But where I first heard of th econnection was in a fascinating book written by Mark Vonnegut (son of Kurt) called "The Eden Express". In th elate 60's early 70's, he was living the good hippie life in Western Canada, and went schizophrenic, twice. He was eventually cured - dunno if that was the right word - but he's now a pretty well known pediatrician. But his issues largly stemmed from diet along with a predisposition to the issue. He noted that the cruel aspect of it was that it started by trying to be "good", and not cruel, so eating meat was a bad thing. So he got into a positive feedback loop
I don't believe the only links to mental illness is that it can, in some cases, cause earlier onset of symptoms in those already predisposed to have schizophrenia.
Is no longer a sport of teams, it's a sport of young, mostly male fantasy league players, most of whom have a gambling addiction.
Listen to ESPN radio ot Television. Most commercials are for Fanduel and Draft Kings. I have a sneaking suspicion that one or th eother may eventually own ESPN - Maybe a double or nothing with Disney.
Gambling has always been a big part of sports. Fantasy leagues are turning gambling into the only thing.
I am more concerned one day they screw up and their transgenic crops do pollinate / seed in the wild. They displace natural varieties without anyone noticing until its to late. Finally the genes to make them sterile or only grow in the presence of certain chemicals etc do get flipped back on and we have massive crop losses in a staple food product like maize.
You read too much Michael Crichton. Many things might happen.
Are you concerned about people starving? We've put off Malthus many times, but that doesn't mean he will always be wrong.
FWIW, I eat organic because I can afford it, and it's what my family has always done. I harbor no illusions that we can feed the world in that manner.
Altogether too many people want everything exactly the way it was, and always should be, and will even employ cognitive dissonance to make believe they are on the right track.
It's a beautiful world out there. Look out the goddamned window millennials.
Your friends can wait to learn that your balls are itchy, or to ruin rour life via Twitter.
Opps, looks like I insulted a millenial. But seriously, for the generation that was raised where on on family trips where you would tour through the Grand Canyon, or Mount Rushmore, with your parents watching the scenery, while you were in the back of the van watching Spongebob SquarePants on the DVD player - try it. There's a whole world out there that isn't on an LCD screen. And it's pretty darn cool.
The link from "back in July" was from 2013, and Sarah hasn't made a kernel contribution in 18 months. She's moved on to other projects, and I wish her the best of luck.
A man can be blunt to another man and tell him "You're being a fuckwad. Don't do this." Hell, bitter sports rivals will go for a beer afterwards. The "trash talk" is par for the course and men think nothing of it.
A woman will perceive as the man not being "sensitive."
So who's right?
Both. Men need to learn to communicate _differently_ with women and consider their feelings. And women need to learn not to take everything so fucking personal./Oblg joke. "Can you show me a woman who doesn't take everything personal? No, because you'd be left with a man!" (With apologies to Jack Nicholson in "As good as it gets.")
You are correct - sort of. I've seen this sort of thing blow up. Guy says something completely innocent like the teasing guys do. Says it to a woman. She goes nuts about it, and guy catches hell. Guy has no idea on how to communicate other that learn his lesson, and keep his mouth wired shut.
Now the thing is, where I was, many of the women were just as pissed off at each other. As a rule, women in leadership positions were considered negatively - and not by the men.
It's the sort of thing that has made me consider that as you note, adjustment has to be made on both sides. Whereas everything I have seen is that men must adjust to what the women want.
But how would we even approach that subject? I'll be attacked for merely saying that all workplace problems are not 100 percent men's fault. Just watch.
But when many of the women in a workplace resent other women, it's going to be hard for men to fix that problem by changing.
Perhaps they could think about making less offensive commercials.
Because if you watch any daytime TV, you come away with the knowledge that:
You gotta sue someone.
All present day prescription medicines can make you go nuts , but you can sue someone then
All men use catheters
All women are really leaky and ooze stuff.
There's a very limited time to sue for vaginal meshes even though the commercials have been airing for 5 years now.
MESOTHELIOMA!
100 percent of humanity is constipated
There are so many awesome weight loss products out there that everyone is underweight by now.
And the toppper - I turned on the TV at around 7 one morning, and an infomercial was on. Vaccum cleaner stuff. Not too surprising. But then it went to a break and a commercial played, then back to the infomercial. Now commercials have commercials!
Since commercials make up around 50 percent of programming these days, companies like Comcast are stuck between a rock and a hard place partially of their own making. If people skip commercials, they have a problem with advertisers. If people don't want to spend 200 a month to see all those vaginal ooze and stick this up your wingwang so you can pee commercials, then the cord cutting that is happening will simply accelerate.
I recant my position, man is inherently peaceful, and non-violent. Howzat?
Which fictional universe do you live in?
A univers in which people like oyurself have absolutely no concept of sarcasm. Your trying to invalidate my argument by pointing out a little bit of poetic license I took, shows that as well.
Just to be certain, do you have Asperger's? I'll modify my style and use only direct language if so.
Definitely there is violence in the make up of humanity. Whether that violence is the dominant component of human psychology is something you haven't established. Whether humans are substantially different in this respect from any other organism on the planet is also yet to be established.
I'll mention this once more and then stop responding to your beating on my unfortunate ommission in writing something that I said in passing, in poetic license, but which appears to have become the central portion of your argument.
I apologize profusely ( and that is not being sarcastic either ) that I wrote that killing each other is what we are best at. I don't know that foro certain, and it's probably wrong, seeing that we are very good at populating the earth. That was wrong, and in the world of the internet, where sarcasm is not so easily detectable, a bad thing to do. Mos stupid on my part.
But that's as far as I'll go, and if you choose to belabor this any more, I'll just stop responding, and you can declare yourself the winner. Because since I'm in a direct writing mode, I don't particularly care what you think. We've expressed ourselves. I've apologized twice now, no more, because you mention it again, and as the Hobbit said, I shan't be sorry any longer.
Look, for example, at the canines of most of our fellow primates and you'd see evidence that violent intra-specific conflict is a stronger selection force in most primates than it is in humans. And by contrast, the cooperative behaviour is a more significant factor in human evolution than it has been in most other primates.
Did you look at the links I provided you? Instead of trying debate tactics like strawman accusations and your obsessive fixation on my "ill advised "best" comment, Why are those links wrong?
Allow me to rephrase myself, if it is possible to do so in your universe. We are really good at killing each other. We're at almost constant war. I provided facts with just the USA war involvement since ~1900 to the present.
I also claim there is a genetic component to that aggression. We have no species of Homo left to compare ourselves with, so I use the difference between two closely related species of Pan One is peaceful, and the other practices fratricide on occasion. Just use the.gov link and then refute it, you shouldn't have to use paywalled documents.
We practice patricide constantly, whether through individual (frowned upon) or State sponsored (very popular). I draw the conclusion that just as in the Chimpanzees, we have a genetic predisposition toward killing and are rather indiscriminate about who we kill.
Much of the expense is coming from trying to build one plane to be a master of all jobs for all branches of the military.
This and a hundred times this. I don't take my Jeep to the dragstrip, and I don't take my cruiser bike on trails. And one size fits all gloves don't fit on my hands either.
The very idea of the F35 replacing the A10 Warthog is laughable. Just attempting that feat makes it a bad replacement for the fighters it is supposed to replace. So you get a camel - a racehorse designed by a committee.
I don't know the percentage of drone flights that are disabled. Is there a lot of that going on?
I also don't know the odds of a war against Russia, China or India. Are you suggesting we should arm ourselves for that?
Well yeah. There's an old saying that we are always ready to fight the previous war. It's not a declaration of war to have your country at the same technological level as possible competitors.
We can put fuckton of small relays in LEO at negligible cost (relative to the F-35 project). Alternatively, if the opponent does have a ground based laser anti-satellite weapon (the only viable way of dealing with the fuckton of satellites) you could use a drone swarm with a mesh network. Either way you can use highly directional communication, which makes jamming moot.
Jeezuz, man - your scifi scenario has so many holes in it, you probably like hte idea of screendoors on submarines.
You know what happens when you take out 1 or two LEO sats? You take 'em all out. And you don't even need to hit one, just put up more shrapnel to take em out. If someone was foolish enough to try such a scheme, and a nation was desperate enough, just think of a space hand grenade. Rocket designed to fragment after reaching orbit, and no more "fuckton" of sats. You want ot talk about inexpensive? Every new Sat you take out will become more shrapnel to take out others.
There's a reason why there have only been a couple tests of antisatellite weapons.
Our first war in space will be our last war in space. As we filled up desirable orbits with debris, we'd have to wait until it de-orbits to get anything new through.
Non starter idea. And your buzzword salad of mesh networks and highly directional comms is just that - buzzwords.
Remember, you don''t design weapons to be only used against people with mid 20th century tactics. You eventually come up against a technologically savvy opponent.
Exactly. Unionizing might solve one problem but would introduce a hundred more.
We need to make companies overcome the burden of proof that there is no one qualified domestically for a job before they can get an H1B. Other countries do this effectively.
Here's a little story, that might sound Off Topic, but since it illustrates exactly what the problem is, it is directly on topic:
A man coming into work one day, sees his CEO arriving at work in an awesome and beautiful expensive car. So he complimented him on it.
The CEO, put his hand on the guys shoulder and said:
"Thank you - it is a real beauty isn't it? And the great thing about America is that if you apply yourself really diligently to your work, work really, really hard and put in any extra time needed - go that extra mile for the company - it will soon pay off, and I'll be able to buy an even more expensive car next year."
You really think nature meant for a male to have sex with another male? Or a female with a female?
Nature didn't design anything other than the parts involved. That sex is one of a number of ways of creating new animals, does speak to the inherent nature of male/female sex activity. But it's not remotely the only activity, and shall we talk a bit about the moral aspects of pathogenesis, gynogenesis or pseudogamy?
Nature designed sex for procreation and without a male and female you don't have that.
Oh, you just stepped in the Anything but procreational sex is wrong trap. Oral sex, condoms, birth control, masturbation, mutual or solitary, and any act not designed with intent to produce a baby and only produce a baby becomes wrong under your warped view.
I'd say that if a man desires a man either he made a choice or maybe it's a kind of birth defect.
It's different. But that's about it. And if you are the sort of person that believes as you apparently do that it's both morally wrong and a birth defect at the same time, I have some news for you about your morals
Given that rampant homosexuality is a recent phenomenon I'd say either we've had a huge rash of birth defects or either a lot of people decided to dabble in perverted sex.
You need to do some research on berdaches in North American native populations, Many now call it two spirit. The Greeks, ancient China before westernization, Rome (be careful of walking into an ther trap there).
It's a common thing in decadent societies.
Umm, trying to determine the percentage of people who are homosexual is notoriously difficult, so where did you get your figures? Hell, this Wikipedia page illustrates it.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hell, my bishop during my confirmation classes described a person as being homosexual if they ever masturbated.. After all, its a sexual, non procreative act, with a person of the same sex - yourself. People who have sex with others of the same gender on the "down low" consider themselves heterosexual. Good luck with trying to get real figures.
I'm not really against homosexuality just all the foolish attempts to say it's normal. Anyone can see it's not.
And.......so what? If Shelly loves Suzy and Billy loves Bob, so what? They aren't screwing children, they aren't hurting you, and your righteous grand dudgeon aside, you have to remember that it was only the 1970's that being gay was decriminalized - here. And you think you're tired of it all?
Here's some stats. Those annoying queers should apologize to you for how badly they have treated you.
I don't get why those people insist on believing that everything on Earth that appears to be old must have been created by some other process in the last 6000 years.
Occasionally, I've tried watching the stupid show "Ancient Aliens" which seems to be shilling for intelligent Design. In the limited time I've been able to stand it, the message is clear:
1. Anything impressive on earth done by humans was not done by humans, Aliens were involved.
2. People like Einstein, Tesla or anyone considered a genius at all, was actually helped by Ancient Aliens.
3. People are all stupid We can't do a thing without help.
4. The show is geared toward stupid people who think no one can be smarter than they are without alien or divine intervention.
Well, no one knows what intelligence is, so it is really far fetched to ask the question how would we deal with it. Humans have no clue how to deal with well understood phenomena. Though at one time black slaves had around 66% of a vote?
Tepples should tell us more about equal law and equal justice and things of that sort. I'll eagerly wait.
I'm never against knowledge. If "whites" test with a higher IQ than "Africans", or a lower IQ than "Asians", then so be it. Enough ambiguity over nature/nurture to make one question
So what would we even do with that information? Decide that only Asians could be leaders?
Deny that little 10 year old girl entrance to college because she's of African descent? Deny smart people line Neil Tyson because of that? relegate "White" people to certain jobs?
And what about the increasingly common mixed-race folks? A Chinese/African mix is what? Semi-sortasumpin?
Do we deny a genius of a supposedly inferior race, while insisting that the Duck Dynasty or Hillbilly blood dudes become the physicists and leaders of the world?
Even then, IQ is not even a remote predictor of success, or even competence.
Here's some white geniuses for everyone's entertainment:
Future leaders by virtue of their superior racial intelligence, it would appear!
Complete and total useless information, as there is no way to determine an individual's intelligence via simply telling us what their racial background is.
Gotta start somewhere. If trolls get the idea they no longer have a viable business model, when the courts have become part of that model, the patent troll industry will fall apart. Gotta take those victories as you find them.
I have no doubt that judges have spent some time discussing this issue, and probably become a little pissed as they realized they were an integral part of that business model. Where it was heading was a world where extortion was the final goal, for every activity in life. Patent trolling was a real world true slippery slope.
Next up, ending perpetual copyright and eliminating descendants perpetual profit on an ancestor's work.
Slashdot Mirror
http://blogs.psychcentral.com/...
But where I first heard of th econnection was in a fascinating book written by Mark Vonnegut (son of Kurt) called "The Eden Express". In th elate 60's early 70's, he was living the good hippie life in Western Canada, and went schizophrenic, twice. He was eventually cured - dunno if that was the right word - but he's now a pretty well known pediatrician. But his issues largly stemmed from diet along with a predisposition to the issue. He noted that the cruel aspect of it was that it started by trying to be "good", and not cruel, so eating meat was a bad thing. So he got into a positive feedback loop
Here's an old article from People magazine 1975 : http://www.people.com/people/a...
Clear policies need to be established, particularly for those who think they can fly their drones over private property at their whim.
Where did you get the idea that you own the airspace above your house?
Try arresting any airplane pilots flying over it lately?
I don't believe the only links to mental illness is that it can, in some cases, cause earlier onset of symptoms in those already predisposed to have schizophrenia.
And interestingly enough, so can a vegan diet.
Listen to ESPN radio ot Television. Most commercials are for Fanduel and Draft Kings. I have a sneaking suspicion that one or th eother may eventually own ESPN - Maybe a double or nothing with Disney.
Gambling has always been a big part of sports. Fantasy leagues are turning gambling into the only thing.
I am more concerned one day they screw up and their transgenic crops do pollinate / seed in the wild. They displace natural varieties without anyone noticing until its to late. Finally the genes to make them sterile or only grow in the presence of certain chemicals etc do get flipped back on and we have massive crop losses in a staple food product like maize.
You read too much Michael Crichton. Many things might happen.
Are you concerned about people starving? We've put off Malthus many times, but that doesn't mean he will always be wrong.
FWIW, I eat organic because I can afford it, and it's what my family has always done. I harbor no illusions that we can feed the world in that manner.
Then they go away.
It's a beautiful world out there. Look out the goddamned window millennials.
Your friends can wait to learn that your balls are itchy, or to ruin rour life via Twitter.
Opps, looks like I insulted a millenial. But seriously, for the generation that was raised where on on family trips where you would tour through the Grand Canyon, or Mount Rushmore, with your parents watching the scenery, while you were in the back of the van watching Spongebob SquarePants on the DVD player - try it. There's a whole world out there that isn't on an LCD screen. And it's pretty darn cool.
The link from "back in July" was from 2013, and Sarah hasn't made a kernel contribution in 18 months. She's moved on to other projects, and I wish her the best of luck.
More of the microagressions.
A man can be blunt to another man and tell him "You're being a fuckwad. Don't do this." Hell, bitter sports rivals will go for a beer afterwards. The "trash talk" is par for the course and men think nothing of it.
A woman will perceive as the man not being "sensitive."
So who's right?
Both. Men need to learn to communicate _differently_ with women and consider their feelings. And women need to learn not to take everything so fucking personal. /Oblg joke. "Can you show me a woman who doesn't take everything personal? No, because you'd be left with a man!" (With apologies to Jack Nicholson in "As good as it gets.")
You are correct - sort of. I've seen this sort of thing blow up. Guy says something completely innocent like the teasing guys do. Says it to a woman. She goes nuts about it, and guy catches hell. Guy has no idea on how to communicate other that learn his lesson, and keep his mouth wired shut. Now the thing is, where I was, many of the women were just as pissed off at each other. As a rule, women in leadership positions were considered negatively - and not by the men.
It's the sort of thing that has made me consider that as you note, adjustment has to be made on both sides. Whereas everything I have seen is that men must adjust to what the women want.
But how would we even approach that subject? I'll be attacked for merely saying that all workplace problems are not 100 percent men's fault. Just watch.
But when many of the women in a workplace resent other women, it's going to be hard for men to fix that problem by changing.
Does anybody think that future cars won't have lots of display panels and cameras? Smile for the camera!
Absolutely. I want a recording camera forward, aft, and some hidden ones in the rear view mirrors.
But sharing them on Instagram? Hell no! They are there to collect evidence.
As for display panels - we tried that once. one light goes out, and it's 20 percent of the value of the car to repair it.
Your friends can wait to learn that your balls are itchy, or to ruin rour life via Twitter.
Because if you watch any daytime TV, you come away with the knowledge that: You gotta sue someone.
All present day prescription medicines can make you go nuts , but you can sue someone then
All men use catheters
All women are really leaky and ooze stuff.
There's a very limited time to sue for vaginal meshes even though the commercials have been airing for 5 years now.
MESOTHELIOMA!
100 percent of humanity is constipated
There are so many awesome weight loss products out there that everyone is underweight by now.
And the toppper - I turned on the TV at around 7 one morning, and an infomercial was on. Vaccum cleaner stuff. Not too surprising. But then it went to a break and a commercial played, then back to the infomercial. Now commercials have commercials!
Since commercials make up around 50 percent of programming these days, companies like Comcast are stuck between a rock and a hard place partially of their own making. If people skip commercials, they have a problem with advertisers. If people don't want to spend 200 a month to see all those vaginal ooze and stick this up your wingwang so you can pee commercials, then the cord cutting that is happening will simply accelerate.
tl:dr version - TV sucks today.
"their" not "they're".
Don't worry about him - he's such a looser.
Which fictional universe do you live in?
A univers in which people like oyurself have absolutely no concept of sarcasm. Your trying to invalidate my argument by pointing out a little bit of poetic license I took, shows that as well.
Just to be certain, do you have Asperger's? I'll modify my style and use only direct language if so.
Definitely there is violence in the make up of humanity. Whether that violence is the dominant component of human psychology is something you haven't established. Whether humans are substantially different in this respect from any other organism on the planet is also yet to be established.
I'll mention this once more and then stop responding to your beating on my unfortunate ommission in writing something that I said in passing, in poetic license, but which appears to have become the central portion of your argument.
I apologize profusely ( and that is not being sarcastic either ) that I wrote that killing each other is what we are best at. I don't know that foro certain, and it's probably wrong, seeing that we are very good at populating the earth. That was wrong, and in the world of the internet, where sarcasm is not so easily detectable, a bad thing to do. Mos stupid on my part.
But that's as far as I'll go, and if you choose to belabor this any more, I'll just stop responding, and you can declare yourself the winner. Because since I'm in a direct writing mode, I don't particularly care what you think. We've expressed ourselves. I've apologized twice now, no more, because you mention it again, and as the Hobbit said, I shan't be sorry any longer.
Look, for example, at the canines of most of our fellow primates and you'd see evidence that violent intra-specific conflict is a stronger selection force in most primates than it is in humans. And by contrast, the cooperative behaviour is a more significant factor in human evolution than it has been in most other primates.
Did you look at the links I provided you? Instead of trying debate tactics like strawman accusations and your obsessive fixation on my "ill advised "best" comment, Why are those links wrong? Allow me to rephrase myself, if it is possible to do so in your universe. We are really good at killing each other. We're at almost constant war. I provided facts with just the USA war involvement since ~1900 to the present.
I also claim there is a genetic component to that aggression. We have no species of Homo left to compare ourselves with, so I use the difference between two closely related species of Pan One is peaceful, and the other practices fratricide on occasion. Just use the .gov link and then refute it, you shouldn't have to use paywalled documents.
We practice patricide constantly, whether through individual (frowned upon) or State sponsored (very popular). I draw the conclusion that just as in the Chimpanzees, we have a genetic predisposition toward killing and are rather indiscriminate about who we kill.
You said:
Got me, and in the grand tradition of the internet, where even a typo can blow you out of the water, I have been proven totally wrong.
I recant my position, man is inherently peaceful, and non-violent. Howzat?
Much of the expense is coming from trying to build one plane to be a master of all jobs for all branches of the military.
This and a hundred times this. I don't take my Jeep to the dragstrip, and I don't take my cruiser bike on trails. And one size fits all gloves don't fit on my hands either.
The very idea of the F35 replacing the A10 Warthog is laughable. Just attempting that feat makes it a bad replacement for the fighters it is supposed to replace. So you get a camel - a racehorse designed by a committee.
It's already been shown to not compete with the fighter planes we have now, https://medium.com/war-is-bori...
We'll see if industry support is more important than defense.
"IRAN managed to hijack a US drone."
I don't know the percentage of drone flights that are disabled. Is there a lot of that going on?
I also don't know the odds of a war against Russia, China or India. Are you suggesting we should arm ourselves for that?
Well yeah. There's an old saying that we are always ready to fight the previous war. It's not a declaration of war to have your country at the same technological level as possible competitors.
We can put fuckton of small relays in LEO at negligible cost (relative to the F-35 project). Alternatively, if the opponent does have a ground based laser anti-satellite weapon (the only viable way of dealing with the fuckton of satellites) you could use a drone swarm with a mesh network. Either way you can use highly directional communication, which makes jamming moot.
Jeezuz, man - your scifi scenario has so many holes in it, you probably like hte idea of screendoors on submarines.
You know what happens when you take out 1 or two LEO sats? You take 'em all out. And you don't even need to hit one, just put up more shrapnel to take em out. If someone was foolish enough to try such a scheme, and a nation was desperate enough, just think of a space hand grenade. Rocket designed to fragment after reaching orbit, and no more "fuckton" of sats. You want ot talk about inexpensive? Every new Sat you take out will become more shrapnel to take out others.
There's a reason why there have only been a couple tests of antisatellite weapons.
Our first war in space will be our last war in space. As we filled up desirable orbits with debris, we'd have to wait until it de-orbits to get anything new through.
Non starter idea. And your buzzword salad of mesh networks and highly directional comms is just that - buzzwords.
Remember, you don''t design weapons to be only used against people with mid 20th century tactics. You eventually come up against a technologically savvy opponent.
Exactly. Unionizing might solve one problem but would introduce a hundred more.
We need to make companies overcome the burden of proof that there is no one qualified domestically for a job before they can get an H1B. Other countries do this effectively.
Here's a little story, that might sound Off Topic, but since it illustrates exactly what the problem is, it is directly on topic:
A man coming into work one day, sees his CEO arriving at work in an awesome and beautiful expensive car. So he complimented him on it.
The CEO, put his hand on the guys shoulder and said:
"Thank you - it is a real beauty isn't it? And the great thing about America is that if you apply yourself really diligently to your work, work really, really hard and put in any extra time needed - go that extra mile for the company - it will soon pay off, and I'll be able to buy an even more expensive car next year."
Do you think your this post disagrees with any of my points? Or relevant as a reply to me rather than to tepples?
Actually, I was agreeing with you.
I'm not completely certain why you have the attitude that anyone who replies is trying to pick a fight with you though.
You really think nature meant for a male to have sex with another male? Or a female with a female?
Nature didn't design anything other than the parts involved. That sex is one of a number of ways of creating new animals, does speak to the inherent nature of male/female sex activity. But it's not remotely the only activity, and shall we talk a bit about the moral aspects of pathogenesis, gynogenesis or pseudogamy?
Nature designed sex for procreation and without a male and female you don't have that.
Oh, you just stepped in the Anything but procreational sex is wrong trap. Oral sex, condoms, birth control, masturbation, mutual or solitary, and any act not designed with intent to produce a baby and only produce a baby becomes wrong under your warped view.
I'd say that if a man desires a man either he made a choice or maybe it's a kind of birth defect.
It's different. But that's about it. And if you are the sort of person that believes as you apparently do that it's both morally wrong and a birth defect at the same time, I have some news for you about your morals
Given that rampant homosexuality is a recent phenomenon I'd say either we've had a huge rash of birth defects or either a lot of people decided to dabble in perverted sex.
You need to do some research on berdaches in North American native populations, Many now call it two spirit. The Greeks, ancient China before westernization, Rome (be careful of walking into an ther trap there).
It's a common thing in decadent societies.
Umm, trying to determine the percentage of people who are homosexual is notoriously difficult, so where did you get your figures? Hell, this Wikipedia page illustrates it.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hell, my bishop during my confirmation classes described a person as being homosexual if they ever masturbated.. After all, its a sexual, non procreative act, with a person of the same sex - yourself. People who have sex with others of the same gender on the "down low" consider themselves heterosexual. Good luck with trying to get real figures.
I'm not really against homosexuality just all the foolish attempts to say it's normal. Anyone can see it's not.
And.......so what? If Shelly loves Suzy and Billy loves Bob, so what? They aren't screwing children, they aren't hurting you, and your righteous grand dudgeon aside, you have to remember that it was only the 1970's that being gay was decriminalized - here. And you think you're tired of it all?
Here's some stats. Those annoying queers should apologize to you for how badly they have treated you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't care who's dick you suck as long as it is not mine.
Real mature, Lenny.
Sure, as long as the atheists stop trying to convert everyone.
So long as the religious kooks stop believing that they have a God given right to take other citizen's rights away.
I don't get why those people insist on believing that everything on Earth that appears to be old must have been created by some other process in the last 6000 years.
Occasionally, I've tried watching the stupid show "Ancient Aliens" which seems to be shilling for intelligent Design. In the limited time I've been able to stand it, the message is clear:
1. Anything impressive on earth done by humans was not done by humans, Aliens were involved.
2. People like Einstein, Tesla or anyone considered a genius at all, was actually helped by Ancient Aliens.
3. People are all stupid We can't do a thing without help.
4. The show is geared toward stupid people who think no one can be smarter than they are without alien or divine intervention.
Hence the explanation for the creationist crowd.
Well, no one knows what intelligence is, so it is really far fetched to ask the question how would we deal with it. Humans have no clue how to deal with well understood phenomena. Though at one time black slaves had around 66% of a vote?
Tepples should tell us more about equal law and equal justice and things of that sort. I'll eagerly wait.
I'm never against knowledge. If "whites" test with a higher IQ than "Africans", or a lower IQ than "Asians", then so be it. Enough ambiguity over nature/nurture to make one question
So what would we even do with that information? Decide that only Asians could be leaders?
Deny that little 10 year old girl entrance to college because she's of African descent? Deny smart people line Neil Tyson because of that? relegate "White" people to certain jobs?
And what about the increasingly common mixed-race folks? A Chinese/African mix is what? Semi-sortasumpin?
Do we deny a genius of a supposedly inferior race, while insisting that the Duck Dynasty or Hillbilly blood dudes become the physicists and leaders of the world?
Even then, IQ is not even a remote predictor of success, or even competence.
Here's some white geniuses for everyone's entertainment:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I felt a little sorry for her, at least she was trying to think.
Most of the guys were simply mindless examples of being unencumbered by the thought process.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Future leaders by virtue of their superior racial intelligence, it would appear!
Complete and total useless information, as there is no way to determine an individual's intelligence via simply telling us what their racial background is.
I have no doubt that judges have spent some time discussing this issue, and probably become a little pissed as they realized they were an integral part of that business model. Where it was heading was a world where extortion was the final goal, for every activity in life. Patent trolling was a real world true slippery slope.
Next up, ending perpetual copyright and eliminating descendants perpetual profit on an ancestor's work.