I've read a paper? where it was postulated that homosexuality in males was caused by / influenced by the same set of genes that increased the fertility in females. Therefore the gene set causes a detriment when in a male but a benefit when in a female. Given 50/50 distribution of sexes, as long as the penalty in males is less then the benefit in females its will spread. What you mention also plays into this as having only one set would basically give you all / most of the benefit with very little of the cost.
Additionally keep in mind that having no children doesn't mean that you are a dead weight to your genes - you are free to help out others (who would likely be related and share a subset of genes) and possibly increase the overall percentage of those genes in the gene pool. However this only holds in species that operate in related groups, and the gay gene cannot be above some ratio to normals or it would become a detriment.
If you think about it normal society is quite ok with open hatred towards a number of classes of people in all settings. (e.g. by action: rapists, murders; by beliefs: racists, Nazis; by profession: (and perhaps to a lesser extent) lawyers and politicians; etc.) Its considered normal and is encouraged by society. Its only noticed when for a subset of people it drifts out too far from the rest of society.
IANAL - but you can make the same argument for Microsoft or Google - for antitrust cases its seems to be mostly about market share. Once/if apple gets enough market-share then they will get visits from the DOJ too.
No - he created himself by carefully managing the media. The media did not pull him out of his bed at 4 am and tell him to run for the senate and then for presidency. And managing the media is a skill that you will find in almost anyone who has successfully run for higher office.
Obama isn't truly American. He does not share the American dream. He doesn't see things eye to eye with his fellow Americans. He doesn't even care
Look up his life history - he is living the American dream. I don't know how anyone can claim he doesn't believe in it as that is what made him president. How many other self-made men have become president?
Russia has no experience establishing communities that don't have endemic corruption and government mismanagement. If anything that is what is going to sink this project.
We all love discussing things here but I think we can raise the bar a bit in regards to the quality of the discussion. If you are interested, I would like to point out how this reply could be made better.
Wow, wait, if we just accept all liberal delusions, the world would be fine ?
Its great that you are passionate about this - but its is a bad idea to lead with an attack - it almost ensures that your points, no matter how well thought out will be ignored, as you are positioning yourself as hostile to the author, rather that interested in discussing things with him. Try leading with a statement of appreciation "I'm glad people/you are discussing this topic", or a highlight of points of agreement before going on to state your disagreements.
stop worshipping people who can hit/catch/throw balls - sure, but why not include all entertainment ? All entertainment is useless. Why have Harry Potter, why have movies at all ? Why not all work like mindless drones in an environment that Jesuit monks would find "a bit bland" ? Surely society would work much better that way ?
We all have different points of view, but we should be polite and listen to what is being said. Note here how "stop worshipping" became "ban" in your reply? Is this what the author of the post you are responding to intended? I would suggest that it is not. In future try and limit yourself to replying to points as specifically written, as interpreting too much into a statement may lead you to argue against a point of view nobody holds
wars kill people - yes, but they kill a lot less than not having wars. [...] Without war, America would be a slavery supporting nation [...] Does "avoid war at all costs" support slavery
Your passion is inspiring but can sometimes cause you to overlook some things. Again notice how a simple statement of fact became so much more in your reply. Keep in mind that the author's statement may not imply anything more than what is stated and his opinion on the range of issues surrounding war are unknown at this point. Assuming too much will make you seem like you are not interested in debating the author, but rather some other person who is presently not here.
There is no god - I'm inclined to agree with you, however I wonder if that matters at all.
This is much better here - you lead with a point of agreement. However you have to be careful of your wording.
I am much more supportive of people choosing for themselves, without anyone laughing at them, or worse, than I am for forcing any religion (or "non-religion") on them.
By stating it as such you imply that the author supports mocking or forcing people in regard to religion, something that is not apparent from his statements and will attract a hostile response. Try using phrases like "as I'm sure that you would agree..." when wishing to rule out controversial or otherwise infamous points.
I apologise for singling you out for mistakes that we all make - but I think we can all benefit from a considered look at our posts and improve the overall level of discussion and debate.
I've thought about this for some time - the issue is not religion - it is a symptom (and certainly makes things worse). What is the real issue is that people do not know how to properly reason - we are not born with good reasoning skills and need to be taught how to do it properly. We don't do this and as a result you have people believing in ghosts, conspiracy theories, religions, psychic powers and any other bullshit that someone wanted to sell.
I fear that this will exacerbate the current trend of only listening to news sources that fit your preconceived opinions irrelevant of the accuracy. What I liked about having limited sources of information is that it creates a more unified common understanding of the current situation, and given the high profile it usually is correct (taking into consideration the common biases of a country). People are more likely to agree that a set of facts describe a situation. If everyone's main source of information comes from disparate sources then this more or less common understanding of the situation could potentially break down. That is you would be unable to have an reasoned argument with someone because you don't agree on basic facts about the situation - the gaps between views of reality become too big to bridge.
Labour doesn't control the senate so I don't quite see the relevance here. If they did then they would have passed the legislation. The comment I was making is that in the US this is not the case - even with a majority they cannot solve difficult problems as easily as in the aus system.
Recent Gallup poll shows 49% saying the passing of the bill is broadly good vs. 40% saying bad. http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/slim-margin-americans-support-healthcare-bill-passage.aspx. Approval rating aside they won the election in a landslide - which is why they have so many seats, which is where their mandate comes from. This was brought up in the campaign so its not exactly a huge surprise for everyone.
In any case, government needs to have power to push through reform that is sometimes unpopular, even strongly so - otherwise serious problems will not get fixed. If all efforts need to be popular to pass then government will end up stagnating.
That is how science works but now how Randi's prize works. If you claim to be able to do something, and he calls you on it, and you do it then you get a million dollars.
Also why do you need to wait for an instrument that can detect some kind of energy that might not even exist before you can test it? Just do a proper blind study and if, all things being equal, people who practice this are more healthy then you can say that it is real. Beware that every single person is easily fooled by themselves - even if they are acting honestly - that is why we have the scientific method.
I'm not really familiar with the situation in Canada. Given our common heritage its likely the two systems are very similar.
It's every bit as rife with corruption and petty grudges as any other.
I'm not saying it solves all corruption problems - I'm saying it eliminates several sources of corruption in the US system.
here are no stated penalties for voting against the party, but there ARE penalties, loss of portfolio being the least of them. Next election comes around, the party may decide they don't want you as an MP anymore and appoint someone to run in your place.
Its a bit different in Australia - the local branch of the party votes on pre-selection issues, and while the PM can have some influence over this you generally have to earn the ire of the whole party rather than just the PM to get kicked out of your seat at the next election. Loss of portfolio I think is perfectly reasonable if you are repeatedly going against party lines - the president in the US would not tolerate it from his cabinet either.
But it's the problem. Voting for the party is not IMHO a good idea. Look at the US and tell me that a New York Democrat and a Tennessee Democrat are interchangeable. They're not. But when the party is so deeply entrenched in the system, then one of them is going to be telling the other what to do.
This might come down to preference between us, I honestly don't see anything wrong with that. I would rather that party set policy and the MPs followed that then the MPs acting independently. I think it just adds more politics to a process already dominated by politics.
And the cabinet isn't a cabal? A group of people chosen by the Prime Minister who can lose their high-paying jobs at any time if the Prime Minister so deems it? While in some systems the leaders are afraid of their backbenchers, in a lot they aren't, and being demoted from cabinet member to backbencher is definite punishment.
In Aus its the Cabinet and the party members that set policy. If the PM changes policy too many times without consulting the party he gets into trouble (as is happening in aus to the opposition leader).
Once the leadership entrenches they can't be pried loose easily. Again, look at Canada. It's a given that a backbencher NEVER question his boss. It's been as much as said. And the current prime minster isn't afraid to use unilateral power at all - look at how he's prorogued Parliament.
Again, I'm not familiar with the situation in Canada - but in aus I've seen critical questions from backbenchers to their own PM, but it is a rare occurrence, however that is the job of the opposition.
Not really. Politicians are by and large cowards, seeking maximal power with minimal responsibility. They won't tackle anything big because it would damage their careers, no matter what the system.
its not about solving everything, but removing one source of problems. I think the aus system does well in avoiding some of the issues that the US has.
Really? Because at this very moment this is the case in the Netherlands, and the serious, urgent stuff is the only stuff that gets dealt with. Everything else gets labeled "controversial" and will be on the plate of the next cabinet.
Yes, it's inconvenient, but on the other hand, it's a heck of a lot better than the alternative in my opinion.
I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me here. I don't like that situation because it produces governments that cannot govern properly.
Btw, from your description of your role of the prime minister I'm inclined to believe you're from the Netherlands as well, which makes me ask what you consider to be those actual issues that need to be dealt with so urgently? Unless it's the kind of stuff Wilders is blathering about, in which case don't bother.
A great deal of the world runs on the parliamentary system - but I'm not from the Netherlands - so I am not familiar with local issues.
That bug of "nothing major getting addressed" isn't a bug to us, it is a feature - it keeps things fairly stable and slow to change.
I guess this aspect comes down to personal preference - I agree that change should not be too rapid - however I think the US is at a place now where its unable to solve long term issues due to indecision. That the health-care reform only barely made it through and with lots of toning down, despite the party in power enjoyed such a large majority says to me that the system is not functioning well.
Government collapse means that the current government no longer has a majority in the lower house - in parliamentary systems this means that either another party has to form a coalition and form government or that elections are held. The US runs things differently as you have an elected president who runs the executive, whereas our "president" or prime minister is actually the majority leader in the lower house.
If the only way to get laws passed is to actually get a large percentage of people [...] to agree that the law should be passed
while this may sound good the actual result is that serious and decisive issues are left unaddressed while the country goes downhill:(
I don't wish for it - its already in Australia and it certainly isn't a dictatorship. On rare votes the party will encourage what they call conscience voting but on most issues members of a party are expected to vote with the party and even though there are no stated penalties I have yet to see anyone cross the floor on a close vote.
In Australia you are always voting for a party or you vote for an independent - its not the end of the world as you make it out to be. The party campaigns and the people vote according to which party they like (why would that be blind??). If your local representative belongs to a "goat-sodomising" party then I cannot imagine him to be a prince among men. Its not some shady cabal that makes party policy - it is the cabinet along with the party members that decide broad policy.
I think this system leads to less corruption and the kind of aversion to tackling big issues that the US experiences.
I strongly disagree - and this is the approach I see in school - they encourage children who are bullied to tell the bully that behaviour hurts their feelings - I don't have to say that this doesn't produce results. I would be very surprised if there is even one bully who truly doesn't understand they are hurting people. Even in this story even after the girl committed suicide (i.e. it should be clear they caused pain) they still mocked her. Kids might to be able to do some complex thinking - but the basic stuff - empathy etc. are all developed very early and that is all they need for this situation.
Society is not degenerating - bullying was seen as normal, both in the workplace and in school in the past - now it is out in the open and talked about and raged against. This is actually an improvement.
You have to think through what the alternative would look like - many countries in Europe have a whole bunch of parties in parliament, and this causes problems as they have to band together 5 or 6 to get a Govt. going, and then because there is so much difference of opinion nothing major gets addressed, and if they try to then Govt. collapses. What I think the US needs is actually something similar to Australia - preference voting combined with strong party discipline. You can vote for who you want without "throwing away your vote", and the party that is in charge doesn't have to bribe its own members (i.e. pork) to pass a bill. We have a two party system as well but without many of the problems of the US or the multi-party european system.
You cannot educate bullies because, unless they are psychopaths, they already know what they are doing in causing harm. That is the reasons they are doing it - it makes them feel powerful. The only way to get them to stop is to make it not worth the reward they get. Giving people detention is usually not effective because its a very weak deterrent. I would suggest - involve their parents - and have them stand up in front of the entire school and explain their behaviour and what they have done. To make it effective you basically have to embarrass them publicly.
This kind of bullying is not just an issue in the US. I have lived and gone to school in three different countries and the same behaviour was on display in all three. This is just how kids act.
Not only am I not American, the comment was about his reclusive behaviour rather than not taking the money. But don't let that get in the way of our narrative...
Also - I have been poor - its not glorious, or enlightening or liberating. It just plain sucks. I dare say the only people who would think that are those who have never experienced the alternative (be it poor or well-off).
Slashdot Mirror
I've read a paper? where it was postulated that homosexuality in males was caused by / influenced by the same set of genes that increased the fertility in females. Therefore the gene set causes a detriment when in a male but a benefit when in a female. Given 50/50 distribution of sexes, as long as the penalty in males is less then the benefit in females its will spread. What you mention also plays into this as having only one set would basically give you all / most of the benefit with very little of the cost. Additionally keep in mind that having no children doesn't mean that you are a dead weight to your genes - you are free to help out others (who would likely be related and share a subset of genes) and possibly increase the overall percentage of those genes in the gene pool. However this only holds in species that operate in related groups, and the gay gene cannot be above some ratio to normals or it would become a detriment.
If you think about it normal society is quite ok with open hatred towards a number of classes of people in all settings. (e.g. by action: rapists, murders; by beliefs: racists, Nazis; by profession: (and perhaps to a lesser extent) lawyers and politicians; etc.) Its considered normal and is encouraged by society. Its only noticed when for a subset of people it drifts out too far from the rest of society.
IANAL - but you can make the same argument for Microsoft or Google - for antitrust cases its seems to be mostly about market share. Once/if apple gets enough market-share then they will get visits from the DOJ too.
Settlers 7 is on steam - and that has this protection mechanism. Steam doesn't save you at all.
So who or what is this large network of people with an agenda? I really want to know...
No - he created himself by carefully managing the media. The media did not pull him out of his bed at 4 am and tell him to run for the senate and then for presidency. And managing the media is a skill that you will find in almost anyone who has successfully run for higher office.
Obama isn't truly American. He does not share the American dream. He doesn't see things eye to eye with his fellow Americans. He doesn't even care
Look up his life history - he is living the American dream. I don't know how anyone can claim he doesn't believe in it as that is what made him president. How many other self-made men have become president?
Russia has no experience establishing communities that don't have endemic corruption and government mismanagement. If anything that is what is going to sink this project.
Why do you think we are in Iraq and Afghanistan :D
Wow, wait, if we just accept all liberal delusions, the world would be fine ?
Its great that you are passionate about this - but its is a bad idea to lead with an attack - it almost ensures that your points, no matter how well thought out will be ignored, as you are positioning yourself as hostile to the author, rather that interested in discussing things with him. Try leading with a statement of appreciation "I'm glad people/you are discussing this topic", or a highlight of points of agreement before going on to state your disagreements.
stop worshipping people who can hit/catch/throw balls - sure, but why not include all entertainment ? All entertainment is useless. Why have Harry Potter, why have movies at all ? Why not all work like mindless drones in an environment that Jesuit monks would find "a bit bland" ? Surely society would work much better that way ?
We all have different points of view, but we should be polite and listen to what is being said. Note here how "stop worshipping" became "ban" in your reply? Is this what the author of the post you are responding to intended? I would suggest that it is not. In future try and limit yourself to replying to points as specifically written, as interpreting too much into a statement may lead you to argue against a point of view nobody holds
wars kill people - yes, but they kill a lot less than not having wars. [...] Without war, America would be a slavery supporting nation [...] Does "avoid war at all costs" support slavery
Your passion is inspiring but can sometimes cause you to overlook some things. Again notice how a simple statement of fact became so much more in your reply. Keep in mind that the author's statement may not imply anything more than what is stated and his opinion on the range of issues surrounding war are unknown at this point. Assuming too much will make you seem like you are not interested in debating the author, but rather some other person who is presently not here.
There is no god - I'm inclined to agree with you, however I wonder if that matters at all.
This is much better here - you lead with a point of agreement. However you have to be careful of your wording.
I am much more supportive of people choosing for themselves, without anyone laughing at them, or worse, than I am for forcing any religion (or "non-religion") on them.
By stating it as such you imply that the author supports mocking or forcing people in regard to religion, something that is not apparent from his statements and will attract a hostile response. Try using phrases like "as I'm sure that you would agree..." when wishing to rule out controversial or otherwise infamous points.
I apologise for singling you out for mistakes that we all make - but I think we can all benefit from a considered look at our posts and improve the overall level of discussion and debate.
I've thought about this for some time - the issue is not religion - it is a symptom (and certainly makes things worse). What is the real issue is that people do not know how to properly reason - we are not born with good reasoning skills and need to be taught how to do it properly. We don't do this and as a result you have people believing in ghosts, conspiracy theories, religions, psychic powers and any other bullshit that someone wanted to sell.
I fear that this will exacerbate the current trend of only listening to news sources that fit your preconceived opinions irrelevant of the accuracy. What I liked about having limited sources of information is that it creates a more unified common understanding of the current situation, and given the high profile it usually is correct (taking into consideration the common biases of a country). People are more likely to agree that a set of facts describe a situation. If everyone's main source of information comes from disparate sources then this more or less common understanding of the situation could potentially break down. That is you would be unable to have an reasoned argument with someone because you don't agree on basic facts about the situation - the gaps between views of reality become too big to bridge.
Well that or it could have no effect.
Labour doesn't control the senate so I don't quite see the relevance here. If they did then they would have passed the legislation. The comment I was making is that in the US this is not the case - even with a majority they cannot solve difficult problems as easily as in the aus system.
Recent Gallup poll shows 49% saying the passing of the bill is broadly good vs. 40% saying bad. http://www.gallup.com/poll/126929/slim-margin-americans-support-healthcare-bill-passage.aspx. Approval rating aside they won the election in a landslide - which is why they have so many seats, which is where their mandate comes from. This was brought up in the campaign so its not exactly a huge surprise for everyone.
In any case, government needs to have power to push through reform that is sometimes unpopular, even strongly so - otherwise serious problems will not get fixed. If all efforts need to be popular to pass then government will end up stagnating.
That is how science works but now how Randi's prize works. If you claim to be able to do something, and he calls you on it, and you do it then you get a million dollars.
Also why do you need to wait for an instrument that can detect some kind of energy that might not even exist before you can test it? Just do a proper blind study and if, all things being equal, people who practice this are more healthy then you can say that it is real. Beware that every single person is easily fooled by themselves - even if they are acting honestly - that is why we have the scientific method.
It's every bit as rife with corruption and petty grudges as any other.
I'm not saying it solves all corruption problems - I'm saying it eliminates several sources of corruption in the US system.
here are no stated penalties for voting against the party, but there ARE penalties, loss of portfolio being the least of them. Next election comes around, the party may decide they don't want you as an MP anymore and appoint someone to run in your place.
Its a bit different in Australia - the local branch of the party votes on pre-selection issues, and while the PM can have some influence over this you generally have to earn the ire of the whole party rather than just the PM to get kicked out of your seat at the next election. Loss of portfolio I think is perfectly reasonable if you are repeatedly going against party lines - the president in the US would not tolerate it from his cabinet either.
But it's the problem. Voting for the party is not IMHO a good idea. Look at the US and tell me that a New York Democrat and a Tennessee Democrat are interchangeable. They're not. But when the party is so deeply entrenched in the system, then one of them is going to be telling the other what to do.
This might come down to preference between us, I honestly don't see anything wrong with that. I would rather that party set policy and the MPs followed that then the MPs acting independently. I think it just adds more politics to a process already dominated by politics.
And the cabinet isn't a cabal? A group of people chosen by the Prime Minister who can lose their high-paying jobs at any time if the Prime Minister so deems it? While in some systems the leaders are afraid of their backbenchers, in a lot they aren't, and being demoted from cabinet member to backbencher is definite punishment.
In Aus its the Cabinet and the party members that set policy. If the PM changes policy too many times without consulting the party he gets into trouble (as is happening in aus to the opposition leader).
Once the leadership entrenches they can't be pried loose easily. Again, look at Canada. It's a given that a backbencher NEVER question his boss. It's been as much as said. And the current prime minster isn't afraid to use unilateral power at all - look at how he's prorogued Parliament.
Again, I'm not familiar with the situation in Canada - but in aus I've seen critical questions from backbenchers to their own PM, but it is a rare occurrence, however that is the job of the opposition.
Not really. Politicians are by and large cowards, seeking maximal power with minimal responsibility. They won't tackle anything big because it would damage their careers, no matter what the system.
its not about solving everything, but removing one source of problems. I think the aus system does well in avoiding some of the issues that the US has.
Really? Because at this very moment this is the case in the Netherlands, and the serious, urgent stuff is the only stuff that gets dealt with. Everything else gets labeled "controversial" and will be on the plate of the next cabinet. Yes, it's inconvenient, but on the other hand, it's a heck of a lot better than the alternative in my opinion.
I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me here. I don't like that situation because it produces governments that cannot govern properly.
Btw, from your description of your role of the prime minister I'm inclined to believe you're from the Netherlands as well, which makes me ask what you consider to be those actual issues that need to be dealt with so urgently? Unless it's the kind of stuff Wilders is blathering about, in which case don't bother.
A great deal of the world runs on the parliamentary system - but I'm not from the Netherlands - so I am not familiar with local issues.
That bug of "nothing major getting addressed" isn't a bug to us, it is a feature - it keeps things fairly stable and slow to change.
I guess this aspect comes down to personal preference - I agree that change should not be too rapid - however I think the US is at a place now where its unable to solve long term issues due to indecision. That the health-care reform only barely made it through and with lots of toning down, despite the party in power enjoyed such a large majority says to me that the system is not functioning well.
If the only way to get laws passed is to actually get a large percentage of people [...] to agree that the law should be passed
while this may sound good the actual result is that serious and decisive issues are left unaddressed while the country goes downhill :(
I don't wish for it - its already in Australia and it certainly isn't a dictatorship. On rare votes the party will encourage what they call conscience voting but on most issues members of a party are expected to vote with the party and even though there are no stated penalties I have yet to see anyone cross the floor on a close vote.
In Australia you are always voting for a party or you vote for an independent - its not the end of the world as you make it out to be. The party campaigns and the people vote according to which party they like (why would that be blind??). If your local representative belongs to a "goat-sodomising" party then I cannot imagine him to be a prince among men. Its not some shady cabal that makes party policy - it is the cabinet along with the party members that decide broad policy.
I think this system leads to less corruption and the kind of aversion to tackling big issues that the US experiences.
I strongly disagree - and this is the approach I see in school - they encourage children who are bullied to tell the bully that behaviour hurts their feelings - I don't have to say that this doesn't produce results. I would be very surprised if there is even one bully who truly doesn't understand they are hurting people. Even in this story even after the girl committed suicide (i.e. it should be clear they caused pain) they still mocked her. Kids might to be able to do some complex thinking - but the basic stuff - empathy etc. are all developed very early and that is all they need for this situation.
Society is not degenerating - bullying was seen as normal, both in the workplace and in school in the past - now it is out in the open and talked about and raged against. This is actually an improvement.
You have to think through what the alternative would look like - many countries in Europe have a whole bunch of parties in parliament, and this causes problems as they have to band together 5 or 6 to get a Govt. going, and then because there is so much difference of opinion nothing major gets addressed, and if they try to then Govt. collapses. What I think the US needs is actually something similar to Australia - preference voting combined with strong party discipline. You can vote for who you want without "throwing away your vote", and the party that is in charge doesn't have to bribe its own members (i.e. pork) to pass a bill. We have a two party system as well but without many of the problems of the US or the multi-party european system.
You cannot educate bullies because, unless they are psychopaths, they already know what they are doing in causing harm. That is the reasons they are doing it - it makes them feel powerful. The only way to get them to stop is to make it not worth the reward they get. Giving people detention is usually not effective because its a very weak deterrent. I would suggest - involve their parents - and have them stand up in front of the entire school and explain their behaviour and what they have done. To make it effective you basically have to embarrass them publicly.
This kind of bullying is not just an issue in the US. I have lived and gone to school in three different countries and the same behaviour was on display in all three. This is just how kids act.
Not only am I not American, the comment was about his reclusive behaviour rather than not taking the money. But don't let that get in the way of our narrative...
Also - I have been poor - its not glorious, or enlightening or liberating. It just plain sucks. I dare say the only people who would think that are those who have never experienced the alternative (be it poor or well-off).