America was founded by Europeans, for the most part. It's not like it just popped into existence by people who knew no history. In fact, history played a great part in why they shaped our government the way they did, rightly or wrongly.
When you disagree with the vast majority of people in the country there's no reason to bother. Might as well just do something actually productive while the rest of the people in the country get to tell you how to live.
What's worse is that only only did they blatantly copy the Greeks parrot sketch, but they even copied (with some minor alterations) a humorous tale about a wandering preacher in The Life of Brian. Really, the Monty Python crew knew no shame.
This is the first time I've ever heard of regulation being good because it cuts out on competition. But I'm not surprised that conclusion would be acceptable. "Regulation" seems be an end unto itself. Any outcome is favorable so long as it constricts business growth.
The problem is is that "reasonable" is extremely subjective, often based more upon what the consumers is used to or sees in comparison for other consumers elsewhere. Then the people fist-pound over their rights as a consumer over the service and goods produced by the companies because essentially people (and yes, companies too work this way) want the best they can get and will always excuse it in their minds, so getting the government to make deals that benefit THEM even if it's taking things from other people is usually the norm in a democratic system. After all, everything is up for voting upon in a democracy, and people tend to view those that have more as not fairly sharing the wealth or not giving them what they deserve.
Oh, there we go again, conservatives crying about the need for deregulation. Poppycock, I say! I say the problem is a lack of regulation! Heap more regulations on top of the pile until it's all fixed, I say! It's a good thing PickupPal got stopped doing their illegal and immoral business practices. Someone has to stand up for the consumers, primarily those of the local bus company.
It's my car and I'd much prefer to do with it what I'd please- I see absolutely no reason the government has any say in this!!
Haven't you heard? Government = Democracy = We The People = We Can Tell You What To Do. Really, why do you conservative blowhards need to kick and scream every time Leviathan tells you, "No, You Can't, For The Greater Good?" You live in a complex society with complex interpersonal interactions, by living in our System you surrender your rights and dignity for the collective so you can live happily and freely. So what if the masses don't understand the implications and issues they vote upon the great deal of the time? At least we live in a marketplace of ideas, which I can tell you is a much better marketplace than the oppressive one with money and goods and slave wages.
Actually, they tend to do both at the same time. I'm not joking. Often they cry out, "six million more!"
Actually, they might be doing it somewhat violently and somewhat sarcastically.
David Cole is a holocaust denier that actually has Jewish heritage and isn't motivated by some hatred of Jews. The vast majority of holocaust deniers, however, have ties to anti-semitism....
But what if he didn't steal something? What if he committed some sort of anti-free speech law?
Imagine, for a second, you have a website that claims the holocaust wasn't real. Yeah yeah, stupid thing to claim, obviously, but within your rights and recognized as such in the USA. For the sake of sympathy imagine you're one of the David Cole-type holocaust deniers that is sincere and not motivated by anti-Semitism.
Imagine being tricked by Germany or Israel or some other government where that's a crime and being prosecuted there!
Their culture is totally irrelevant -- what IS relevant is if they're in pain, if their life is significantly impacted, and there is a medical treatment or cure available that could help them. THAT is where the focus needs to be, and culture only plays a role insofar as how to reach out to the patient and contextualize what's happening. disclaimer: not a doctor.
I'm not a doctor either, but I do know enough to at least comment on this; you, in all your ignorance of the subject, probably shouldn't be.
Part of the diagnosis for a psychological disorder uses culture as a context because culture sets the stage for what a person is likely to believe (as people are group animals, after all), what a person is likely to fit into their cognitive schema for how the world works. Diagnosing delusional beliefs isn't perfect, and it's certainly not based on what is objectively true because that's both impossible to determine.
Another dimension IS whether their "condition", if you call it that, is negatively impacting their life, or those around them. That is, personally distressing. You do not fit in with that criteria. You would never be diagnosed by a competent clinician simply because of your Wiccan beliefs because of this fact. You are not impinging on the lives of others, like, say, an antisocial or narcissistic person would, either. You do not fit the criteria for a delusional disorder in this context. Quit your bellyaching.
As psychological disorders has, in the scheme of things, been only very recently scientifically investigated, it's quite imperfect, especially since there is great difficulty investigating the neurological roots of many mental disorders. For example, schizophrenia, which can include, obviously, delusion and hallucination, is related in some ways to the dopamine neurotransmitter.
Wiccans always amuse me because they often feel they have a good opinion on something, when in fact they believe in a made-up religion less than a century old. Unlike Wicca, psychology is based on science--sometimes shoddy science, but that's true in all science. Good psychology, unlike Wicca, is NOT made up and so you do not really have a good foundation to be complaining here until you have done at least some cursory reading on clinical psychology and its methodology.
If you don't like this, you can always cast a spell for the Mother Goddess and perhaps she will use her magickal nature to change things.
Your entire post is rife with grammatical errors, fallacies, complete understandings, and jumps in "reason".
Sanity has nothing to do with what the objective reality is. That's not a benchmark anyone holds except probably yourself. It's what the evidence and reason for thinking is.
That you bemoan science for relying on evidence instead of your magical shamanistic "what I think is surely objective reality" tells me you're pretty much an
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. They're playing for the content.
America was founded by Europeans, for the most part. It's not like it just popped into existence by people who knew no history. In fact, history played a great part in why they shaped our government the way they did, rightly or wrongly.
When you disagree with the vast majority of people in the country there's no reason to bother. Might as well just do something actually productive while the rest of the people in the country get to tell you how to live.
Considering that instances of true net neutrality issues have been extremely far and few between (basically, nonexistant)... hmmm.
So then who the fuck enforces the regulations!?!?!?!
By working in the private sector I believe he probably flipped burgers at Burger King. Now he works for the DMV.
Any examples? Was Jesus a pervert?
*not only, oops.
I'll have to check them out when I have time.
What I find really interesting is the graffiti from those times. Stuff about elections, dirty jokes (which you'd still find funny today), and so on.
What's worse is that only only did they blatantly copy the Greeks parrot sketch, but they even copied (with some minor alterations) a humorous tale about a wandering preacher in The Life of Brian. Really, the Monty Python crew knew no shame.
This is the first time I've ever heard of regulation being good because it cuts out on competition. But I'm not surprised that conclusion would be acceptable. "Regulation" seems be an end unto itself. Any outcome is favorable so long as it constricts business growth.
The problem is is that "reasonable" is extremely subjective, often based more upon what the consumers is used to or sees in comparison for other consumers elsewhere. Then the people fist-pound over their rights as a consumer over the service and goods produced by the companies because essentially people (and yes, companies too work this way) want the best they can get and will always excuse it in their minds, so getting the government to make deals that benefit THEM even if it's taking things from other people is usually the norm in a democratic system. After all, everything is up for voting upon in a democracy, and people tend to view those that have more as not fairly sharing the wealth or not giving them what they deserve.
Even more so Bastiat's story about the candle maker wanting to outlaw the sun for unfair competition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candlemakers'_petition
Democracy works--in theory.
Oh, there we go again, conservatives crying about the need for deregulation. Poppycock, I say! I say the problem is a lack of regulation! Heap more regulations on top of the pile until it's all fixed, I say! It's a good thing PickupPal got stopped doing their illegal and immoral business practices. Someone has to stand up for the consumers, primarily those of the local bus company.
It's my car and I'd much prefer to do with it what I'd please- I see absolutely no reason the government has any say in this!!
Haven't you heard? Government = Democracy = We The People = We Can Tell You What To Do. Really, why do you conservative blowhards need to kick and scream every time Leviathan tells you, "No, You Can't, For The Greater Good?" You live in a complex society with complex interpersonal interactions, by living in our System you surrender your rights and dignity for the collective so you can live happily and freely. So what if the masses don't understand the implications and issues they vote upon the great deal of the time? At least we live in a marketplace of ideas, which I can tell you is a much better marketplace than the oppressive one with money and goods and slave wages.
Actually, they tend to do both at the same time. I'm not joking. Often they cry out, "six million more!"
Actually, they might be doing it somewhat violently and somewhat sarcastically.
David Cole is a holocaust denier that actually has Jewish heritage and isn't motivated by some hatred of Jews. The vast majority of holocaust deniers, however, have ties to anti-semitism....
Sure, ok, the guy did a criminal thing.
But what if he didn't steal something? What if he committed some sort of anti-free speech law?
Imagine, for a second, you have a website that claims the holocaust wasn't real. Yeah yeah, stupid thing to claim, obviously, but within your rights and recognized as such in the USA. For the sake of sympathy imagine you're one of the David Cole-type holocaust deniers that is sincere and not motivated by anti-Semitism.
Imagine being tricked by Germany or Israel or some other government where that's a crime and being prosecuted there!
This makes me uncomfortable...
Psychology is fundamentally flawed because we cannot say/agree authoritatively what people should be thinking.
You have no idea of what psychology even is.
Hardly mind control, even if such technology exists.
It worked so well that they ended up killing people. Yeah, whatever.
Their culture is totally irrelevant -- what IS relevant is if they're in pain, if their life is significantly impacted, and there is a medical treatment or cure available that could help them. THAT is where the focus needs to be, and culture only plays a role insofar as how to reach out to the patient and contextualize what's happening. disclaimer: not a doctor.
I'm not a doctor either, but I do know enough to at least comment on this; you, in all your ignorance of the subject, probably shouldn't be.
Part of the diagnosis for a psychological disorder uses culture as a context because culture sets the stage for what a person is likely to believe (as people are group animals, after all), what a person is likely to fit into their cognitive schema for how the world works. Diagnosing delusional beliefs isn't perfect, and it's certainly not based on what is objectively true because that's both impossible to determine.
Another dimension IS whether their "condition", if you call it that, is negatively impacting their life, or those around them. That is, personally distressing. You do not fit in with that criteria. You would never be diagnosed by a competent clinician simply because of your Wiccan beliefs because of this fact. You are not impinging on the lives of others, like, say, an antisocial or narcissistic person would, either. You do not fit the criteria for a delusional disorder in this context. Quit your bellyaching.
As psychological disorders has, in the scheme of things, been only very recently scientifically investigated, it's quite imperfect, especially since there is great difficulty investigating the neurological roots of many mental disorders. For example, schizophrenia, which can include, obviously, delusion and hallucination, is related in some ways to the dopamine neurotransmitter.
Wiccans always amuse me because they often feel they have a good opinion on something, when in fact they believe in a made-up religion less than a century old. Unlike Wicca, psychology is based on science--sometimes shoddy science, but that's true in all science. Good psychology, unlike Wicca, is NOT made up and so you do not really have a good foundation to be complaining here until you have done at least some cursory reading on clinical psychology and its methodology.
If you don't like this, you can always cast a spell for the Mother Goddess and perhaps she will use her magickal nature to change things.
Probably not.
*sigh* that's women in business for you.
Sounds like paranoid personality disorder.
"athiest"
"coarse"
"unusal"
"certianly"
"presepctive"
"athiest" (again)
"diest"
Your entire post is rife with grammatical errors, fallacies, complete understandings, and jumps in "reason".
Sanity has nothing to do with what the objective reality is. That's not a benchmark anyone holds except probably yourself. It's what the evidence and reason for thinking is.
That you bemoan science for relying on evidence instead of your magical shamanistic "what I think is surely objective reality" tells me you're pretty much an
idiot.
I mean, I'm not a huge fan of psychology myself
What do you even know about psychology? Not much, I bet.
Easy for the ignorant to spout off opinions on things they know little about.