When they finally do it, instead of shutting off all analog signal they need to make every station in the country broadcast a repeating message for a week explaining what happened and giving instructions plus a phone # to call for more details. That's about the only way to limit the number of angry phone calls that everyone from the electric companies to the stores that sold the remote controls will get.
One reason people can't (or at least shouldn't) "just accept" that "they don't think the same and have different interests" is that it is for the most part demonstrably untrue.
is good, too. I did my master's research on percieved and actual gender differences in infidelity in dating relationships. The bottom line--men cheat a little bit more often than women...but both men and women THINK that men cheat a LOT more than women.
Men have a higher sex drive than women. The gender difference in "cheating" that you quote is misleading without further information. Let's suppose that the number of females in the world was exactly equal to the number of males, and that everyone was in a monogamous relationship. Then suppose that one male was cheating with 100 females. Who, in this case, cheats more, the women or the men? On average (the mean), it would even out. You would have to look at the distribution. This brings us to another point--that is that other men who may want to cheat are denied the opportunity. So, only looking at the number of people who are cheating tells you nothing about who wants to cheat.
"Then I tried to think of cases in recent decades where world opinion differed significantly from the US media's dominant spin. I can't think of a single one."
Umm, there was this tiny little thing called Iraq, where basically noone agreed with you, or believed your claims of evidence. That might not be the impression you got from your domestic media, though.
That was exactly the impression I got from the domestic US media. So your point fails.
I agree with you that simply culling everyone who is not HIV resistant is a bad idea. However, you seem to be looking at disease resistance in a very small-picture way. Animals have complex immune systems that have evolved to fight pathogens and foreign substances (organic and inorganic). It is theoretically possible to breed an animal that has in general a superior resistance to a broad array of pathogens, though this comes at the cost of being metabolically expensive. You just need to properly work out the cost-benefit ratio. This is hard to do if you let your emotions get in the way.
Only teaching it on university level might act as a filter to keep it away from people who'll figure it means they should start an eugenics program.
Some people still cling to the idea that humans are divinely set apart from animals. We can breed animals to good effect. So too can we breed (and we have bred) humans to more efficiently function in society.
land of the free. where freemen understand that freedom is protected by banding together, and fighting off threats to freedom. threats that exist abroad, in battle with evil ideologies that are antagonistic to freedom, or domestically, in poor areas of the country where freedom is threatened by economic misery
What causes some people to be poor, and some to be rich? For that matter, what causes people to be different?
you are not free if you are poor. the battle for maintaining freedom is a domestic and a foreign battle. if you think it is only a foreign battle, you do not truly understand the nature of freedom
I do not see what qualifies you to be the final authority on what constitutes freedom. Suppose I disagree?
This is the dumbist thing I've heard out of the McCain campain - dumber yet is that people are swayed by it.
I hate to be a spelling Nazi, but that quote is crying out in irony.
Obama's politics aren't even very liberal. If you look globally to other modern democratic nations in europe and elsewhere the democratic party looks like other countries conservative party (and the republicans, they are like right wing nationalists).
It is perfectly valid to consider Obama's politics liberal. It is an opinion. If Democratic politics more consistently resemble socialism than Republican politics, how else does one describe it? Are Republicans to go around calling Democrats "right-wing" now?
(BTW, Marx is still an important part of the Social Philosophy discussion and syllabus, Being called a Marxist should be about as scary as being called a Nietzschen or Kierkegaardian - quite silly to use as a derogatory term)
Well, Marx is most known for being the founder of communism, something Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were not known for. Some people disagree with communism as a way of organizing society. I think that is a fairly obvious reason for them to use the term "Marxism" in a derogatory fashion.
"Funding the government" does "spread the wealth"; it's not like the government throws money in holes. The money goes to gov't employees, contracts, social security, medicare, farming subsidies, corporate bailouts, etc. All of which "spread the wealth" to some segment of the population; it's just a question of what part of the population and under what guise the money is spent.
That was the the OP's point! When people say they are opposed to wealth redistribution, they mean when government money goes to those who, in their view, haven't earned it, e.g. welfare recipients. That is not the same thing thing as being opposed to government employees, who work for their pay, or funding roads, which benefit everyone.
The legislation, introduced by Senators Schumer and McCain, would require convicted sex offenders to register their email addresses and Internet information with law enforcement, enabling web sites to actively track and expel child predators from their sites.
Notice that it doesn't say it was exclusively sponsored by Schumer and McCain.
If their code of ethics says it's OK to drop napalm on civilians (as the ethics were during Vietnam) than it is not unethical to drop napalm on civilian villages, even though it is certainly immoral by any moral standard I've ever heard. Don't forget WWII. The US used incendiary bombs on German and Japanese civilians.
Collateral damage...they didn't have smart bombs then, so it was harder to avoid civilian casualties...
The study evaluates 'ruthlessness' based on subjects playing a game. (Not by observing reality) The game is reality. A small repeatable subset of reality where conditions can be controlled. Welcome to science.
Some of these get pretty inane; ruthlessness, for example, is defined by behavior, and is subjective! Ruthlessness in this context would be objectively defined by the scientists who conducted this study.
And don't forget: these studies are nearly meaningless Isn't that also a subjective judgement?
I am not sure if this still in the realm of speculation or if there has been any experimental verification It's speculation. Your speculation.
Of course, culture can also completely fuck up a given subject's appreciation of beauty. Just look at how standard African features have been looked down upon in females When someone says something is due to "culture", they're usually making something up. Culture is one one of those hard-to-isolate variables that people in the "softer sciences" can always point to to avoid biological explanations for something. What if white men just don't find black women that attractive? Do you really think sexual attraction is that fickle? If "society" said tomorrow that 85 year-old women were hot, would you start fantasizing about them? I don't think so.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think IQ isn't related to intelligence, then it shouldn't matter what his IQ is.
Would a pragmatist be arguing on Slashdot about the difference between purists and pragmatists? I think not.
...no JATO rockets, less space than a (Chevy) Nomad. Lame.
When they finally do it, instead of shutting off all analog signal they need to make every station in the country broadcast a repeating message for a week explaining what happened and giving instructions plus a phone # to call for more details. That's about the only way to limit the number of angry phone calls that everyone from the electric companies to the stores that sold the remote controls will get.
They're already doing that in Hawaii, as we speak.
Do not commit the fallacy of thinking that just because babies don't do something it is not innate.
One reason people can't (or at least shouldn't) "just accept" that "they don't think the same and have different interests" is that it is for the most part demonstrably untrue.
is good, too. I did my master's research on percieved and actual gender differences in infidelity in dating relationships. The bottom line--men cheat a little bit more often than women...but both men and women THINK that men cheat a LOT more than women.
Men have a higher sex drive than women. The gender difference in "cheating" that you quote is misleading without further information. Let's suppose that the number of females in the world was exactly equal to the number of males, and that everyone was in a monogamous relationship. Then suppose that one male was cheating with 100 females. Who, in this case, cheats more, the women or the men? On average (the mean), it would even out. You would have to look at the distribution. This brings us to another point--that is that other men who may want to cheat are denied the opportunity. So, only looking at the number of people who are cheating tells you nothing about who wants to cheat.
Maybe it's just a troll baiting you?
"Then I tried to think of cases in recent decades where world opinion differed significantly from the US media's dominant spin. I can't think of a single one." Umm, there was this tiny little thing called Iraq, where basically noone agreed with you, or believed your claims of evidence. That might not be the impression you got from your domestic media, though.
That was exactly the impression I got from the domestic US media. So your point fails.
Only teaching it on university level might act as a filter to keep it away from people who'll figure it means they should start an eugenics program.
Some people still cling to the idea that humans are divinely set apart from animals. We can breed animals to good effect. So too can we breed (and we have bred) humans to more efficiently function in society.
land of the free. where freemen understand that freedom is protected by banding together, and fighting off threats to freedom. threats that exist abroad, in battle with evil ideologies that are antagonistic to freedom, or domestically, in poor areas of the country where freedom is threatened by economic misery
What causes some people to be poor, and some to be rich? For that matter, what causes people to be different?
you are not free if you are poor. the battle for maintaining freedom is a domestic and a foreign battle. if you think it is only a foreign battle, you do not truly understand the nature of freedom
I do not see what qualifies you to be the final authority on what constitutes freedom. Suppose I disagree?
This is the dumbist thing I've heard out of the McCain campain - dumber yet is that people are swayed by it.
I hate to be a spelling Nazi, but that quote is crying out in irony.
Obama's politics aren't even very liberal. If you look globally to other modern democratic nations in europe and elsewhere the democratic party looks like other countries conservative party (and the republicans, they are like right wing nationalists).
It is perfectly valid to consider Obama's politics liberal. It is an opinion. If Democratic politics more consistently resemble socialism than Republican politics, how else does one describe it? Are Republicans to go around calling Democrats "right-wing" now?
(BTW, Marx is still an important part of the Social Philosophy discussion and syllabus, Being called a Marxist should be about as scary as being called a Nietzschen or Kierkegaardian - quite silly to use as a derogatory term)
Well, Marx is most known for being the founder of communism, something Nietzsche and Kierkegaard were not known for. Some people disagree with communism as a way of organizing society. I think that is a fairly obvious reason for them to use the term "Marxism" in a derogatory fashion.
You should ask this guy
"Funding the government" does "spread the wealth"; it's not like the government throws money in holes. The money goes to gov't employees, contracts, social security, medicare, farming subsidies, corporate bailouts, etc. All of which "spread the wealth" to some segment of the population; it's just a question of what part of the population and under what guise the money is spent.
That was the the OP's point! When people say they are opposed to wealth redistribution, they mean when government money goes to those who, in their view, haven't earned it, e.g. welfare recipients. That is not the same thing thing as being opposed to government employees, who work for their pay, or funding roads, which benefit everyone.
Were you surprised 19 months ago, when Turkey banned Youtube?
Power transformers have been oil cooled since the 19th century.
Wait...that's introduce, not sponsor. Nevermind.
The legislation, introduced by Senators Schumer and McCain, would require convicted sex offenders to register their email addresses and Internet information with law enforcement, enabling web sites to actively track and expel child predators from their sites.
Notice that it doesn't say it was exclusively sponsored by Schumer and McCain.
Or perhaps it just means that people know less about genetics than they think they do.
Collateral damage...they didn't have smart bombs then, so it was harder to avoid civilian casualties...
A bullet traveling faster than the speed of sound most certainly does have a sonic boom, or "crack" as it's called.
That's kind of a stretch.
The game is reality. A small repeatable subset of reality where conditions can be controlled. Welcome to science.
Some of these get pretty inane; ruthlessness, for example, is defined by behavior, and is subjective!
Ruthlessness in this context would be objectively defined by the scientists who conducted this study.
And don't forget: these studies are nearly meaningless
Isn't that also a subjective judgement?
Okay, I know about your name and sig and all, but what else was I supposed to say?