> As would likely 95% + of the populace I'm betting.
What I meant was, even if OP wins, he still loses. It was not really intended to be interesting, insightful, or informative, nor did I intend for it to become the subject of a discussion (it was merely an observation I considered to be 'funny'). I am however genuinely interested in his (or others who have a similar 'blood-phobia' thing) answer to the gore-question.
Now that we've ventured this far into offtopicness, what's up with the 'Cheers' thing?
Because it barely hurts, it's an interesting experience, and it only takes a few minutes (YMMV, but I'm sure they can give you a good estimate before they begin)? Because it's cheaper?
> The main reason I put communism in the religious space is that communism states that the universe has a purpose, and that it evolves towards a specific goal (a classless society).
As far as I am aware communism doesn't say anything about the 'purpose of the universe'. Communism claims societies evolve towards a specific goal, which may or may not be correct (personally I'm inclined to disagree), but this is no more a religion than 'capitalism' or 'democracy'.
So you admit the whole 'earned/unearned' thing is crap? I can see how one might agree with the second half of your post, but the first half doesn't make any sense. The whole 'sex feels good because it rewards you for the pains of childbirth and the hardships of childrearing' thing gives the impression that you think humans are 'intelligently designed'. Besides, I like to think my parents accept the hardships of childrearing because they actually like their children... not that they grudgingly accept me because sex happens to feel good.
Survival time is irrelevant. The healer still has to kill the enemy before the enemy kills him. Healing usually costs some resource (often 'mana') and running out of that resource makes the healer mostly useless. Mana is nothing more than a virtual health pool, and while a high HPS means you'll be able to use that health pool completely, it's still going to be empty at some point.
That would like, totally be possible! Except of course that you would probably find that there are a _LOT_ of files of 20GB or less that would give you those exact same hashes. Some of those files will be a valid blu-ray file. But apart from that, way to go!
It'd be interesting if someone where to do the math on this one, I think you'd be disappointed.
The goal of that shipping company is to make a profit shipping stuff. The goal of the pirates is to make a profit pirating other ships. For the shipping company, buying bigger guns will have a negative effect on the profit of the shipping company unless there is a LOT of piracy. But if the pirates buy bigger guns they become more effective and their 'profit' goes up.
It's probably cheaper for the shipping companies to get insurance compared to arming all their ships and training their crew/hiring mercenaries.
What if there are a hundred people in that church and there are just 1 gunner? Is it really reasonable to sacrifice all those people just so we can get the 'bad guy'? I bet that gunner couldn't get a hundred kills if you did something totally retarded like getting a hundred snipers and shoot back. Sure some of those snipers will die but those are few deaths compared to the hundred that would be the result of blowing up that church of yours.
By not taking the approach that has the fewest expected casualties you are making the choice to let people die, and (depending on the numbers involved) may very well be more 'evil' than the people you're trying to fight.
> You're confusing "judge and jury" with "self-defense". If you come at me shooting while holding an innocent in front of you, I'm probably going to shoot back. Guess what - if I shoot and kill the innocent you (not me) get the associated murder charge. You murdered the innocent by putting them in a situation where they could reasonably be expected to die by your actions.
But they're not coming towards you shooting and holding some innocent person. You are of no value to them alive, so your life is not in immediate danger (that is, until you start shooting at them, but can you really claim not to be responsible for the death of the innocent person in your example if it was YOU who initiated the lethal force?). How many innocent people are you willing to kill just to prevent being taken hostage?
It's a retarded analogy. With counterfeit coins, the person who finds out a coin is fake gets hurt in his/her wallot for 2 euros, and the person who made the coin gains some amount of money less than 2 euros (because making the coin wasn't free), and all the other people who owned the fake coin are unaffected. So counterfeit coins are more like inefficient pickpocketing-by-proxy than an infinite rape.
> The fact is that men have a severely weaker immune system and suckier ability to recover
Weaker? Maybe. Severely weaker? Source please!
> I guess more women is born because the "weaker" men survive(weaker immune system and ability to recover), the effect is that the genes see this and the dice(the randomness of evolution) said: "The men that was not suppose to survive lived, and thus for the best of this specie we make more females since this race works like that."
If you think evolution has any concept of who is 'supposed' to live or die, you don't understand it.
> Let's imagine a parameter f that describes the feminization of society. We'll arbitrarily assign f = 0.1 for the Mongol Hordes, and f = 0.9 for, say, modern France. At any point, there is a value of f that's determined by not only the chemical environment, but also by cultural factors, population density, whether there's a war on, whether the culture is a patriarchy, and even heredity. You have a choice made for you regardless of whether you like it or not. Who's to say that your culture's f is the optimal one?
What does that even mean, an optimal f? How do you measure when a culture is 'optimal'?
> My idea (which I admit I don't have any hard evidence for) is that societies with a higher f are more suited for modern urbanized, sedentary civilization, and that we have a far lower need for masculine behavior than our ancestors did when life was nasty, brutish, and short. In fact, I believe that stereotypically masculine is in fact maladaptive in today's societies.
Please try to define this stereotypically masculine behavior. If you are the same AC as the OP, please show why none of the things on the 'masculine elements list' are worth preserving, and why we should eleminate these things rather than attempt to channel them into something constructive.
> Also, you can't deny that among male artists, the prevalence of homosexuality is far higher than it is among the general population. That's not a homophobic view, but a factual one. (And as a fan of Tchaikovsky, it's a difference I appreciate.)
It is funny that you mention this, one other poster mentioned that gay men might be more masculine than 'normal' men ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444124&cid=30105294 , the post itself does not provide any arguments to defend this statement, but some of the replies do), if this is true then gay artists may very well support the hypothesis that art is a masculine quality rather than undermine it.
If that is how you feel by all means try to be more feminine. The rest of us prefer to have a choice in these matters, rather than have the choice made for us (indeed, forcing choices upon others is, according to your lists, a masculine thing, and therefore it has no place in the feminine society you seem so keen to create).
Besides, I like to think self-reliance, strength and competition are positive qualities. Many of the most famous artists were guys, so I'm not sure 'art' should be considered a 'feminine element', nor is there reason to believe that 'thoughtfulness' should be on that list of yours.
Maybe you could try pointing to some sources to convince us that you didn't just pull those lists out of you ass, then some more sources to show that the masculine elements are bad for society, and then some more to convince us that forcing emasculation on 50% of your citizens is ethical.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks for clarifying.
> As would likely 95% + of the populace I'm betting.
What I meant was, even if OP wins, he still loses. It was not really intended to be interesting, insightful, or informative, nor did I intend for it to become the subject of a discussion (it was merely an observation I considered to be 'funny'). I am however genuinely interested in his (or others who have a similar 'blood-phobia' thing) answer to the gore-question.
Now that we've ventured this far into offtopicness, what's up with the 'Cheers' thing?
Because it barely hurts, it's an interesting experience, and it only takes a few minutes (YMMV, but I'm sure they can give you a good estimate before they begin)? Because it's cheaper?
I bet you'd be useless in a knife-fight :D
How do you feel about gore in video games (such as F.E.A.R. and Prey)?
> The main reason I put communism in the religious space is that communism states that the universe has a purpose, and that it evolves towards a specific goal (a classless society).
As far as I am aware communism doesn't say anything about the 'purpose of the universe'. Communism claims societies evolve towards a specific goal, which may or may not be correct (personally I'm inclined to disagree), but this is no more a religion than 'capitalism' or 'democracy'.
Please share your definition of 'religion'.
Communism != religion?
So you admit the whole 'earned/unearned' thing is crap? I can see how one might agree with the second half of your post, but the first half doesn't make any sense. The whole 'sex feels good because it rewards you for the pains of childbirth and the hardships of childrearing' thing gives the impression that you think humans are 'intelligently designed'. Besides, I like to think my parents accept the hardships of childrearing because they actually like their children... not that they grudgingly accept me because sex happens to feel good.
> the intense pleasure most participants derive from it is the reward for the excruciating pains of childbirth and hardships of the childrearing.
Do you think we should frown upon infertile people having orgasms? I think you're insane.
Ah, and how about we use \/ for OR and /\ for AND. Oh the world will be a better place! || and &&, we spit on you!
Survival time is irrelevant. The healer still has to kill the enemy before the enemy kills him. Healing usually costs some resource (often 'mana') and running out of that resource makes the healer mostly useless. Mana is nothing more than a virtual health pool, and while a high HPS means you'll be able to use that health pool completely, it's still going to be empty at some point.
Some people http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=122 don't exactly play the sims the same way they would act in real life.
Citizens rejoice! Lojban has been adapted as the New Official Language!
That would like, totally be possible! Except of course that you would probably find that there are a _LOT_ of files of 20GB or less that would give you those exact same hashes. Some of those files will be a valid blu-ray file. But apart from that, way to go!
It'd be interesting if someone where to do the math on this one, I think you'd be disappointed.
The goal of that shipping company is to make a profit shipping stuff. The goal of the pirates is to make a profit pirating other ships. For the shipping company, buying bigger guns will have a negative effect on the profit of the shipping company unless there is a LOT of piracy. But if the pirates buy bigger guns they become more effective and their 'profit' goes up.
It's probably cheaper for the shipping companies to get insurance compared to arming all their ships and training their crew/hiring mercenaries.
What if there are a hundred people in that church and there are just 1 gunner? Is it really reasonable to sacrifice all those people just so we can get the 'bad guy'? I bet that gunner couldn't get a hundred kills if you did something totally retarded like getting a hundred snipers and shoot back. Sure some of those snipers will die but those are few deaths compared to the hundred that would be the result of blowing up that church of yours.
By not taking the approach that has the fewest expected casualties you are making the choice to let people die, and (depending on the numbers involved) may very well be more 'evil' than the people you're trying to fight.
> You're confusing "judge and jury" with "self-defense". If you come at me shooting while holding an innocent in front of you, I'm probably going to shoot back. Guess what - if I shoot and kill the innocent you (not me) get the associated murder charge. You murdered the innocent by putting them in a situation where they could reasonably be expected to die by your actions.
But they're not coming towards you shooting and holding some innocent person. You are of no value to them alive, so your life is not in immediate danger (that is, until you start shooting at them, but can you really claim not to be responsible for the death of the innocent person in your example if it was YOU who initiated the lethal force?). How many innocent people are you willing to kill just to prevent being taken hostage?
> Countries adopting Scientology to rehabilitate criminals, drug users, and it seems to go on and on.
Really? Name two of them.
It's a retarded analogy. With counterfeit coins, the person who finds out a coin is fake gets hurt in his/her wallot for 2 euros, and the person who made the coin gains some amount of money less than 2 euros (because making the coin wasn't free), and all the other people who owned the fake coin are unaffected. So counterfeit coins are more like inefficient pickpocketing-by-proxy than an infinite rape.
What are Bin Ladan soldiers and what are they doing in Canada?
> The fact is that men have a severely weaker immune system and suckier ability to recover
Weaker? Maybe. Severely weaker? Source please!
> I guess more women is born because the "weaker" men survive(weaker immune system and ability to recover), the effect is that the genes see this and the dice(the randomness of evolution) said: "The men that was not suppose to survive lived, and thus for the best of this specie we make more females since this race works like that."
If you think evolution has any concept of who is 'supposed' to live or die, you don't understand it.
> Let's imagine a parameter f that describes the feminization of society. We'll arbitrarily assign f = 0.1 for the Mongol Hordes, and f = 0.9 for, say, modern France. At any point, there is a value of f that's determined by not only the chemical environment, but also by cultural factors, population density, whether there's a war on, whether the culture is a patriarchy, and even heredity. You have a choice made for you regardless of whether you like it or not. Who's to say that your culture's f is the optimal one?
What does that even mean, an optimal f? How do you measure when a culture is 'optimal'?
> My idea (which I admit I don't have any hard evidence for) is that societies with a higher f are more suited for modern urbanized, sedentary civilization, and that we have a far lower need for masculine behavior than our ancestors did when life was nasty, brutish, and short. In fact, I believe that stereotypically masculine is in fact maladaptive in today's societies.
Please try to define this stereotypically masculine behavior. If you are the same AC as the OP, please show why none of the things on the 'masculine elements list' are worth preserving, and why we should eleminate these things rather than attempt to channel them into something constructive.
> Also, you can't deny that among male artists, the prevalence of homosexuality is far higher than it is among the general population. That's not a homophobic view, but a factual one. (And as a fan of Tchaikovsky, it's a difference I appreciate.)
It is funny that you mention this, one other poster mentioned that gay men might be more masculine than 'normal' men ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1444124&cid=30105294 , the post itself does not provide any arguments to defend this statement, but some of the replies do), if this is true then gay artists may very well support the hypothesis that art is a masculine quality rather than undermine it.
If that is how you feel by all means try to be more feminine. The rest of us prefer to have a choice in these matters, rather than have the choice made for us (indeed, forcing choices upon others is, according to your lists, a masculine thing, and therefore it has no place in the feminine society you seem so keen to create).
Besides, I like to think self-reliance, strength and competition are positive qualities. Many of the most famous artists were guys, so I'm not sure 'art' should be considered a 'feminine element', nor is there reason to believe that 'thoughtfulness' should be on that list of yours.
Maybe you could try pointing to some sources to convince us that you didn't just pull those lists out of you ass, then some more sources to show that the masculine elements are bad for society, and then some more to convince us that forcing emasculation on 50% of your citizens is ethical.
How so?
So where do you draw the line? Which crimes should be mentioned and which shouldn't?
What if someone thinks *any* crime should be published on the internet and the ones who committed that crime to be searchable forever?