>Automation and mechanization have never produced mass unemployment and they have always resulted in great increases of standards of living. Why should it be different this time?
That is fallacious logic - the circumstances surrounding any particular even in history is always unique to the context of the time and place it happens and bears little or no relation to what happened the previous time somebody did it (despite the propensity of people to assume so).
On June 29th, 1914 a thousand newspapers around the world reported the assassination of Franz Ferdinand the day before. The markets barely even reacted, there was no noticeable shift anywhere in them. I can imagine a million traders and CEOs reading it and if you had asked any of them what it may mean saying something like: "Assassination of royalty has been a constant throughout monarchy in all of human history - it's so common it's practically natural causes. It's never caused any significant upheaval even to the societies it happened in - why should it be any different with this one ?" A few weeks later world war 1 was in full swing and 50 million soldiers died in just the first few months. Killing Franz Ferdinand was different to all those other monarchy-killings because Europe had two massive military forces squared off that had been irritating the hell out of each other for decades - and a crapload of very scary new military technology that made each of them feel invincible. Countries were already in alliances -and the event was not isolated to one government as past ones had been. The context had changed - and thus the pattern didn't hold anymore.
I bet when the mountain started to rumble back in 79AD all of Pompeii's twenty-thousand citizens shrugged and said "Vesuvius has rumbled every now and then for all of the 160 years this city has been here and it never did anything much - why should it be different today ?" In a matter of hours - all of them were dead.
The point is - there is a first time for everything- you can NOT validly ask "why should it be different this time" - you need to ask "why should it be the SAME this time". You can only assume that history will repeat, or the pattern will hold, if you PROVE that all the contextual pre-conditions of the pattern you are citing remain unchanged.
The context of industry today compared to that same context a hundred years ago is radically different. The world is tiny - and the impacts of any event spread globally and does so very rapidly. We were debating the impact of the Crimean invasion mere minutes after it happened. I think the burden of evidence should be on *you* to show that every contextual dependency of this pattern holds - that none of these changes are a dependency or impacts on a dependency rather than on the parent to show that they do - simply because the scale of what has changed (even in just the last decade and a half) is so incredibly massive as to suggest it's highly unlikely that the pattern will, in fact, hold.
For a start nearly every other time major automation ended one career - the jobs were largely absorbed by jobs building and maintaining the very machinery that replaced their old jobs - this time, it's almost certain that those jobs will go to citizens of China and India rather than your fellow Americans who lost them - that alone radically alters the outcome (on your own economy at least).
>Yes, this approach has been tried. It's called the Labor Theory of Value as per Marx. It's been a disaster everywhere it's been tried
You have no idea what you're talking about. The Labor Theory of Value was written by John Locke and pre-dates Marx by nearly 2 centuries ! It also is not communist - in fact it's the basis of BOTH capitalism AND communism (and a few other economic philosophies as well) - they all use Locke's labour theory of value as their starting premise - they differ in what they subsequently conclude we should *do* about it and how society should be structured *because* of it. Locke's labour theory of value is cited with equal frequency by Marx and Adam Smith, by Lenin and Murray Rothbard, by Milton Friedman and by Che Guevara. It is the basis of all property laws everywhere in the world today.
Worst of all - the labour theory of value is *not* what the parent described - what he described is a conclusion one may *draw* from the labour theory of value in certain contexts - but it is not the theory itself. The labour theory of value instead dictates that natural resources have no economic value and cannot be property, they gain economic value only through the addition of human labour and only when this addition happens can they *become* private property (of the person who mixed his labour with it). A piece of land is economically worthless, but plow it and plant corn (or dig it up and build a mine) and you're extracting value from it through labour - what used to be public since it couldn't *be* property can now be justly defined to become property because it gained value from labour.
That is the labour theory of value - nothing more, nothing less - and it's not communist nor is it capitalist - it is the inspiration of BOTH and the foundation of all modern property laws.
Rothbard uses the labour theory of value to argue that American settlers gained proper ownership of the land through "homesteading" (of course - in Rothbard's mind -what Native Americans did on the land for ten thousand years before wasn't "really" labour or something...), Marx used it to conclude that the workers of a business are the only ones who deserve to gain profit and there should BE no "owners", Lenin decided the only way to achieve THAT was with a state with absolute power and fucked the whole thing up (I don't think he is right actually - I actually think Marxism would be MORE compatible with anarchism than authoritarianism and if that was tried it may actually *work* - we have enough examples that prove authoritarianism never works, I'm not convinced the failure of the communist states could not be entirely attributed to the results of dictatorship rather than economic failure)
>People, like dogs, are not ideally suited to leisure and no obligations. And that's exactly why it will work - not why it would fail. See even such a nearly fully automated world would need new ideas, new technologies and maintenance of the existing ones to stay in existence. In such a world though - what could possibly be the incentive for anybody (particularly the very smart and highly skilled people who we still need working -the engineers and the doctors) to do anything at all ? The fact that humans are not suited to leisure - they seek out challenge, they seek out meaning and knowledge and this is more common among the smarter ones. As Buckminster-Fuller put it - the idea that we have to earn our right to live with labour is not just outdated but a ludicrously silly concept. It would take maybe 10% of us, given the initial resources, about 5 years to build the automation to provide abundance to all humanity, and maybe 10% of our future lives to maintain it. What we should be doing with the other 90% (and everybody else with 100%) is simple: learning stuff, solving the riddles of the universe, expanding our minds, spending time with our children again. There are a billion better ways we could spend our lives than trying to produce wealth (whether for ourselves as businessmen or for somebody else as wage-workers). Instead of wealth, we could be creating actual value - and actual meaning. The monetary system as a means of measuring value was incredibly useful to build the world we have today - but it is antiquated, the entire *concept* of *trying* to measure the unmeasurable no longer has any use to us -we don't *need* it anymore.
There is, in fact, only one thing to overcome - and it's not a technical or physical obstacle - it's cultural inertia - but every other revolution in how humans lived had to overcome it, and they all did. Some of our ancestors convinced the others that farming was better than hunter-gatherering once, and gradually changed the entire way humans lived. We've made changes on the same scale on average every 300 years since then. Ironically - this kind of change to a technologically powered epicurean society would, in fact, be among the simplest in terms of what we need to *practically* do.
> I am pretty sure that at the time it was completely normal in Christendom too to consider females adults after they first menstruate.
Actually that lasted until much, much later - Shakespeare's Juliette is a mere 12 years old and yet "younger than her are happy mothers made" - marriage age in Dutch colonies average 16 for boys and 14 for girls until the 17th century and it wasn't until the 20th century that most countries saw it go higher than age 20.
As late as the 1950's it was still legal for a minor below the age of consent to marry in most countries if she had parental permission. Since then this has largely changed- while minors can marry in most countries today (provided their parents consent AND sign an emancipation form) they cannot do so before the age of sexual consent anymore.
Now this doesn't mean we should approve of it, or that we cannot judge ancient practices by modern standards (if only to avoid repeating the mistakes) but we certainly should be consistent when doing so - and there is absolutely no religion or culture on earth (least of all Christendom and Judaism) which is innocent of this particular practice,
That was terrible choice of example - since the right to life has *always* trumped free speech rights and death threats are specifically (and have always been) excluded from said right. Now whether you can extend "you may not make death threats" to "you can suppress something because it leads to death threats" is an entirely *different* debate - but your wording was terrible - because it's a long established thing that somebody's right not to receive death threats DO trump freedom of speech - at least of those who want to make them. The same goes for incitement to violence or speech likely to incite a panic.
Why would blizzard change the leveling content ? It's been the way it is for 10 years, it got some revamps with cataclysm and been left alone again ever since.
Altering the comprehensive leveling content (which includes all the past expansions) now would cost them a fortune in development time for literally zero gain. If anything the biggest change that could reduce the quality of leveling content is to speed up XP gain so people level through zones much faster and this has already been done for all pre-cata content but that change, if anything, actually reduces the number of people who will buy an extra boost by reducing how much time and effort leveling actually takes. When I started playing in Wrath it took me over 3 months of playing several hours a day, almost every day, to get my first character to level 80. Now I have several characters at maxlevel and several quite close to it - you can do it in a few weeks, or with sufficient dedication (and heirlooms and boosts) one long, hard weekend without sleep.
That's not actually true anymore. With the release of MoP all past expansions got folded into Vanilla so buying a base account gets you everything up to the end of Wrath - a single extra purchase gets you the current MoP features.
Because buying it twice is useless unless you also pay for a character transfer - actually TWO. Wow-insider calculated that getting a second boost from buying the expansion twice would work out to around 140 dollars in all.
A largely overlooked factor (though I agree with your general comment - and for myself, I will at most see it as a way to maybe rapid-level an alt with the free one when I buy the upgrade just to try some new class out) is that they realized that without the levelling people would have no idea what a class's spells do.
So they are saying boosted characters would go through a kind of special starting zone and get a bunch of quests designed to teach them the character in a kind of crash-course way - much like Death Knights have done all along to rapidly skill up between 55 (where they start) and about 58 where they leave the DK starting zone.
Tansexual kiling themselves because of bullying and people like you - and you're response was "cry me a river" - this from somebody who claims to be speaking of morality. How are you DIFFERENT from Breivik ? You both are happy to see people dead who don't share your specific set of morals - the only difference is he had the gutts to pull the trigger himself. You kill by your cowardly words.
>It's a hell of a lot cheaper to buy condoms than it is to raise another child...
You are actually right about that - but there are two problems with condoms. 1) It is something men have to do - suggesting condoms as the sole solution here disempowers woman to make birth control decisions about their own bodies. Poor communities tend to be more sexist already. 2) Among the poor children are often seen (incorrectly) as an investment rather than a financial burden, and this may even appear true on a very shallow level (more than one libertarian have told me poor people have more kids because kids make more money than they cost) - the trouble is that if you spend less on a child's upbringing than that child is likely to earn over a lifetime - it means you're not investing in an education that allows for social mobility. Sure your childs contributions may slightly reduce the family's suffering over his lifetime, but he is nevertheless almost certainly doomed to be another generation in poverty. Trying to get this message across widely while dealing with traditionalists and anti-birth-control religions is hard enough already, to compound it by focussing only on a birth control method that more than half the worlds' population have no control over is to take a difficult thing and make it quite impossible.
The tripe that bisexual people don't exist at all is one of the most common forms of biphobia. I know it may be hard for you to wrap your head around but I am genuinely attracted to people *regardless* of their physical sex. Indeed I more commonly identify as sapiosexual - I am attracted to minds and intellect, not to physical appearance or shape.
Your simple-minded heterosexist view of the world is offensive but that isn't what I hate about it - what I hate about it is that it causes other people harm.
We have a massive problem all over the world right now caused by the likes of you. LGBTQ people have suicide rates far above the norm in societies everywhere -and the highest of all for trans people.
That you are ignorant and there is a mountain of scientific data proving your bigotry false doesn't concern me much - what does concern me is that everytime you spout your crap you are helping to kill some innocent kid - and in my book that means putting a bullet in your head is saving lives. I know that most of the LGBTQ community wouldn't agree with me saying that - they think that sounding militaristic harms our cause and mostly, I think they are right and since I'm a pacifist I would never physically harm you - but believe me you make me want to. Not because of hatred for you, not because of anger, not because I could care two shits what you think - because what you SAY is KILLING people.
"Lillith held up a mirror to life, and chopped off all the bits of life that didn't fit".
I'm getting bored with this, you're also not the first person who has come up with this bigoted crap that bisexual men don't exist. You're not only judgemental, bigoted and reprehensible in every possible way - you are, like every other person like you I've known - an ignorant idiot as well.
Thank you for the incredible sense of superiority you've made me feel. I would almost imagine you're hitting on me - except for the fact that you are so utterly not my type.
>In other words you're a cheating gay man in denial - plenty of gay men get married and have kids and plenty of men like to dress up their cheating as some kind of acceptable lifestyle. Even Elton John was married to a woman once btw.
Judgemental and moralistic - but no, I don't cheat. There are no lies or secrets in our household. I have my boyfriends and girlfriends - and so does my equally bisexual wife. It's part of what we have in common. I love watching her eat pussy, she loves watching me suck cock. What we don't do - is give a flying fuck about whether you approve or not. I am also no gay - I'm bisexual. I like sucking cock, I LOVE eating pussy - if anything I'm bi but closer to straight.
>Sadly it doesn't seem to help your clarity. Please explain exactly which part of "Coming from a country where it's a political hot potato to have insurance cover birth control but not viagra" translates to "birth control should be readily available". Or perhaps you just use google translate for everything?
The clarity problem is not with my expression but with your comprehension. Then again, with a mind as narrow and closed as you're displaying - I'm surprised you can remember to alternate your breathing between "in" and "out".
>Ah yes, quote or paraphrase some well known cliche - the last resort of those who can't think up their own counter arguments.
Says the guy who writes entire posts that sound like his paraphrasing Fred Phelps.
>Actually the plural is spelt "ass's" Mr English Degree.
Actually the apostrophe in English is used only: 1) To indicate letters left out in a word (when writing in accent or if a word's spelling has changed historically). E.g. "Wham, bam thank you Ma'm". 2) To indicate possession. Ass's would only be correct if you were talking about something owned by an ass. E.g. "You're ass's pimples are filled with less bile than your comments". 3) In contractions e.g. "What's up with that ?"
The plural form of ass is asses and the the possessive plural is asses' .
>Its only people who have no morals who *don't* judge others. Judge all you want - but don't try to force your morals on other people. Also - "different morals from you" is not the same thing as "no morals".
>But I guess language degrees don't require the comprehension of simple logic. The do when your second major is in Philosophy specializing in logic - in fact, that requires advanced logic skills (simple won't cut it). When you throw in a third major in computer science - you kind of have to be *really* good at logic to get that degree. Now ask yourself- just how good does somebody have to be at these things to get special dispensation from a university allowing him to take computer science as an extra, credited major when he is enrolled to for a degree in English Literature and Philosophy ?
>Well going by that whining self righteous queenie rant you're obviously fairly young, early 20s, maybe teens and probably gay.
You got every single one of your guesses wrong. I am in my mid-thirties, married, polyamorous and bisexual and my wife is currently pregnant.
> quite clear that you're the sort who think people have no responsibility for the amount of children they have if they can't get free birth control
Nope, I didn't say that - I do however have the capacity to do math and say that if poor people have ready access to birth control for free they are more likely to use it - because people who spend their entire income on a place to live and a meal don't have anything to spare on your ideas and abstinence doesn't EXIST in the real world.
>Actually it wasn't clear at all. Is english a 2nd language for you?
Yes, actually, but it happens to be one I have a university degree in - from how terrible *your* English is -you MUST be a first language speaker however. To paraphrase G.B. Shaw: nobody who had been taught English could possibly use it so badly - only native speakers rape English.
>Being gay doesn't mean you're incapable, you just don't want to.
That sentence was badly put I admit -it should have read "get pregnant" not "have children" - I'm having a child in June.
> So if you were angling for a bit of sympathy you're out of luck pal.
I have neither the need nor the desire for sympathy - I was EXPRESSING sympathy, not asking for it.
You know... the headline on this site says it's for smart-asses, you are only *half* qualified to be here (the second half - I'm saying you're an ass).
And you still know practically nothing about me - but you have told me a great deal about you: you are a judgmental moralist who blame the oppressed for their own oppression. You call me part of the problem - I say you ARE the problem.
>Sadly people like you are part of the problem. But keep your head in the sand if it makes you feel better.
People like me ? And what pray-tell kind of people, am I ? You know exactly fuckall about me. You don't know if I'm married or single. You don't know if I have children. You don't know if I'm monogamous, polyamorous, a swinger. You don't know which gender I identify with, what my sexual orientation is, whether I'm religious and if so what religion. You don't know if I like anal sex, giving or receiving, you don't know whether I like bagels or pizza more. You literally know absolutely nothing about me - except the one thing I have told you in that comment: a clear indication that I believe birth control should be readily available. Considering I am not biologically capable of having children - clearly this is not out of personal concern.
Absolutely everything else you may think you know about me is based entirely on extrapolation from that solitary un-contexted statement with zero affirming evidence.
I will therefore, take your declarations regarding my head and sand (about which I'll tell you something new about me: I know that this expression is fucking stupid because no animal actually does that - least of all the ostrich and I should know as I live in their native habitat) and being part of "the problem" as just more utterly ignorant claptrap. How can you know whether I'm part of what you perceive as the problem ? How can you know what I propose to do about it ? You have no idea of my thoughts on *anything at all* ! Yet you feel you know me well enough to make such declarations based purely on what you imagine I may, possibly, think.
Now that is arrogant and stupid in the extreme - just like the comment I replied to.
>Yes, and private companies wouldn't bother doing unprofitable things like exploring space, either.
I hope you agree with me that this is a bad thing ? Even if you think we should only do things which are profitable right now... how much profit does American companies make out of it's satelite system ? Do you think that satelite system would have existed without the early appolo expenses ?To anything like the current scale and coverage ?
Slashdot Mirror
It does, the process is called "Rain".
>Automation and mechanization have never produced mass unemployment and they have always resulted in great increases of standards of living. Why should it be different this time?
That is fallacious logic - the circumstances surrounding any particular even in history is always unique to the context of the time and place it happens and bears little or no relation to what happened the previous time somebody did it (despite the propensity of people to assume so).
On June 29th, 1914 a thousand newspapers around the world reported the assassination of Franz Ferdinand the day before. The markets barely even reacted, there was no noticeable shift anywhere in them. I can imagine a million traders and CEOs reading it and if you had asked any of them what it may mean saying something like: "Assassination of royalty has been a constant throughout monarchy in all of human history - it's so common it's practically natural causes. It's never caused any significant upheaval even to the societies it happened in - why should it be any different with this one ?"
A few weeks later world war 1 was in full swing and 50 million soldiers died in just the first few months.
Killing Franz Ferdinand was different to all those other monarchy-killings because Europe had two massive military forces squared off that had been irritating the hell out of each other for decades - and a crapload of very scary new military technology that made each of them feel invincible. Countries were already in alliances -and the event was not isolated to one government as past ones had been. The context had changed - and thus the pattern didn't hold anymore.
I bet when the mountain started to rumble back in 79AD all of Pompeii's twenty-thousand citizens shrugged and said "Vesuvius has rumbled every now and then for all of the 160 years this city has been here and it never did anything much - why should it be different today ?"
In a matter of hours - all of them were dead.
The point is - there is a first time for everything- you can NOT validly ask "why should it be different this time" - you need to ask "why should it be the SAME this time".
You can only assume that history will repeat, or the pattern will hold, if you PROVE that all the contextual pre-conditions of the pattern you are citing remain unchanged.
The context of industry today compared to that same context a hundred years ago is radically different. The world is tiny - and the impacts of any event spread globally and does so very rapidly. We were debating the impact of the Crimean invasion mere minutes after it happened.
I think the burden of evidence should be on *you* to show that every contextual dependency of this pattern holds - that none of these changes are a dependency or impacts on a dependency rather than on the parent to show that they do - simply because the scale of what has changed (even in just the last decade and a half) is so incredibly massive as to suggest it's highly unlikely that the pattern will, in fact, hold.
For a start nearly every other time major automation ended one career - the jobs were largely absorbed by jobs building and maintaining the very machinery that replaced their old jobs - this time, it's almost certain that those jobs will go to citizens of China and India rather than your fellow Americans who lost them - that alone radically alters the outcome (on your own economy at least).
>Yes, this approach has been tried. It's called the Labor Theory of Value as per Marx. It's been a disaster everywhere it's been tried
You have no idea what you're talking about. The Labor Theory of Value was written by John Locke and pre-dates Marx by nearly 2 centuries ! It also is not communist - in fact it's the basis of BOTH capitalism AND communism (and a few other economic philosophies as well) - they all use Locke's labour theory of value as their starting premise - they differ in what they subsequently conclude we should *do* about it and how society should be structured *because* of it. Locke's labour theory of value is cited with equal frequency by Marx and Adam Smith, by Lenin and Murray Rothbard, by Milton Friedman and by Che Guevara. It is the basis of all property laws everywhere in the world today.
Worst of all - the labour theory of value is *not* what the parent described - what he described is a conclusion one may *draw* from the labour theory of value in certain contexts - but it is not the theory itself. The labour theory of value instead dictates that natural resources have no economic value and cannot be property, they gain economic value only through the addition of human labour and only when this addition happens can they *become* private property (of the person who mixed his labour with it).
A piece of land is economically worthless, but plow it and plant corn (or dig it up and build a mine) and you're extracting value from it through labour - what used to be public since it couldn't *be* property can now be justly defined to become property because it gained value from labour.
That is the labour theory of value - nothing more, nothing less - and it's not communist nor is it capitalist - it is the inspiration of BOTH and the foundation of all modern property laws.
Rothbard uses the labour theory of value to argue that American settlers gained proper ownership of the land through "homesteading" (of course - in Rothbard's mind -what Native Americans did on the land for ten thousand years before wasn't "really" labour or something ...), Marx used it to conclude that the workers of a business are the only ones who deserve to gain profit and there should BE no "owners", Lenin decided the only way to achieve THAT was with a state with absolute power and fucked the whole thing up (I don't think he is right actually - I actually think Marxism would be MORE compatible with anarchism than authoritarianism and if that was tried it may actually *work* - we have enough examples that prove authoritarianism never works, I'm not convinced the failure of the communist states could not be entirely attributed to the results of dictatorship rather than economic failure)
>People, like dogs, are not ideally suited to leisure and no obligations.
And that's exactly why it will work - not why it would fail. See even such a nearly fully automated world would need new ideas, new technologies and maintenance of the existing ones to stay in existence.
In such a world though - what could possibly be the incentive for anybody (particularly the very smart and highly skilled people who we still need working -the engineers and the doctors) to do anything at all ? The fact that humans are not suited to leisure - they seek out challenge, they seek out meaning and knowledge and this is more common among the smarter ones.
As Buckminster-Fuller put it - the idea that we have to earn our right to live with labour is not just outdated but a ludicrously silly concept. It would take maybe 10% of us, given the initial resources, about 5 years to build the automation to provide abundance to all humanity, and maybe 10% of our future lives to maintain it. What we should be doing with the other 90% (and everybody else with 100%) is simple: learning stuff, solving the riddles of the universe, expanding our minds, spending time with our children again.
There are a billion better ways we could spend our lives than trying to produce wealth (whether for ourselves as businessmen or for somebody else as wage-workers). Instead of wealth, we could be creating actual value - and actual meaning.
The monetary system as a means of measuring value was incredibly useful to build the world we have today - but it is antiquated, the entire *concept* of *trying* to measure the unmeasurable no longer has any use to us -we don't *need* it anymore.
There is, in fact, only one thing to overcome - and it's not a technical or physical obstacle - it's cultural inertia - but every other revolution in how humans lived had to overcome it, and they all did. Some of our ancestors convinced the others that farming was better than hunter-gatherering once, and gradually changed the entire way humans lived. We've made changes on the same scale on average every 300 years since then.
Ironically - this kind of change to a technologically powered epicurean society would, in fact, be among the simplest in terms of what we need to *practically* do.
Actually this may be the most sane response to this entire debate I've read yet. Where are mod points when I need them.
> I am pretty sure that at the time it was completely normal in Christendom too to consider females adults after they first menstruate.
Actually that lasted until much, much later - Shakespeare's Juliette is a mere 12 years old and yet "younger than her are happy mothers made" - marriage age in Dutch colonies average 16 for boys and 14 for girls until the 17th century and it wasn't until the 20th century that most countries saw it go higher than age 20.
As late as the 1950's it was still legal for a minor below the age of consent to marry in most countries if she had parental permission. Since then this has largely changed- while minors can marry in most countries today (provided their parents consent AND sign an emancipation form) they cannot do so before the age of sexual consent anymore.
Now this doesn't mean we should approve of it, or that we cannot judge ancient practices by modern standards (if only to avoid repeating the mistakes) but we certainly should be consistent when doing so - and there is absolutely no religion or culture on earth (least of all Christendom and Judaism) which is innocent of this particular practice,
That was terrible choice of example - since the right to life has *always* trumped free speech rights and death threats are specifically (and have always been) excluded from said right.
Now whether you can extend "you may not make death threats" to "you can suppress something because it leads to death threats" is an entirely *different* debate - but your wording was terrible - because it's a long established thing that somebody's right not to receive death threats DO trump freedom of speech - at least of those who want to make them.
The same goes for incitement to violence or speech likely to incite a panic.
Why would blizzard change the leveling content ? It's been the way it is for 10 years, it got some revamps with cataclysm and been left alone again ever since.
Altering the comprehensive leveling content (which includes all the past expansions) now would cost them a fortune in development time for literally zero gain.
If anything the biggest change that could reduce the quality of leveling content is to speed up XP gain so people level through zones much faster and this has already been done for all pre-cata content but that change, if anything, actually reduces the number of people who will buy an extra boost by reducing how much time and effort leveling actually takes.
When I started playing in Wrath it took me over 3 months of playing several hours a day, almost every day, to get my first character to level 80.
Now I have several characters at maxlevel and several quite close to it - you can do it in a few weeks, or with sufficient dedication (and heirlooms and boosts) one long, hard weekend without sleep.
That's not actually true anymore. With the release of MoP all past expansions got folded into Vanilla so buying a base account gets you everything up to the end of Wrath - a single extra purchase gets you the current MoP features.
Because buying it twice is useless unless you also pay for a character transfer - actually TWO. Wow-insider calculated that getting a second boost from buying the expansion twice would work out to around 140 dollars in all.
A largely overlooked factor (though I agree with your general comment - and for myself, I will at most see it as a way to maybe rapid-level an alt with the free one when I buy the upgrade just to try some new class out) is that they realized that without the levelling people would have no idea what a class's spells do.
So they are saying boosted characters would go through a kind of special starting zone and get a bunch of quests designed to teach them the character in a kind of crash-course way - much like Death Knights have done all along to rapidly skill up between 55 (where they start) and about 58 where they leave the DK starting zone.
Tansexual kiling themselves because of bullying and people like you - and you're response was "cry me a river" - this from somebody who claims to be speaking of morality.
How are you DIFFERENT from Breivik ? You both are happy to see people dead who don't share your specific set of morals - the only difference is he had the gutts to pull the trigger himself. You kill by your cowardly words.
s#admiral#admirable#g
Nice response to the topic of DEAD CHILDREN.
I don't need to be critical of you - you have pretty much done a bangup job of proving that you don't belong in civilization.
Now me... I wouldn't consider "The Next Anders Breivik" an admiral ambition...
>It's a hell of a lot cheaper to buy condoms than it is to raise another child...
You are actually right about that - but there are two problems with condoms.
1) It is something men have to do - suggesting condoms as the sole solution here disempowers woman to make birth control decisions about their own bodies. Poor communities tend to be more sexist already.
2) Among the poor children are often seen (incorrectly) as an investment rather than a financial burden, and this may even appear true on a very shallow level (more than one libertarian have told me poor people have more kids because kids make more money than they cost) - the trouble is that if you spend less on a child's upbringing than that child is likely to earn over a lifetime - it means you're not investing in an education that allows for social mobility. Sure your childs contributions may slightly reduce the family's suffering over his lifetime, but he is nevertheless almost certainly doomed to be another generation in poverty.
Trying to get this message across widely while dealing with traditionalists and anti-birth-control religions is hard enough already, to compound it by focussing only on a birth control method that more than half the worlds' population have no control over is to take a difficult thing and make it quite impossible.
Why don't you educate yourself instead: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B...
The tripe that bisexual people don't exist at all is one of the most common forms of biphobia. I know it may be hard for you to wrap your head around but I am genuinely attracted to people *regardless* of their physical sex.
Indeed I more commonly identify as sapiosexual - I am attracted to minds and intellect, not to physical appearance or shape.
Your simple-minded heterosexist view of the world is offensive but that isn't what I hate about it - what I hate about it is that it causes other people harm.
We have a massive problem all over the world right now caused by the likes of you. LGBTQ people have suicide rates far above the norm in societies everywhere -and the highest of all for trans people.
That you are ignorant and there is a mountain of scientific data proving your bigotry false doesn't concern me much - what does concern me is that everytime you spout your crap you are helping to kill some innocent kid - and in my book that means putting a bullet in your head is saving lives.
I know that most of the LGBTQ community wouldn't agree with me saying that - they think that sounding militaristic harms our cause and mostly, I think they are right and since I'm a pacifist I would never physically harm you - but believe me you make me want to.
Not because of hatred for you, not because of anger, not because I could care two shits what you think - because what you SAY is KILLING people.
"Lillith held up a mirror to life, and chopped off all the bits of life that didn't fit".
I'm getting bored with this, you're also not the first person who has come up with this bigoted crap that bisexual men don't exist. You're not only judgemental, bigoted and reprehensible in every possible way - you are, like every other person like you I've known - an ignorant idiot as well.
Thank you for the incredible sense of superiority you've made me feel. I would almost imagine you're hitting on me - except for the fact that you are so utterly not my type.
>In other words you're a cheating gay man in denial - plenty of gay men get married and have kids and plenty of men like to dress up their cheating as some kind of acceptable lifestyle. Even Elton John was married to a woman once btw.
Judgemental and moralistic - but no, I don't cheat. There are no lies or secrets in our household. I have my boyfriends and girlfriends - and so does my equally bisexual wife. It's part of what we have in common. I love watching her eat pussy, she loves watching me suck cock.
What we don't do - is give a flying fuck about whether you approve or not.
I am also no gay - I'm bisexual. I like sucking cock, I LOVE eating pussy - if anything I'm bi but closer to straight.
>Sadly it doesn't seem to help your clarity. Please explain exactly which part of "Coming from a country where it's a political hot potato to have insurance cover birth control but not viagra" translates to "birth control should be readily available". Or perhaps you just use google translate for everything?
The clarity problem is not with my expression but with your comprehension. Then again, with a mind as narrow and closed as you're displaying - I'm surprised you can remember to alternate your breathing between "in" and "out".
>Ah yes, quote or paraphrase some well known cliche - the last resort of those who can't think up their own counter arguments.
Says the guy who writes entire posts that sound like his paraphrasing Fred Phelps.
>Actually the plural is spelt "ass's" Mr English Degree.
Actually the apostrophe in English is used only:
1) To indicate letters left out in a word (when writing in accent or if a word's spelling has changed historically). E.g. "Wham, bam thank you Ma'm".
2) To indicate possession.
Ass's would only be correct if you were talking about something owned by an ass.
E.g. "You're ass's pimples are filled with less bile than your comments".
3) In contractions e.g. "What's up with that ?"
The plural form of ass is asses and the the possessive plural is asses' .
>Its only people who have no morals who *don't* judge others.
Judge all you want - but don't try to force your morals on other people.
Also - "different morals from you" is not the same thing as "no morals".
>But I guess language degrees don't require the comprehension of simple logic.
The do when your second major is in Philosophy specializing in logic - in fact, that requires advanced logic skills (simple won't cut it). When you throw in a third major in computer science - you kind of have to be *really* good at logic to get that degree.
Now ask yourself- just how good does somebody have to be at these things to get special dispensation from a university allowing him to take computer science as an extra, credited major when he is enrolled to for a degree in English Literature and Philosophy ?
I would add: and avoid "big brand" clothes.
Seriously - if Calvin Klein wants to use my ass as billboard to advertise his designs he can bloody well pay me rent.
I don't know if that country exists - but my insurance covers either, provided you have a doctor's prescription.
>Well going by that whining self righteous queenie rant you're obviously fairly young, early 20s, maybe teens and probably gay.
You got every single one of your guesses wrong.
I am in my mid-thirties, married, polyamorous and bisexual and my wife is currently pregnant.
> quite clear that you're the sort who think people have no responsibility for the amount of children they have if they can't get free birth control
Nope, I didn't say that - I do however have the capacity to do math and say that if poor people have ready access to birth control for free they are more likely to use it - because people who spend their entire income on a place to live and a meal don't have anything to spare on your ideas and abstinence doesn't EXIST in the real world.
>Actually it wasn't clear at all. Is english a 2nd language for you?
Yes, actually, but it happens to be one I have a university degree in - from how terrible *your* English is -you MUST be a first language speaker however. To paraphrase G.B. Shaw: nobody who had been taught English could possibly use it so badly - only native speakers rape English.
>Being gay doesn't mean you're incapable, you just don't want to.
That sentence was badly put I admit -it should have read "get pregnant" not "have children" - I'm having a child in June.
> So if you were angling for a bit of sympathy you're out of luck pal.
I have neither the need nor the desire for sympathy - I was EXPRESSING sympathy, not asking for it.
You know... the headline on this site says it's for smart-asses, you are only *half* qualified to be here (the second half - I'm saying you're an ass).
And you still know practically nothing about me - but you have told me a great deal about you: you are a judgmental moralist who blame the oppressed for their own oppression. You call me part of the problem - I say you ARE the problem.
>Sadly people like you are part of the problem. But keep your head in the sand if it makes you feel better.
People like me ? And what pray-tell kind of people, am I ?
You know exactly fuckall about me.
You don't know if I'm married or single. You don't know if I have children. You don't know if I'm monogamous, polyamorous, a swinger. You don't know which gender I identify with, what my sexual orientation is, whether I'm religious and if so what religion.
You don't know if I like anal sex, giving or receiving, you don't know whether I like bagels or pizza more.
You literally know absolutely nothing about me - except the one thing I have told you in that comment: a clear indication that I believe birth control should be readily available.
Considering I am not biologically capable of having children - clearly this is not out of personal concern.
Absolutely everything else you may think you know about me is based entirely on extrapolation from that solitary un-contexted statement with zero affirming evidence.
I will therefore, take your declarations regarding my head and sand (about which I'll tell you something new about me: I know that this expression is fucking stupid because no animal actually does that - least of all the ostrich and I should know as I live in their native habitat) and being part of "the problem" as just more utterly ignorant claptrap.
How can you know whether I'm part of what you perceive as the problem ? How can you know what I propose to do about it ?
You have no idea of my thoughts on *anything at all* !
Yet you feel you know me well enough to make such declarations based purely on what you imagine I may, possibly, think.
Now that is arrogant and stupid in the extreme - just like the comment I replied to.
Coming from a country where it's a political hot potato to have insurance cover birth control but not viagra... I find your comment incredibly stupid.
Even Jesus couldn't win a G.O.P. nomination:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
>Yes, and private companies wouldn't bother doing unprofitable things like exploring space, either.
I hope you agree with me that this is a bad thing ? Even if you think we should only do things which are profitable right now... how much profit does American companies make out of it's satelite system ? Do you think that satelite system would have existed without the early appolo expenses ?To anything like the current scale and coverage ?