Why? Because I can objectively judge the reasons for the existence of something without having to resort to emotion? Because I'm honest with myself about the nature of existence?
There are those of us who seek to rule our own emotional responses to things so that we may act reasonably, and then there are those who are ruled by their own emotional responses to things so much that they cannot act reasonably.
It's all about deciding whether you want to have free will or not.
Sexual intercourse is meant to be an act performed in private for the two parties that love and care for each other deeply enough to create a stronger bond. When you put that on public display, the act is reduced to a trite sensuality.
Says who? Last time I checked, there were thre reasons for doing something in private: You believe the world has no right to know your private affairs, or you're ashamed of what you're doing, or you fear the repercussions of your action.
Last time I check, Sexual Intercourse was a natural biological function that had nothing to do with mutual love or regard. It can have those qualities, but those are not inherent in the act itself.
A myth is an invented story created to explain how things came to be, or illustrate a moral or religious point. Thus, the myth of Persephone having to spend six months out of every year in the Underworld was an attempt to explain the changing of the seasons.
How dare you call my religious beliefs mythology! What's next? You're going to tell me that Apollo didn't speak to us through the Pythia?
Shame on you! May you feel the thunderbolt for your hubris!
Some of us enjoy being free to do whatever we want with code, instead of being forced to do what others want us to do with it.
BSD == Freedom for the Coder
GPL == Freedom for the Code.
So it's all about what you care about more. Do you value your own, personal, freedom more, or less, than the freedom of some pattern of electrical charges inside a computer?
Also, black holes are still a "theory". Hell, YOU existing is just a "theory". As far as I am concerned, this is all a dream created by a machine that I am hooked into, by a race of robots, so that they can learn what it is to be more human.
Well, seeing as how you're posting to/., those machines are either getting extremely horrible data, r extremely appropriate data.
I'm not sure how I want to look at it until someone observes me and the wave form collapses.
Too bad people who are able to put aside their emotions and make the hard decisions that need to be made entirely on logic and reason are needed so often, or you could have your perfect little world were we don't exist.
I'm sorry, I didn't know there were so many Nazis sympathisers on/. What part of me saying that being Jewish is not a bad thing did you not understand?
People who tout their credentials and then hide behind anonymity, thus rendering the proof of those credentials impossible to obtain, sir, are not accredited for the purpose of argument.
I actually understand a great deal about inheritance, natural selection, sexual selection, et cetera. People who survive long enough to produce without needing lifesaving medical intervention are not the people we're talking about here -- or at least not the people I'm talking about. Maybe you should just stop and think for a moment before getting up on your high, emotional, horse.
Cancer in people past the age at which they can reproduce is actually a beneficial adaptation -- they can no longer reproduce, and their genes would be better served by them not taking up those resources so they can be utilised by those who can reproduce -- their children.
However, cancer that strikes and kills before you can reproduce is, indeed, a bad thing.
The solution is to let these people die without spreading the gene.
An animal killing its defective offspring is natural selection. So is a human animal aborting a defective fetus before it comes to term.
It doesn't stop being natural just because we do it. Or because we employ tools other animals don't have.
Anyway. In your mother's cause, we have to proof that she had some sort of specific genetic susceptibility to cancer. And until we have a more through mapping of the human genome and proteome to determine what genes are oncogenes, it's all speculation.
A) Who said we were talking about curing the patient? Or what was good for the individual? The species' survival is more important than the survival of any single individual.
B) Some people can't understand humour. Please look at the Progenitor post (such as use of the word 'tasteless.')
Really? Natural selection is scientifically invalid?
Perhaps we can have this conversation when you can get over your emotional responses, and realise that morals are not absolutes, and what is right or wrong is not necessarily that which is effective or efficient, or what works.
Maybe you should better apply logic and statistics of your own admission to what you said.
You agree that statistically, the strongest males are stronger than the strongest females.
This is due to sexual dimorphism.
Even if the female characters in the MMORPG are meant to be the cream of the crop in terms of fitness, then the men will still, on average, be stronger, since there is no reason to assume that the male characters would not also be the cream of the crop in terms of fitness.
The fact that we are even having this argument is slightly ludicrous. Just slightly.
A we both not in agreement that if 1000 random men and 1000 random women were tested via various methods of determining over all strength (say, how much can be lifted to chest level, over head, how much can be lifted solely using the legs, force exerted in a punch and in a kick, to name a few,) that the men would average higher than the women? And that the strongest man would have a high degree of probability of being stronger than the strongest female?
Thousands of years of natural selection and sexual dimorphism and much trustworthy medical statistics should not be disregarded and ignored in the name of political correctness. Not that I am specifically accusing you of such.
You do bring up a very valid point that, in a game, there is no reason to make one gender stronger than the other -- although it would lead to certain interesting behaviours, like female tanks and other warriors being rarer.
More and more I see simple reality being discarded and ignored in the name of political correctness, because some people find it offensive. Reality is what it is. And I'm aborting now before I start a completely different rant.
Slashdot Mirror
Why? Because I can objectively judge the reasons for the existence of something without having to resort to emotion? Because I'm honest with myself about the nature of existence?
I include that in the 'repercussions of my actions' category.
There are those of us who seek to rule our own emotional responses to things so that we may act reasonably, and then there are those who are ruled by their own emotional responses to things so much that they cannot act reasonably.
It's all about deciding whether you want to have free will or not.
Says who? Last time I checked, there were thre reasons for doing something in private: You believe the world has no right to know your private affairs, or you're ashamed of what you're doing, or you fear the repercussions of your action.
Last time I check, Sexual Intercourse was a natural biological function that had nothing to do with mutual love or regard. It can have those qualities, but those are not inherent in the act itself.
Some of us enjoy being free to do whatever we want with code, instead of being forced to do what others want us to do with it.
BSD == Freedom for the Coder
GPL == Freedom for the Code.
So it's all about what you care about more. Do you value your own, personal, freedom more, or less, than the freedom of some pattern of electrical charges inside a computer?
Well, seeing as how you're posting to /., those machines are either getting extremely horrible data, r extremely appropriate data.
I'm not sure how I want to look at it until someone observes me and the wave form collapses.
Wait, illegally wiretapping your own citizens isn't terrorism?
Too bad people who are able to put aside their emotions and make the hard decisions that need to be made entirely on logic and reason are needed so often, or you could have your perfect little world were we don't exist.
I'm sorry, I didn't know there were so many Nazis sympathisers on /. What part of me saying that being Jewish is not a bad thing did you not understand?
People who tout their credentials and then hide behind anonymity, thus rendering the proof of those credentials impossible to obtain, sir, are not accredited for the purpose of argument.
I actually understand a great deal about inheritance, natural selection, sexual selection, et cetera. People who survive long enough to produce without needing lifesaving medical intervention are not the people we're talking about here -- or at least not the people I'm talking about. Maybe you should just stop and think for a moment before getting up on your high, emotional, horse.
Cancer in people past the age at which they can reproduce is actually a beneficial adaptation -- they can no longer reproduce, and their genes would be better served by them not taking up those resources so they can be utilised by those who can reproduce -- their children.
However, cancer that strikes and kills before you can reproduce is, indeed, a bad thing.
The solution is to let these people die without spreading the gene.
An animal killing its defective offspring is natural selection. So is a human animal aborting a defective fetus before it comes to term.
It doesn't stop being natural just because we do it. Or because we employ tools other animals don't have.
Anyway. In your mother's cause, we have to proof that she had some sort of specific genetic susceptibility to cancer. And until we have a more through mapping of the human genome and proteome to determine what genes are oncogenes, it's all speculation.
Two things:
A) Who said we were talking about curing the patient? Or what was good for the individual? The species' survival is more important than the survival of any single individual.
B) Some people can't understand humour. Please look at the Progenitor post (such as use of the word 'tasteless.')
No, no, it really hasn't.
Last time I checked being Jewish wasn't a deleterious mutation.
Really? Natural selection is scientifically invalid?
Perhaps we can have this conversation when you can get over your emotional responses, and realise that morals are not absolutes, and what is right or wrong is not necessarily that which is effective or efficient, or what works.
I thought we did have a cure for cancer? The same one as the cure for Haemophilia.
You let the people predisposed to both die before reproducing.
who thought that this was about Penzias and Wilson?
I mean, C'mon.
I'm thuper thereal, guys!
I need to start spell checking my damn posts. Non super gramatticos sum. Non Saepe.
Maybe you should better apply logic and statistics of your own admission to what you said.
You agree that statistically, the strongest males are stronger than the strongest females.
This is due to sexual dimorphism.
Even if the female characters in the MMORPG are meant to be the cream of the crop in terms of fitness, then the men will still, on average, be stronger, since there is no reason to assume that the male characters would not also be the cream of the crop in terms of fitness.
The fact that we are even having this argument is slightly ludicrous. Just slightly.
A we both not in agreement that if 1000 random men and 1000 random women were tested via various methods of determining over all strength (say, how much can be lifted to chest level, over head, how much can be lifted solely using the legs, force exerted in a punch and in a kick, to name a few,) that the men would average higher than the women? And that the strongest man would have a high degree of probability of being stronger than the strongest female?
Thousands of years of natural selection and sexual dimorphism and much trustworthy medical statistics should not be disregarded and ignored in the name of political correctness. Not that I am specifically accusing you of such.
You do bring up a very valid point that, in a game, there is no reason to make one gender stronger than the other -- although it would lead to certain interesting behaviours, like female tanks and other warriors being rarer.More and more I see simple reality being discarded and ignored in the name of political correctness, because some people find it offensive. Reality is what it is. And I'm aborting now before I start a completely different rant.
Somebody needs to go take basic college anatomy and physiology classes.
You tell'em, Gramps!
And I prefer to be called, "the Master," but you don't see me going around forcing my will upon the people of Earth, now do you, Doctor?
The Majordomo does not understand why this frightens me.
Maybe it's the great spice hoard which keeps Paul Muad'dib alive?
It can't be a black dwarf under current theories, at least those that you (and I) are aware of.
However, just about a hundred years ago, it wasn't possible for the sun to have been burning for as long as it had been, yet it was there.