sorry nation indeed.
Wow. In what nation do you live, pray tell? Did they achieve this remarkable success just by fooling you, or were you outright re-educated?
The hard part is voting the right people in to be your political leaders.
LOLNOPE.
The hard part is that you vote based on promises, and those people are not at all bound by that promise, or your vote. Once they're voted in they can do whatever, including the opposite of what they promised. While it's illegal to put up a fake vending machine (which promises X, but only gives you something else, or even nothing, after you inserted money), there are no such qualms with politicians, and certainly no laws, not to mention enforcement of them, regulating politicians and their false promises.
You can only trust *anything* it in so far as you can influence it, and/or in so far as it loves you. No such dice with governments usually. So unless your country radically differs from this, if you trust the government, you're being silly. And even if it does, even if *you* can trust *your* government, because it's really special that way, then the easiest way to loose that is to look down your nose at people who are making different experiences with theirs, and taking the fact that you're not raped and thrown away for granted.
You are exactly right. They need to think in terms of markup and semantics, not visual layout features. Then you can *still* make those "semantic things" accessible via a nice GUI, while simply displaying them as they would be displayed with the theme the user has selected or that respective page is in. But the semantic structure absolutely has to come first, the layout should follow from there. Not because of ideals (though I wouldn't take accessibility lightly), but because that makes the dependency tree real simple if you will. The semantic structure is the one piece that has to be thought out real well; but then you can have as many ways to input and output that as you want, and keep experimenting with them to boot. I know it's easy to say... but a huge, and moving target in practice. Still:)
Who said he is "the" reference? Did I miss something? Also, even if you were right; that difference isn't deification. Even if all IQ tests were made out relative to Einstein (which they're not), or if Einstein's views were regularly brought up in conversation to determine if something is smart or not (which they're not), yeah, that'd *still* not be deification. I agree that looking at his brain in isolation is an exercise in being silly, but I don't see how Einstein is being "deified" here, at all. It's kinda funny too, considering that Einstein himself was rather humble. If he would shrug this off with a friendly, confused smile, why don't you?
WTF? Yes, Einstein is considered to have been very smart by many. However:
(transitive) To make a god of (something or someone). (transitive) To treat as worthy of worship; to regard as a deity.
Saying "that person was really smart" isn't the same as saying "that person is a deity", it's nowhere near. Also, the brain is studied for many reasons, one of which is "why not?".
While the term's etymology might suggest that antisemitism is directed against all Semitic peoples, the term was coined in the late 19th century in Germany as a more scientific-sounding term for Judenhass ("Jew-hatred"), and that has been its normal use since then.
But actually, you raise a good point. Why are we still using the euphemism(!) a bunch of stupid Jew haters came up with?
Make up your mind. Are you saying it's the fault of the Jews that they Hamas are antisemites, or that Hamas aren't even antisemites?
Also, this sentence could not be parsed, maybe try again: "people who aren't allowed to return to their own homes have been expelled, no matter why they left."
How is noticing he was rather smart deifying him? Personally, I never fully understood any of the stuff in his actual field of work, but always rather enjoyed stuff like letters or essays he wrote. I would never have heard of those however if he hadn't also been such a famous physicist. So I'm not sure what's there to moan about.. what's your angle? That nobody will bother to take a photo of your brain when you die?
Nobody hated Jews in Palestine, until a bunch of Polish and Russian pricks, calling themselves "Hebrew" camped their little racist state on the coast, in the middle of the last century.
As the riots began, Jewish immigration to Palestine was temporarily halted by the British. Also, feeling that the British were unwilling to defend them from continuous Arab violence, Palestinian Jews decided to set up an underground self-defense militia, the Haganah ("defense").
In a speech in June 1921 on the occasion of the Royal birthday, Samuel stressing Britain's commitment to the second part of the Balfour Declaration of 1917, declared that Jewish immigration would be allowed only to the extent that it did not burden the economy. In line with this interpretation, Jewish immigration was suspended. Those who heard the speech had the impression that he was trying to appease the Arabs at the Jews' expense, and some Jewish leaders boycotted him for a time
According to Asher Meshorer (Zemira Mani's son and Noit Geva's father), his aunt (Zemira Mani's sister - who was not present in Hebron during the massacre) had told him that the Arabs from the villages essentially wanted to kill only the new Ashkenazim. According to her, there was an alienated Jewish community that wore streimels, unlike the Sephardi community, which was deeply rooted, speaking Arabic and dressing like Arab residents.
When the riots started, representatives of the Arabs came to the chief Hebron Rabbi, Rabbi Slonim Dwek, with a proposal - if he allowed them to kill 70 students from the yeshiva in Hebron, they would not kill the other Ashkenazim or the Sephardim. Rabbi Slonim Dwek told them, "We Jews are all one people." He was the first person to be killed in the riots, as he held his eldest son, 4 years old in his hands, who was also killed
^ Search that text for both "jew" and "zion" just to get you started. Here's just a random snippet -- if you think I'm quoting out of context, well... feel free to find me something better, that explains stuff like this away:/
In their Nazi treatment, the Jews made no exception for women or children. Their policy of striking fear in the heart is meant for all. They attack people where their breadwinning is concerned, extorting their money and threatening their honour. They deal with people as if they were the worst war criminals. Deportation from the homeland is a kind of murder.
To counter these deeds, it is necessary that social mutual responsibility should prevail among the people. The enemy should be faced by the people as a single body which if one member of it should complain, the rest of the body would respond by feeling the same pains.
The way I read that:
The Jews kill women and children, so let's just fire rockets at Isreal without discrimination. Let's attack school buses even! It's just Jews, it's not bad when you do it to *them*. Some gibberish about the greedy, honourless Jew, then kinda implying they're murderers even when they don't murder, (so they can be murdered in response to that, I guess).
The solution: Let's be fascists ya'll. One for all, and all against the Jews.
Was that being polemic? Or am I just paying attention? You tell me. One thing is sure, that Charter surely obsesses about Islam, Zionism and Jews. So if they're an anti-semitic terrorist organization, doesn't seem crushing them like, uhh, the best alternative? What would you do instead, talk to them real nice?
None of this justifies actions by Israel that aren't okay; I'm just saying, wtf. If you're gonna pretend that other bunch of backwards assholes are just fine, then you have just as big a problem.
How far, exactly, do you think a lot of socialist or peace movements would have gotten without women? Woman always got in the way with her morals and silly empathy. So they need to be routed around -- that's what this is about, and it's ALL this is about. There I suggest murdering every single one of the pathetic fuckers involved in this research, and not in a tongue-in-cheek way either.
Fuck anonymity; I wanna go down in record as someone who said "fuck no" in no unclear terms. I've been expecting this for over a decade, and I'm not surprised in the least; just disappointed about the lack of killing so far. Get on it.
I was actually talking about self-mutilation. Kids and stunted adults self-destruct in many, many ways, turning their heads into an echo chamber for garbage is one pillar of that, and that something is popular is no argument for anything -- much less that it merely exists. Was that any clearer?
Naturally, since you're not a Brit interested in those specific laws, how they came to be, and what other Brits think about them. Why would I give a shit that you, or anyone actually, didn't watch that? I watched it, I appreciated it; anything beyond that is your thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone please make a kickstarter page or something, this is an awesome idea.
That wasn't even a nice try.
"Anti-semitic" was defined as "anti-jew". Not because it made sense, ever, but to give hatred of Jews a scientific sounding touch. It wasn't Jews who came up with that term, you know. And "misappropriation"? That IS the original use, you're the one trying to misappropriate it.
It's not like before that it used to mean being against semitic people in general. And you know why? Semitic is a language of families, and that's an unlikely prejudice to have, to be against "semites". It's not like they look or act very alike, it's just that their languages shares a common root, and unless you're a linguist or ancient history buff, you wouldn't know or care either way.
That's how anti-semites got away with using that word for meaning hatred of Jews, in the first place: it was utterly unused. And the best you can hope for to make it unused again; I'd be all for that. I think it's fine to talk about people who hate Jews or Arabs, and the type of racist that is kind of the standard in my mind: who hates anyone who is too different from them in appearance or culture. But one thing you cannot hope for, not on the watch of anybody worth shit, is to claim "anti-semites" refers to actually existing people who are against semites. These people do not even exist.
So.... somebody who isn't a fucking DOOFUS, someone who knows how to look up how words came to be, is "a racist of the most dangerous type" to you? You fucking what? And you're even pointing fingers at the Jews for a word that people who hated and persecuted them invented, basically. Well, why not go all the way; once you crossed the line of being a complete tool it's all the same, right? Also, I see there are too many idiots with moderation points -- it'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. Dumb on, people, dumb on.
No, the easier it will be for them to "feel for" ALL affected. This includes the positively affected. If a decision saves the lives of 1000 while killing 1, empathy doesn't mean "feel for the 1, ignore the 1000".
Also, how is selfishness more rational? How would a sociopath do ANY calculation other than "does it give me what I want, fuck everyone else" --- ?
Bullshit. There's plenty of strong people who just happen to have empathy, too. You just don't know em. Just like there's plenty of weak-ass sociopaths. You just don't recognize em. How does that quote go? "Gentleness can only be expected from the strong."? I think you have it exactly upside down, and good luck with that.
If you think sleeping with a bunch of girls is "going far", then yes, in whatever world where that makes sense you contradicted my statement. Everywhere else, not so much ^^
Wow. This was the best post I read on here in ages... like a summary of things I wasn't fully aware of, and/or couldn't put my finger on. I was eating while reading slashdot, and I actually forgot chewing during your post -- a silly thing to say, but it's true ^^ Thank you very much! Any author or book suggestions you might have, I would gladly have 'em :)
So? What's your point? On what basis are you implying this is the case here? Other than extrapolating from yourself maybe?
Money without personality doesn't go very far. Personality goes a long way, even dirt poor. Money AND personality... well... women dream about that.
And why wouldn't they? Just like men with neither money nor personality like to dream about how every dude with more personality and/or money than them must have some defect. Sometimes, just sometimes - that defect is you.
In other words... you know you won't be able to, but you can damn well make up some crude accusative story just to make your lame self feel better about it. Gotcha.
Wow. In what nation do you live, pray tell? Did they achieve this remarkable success just by fooling you, or were you outright re-educated?
LOLNOPE.
The hard part is that you vote based on promises, and those people are not at all bound by that promise, or your vote. Once they're voted in they can do whatever, including the opposite of what they promised. While it's illegal to put up a fake vending machine (which promises X, but only gives you something else, or even nothing, after you inserted money), there are no such qualms with politicians, and certainly no laws, not to mention enforcement of them, regulating politicians and their false promises.
You can only trust *anything* it in so far as you can influence it, and/or in so far as it loves you. No such dice with governments usually. So unless your country radically differs from this, if you trust the government, you're being silly. And even if it does, even if *you* can trust *your* government, because it's really special that way, then the easiest way to loose that is to look down your nose at people who are making different experiences with theirs, and taking the fact that you're not raped and thrown away for granted.
You are exactly right. They need to think in terms of markup and semantics, not visual layout features. Then you can *still* make those "semantic things" accessible via a nice GUI, while simply displaying them as they would be displayed with the theme the user has selected or that respective page is in. But the semantic structure absolutely has to come first, the layout should follow from there. Not because of ideals (though I wouldn't take accessibility lightly), but because that makes the dependency tree real simple if you will. The semantic structure is the one piece that has to be thought out real well; but then you can have as many ways to input and output that as you want, and keep experimenting with them to boot. I know it's easy to say... but a huge, and moving target in practice. Still :)
Who said he is "the" reference? Did I miss something? Also, even if you were right; that difference isn't deification. Even if all IQ tests were made out relative to Einstein (which they're not), or if Einstein's views were regularly brought up in conversation to determine if something is smart or not (which they're not), yeah, that'd *still* not be deification. I agree that looking at his brain in isolation is an exercise in being silly, but I don't see how Einstein is being "deified" here, at all. It's kinda funny too, considering that Einstein himself was rather humble. If he would shrug this off with a friendly, confused smile, why don't you?
Maybe you're mistaking opinions about God, armbands and arms with, well, God?
"Since no one really knows anything about God, those who think they do are just troublemakers." Rabia Al-Basri
WTF? Yes, Einstein is considered to have been very smart by many. However:
Saying "that person was really smart" isn't the same as saying "that person is a deity", it's nowhere near. Also, the brain is studied for many reasons, one of which is "why not?".
In summary, I don't even know what you just said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism
But actually, you raise a good point. Why are we still using the euphemism(!) a bunch of stupid Jew haters came up with?
Make up your mind. Are you saying it's the fault of the Jews that they Hamas are antisemites, or that Hamas aren't even antisemites?
Also, this sentence could not be parsed, maybe try again: "people who aren't allowed to return to their own homes have been expelled, no matter why they left."
How is noticing he was rather smart deifying him? Personally, I never fully understood any of the stuff in his actual field of work, but always rather enjoyed stuff like letters or essays he wrote. I would never have heard of those however if he hadn't also been such a famous physicist. So I'm not sure what's there to moan about.. what's your angle? That nobody will bother to take a photo of your brain when you die?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_antisemitism#Twentieth_century
Just three examples which took me like 5 seconds to find:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerusalem_pogrom_of_April_1920
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaffa_riots
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1929_Hebron_massacre
So yeah. Nice try but fuck you.
FTFY.
Quoted as if that's a terribly hawkish thing to say?
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
^ Search that text for both "jew" and "zion" just to get you started. Here's just a random snippet -- if you think I'm quoting out of context, well... feel free to find me something better, that explains stuff like this away :/
The way I read that:
The Jews kill women and children, so let's just fire rockets at Isreal without discrimination. Let's attack school buses even! It's just Jews, it's not bad when you do it to *them*. Some gibberish about the greedy, honourless Jew, then kinda implying they're murderers even when they don't murder, (so they can be murdered in response to that, I guess).
The solution: Let's be fascists ya'll. One for all, and all against the Jews.
Was that being polemic? Or am I just paying attention? You tell me. One thing is sure, that Charter surely obsesses about Islam, Zionism and Jews. So if they're an anti-semitic terrorist organization, doesn't seem crushing them like, uhh, the best alternative? What would you do instead, talk to them real nice?
None of this justifies actions by Israel that aren't okay; I'm just saying, wtf. If you're gonna pretend that other bunch of backwards assholes are just fine, then you have just as big a problem.
Actually it's super simple if you go by this rule: "valid BBcode tags, properly nested, result in valid HTML -- the rest is undefined, good luck" :P
How far, exactly, do you think a lot of socialist or peace movements would have gotten without women? Woman always got in the way with her morals and silly empathy. So they need to be routed around -- that's what this is about, and it's ALL this is about. There I suggest murdering every single one of the pathetic fuckers involved in this research, and not in a tongue-in-cheek way either.
Fuck anonymity; I wanna go down in record as someone who said "fuck no" in no unclear terms. I've been expecting this for over a decade, and I'm not surprised in the least; just disappointed about the lack of killing so far. Get on it.
I was actually talking about self-mutilation. Kids and stunted adults self-destruct in many, many ways, turning their heads into an echo chamber for garbage is one pillar of that, and that something is popular is no argument for anything -- much less that it merely exists. Was that any clearer?
So does cutting. Your point?
Naturally, since you're not a Brit interested in those specific laws, how they came to be, and what other Brits think about them. Why would I give a shit that you, or anyone actually, didn't watch that? I watched it, I appreciated it; anything beyond that is your thing.