Adults like things that taste good too. Where was this outrage with birthday cake vodka came out? I'm really not sure where this concept that "nicotine must taste bad but alcohol and caffeine are fine" came from.
Yes I know, I was mocking you for being completely oblivious to the implications of your statement. "Savage" does not imply "different race". Although I'm sure you never imagined your directive would withhold technology from "white" people so I guess I can see how you got confused. It definitely does not imply that I am the one that frames everything in race though.
A "Prime Directive" as you stated is, quite literally, "noble savage" theory. "Oh these people just need us to guide and teach them how to be civilized like us."
Um, isn't that what you did? I never even mentioned race.. How could you have a "Prime Directive" without having an "us" held to it and a "them" being protected by it?
I usually ignore your posts because I have a hard time figuring out if you are just a super dedicated "method" troll or if you are actually just super dense. In either case you should stop whining about being moderated troll because, my God, you are one.
Why stop there? Ban all caffeine too! It is addictive and has the same risk factors as nicotine. Plus all those sugary caffeinated drinks are clearly marketed solely to get children addicted.
Nicotine in vape liquid is not "to get people addicted". It is because people want nicotine. People like nicotine because it is a stimulant. Nicotine is addictive because it is a stimulant and because people like it.
You aren't saying much different. You want enough in the bank to live off of X dollars a year. Now what would the lowest value of X be to keep you happy? Perhaps around $75000 (adjusted for inflation)? Now how many people can manage to make that much in one year? Not very many so it is not a very useful metric.
More seriously- I comprehend perfectly well. It seems to me to be you, once again, being completely oblivious to the consequences of your assertions. Have you given an ounce of thought into what you mean by "the Prime Directive but for tech"? Or are you just blinded by making sure those poor noble savages don't make mistakes? Can you explain how what you are saying does not boil down to "your culture is too inferior to my own to handle such advanced means of communication"?
It looks to me like just another vacuous display of perceived moral superiority.
Deciding huge swaths of people are incapable of handling our advanced Western technologies (read: chat applications) is the most "supremacist" thing I have ever heard. However, I am unsurprised at who it came from.
It wasn't then and it doesn't have to be in the future. People act like the status quo is some natural law- it changes with time and not always how you want it to.
You're all in on that poison the well fallacy, enh? Have you considered the possibility that incredibly ignorant people like the nearly non-existent "neo-nazis" might have fallen for the non-stop political slander that Trump is a neo-nazi? Or that one blow-hard saying it doesn't make it true?
Most of us were fine with "SJWs" for years- hell, most of us were in the same camp. It was when any amount of disagreement got relabeled "hate speech" or "hate-tinged" and then that said terrible hate speech must be banned that a clear line was drawn.
I cannot condone any moralistic limits to free speech. Not because I want to call people slurs as I'm sure you are already preparing to accuse me of. I am afraid that tomorrow I may not be able to say "God won't save us from climate change".p>
If you get banned from every restaurant in town, you need to admit that you have a problem.
Pretty sure that was the message some certain southerners wanted a certain other group to learn.
Facebook, et al. are losing more users by not banning Infowars than by banning them.
Do you have any reason to believe that or are you just making it up? These groups have been on those platforms since the beginning and it has never been a problem until we got onto this new censorship push.
I didn't say IQ and I didn't say "breaking into the job market". To reach the top you need to be better than all the other people fighting to reach the top- and then you need to outlast them.
Slashdot Mirror
Adults like things that taste good too. Where was this outrage with birthday cake vodka came out? I'm really not sure where this concept that "nicotine must taste bad but alcohol and caffeine are fine" came from.
How am I the dick here?
Yes, only descendants of Abrahamic faiths practiced slavery. Get some perspective you mook.
Falls under the "generally inexperienced and annoying" category I guess..
If language changes why do we have to change the universally used and understood contextual words because of historical meanings?
I go the other way. Tell people to grow up and stop going out of their way to take offense to things that weren't meant to give offense.
It's called the "euphemism treadmill".
How dare they not know the semantic nuance of my language while they are speaking their own! I'm not the problem here- it's definitely the language.
Yes I know, I was mocking you for being completely oblivious to the implications of your statement. "Savage" does not imply "different race". Although I'm sure you never imagined your directive would withhold technology from "white" people so I guess I can see how you got confused. It definitely does not imply that I am the one that frames everything in race though.
A "Prime Directive" as you stated is, quite literally, "noble savage" theory. "Oh these people just need us to guide and teach them how to be civilized like us."
Just because you aren't interested does not mean it should be banned.
Um, isn't that what you did? I never even mentioned race.. How could you have a "Prime Directive" without having an "us" held to it and a "them" being protected by it?
I usually ignore your posts because I have a hard time figuring out if you are just a super dedicated "method" troll or if you are actually just super dense. In either case you should stop whining about being moderated troll because, my God, you are one.
Pretty sure the kids know exactly what they are doing. Kids smoke actual cigarettes too- and those taste like shit.
Do we have to ban all flavoured alcohol as well? Caffeinated drinks? Unhealthy foods?
Why stop there? Ban all caffeine too! It is addictive and has the same risk factors as nicotine. Plus all those sugary caffeinated drinks are clearly marketed solely to get children addicted.
Nicotine in vape liquid is not "to get people addicted". It is because people want nicotine. People like nicotine because it is a stimulant. Nicotine is addictive because it is a stimulant and because people like it.
You aren't saying much different. You want enough in the bank to live off of X dollars a year. Now what would the lowest value of X be to keep you happy? Perhaps around $75000 (adjusted for inflation)? Now how many people can manage to make that much in one year? Not very many so it is not a very useful metric.
Isn't that your slogan?
More seriously- I comprehend perfectly well. It seems to me to be you, once again, being completely oblivious to the consequences of your assertions. Have you given an ounce of thought into what you mean by "the Prime Directive but for tech"? Or are you just blinded by making sure those poor noble savages don't make mistakes? Can you explain how what you are saying does not boil down to "your culture is too inferior to my own to handle such advanced means of communication"?
It looks to me like just another vacuous display of perceived moral superiority.
Deciding huge swaths of people are incapable of handling our advanced Western technologies (read: chat applications) is the most "supremacist" thing I have ever heard. However, I am unsurprised at who it came from.
Also you couldn't stand beside anyone.
Health insurance is a huge perk here in Canada.
Not if it wants to hold on to territory.
It wasn't then and it doesn't have to be in the future. People act like the status quo is some natural law- it changes with time and not always how you want it to.
You're all in on that poison the well fallacy, enh? Have you considered the possibility that incredibly ignorant people like the nearly non-existent "neo-nazis" might have fallen for the non-stop political slander that Trump is a neo-nazi? Or that one blow-hard saying it doesn't make it true?
Most of us were fine with "SJWs" for years- hell, most of us were in the same camp. It was when any amount of disagreement got relabeled "hate speech" or "hate-tinged" and then that said terrible hate speech must be banned that a clear line was drawn.
I cannot condone any moralistic limits to free speech. Not because I want to call people slurs as I'm sure you are already preparing to accuse me of. I am afraid that tomorrow I may not be able to say "God won't save us from climate change".p>
So, is a woman who knows she is prone to miscarrying and continues to get pregnant a serial killer?
Depends on the legal winds of the time. Which is why I'd prefer not to set up the legal frameworks for a theocratic rule.
If you get banned from every restaurant in town, you need to admit that you have a problem.
Pretty sure that was the message some certain southerners wanted a certain other group to learn.
Facebook, et al. are losing more users by not banning Infowars than by banning them.
Do you have any reason to believe that or are you just making it up? These groups have been on those platforms since the beginning and it has never been a problem until we got onto this new censorship push.
Neo-Nazis are not Nazis. They have very little in common besides racism and everyone else in the world hating them.
I didn't say IQ and I didn't say "breaking into the job market". To reach the top you need to be better than all the other people fighting to reach the top- and then you need to outlast them.