Might as well dump the whole thing; if you pick and choose the whole document becomes pretty much meaningless. There is really no "supreme law of the land" anyway, it's what the government says it is at that current time.
What the students did is disgusting but NO ONE should be brought before some sort of sham court like the one you describe. Even if they had did this they didn't hurt anything, they just refused help based on bigoted criteria.
Maybe they were misinformed, but so what? The fact that they would vote based on that criteria, affecting only "white men", is just as disgusting as voting against a fundraiser for sickle-cell anemia because a great proportion of those suffering from it are black.
Some of the politics universities are associated with is downright disgusting. University students, I've seen, are often anti-freedom of speech (for political correctness) in the LEFT-WING direction because "people just shouldn't say that" and yes, rightly or wrongly there is a huge stigma against being conservative in any sense--I don't mean against gays or whatever, I mean small-government, fiscal conservatives, not the Republican "conservative". Throw in some of the weirdo racial ideas where "race is just a social construct it doesn't really exist we shouldn't judge based on race!" along with the "affirmative action is necessary to protect racial groups that I just said didn't really exist!" in the next breath and it's hard not to roll your eyes or become disgusted.
Then there was my black studies class I took to see if it was everything I thought it would be. Oh was it ever! The text book was written by ex-felon Maulana Karenga, Black Panther and inventor of Kwanzaa; the book was full of Afrocentrism, anti-capitalist bullshit, had whooping factual errors (even claimed that blacks were the first to the Americas leaving behind the Olmec statues!) and went so far as to capitalize "Black" and kept "white" lowercase. The premise of the class was really attacking everything that was "European-American" and exalting everything "African", of course everything "bad" like capitalism, competition, the patriarchy, empirical science was associated with the "European-American worldview" and everything "good" like "holism, caring and sharing, matrilineal descent, and intuition" were part of the "African worldview". Do note that the same type of distinction is made by loony feminists as well.
University racial politics are really disgusting and I think a lot of it stems from stupid, naive kids entering college without the ability to think critically; they mean well but are easily led.
They always did that. They always had to. Bandwidth is not infinite.
Now, however, they are just telling you what kind of caps they have instead of leaving you to guess. And the caps really aren't that bad; they're more geared to the hoarders and mega-uploaders which cause most of the problems....And yes, businesses should not be offering "unlimited" if it is not unlimited.
Let me ask you a question. Who is more likely to commit suicide? A person extremely, extremely depressed, or a person that is very depressed but not extremely so?
If you answered the person extremely, extremely depressed, you answered incorrectly. Those currently being treated for depression are often at risk because once they are lifted out of their extremely depressed state they are able to start forming plans around suicide and actually carrying them out. Antidepressants can put people into this zone of functionality. To put it simply, improving depression can lead to someone committing suicide because they are now more functional.
They're also fucking depressed in the first place! Being on treatment is not going to necessarily prevent suicide as no treatment is perfect!
I was replying to someone that was replying to you, that is apparently below your viewing threshold. Click to view more posts so you can see who I were replying to.
That's very true. But gaming is not "idle". With the internet, gaming is often the greatest means by which geeks build their own particular type of social networks and otherwise can interact with people. They can find other people with the same interests with them online. Games like World of Warcraft don't (necessarily) make people socially isolated--they are actually the way a particular person may socialize! Too often we view a particular solution to some underlying symptom or problem as the problem itself because we do not understand the nature of the problem, or as is so often the case confuse cause and effect, and through ignorance and stupidity, make things worse for people.
Yes, a good support system is VERY important for just about every psychological disorder or problem, but it is not a cure-all and and it not guarantee.
If you admit that our psychology derives from brain (and body) workings and that internal states and behaviors are affected by chemical changes, then it stands to reason that many psychological problems may be due to, say, certain brain circuitry being more prone to fire and/or some abnormality or otherwise undesirable neurotransmitter activity.
Too many people assume, "make them think positive thoughts, the problem will fix itself" and don't realize that the negative thoughts are a product of biological function and may be due to the chemical or neural activity.
Drugs are usually not meant to be taken alone without treatment. They're supposed to be given along with therapy, often some form of cognitive-behavioral therapy. They're also given to help improve the quality of life in the short term during therapy.
As for $ADDICTION Anonymous meetings, it is a well-known fact that recovery pretty much requires that the person actually be motivated to recover. Additionally, people being treated for addictions, usually in rehab, are usually told to avoid anything addicting; people in rehab often cannot even eat chocolate or drink coffee. AA is not the only addiction support group people can join; if a judge sentences someone to AA specifically he's an idiot.
I suspect you're thinking of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! episode here. While they do make some good arguments, I don't think their point was more to the arbitrary nature of the 12-step programs and not the actual support groups themselves. Silly things like recognizing a higher power and other stuff, that's nonsense, but providing motivations for recovery, goalposts that they can look forward to--basically rewards--does help work.
But, even past all this, sometimes drugs really are necessary. No single treatment is ever a true guarantee.
What? COX had always sent us e-mails giving us X number of days to remove the material and to respond back saying you did so; I'm guessing you didn't check your official COX e-mail?
One factor of larger brain sizes within a species is the relative size of that organism. Men tend to be larger than women which is probably why men tend to have larger brains.
The reason for this is, of course, because organisms would need a relatively larger brain to deal with having to cover a larger body.
Anyway, the fact that you, thuggishly like so many Obama supporters on the internet, defend the man with threats of some nature; he disagrees with you over Obama, so you think he should be silenced with the Troll tag.
Love of Obama has become a sort of religion for many (not all, but many) Obama supporters. Obama is beyond criticism. Depending on when someone criticized Obama you'd instantly be pelted with candidate-centric mudslinging even if you did not express a preference for any candidate. For example, When criticizing Obama online, I was instantly deluged with attacks on (due to his internet popularity) Ron Paul, then later Hillary Clinton, and then finally McCain and THEN Palin, Palin, Palin. Obviously some politicians are better than others, some much better than others, and yes, Obama is much better than others. But he is both human and a politician, and Obama has been playing the same game as most mainstream politicians so far. No one is above criticism and politicians most of all should be treated skeptically.
But skepticism towards Barack? Unthinkable, for many of his followers.
As far as I'm concerned, for the most part any politician should vote "NO" the second a civil liberty is infringed upon. Obama is not principled enough to be willing to do that and it's part of the reason I cannot support the man.
Obama voted for FISA after saying he wouldn't. He and his cronies really don't have any room to complain. Why should Obama be able to snoop on "the people" when "the people" cannot snoop on him? Obama is potentially (being president at all) the most dangerous man in the nation as he is Commander-In Chief and probably the most powerful man in the world.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any military secrets or stuff, of course, but the irony is just rather amusing.
Naturally, you're correct that it's a matter of perception. But when selling products to consumers, perception matters, right?
Yes, that's my point. Just market it differently and you make the crippled version be the normal version and all other versions have bonus features and it's the EXACT same thing.
Hell, the stripped-down version might otherwise allow people who couldn't buy the full version a chance at a new, modern operating system. Not sure why they'd choose Vista (lol) but you see my point?
Perception very much does matter, you are correct. But in the instance of law and such, it should take, or at least attempt to take, a more objective view of the matter.
How do you determine what is a bonus feature and what was removed? Just shift names around and stuff and you can have exactly the same thing with the same effect.
And a better point is, which damage, exactly, is caused? Believe it or not, sex is not intrinsically "damaging" in the slightest. Attitudes toward sex, the same attitudes that caused this poor woman to be harassed, are what make any sight of sexual activity "damaging" by programming children to view sex negatively or as "forbidden" or something to hide and be ashamed of.
The mentality of the "justice" department and the prosecutor here have done far more damage to the teacher AND the "children" (12-13 year olds are not really that innocent, as you noted) involved.
Slashdot Mirror
Might as well dump the whole thing; if you pick and choose the whole document becomes pretty much meaningless. There is really no "supreme law of the land" anyway, it's what the government says it is at that current time.
Possibly now The Black House, however.
Haw Haw.
It sounds to me like CUSA is pretty spot-on if they're highlighting the stupidity of the Marxist student body.
What the students did is disgusting but NO ONE should be brought before some sort of sham court like the one you describe. Even if they had did this they didn't hurt anything, they just refused help based on bigoted criteria.
Maybe they were misinformed, but so what? The fact that they would vote based on that criteria, affecting only "white men", is just as disgusting as voting against a fundraiser for sickle-cell anemia because a great proportion of those suffering from it are black.
Some of the politics universities are associated with is downright disgusting. University students, I've seen, are often anti-freedom of speech (for political correctness) in the LEFT-WING direction because "people just shouldn't say that" and yes, rightly or wrongly there is a huge stigma against being conservative in any sense--I don't mean against gays or whatever, I mean small-government, fiscal conservatives, not the Republican "conservative". Throw in some of the weirdo racial ideas where "race is just a social construct it doesn't really exist we shouldn't judge based on race!" along with the "affirmative action is necessary to protect racial groups that I just said didn't really exist!" in the next breath and it's hard not to roll your eyes or become disgusted.
Then there was my black studies class I took to see if it was everything I thought it would be. Oh was it ever! The text book was written by ex-felon Maulana Karenga, Black Panther and inventor of Kwanzaa; the book was full of Afrocentrism, anti-capitalist bullshit, had whooping factual errors (even claimed that blacks were the first to the Americas leaving behind the Olmec statues!) and went so far as to capitalize "Black" and kept "white" lowercase. The premise of the class was really attacking everything that was "European-American" and exalting everything "African", of course everything "bad" like capitalism, competition, the patriarchy, empirical science was associated with the "European-American worldview" and everything "good" like "holism, caring and sharing, matrilineal descent, and intuition" were part of the "African worldview". Do note that the same type of distinction is made by loony feminists as well.
University racial politics are really disgusting and I think a lot of it stems from stupid, naive kids entering college without the ability to think critically; they mean well but are easily led.
Those are my observations, YMMV.
The fact that it happened in the first place should be very worthy of note.
Well, what, do you want a law passed over it?
They always did that. They always had to. Bandwidth is not infinite.
Now, however, they are just telling you what kind of caps they have instead of leaving you to guess. And the caps really aren't that bad; they're more geared to the hoarders and mega-uploaders which cause most of the problems. ...And yes, businesses should not be offering "unlimited" if it is not unlimited.
And how right you are.
Let me ask you a question. Who is more likely to commit suicide? A person extremely, extremely depressed, or a person that is very depressed but not extremely so?
If you answered the person extremely, extremely depressed, you answered incorrectly. Those currently being treated for depression are often at risk because once they are lifted out of their extremely depressed state they are able to start forming plans around suicide and actually carrying them out. Antidepressants can put people into this zone of functionality. To put it simply, improving depression can lead to someone committing suicide because they are now more functional.
They're also fucking depressed in the first place! Being on treatment is not going to necessarily prevent suicide as no treatment is perfect!
I was replying to someone that was replying to you, that is apparently below your viewing threshold. Click to view more posts so you can see who I were replying to.
Anything highly rewarding can be addicting.
That's very true. But gaming is not "idle". With the internet, gaming is often the greatest means by which geeks build their own particular type of social networks and otherwise can interact with people. They can find other people with the same interests with them online. Games like World of Warcraft don't (necessarily) make people socially isolated--they are actually the way a particular person may socialize! Too often we view a particular solution to some underlying symptom or problem as the problem itself because we do not understand the nature of the problem, or as is so often the case confuse cause and effect, and through ignorance and stupidity, make things worse for people.
What the hell are you talking about?
Yes, a good support system is VERY important for just about every psychological disorder or problem, but it is not a cure-all and and it not guarantee.
If you admit that our psychology derives from brain (and body) workings and that internal states and behaviors are affected by chemical changes, then it stands to reason that many psychological problems may be due to, say, certain brain circuitry being more prone to fire and/or some abnormality or otherwise undesirable neurotransmitter activity.
Too many people assume, "make them think positive thoughts, the problem will fix itself" and don't realize that the negative thoughts are a product of biological function and may be due to the chemical or neural activity.
Drugs are usually not meant to be taken alone without treatment. They're supposed to be given along with therapy, often some form of cognitive-behavioral therapy. They're also given to help improve the quality of life in the short term during therapy.
As for $ADDICTION Anonymous meetings, it is a well-known fact that recovery pretty much requires that the person actually be motivated to recover. Additionally, people being treated for addictions, usually in rehab, are usually told to avoid anything addicting; people in rehab often cannot even eat chocolate or drink coffee. AA is not the only addiction support group people can join; if a judge sentences someone to AA specifically he's an idiot.
I suspect you're thinking of Penn & Teller's Bullshit! episode here. While they do make some good arguments, I don't think their point was more to the arbitrary nature of the 12-step programs and not the actual support groups themselves. Silly things like recognizing a higher power and other stuff, that's nonsense, but providing motivations for recovery, goalposts that they can look forward to--basically rewards--does help work.
But, even past all this, sometimes drugs really are necessary. No single treatment is ever a true guarantee.
What? COX had always sent us e-mails giving us X number of days to remove the material and to respond back saying you did so; I'm guessing you didn't check your official COX e-mail?
Yeah, they don't want scientists messing with their own kind.
Same is true of monkeys and chimpanzees and other apes.
However, we're similar enough that I think a human substitute might do.
One factor of larger brain sizes within a species is the relative size of that organism. Men tend to be larger than women which is probably why men tend to have larger brains.
The reason for this is, of course, because organisms would need a relatively larger brain to deal with having to cover a larger body.
Snuggles up quite closely to former lobbyists, though:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/14/AR2008111403922_pf.html
Anyway, the fact that you, thuggishly like so many Obama supporters on the internet, defend the man with threats of some nature; he disagrees with you over Obama, so you think he should be silenced with the Troll tag.
Love of Obama has become a sort of religion for many (not all, but many) Obama supporters. Obama is beyond criticism. Depending on when someone criticized Obama you'd instantly be pelted with candidate-centric mudslinging even if you did not express a preference for any candidate. For example, When criticizing Obama online, I was instantly deluged with attacks on (due to his internet popularity) Ron Paul, then later Hillary Clinton, and then finally McCain and THEN Palin, Palin, Palin. Obviously some politicians are better than others, some much better than others, and yes, Obama is much better than others. But he is both human and a politician, and Obama has been playing the same game as most mainstream politicians so far. No one is above criticism and politicians most of all should be treated skeptically.
But skepticism towards Barack? Unthinkable, for many of his followers.
As far as I'm concerned, for the most part any politician should vote "NO" the second a civil liberty is infringed upon. Obama is not principled enough to be willing to do that and it's part of the reason I cannot support the man.
Obama voted for FISA after saying he wouldn't. He and his cronies really don't have any room to complain. Why should Obama be able to snoop on "the people" when "the people" cannot snoop on him? Obama is potentially (being president at all) the most dangerous man in the nation as he is Commander-In Chief and probably the most powerful man in the world.
I'm not saying there shouldn't be any military secrets or stuff, of course, but the irony is just rather amusing.
Naturally, you're correct that it's a matter of perception. But when selling products to consumers, perception matters, right?
Yes, that's my point. Just market it differently and you make the crippled version be the normal version and all other versions have bonus features and it's the EXACT same thing.
Hell, the stripped-down version might otherwise allow people who couldn't buy the full version a chance at a new, modern operating system. Not sure why they'd choose Vista (lol) but you see my point?
Perception very much does matter, you are correct. But in the instance of law and such, it should take, or at least attempt to take, a more objective view of the matter.
I saw lemonparty before it was even called lemonparty. When I first saw goatse I laughed. And guess what? I was ~13 when I saw those images, too.
Those images themselves are not even innately disturbing. People are socially taught that those images are bad or disgusting.
As for lemonparty, to be only slightly tongue-in-cheek, are you saying old people should be ashamed for having sex, gay people, or old gay people...?
How do you determine what is a bonus feature and what was removed? Just shift names around and stuff and you can have exactly the same thing with the same effect.
There's really no problem with doing this.
And a better point is, which damage, exactly, is caused? Believe it or not, sex is not intrinsically "damaging" in the slightest. Attitudes toward sex, the same attitudes that caused this poor woman to be harassed, are what make any sight of sexual activity "damaging" by programming children to view sex negatively or as "forbidden" or something to hide and be ashamed of.
The mentality of the "justice" department and the prosecutor here have done far more damage to the teacher AND the "children" (12-13 year olds are not really that innocent, as you noted) involved.
Maybe once Biden gets in power he will think a little more like Cheney will :/