but a 10 month work year is pretty close to three months off, It wasn't exact, sure, but it's not like I just made up something that isn't at all indicative of the point I was trying to make. I mean, it's two months off plus whatever additional vacation time they get during the work year. do YOU get two months off, ever? I sure as hell don't. Most people with full time jobs don't. that's a massive, massive perk.
I would LOVE to have even one month off a year. that would be amazing.
the preceding statement to "the union is a horrible monstrosity" wasn't an argument for it. It was stating my position. I love teachers, as a whole, at least I love good ones. simultaneously, I think the teacher's union does a massive amount of irreparable harm to educational innovation in this country. I don't think that BECAUSE I like teachers, I think that because they roadblock change that might ever think about bringing the idea of merit into education.
Maybe you should learn english before you critique my "logic". First, learn to identify an argument, then attack it.
I didn't really give that point enough credit in the other post, you're right, you should compare to other college graduates. However, again, there are unique perks teachers have that most other college graduates don't, unless they become professors at secondary insitutions: tenure.
I know of no other profession where I can retain my job no matter what unless I shoot a kid in the face while I'm on duty. That is a monstrous policy with horrible side effects.
Beyond that I'm giving the impression I don't respect teachers and I don't mean to. I like everyone else have plenty of stories of excellent teachers (and duds too, of course) that had huge impacts on me and my developement over the years. A good teacher is an amazing thing.
But most aren't good, they are just competent, same as in any field. and while they do have plenty of work to do outside of the classroom, that still barely approaches the working hours of any other job.
I mean really. 3 months vacation PLUS school vacations. Minus some out of class time. it does NOT balance out. That's over 500 hours of work differential over the summer, plus a few more weeks throughout the year. Most people are lucky to get more than two weeks of vacation a year.
I'm not saying it's EASY. But I am saying it's less hours than most other full time jobs, over the course of the year.
How much does a teacher make that has a summer job?
I'll save you the math, statewide the average income is 34.5k/year for an entire family.
So, a teacher with NO experience can walk into a teaching job and start earning almost as much as most households in maine.
and they get 3 months off a year plus vacations.
Really, my heart bleeds.
The teacher's union cares nothing for education. Standing in the way of vouchers proves it. any place in north america that has experimented with parent choice as a motivator for schools and assignment of funding has seen dramatic success, yet, the teacher's union won't hear of it. really, read up. harlem is looking to switch wholesale..
I love teachers and have several as close friends. and the union is a horrible monstrosity that shows that wild un-unionized labor is horribly exploitable, so is a system with a heavily entrenched union, just by different people.
at what point in history has a pure democracy ever been tried?
As far as I can tell, the reason we're a republic is that people who have power tend to believe they deserve it, and to believe that people who don't have power, shouldn't.. at least, not too much.
Do you have examples to the contrary, beyond the theoretical?
obviously to BE a desktop the monitor must be much larger than now, which obviates the additional precision requirement problem.
look at your desk now. ok, my desk. piles of papers, books, folders; all this can be rendered digitally. if I can reach out and touch a "pile" instead of a pile there is no downside. there is no function my current desktop serves that a sufficiently large multitouch display could not serve.
I don't have to draw on it with pens an rulers. I can use fingers and virtual buttons very easily, thanks; faster and more easily than a mouse on a dual widescreen monitor setup at 1600x1200 on each monitor.
that's interesting. I used to draw blueprints for hours at a time. I fail to see why I couldn't do the same thing but on a computer screen instead of a table. Sure, the screen can't be 90 degrees to your desktop anymore, but then, if you have full size multitouch display.. why would you need a desk top anymore?
you don't have to wave your hands around in thin air to make this interface hands down (erm, ok, pun intended) the best thing since sliced bread. you can interact with all the items in your computer like items on your desk, almost, and revert to a keyboard as necessary, and make the mouse a needless abstraction.. even less convenient as you have to crank up your acceleration to deal with larger and larger amounts of screen real estate (and sacrificing precision in the process).
that's funny, did I ever say my point of view was universal, with no exceptions? It still stands. In general, effective communication is very worthwhile and crapping on people for attempting to use it is stupid. That is STILL the only thing I ever said anywhere in this thread, no matter how ridiculously you might attempt to make it otherwise.
but hey, way to go, captain obvious, effective communication isn't always 100% absolutely every time completely necessary. WOW, my eyes are open now, THANK YOU SO MUCH, i never would have thought of that. Your mighty insight is so amazing!
last word is yours. Since you spend all your time making points against non existant arguements, I can only dream what you will make up for my stance to be this time. Perhaps, I was saying we should euthanize people who are less than perfect? That would be a great notion to disabuse me of! have at it.
I knew you were trying to set that up, and when it's obvious the shithead you are discussing with is not discussing in good faith, then I have nothing possible to lose in not being civil... at least, whatever possibility there is gets more and more remote as the charade is maintained. So the need to be "effective" with you has gotten less and less with each ridiculously childish post of yours that simply invents shits I never said and who can't comprehend simple english.
You're a transparent little troll who obviously has no value to his own time or that of anyone elses. I'm not surprised. I wouldn't value myself at all either, if I were you.
DNA is not a program. there is more to it than that.
if you chronically do not get proper nutrition growing up, for example, whether you had einstein DNA or T.Rex DNA, you won't be able to realize the full potential of your natural abilities.
just watched a perfect example of that this evening; the fistula epidemic in africa. girls who don't get enough calories growing up working hard grow up small. They can't birth easily and have massive complications. They would have grown taller if they had enough to eat for the work they were doing, but they did not.
Likewise, intelligence is only useful, truly useful, with an education. Otherwise, it can just as easily be turned to figuring out how to kill people as to how to help them.
DNA just gives you an upper boundary. Environment, lifestyle, culture reduce that to some degree; more in some situations than in others, but some reduction in all cases.
this starts off as the most insightful thing I've ever seen you post, focusing on humanity in general. what's with the end focusing, again, on chinese and arabs?
"Such as, acknowledging that you are not the sole arbiter of truth or reason, and therefor showing basic respect to others is quite simply more effective than not showing it."
That statement just says it's more effective to be cool than not to be. Nowhere in it do I even come close to implying that people should be forced to be "effective", which would be censorship. I just offerred my advice which any free person can ignore at will and I'm quite happy with that, even though I think you're missing out if you do.
I don't know how you could possibly misread the statement that badly, unless you're trying to, which you probably are. The only other explanation is that you're a total moron who doesn't understand english, or you're a paranoid schizophrenic who is desperately trying to read some kind of "conspiracy" into my words by "reading between the lines".
Sadly, I just wrote what I meant and nothing more. so, up your meds, read up, or up yours, as you like.
Where, in any of my posts, did I advocate for censoring anyone else, telling them what they CAN and CAN NOT do?
Go ahead and look, I'll wait. You have chosen to make huge assumptions about who I am and what I'm trying to say, so go ahead and take as much time as you need backing up that assertion.
All I said was, it's stupid to get pissed at people who choose to try to communicate effectively, rather than just spewing whatever comes into their head without regard for their listener. You are, of course, free to be as stupid as you wish. If you think you are serving some purpose being a flaming troll, go for it. More power to you.
Of course, your wildly off the mark tirade is a pretty good example of why it's generally best to consider your thoughts before spewing them, even when you think you are sure about something, so thanks for the handy example.
If you're tired of looking, I in no way support external censorship of any kind. You are free to be as insulting, juvenile and hateful as you like, and I am free to point out how insulting, juvenile and hateful you are, and to think you're an asshole because of it. I would simply suggest that if that happens, you might not have to wonder why.
if you know it distresses the person you are talking to, then it does make you an asshole. You don't have to apologize, per se, but at least acknowledging the person's feelings on the matter is the civilized thing to do.
NOT doing that is very clearly sending the message that you don't care what your listener thinks. That may very well be the way you feel; but sending that message is not effective communication, and it's not civil, it's hostile and confrontational, and the cause of a lot of bad communications.
Either you respect your listener or you don't. The truth of that matter comes through very clearly and makes a difference.
you're a fucking moron, retard. why don't you shut the fuck up and kill yourself, because every word out of your mouth bores the shit out of me and you're wasting my air.
-Yes, that would be a much more productive way to run a conversation. Perhaps self-censorship does serve a purpose. Such as, acknowledging that you are not the sole arbiter of truth or reason, and therefor showing basic respect to others is quite simply more effective than not showing it. In fact, if you aren't going to bother trying to communicate effectively... which includes tailoring your language for your audience so they hear what you are saying and not what they think you're saying, as they do when you use loaded language... why bother communicate at all?
yeah, communicating effectively with people instead of flaming them is certainly cause to get "fed up".
When you try to express a concept that might piss people off, and you aren't trying to piss people off, saying so and expressing sensitivity to their beliefs isn't "PC", it's basic technique of a civilized person in conversation.
note the word "civilized" typically connotes that you are attempting to be a civil person. While being an opinionated asshole is easy and fun (believe me, I know!) it is not effective communication unless your goal is to intimidate your listeners.
I share your impatience with people with thin skins; I also share on a personal level your disdain for those people's "maturity". but the fact is, people are different, and some people have thin skins for legitimate reasons you have no knowledge of. recognizing that is simply showing your listener that you have a basic respect for them as a human being, and it typically goes a lot further to achieve final understanding that just beating them about the head with their own "hot buttons".
in short, showing a little respect, deserved or not, is what it means to be civilized, IMHO. I don't always follow this. But whining about PC stuff is old and tired. Yeah, some people suck and are stupid and wussy; and it's still cool to be cool to people, by and large.
if we destroy the entire natural food chain, a few million "brown skinned africans" starts to look like a sunday picnic real fast. biodiversity is important; it's not just neat, or cool. it's essential, for survival. pretending that we can destroy everything around us and generate a massive man-made monoculture is the kind of simplistic thinking that turned large chunks of africa into a desert in the first place, created the dust bowl, the potato famine, and creates a massive vulnerability to the survival of our race. we can have massive fields of GM wheat. then one new superbug comes along, and half the world dies. not smart.
it's not a matter of preferring the death of humans over other animals. it's that, very simply, the choice is not that black and white. Ultimately, you kill the goose laying golden eggs if you do not caretake the environment to some degree. Take honeybees. if honeybees all died out, we would be screwed in pretty short order. I'd rather see a whole lot of honeybees die than a person; but I would rather see a whole lot of people die than ALL the honeybees (or most of them). Because if you made a different choice, a whole lot MORE people will die later.
there are wackos and profiteers all over the place, including big business capitalists who want to control you for their own greed, and left wing socialists who want to control you "for your own good". So how about you ignore wackos and assholes and just look at the issues? You can always pick a straw man or a stereotype to support any bias you wish. Try something a little more intellectually honest.
As a businessman, I can tell you the "Devil" you speak of exists; and it is cynicism and apathy, resulting in inaction. You don't have to try to create a nightmare world; that is a natural result of unchecked capitalism until the last generation that can plunder resources with impunity passes (remember, capitalism has no forethought beyond the lifespan of the people currently making the decisions). You just have to stop trying to prevent it. Don't think about where your dumped chemicals go; don't think about sacrificing some profit to safeguard the environment; certainly don't think about pressuring anyone else in business to think about those things if your bottom line might be impacted. and it's not one guy with reins of power. it's a huge mass of people, each making small, individually inconsequential decisions, that collectively create the nightmare of collapsing sea stocks, mercury, smog, lead.. on and on. that's what I'm saying; the problem is US, the people, the workers, the middle managers, all of us that just want to live our lives without regard for the big picture, it really is. it's the death of a thousand cuts.
Thinking critically is not an excuse for inaction, just as acting with good intentions is not an excuse to stop thinking critically. Anyone with a brain can see as our population grows, the freedom of the individual will be curtailed; either through democratic, but governmental systems, OR by force as we enter a period of massive wars for resources. We cannot fabricate everything needed to support life indefinitely; we cannot innovate ourselves off of this rock while the pressures of energy and food and ultimately war drain more and more of our current focus as time goes on. Something is going to give, and no one is going to roll over and die without a fight.
Personally, I'd rather deal with beuracracy, including population control, than wholesale murder where the victor is the most bloodthirsty and merciless. Some sort of centralized control will, at some point, be necessary. Or, major calamity is the inevitable result.
the only other option is that we, as a species, learn to co-operate on a scale never before seen, across borders. I would LOVE for that to be the option we choose. but it will take MOST people deciding that they ARE willing to give up some things in order to make things better for everyone; the prisoner's dilemna. and the only way I se
tyrants have historically ruled mankind. what kind of rose colored glasses are you looking at history though? This is the first time in history mankind has had any other option, short of living alone in the middle of a vast, unpopulated area. and even then, if you bred, sooner or later your tribe would be dominated by the biggest dude around willing to hit you with a club.
I mean seriously, you're entering the realm of the completely delusional at this point. yes, some people want power. ok; I get it. Other people, most of us of course, just don't want to give up one ounce of anything unless we have to. If we are ever going to be "controlled", that is the mechanism to use to control us. you're missing the forest for the trees.
I never said we could kill nature. nature doesn't give two shits about any of this. I only care that the world is not a nightmare place to be, for human beings. That involves little things like biodiversity, ample and affordable foodstocks, less war and not dumping mass amounts of toxic waste into our environment. nature doesn't matter to me at all if it doesn't include hospitable environments for me and my kind. the problem is, we're doing our best to make that the case.
ah hell, we'll solve all those issues, I forgot. why actually DO anything? someone will figure it out. the problem certainly isn't you or me, it's them. and that's why I doubt we will "innovate" our way out of all this without massive calamity.
we've survived so far, so obviously we are destined to continue? Wow. you really are in the magic fairy crowd.
that is exactly the kind of attitude that people use as a cop-out to absolve themselves of any responsibility they have for their own actions. That's such a shallow and ridiculous standpoint I don't even know where to begin. I'll give it a shot though; we have way more people than we've ever had before; those people demand more resources than they ever have before; we have weapons that can destroy far more than we ever have before; and no one wants to reduce their standard of living, apparently unless every single other person in the world does it first (the prisoner's dilemna).
again, I don't live my life as if we are doomed and I hope we are not and I do my best to contribute to making sure we are not.. but, not being an idiot, I also don't have blind faith that "people", being some magic force apparently, "will figure it out". People accept stupid bullshit too, like thinking that because we have figured some stuff out previously like the black plague, AIDS, wars (and apparently we figured them out fast enough and effectively enough that the billions dead and the millions starving now are not consequences worthy of note?) we are immune to all future calamity.
as for your fear of the "agenda", look at it this way; if you live in a city, you can't live the same way you can in the countryside. In the country, I can run around burning piles of brush all day, no one cares. On the sidewalk in new york city, that would be a bigger deal. Well, as the world gets more populated, it's legitimately the same kind of progression; your actions more directly affect your neighbors, and so they do have more of a say. You can personify that fact and pull out your tin foil hat, and that just makes you a crackpot.
That's the increasing population game, my man. If you don't like it, then the answer is not to have an endlessly growing population or push real damn hard for space travel to "expand our way" out of the problem. Your focus on political structures in the face of the kinds of issues facing us though is, frankly, myopic and ridiculous, and it's exactly why humanity sucks at the prisoner's dilemna until the danger is both immense and completely undeniable. because nothing less allows us to make any kind of sacrifice at all, en mass.
the solution it provides is that if we completely decimate this earth and it becomes uninhabitable, humanity will still exist elsewhere. Not that it will save the earth.
not that I am advocating that as a solution.. it's a cop out to avoid making rational decisions about our current situation (cue, magic fairies will fix all our problems, or god, or technology, so none of us need to do anything). but your interpretation of what the arguement is, is off.
Personally I think it's much more likely that escalating world needs will drive up the cost of food, energy, all the necessities of life to the point that resource expenditure in other luxury areas, like other science not related to feeding or killing people who are using resources your country needs, and space travel, will grind to a halt slowly, and then leave us to grind ourselves into dust.
Unless, of course, we decide to act collectively and rationally. That seems pretty unlikely though. and hey, magic fairies will probably show up any day. so screw it, why try?
I was walking down the street today and I had skipped lunch. That hobo I passed that didn't buy me a sandwich was a real asshole, eh?
Now that would be an appropriate analogy, but only if the hobo were a quadriplegic schizophrenic crack addict and if I were, say, the sole owner of ConAgra foods. And we were standing in one of my Peter Pan Peanut Butter factories.
You may differentiate between an authorization for military force and war. I do not. When you authorize our president to kill people, that is war by any useful definition of the term as far as I am concerned. If you want to play semantics, go for it. You can dance around and excuse those who errantly made colossal errors in judgement. I do not. I regard war as a necessary evil in some cases, but I will not split hairs between military actions, police actions, and war and I will not excuse those who wield that power lightly. Our government pointing guns and bombs at people and killing them is war. But I have the freedom to see that clearly, because I am not a lawyer.
I never said it was *primarily* congress's fault. but the fact is, it could not have happened without them, and the democrats share culpability.
I am CERTAINLY not saying the republicans are better. They are both weasels and cowards. and you are wasting your time jumping to the defense of one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
sorry, I misspoke when I said average.
but a 10 month work year is pretty close to three months off, It wasn't exact, sure, but it's not like I just made up something that isn't at all indicative of the point I was trying to make. I mean, it's two months off plus whatever additional vacation time they get during the work year. do YOU get two months off, ever? I sure as hell don't. Most people with full time jobs don't. that's a massive, massive perk.
I would LOVE to have even one month off a year. that would be amazing.
that's logic?
the preceding statement to "the union is a horrible monstrosity" wasn't an argument for it. It was stating my position. I love teachers, as a whole, at least I love good ones. simultaneously, I think the teacher's union does a massive amount of irreparable harm to educational innovation in this country. I don't think that BECAUSE I like teachers, I think that because they roadblock change that might ever think about bringing the idea of merit into education.
Maybe you should learn english before you critique my "logic". First, learn to identify an argument, then attack it.
I didn't really give that point enough credit in the other post, you're right, you should compare to other college graduates. However, again, there are unique perks teachers have that most other college graduates don't, unless they become professors at secondary insitutions: tenure.
I know of no other profession where I can retain my job no matter what unless I shoot a kid in the face while I'm on duty. That is a monstrous policy with horrible side effects.
Beyond that I'm giving the impression I don't respect teachers and I don't mean to. I like everyone else have plenty of stories of excellent teachers (and duds too, of course) that had huge impacts on me and my developement over the years. A good teacher is an amazing thing.
But most aren't good, they are just competent, same as in any field. and while they do have plenty of work to do outside of the classroom, that still barely approaches the working hours of any other job.
I mean really. 3 months vacation PLUS school vacations. Minus some out of class time. it does NOT balance out. That's over 500 hours of work differential over the summer, plus a few more weeks throughout the year. Most people are lucky to get more than two weeks of vacation a year.
I'm not saying it's EASY. But I am saying it's less hours than most other full time jobs, over the course of the year.
How much does a teacher make that has a summer job?
Really?
Have you ever talked to a teacher?
I'll tell you what though; You get tenure axed, and we can talk about increasing pay on merit. how is that?
compared to who?
I mean, I know they *complain* a lot about their pay, but here is some pay scales here in maine: http://www.teacher-world.com/teacher-salary/maine.html
not huge, but be aware of the median values in the state: http://www.state.me.us/spo/economics/economic/householdincome.htm
I'll save you the math, statewide the average income is 34.5k/year for an entire family.
So, a teacher with NO experience can walk into a teaching job and start earning almost as much as most households in maine.
and they get 3 months off a year plus vacations.
Really, my heart bleeds.
The teacher's union cares nothing for education. Standing in the way of vouchers proves it. any place in north america that has experimented with parent choice as a motivator for schools and assignment of funding has seen dramatic success, yet, the teacher's union won't hear of it. really, read up. harlem is looking to switch wholesale..
I love teachers and have several as close friends. and the union is a horrible monstrosity that shows that wild un-unionized labor is horribly exploitable, so is a system with a heavily entrenched union, just by different people.
really?
at what point in history has a pure democracy ever been tried?
As far as I can tell, the reason we're a republic is that people who have power tend to believe they deserve it, and to believe that people who don't have power, shouldn't.. at least, not too much.
Do you have examples to the contrary, beyond the theoretical?
obviously to BE a desktop the monitor must be much larger than now, which obviates the additional precision requirement problem.
look at your desk now. ok, my desk. piles of papers, books, folders; all this can be rendered digitally. if I can reach out and touch a "pile" instead of a pile there is no downside. there is no function my current desktop serves that a sufficiently large multitouch display could not serve.
I don't have to draw on it with pens an rulers. I can use fingers and virtual buttons very easily, thanks; faster and more easily than a mouse on a dual widescreen monitor setup at 1600x1200 on each monitor.
that's interesting. I used to draw blueprints for hours at a time. I fail to see why I couldn't do the same thing but on a computer screen instead of a table. Sure, the screen can't be 90 degrees to your desktop anymore, but then, if you have full size multitouch display.. why would you need a desk top anymore?
you don't have to wave your hands around in thin air to make this interface hands down (erm, ok, pun intended) the best thing since sliced bread. you can interact with all the items in your computer like items on your desk, almost, and revert to a keyboard as necessary, and make the mouse a needless abstraction.. even less convenient as you have to crank up your acceleration to deal with larger and larger amounts of screen real estate (and sacrificing precision in the process).
that's funny, did I ever say my point of view was universal, with no exceptions? It still stands. In general, effective communication is very worthwhile and crapping on people for attempting to use it is stupid. That is STILL the only thing I ever said anywhere in this thread, no matter how ridiculously you might attempt to make it otherwise.
but hey, way to go, captain obvious, effective communication isn't always 100% absolutely every time completely necessary. WOW, my eyes are open now, THANK YOU SO MUCH, i never would have thought of that. Your mighty insight is so amazing!
last word is yours. Since you spend all your time making points against non existant arguements, I can only dream what you will make up for my stance to be this time. Perhaps, I was saying we should euthanize people who are less than perfect? That would be a great notion to disabuse me of! have at it.
I knew you were trying to set that up, and when it's obvious the shithead you are discussing with is not discussing in good faith, then I have nothing possible to lose in not being civil... at least, whatever possibility there is gets more and more remote as the charade is maintained. So the need to be "effective" with you has gotten less and less with each ridiculously childish post of yours that simply invents shits I never said and who can't comprehend simple english.
You're a transparent little troll who obviously has no value to his own time or that of anyone elses. I'm not surprised. I wouldn't value myself at all either, if I were you.
DNA is not a program. there is more to it than that.
if you chronically do not get proper nutrition growing up, for example, whether you had einstein DNA or T.Rex DNA, you won't be able to realize the full potential of your natural abilities.
just watched a perfect example of that this evening; the fistula epidemic in africa. girls who don't get enough calories growing up working hard grow up small. They can't birth easily and have massive complications. They would have grown taller if they had enough to eat for the work they were doing, but they did not.
Likewise, intelligence is only useful, truly useful, with an education. Otherwise, it can just as easily be turned to figuring out how to kill people as to how to help them.
DNA just gives you an upper boundary. Environment, lifestyle, culture reduce that to some degree; more in some situations than in others, but some reduction in all cases.
this starts off as the most insightful thing I've ever seen you post, focusing on humanity in general. what's with the end focusing, again, on chinese and arabs?
"Such as, acknowledging that you are not the sole arbiter of truth or reason, and therefor showing basic respect to others is quite simply more effective than not showing it."
That statement just says it's more effective to be cool than not to be. Nowhere in it do I even come close to implying that people should be forced to be "effective", which would be censorship. I just offerred my advice which any free person can ignore at will and I'm quite happy with that, even though I think you're missing out if you do.
I don't know how you could possibly misread the statement that badly, unless you're trying to, which you probably are. The only other explanation is that you're a total moron who doesn't understand english, or you're a paranoid schizophrenic who is desperately trying to read some kind of "conspiracy" into my words by "reading between the lines".
Sadly, I just wrote what I meant and nothing more. so, up your meds, read up, or up yours, as you like.
Where, in any of my posts, did I advocate for censoring anyone else, telling them what they CAN and CAN NOT do?
Go ahead and look, I'll wait. You have chosen to make huge assumptions about who I am and what I'm trying to say, so go ahead and take as much time as you need backing up that assertion.
All I said was, it's stupid to get pissed at people who choose to try to communicate effectively, rather than just spewing whatever comes into their head without regard for their listener. You are, of course, free to be as stupid as you wish. If you think you are serving some purpose being a flaming troll, go for it. More power to you.
Of course, your wildly off the mark tirade is a pretty good example of why it's generally best to consider your thoughts before spewing them, even when you think you are sure about something, so thanks for the handy example.
If you're tired of looking, I in no way support external censorship of any kind. You are free to be as insulting, juvenile and hateful as you like, and I am free to point out how insulting, juvenile and hateful you are, and to think you're an asshole because of it. I would simply suggest that if that happens, you might not have to wonder why.
if you know it distresses the person you are talking to, then it does make you an asshole. You don't have to apologize, per se, but at least acknowledging the person's feelings on the matter is the civilized thing to do.
NOT doing that is very clearly sending the message that you don't care what your listener thinks. That may very well be the way you feel; but sending that message is not effective communication, and it's not civil, it's hostile and confrontational, and the cause of a lot of bad communications.
Either you respect your listener or you don't. The truth of that matter comes through very clearly and makes a difference.
you're a fucking moron, retard. why don't you shut the fuck up and kill yourself, because every word out of your mouth bores the shit out of me and you're wasting my air.
-Yes, that would be a much more productive way to run a conversation. Perhaps self-censorship does serve a purpose. Such as, acknowledging that you are not the sole arbiter of truth or reason, and therefor showing basic respect to others is quite simply more effective than not showing it. In fact, if you aren't going to bother trying to communicate effectively... which includes tailoring your language for your audience so they hear what you are saying and not what they think you're saying, as they do when you use loaded language... why bother communicate at all?
yeah, communicating effectively with people instead of flaming them is certainly cause to get "fed up".
When you try to express a concept that might piss people off, and you aren't trying to piss people off, saying so and expressing sensitivity to their beliefs isn't "PC", it's basic technique of a civilized person in conversation.
note the word "civilized" typically connotes that you are attempting to be a civil person. While being an opinionated asshole is easy and fun (believe me, I know!) it is not effective communication unless your goal is to intimidate your listeners.
I share your impatience with people with thin skins; I also share on a personal level your disdain for those people's "maturity". but the fact is, people are different, and some people have thin skins for legitimate reasons you have no knowledge of. recognizing that is simply showing your listener that you have a basic respect for them as a human being, and it typically goes a lot further to achieve final understanding that just beating them about the head with their own "hot buttons".
in short, showing a little respect, deserved or not, is what it means to be civilized, IMHO. I don't always follow this. But whining about PC stuff is old and tired. Yeah, some people suck and are stupid and wussy; and it's still cool to be cool to people, by and large.
but, isn't this study in fact proving that talking to a passenger IS, in fact, dangerous, just like talking on a cell phone?
distraction is dangerous.
if we destroy the entire natural food chain, a few million "brown skinned africans" starts to look like a sunday picnic real fast. biodiversity is important; it's not just neat, or cool. it's essential, for survival. pretending that we can destroy everything around us and generate a massive man-made monoculture is the kind of simplistic thinking that turned large chunks of africa into a desert in the first place, created the dust bowl, the potato famine, and creates a massive vulnerability to the survival of our race. we can have massive fields of GM wheat. then one new superbug comes along, and half the world dies. not smart.
it's not a matter of preferring the death of humans over other animals. it's that, very simply, the choice is not that black and white. Ultimately, you kill the goose laying golden eggs if you do not caretake the environment to some degree. Take honeybees. if honeybees all died out, we would be screwed in pretty short order. I'd rather see a whole lot of honeybees die than a person; but I would rather see a whole lot of people die than ALL the honeybees (or most of them). Because if you made a different choice, a whole lot MORE people will die later.
there are wackos and profiteers all over the place, including big business capitalists who want to control you for their own greed, and left wing socialists who want to control you "for your own good". So how about you ignore wackos and assholes and just look at the issues? You can always pick a straw man or a stereotype to support any bias you wish. Try something a little more intellectually honest.
As a businessman, I can tell you the "Devil" you speak of exists; and it is cynicism and apathy, resulting in inaction. You don't have to try to create a nightmare world; that is a natural result of unchecked capitalism until the last generation that can plunder resources with impunity passes (remember, capitalism has no forethought beyond the lifespan of the people currently making the decisions). You just have to stop trying to prevent it. Don't think about where your dumped chemicals go; don't think about sacrificing some profit to safeguard the environment; certainly don't think about pressuring anyone else in business to think about those things if your bottom line might be impacted. and it's not one guy with reins of power. it's a huge mass of people, each making small, individually inconsequential decisions, that collectively create the nightmare of collapsing sea stocks, mercury, smog, lead.. on and on. that's what I'm saying; the problem is US, the people, the workers, the middle managers, all of us that just want to live our lives without regard for the big picture, it really is. it's the death of a thousand cuts.
Thinking critically is not an excuse for inaction, just as acting with good intentions is not an excuse to stop thinking critically. Anyone with a brain can see as our population grows, the freedom of the individual will be curtailed; either through democratic, but governmental systems, OR by force as we enter a period of massive wars for resources. We cannot fabricate everything needed to support life indefinitely; we cannot innovate ourselves off of this rock while the pressures of energy and food and ultimately war drain more and more of our current focus as time goes on. Something is going to give, and no one is going to roll over and die without a fight.
Personally, I'd rather deal with beuracracy, including population control, than wholesale murder where the victor is the most bloodthirsty and merciless. Some sort of centralized control will, at some point, be necessary. Or, major calamity is the inevitable result.
the only other option is that we, as a species, learn to co-operate on a scale never before seen, across borders. I would LOVE for that to be the option we choose. but it will take MOST people deciding that they ARE willing to give up some things in order to make things better for everyone; the prisoner's dilemna. and the only way I se
tyrants have historically ruled mankind. what kind of rose colored glasses are you looking at history though? This is the first time in history mankind has had any other option, short of living alone in the middle of a vast, unpopulated area. and even then, if you bred, sooner or later your tribe would be dominated by the biggest dude around willing to hit you with a club.
I mean seriously, you're entering the realm of the completely delusional at this point. yes, some people want power. ok; I get it. Other people, most of us of course, just don't want to give up one ounce of anything unless we have to. If we are ever going to be "controlled", that is the mechanism to use to control us. you're missing the forest for the trees.
I never said we could kill nature. nature doesn't give two shits about any of this. I only care that the world is not a nightmare place to be, for human beings. That involves little things like biodiversity, ample and affordable foodstocks, less war and not dumping mass amounts of toxic waste into our environment. nature doesn't matter to me at all if it doesn't include hospitable environments for me and my kind. the problem is, we're doing our best to make that the case.
ah hell, we'll solve all those issues, I forgot. why actually DO anything? someone will figure it out. the problem certainly isn't you or me, it's them. and that's why I doubt we will "innovate" our way out of all this without massive calamity.
what kind of stupid argument is that?
we've survived so far, so obviously we are destined to continue? Wow. you really are in the magic fairy crowd.
that is exactly the kind of attitude that people use as a cop-out to absolve themselves of any responsibility they have for their own actions. That's such a shallow and ridiculous standpoint I don't even know where to begin. I'll give it a shot though; we have way more people than we've ever had before; those people demand more resources than they ever have before; we have weapons that can destroy far more than we ever have before; and no one wants to reduce their standard of living, apparently unless every single other person in the world does it first (the prisoner's dilemna).
again, I don't live my life as if we are doomed and I hope we are not and I do my best to contribute to making sure we are not.. but, not being an idiot, I also don't have blind faith that "people", being some magic force apparently, "will figure it out". People accept stupid bullshit too, like thinking that because we have figured some stuff out previously like the black plague, AIDS, wars (and apparently we figured them out fast enough and effectively enough that the billions dead and the millions starving now are not consequences worthy of note?) we are immune to all future calamity.
as for your fear of the "agenda", look at it this way; if you live in a city, you can't live the same way you can in the countryside. In the country, I can run around burning piles of brush all day, no one cares. On the sidewalk in new york city, that would be a bigger deal. Well, as the world gets more populated, it's legitimately the same kind of progression; your actions more directly affect your neighbors, and so they do have more of a say. You can personify that fact and pull out your tin foil hat, and that just makes you a crackpot.
That's the increasing population game, my man. If you don't like it, then the answer is not to have an endlessly growing population or push real damn hard for space travel to "expand our way" out of the problem. Your focus on political structures in the face of the kinds of issues facing us though is, frankly, myopic and ridiculous, and it's exactly why humanity sucks at the prisoner's dilemna until the danger is both immense and completely undeniable. because nothing less allows us to make any kind of sacrifice at all, en mass.
what, a person who has less than perfect belief in humanity's unfailing will to do the right thing?
there is a difference between wanting something to be true and thinking it really is true.
Personally, I doubt we'll get our act together. Humans haven't proven themselves very good at the prisoner's dilemna in real life, IMHO.
that doesn't mean I should act like I believe; that is a self fulfilling prophecy. but I can't say I'm 100% optimistic either.
the solution it provides is that if we completely decimate this earth and it becomes uninhabitable, humanity will still exist elsewhere. Not that it will save the earth.
not that I am advocating that as a solution.. it's a cop out to avoid making rational decisions about our current situation (cue, magic fairies will fix all our problems, or god, or technology, so none of us need to do anything). but your interpretation of what the arguement is, is off.
Personally I think it's much more likely that escalating world needs will drive up the cost of food, energy, all the necessities of life to the point that resource expenditure in other luxury areas, like other science not related to feeding or killing people who are using resources your country needs, and space travel, will grind to a halt slowly, and then leave us to grind ourselves into dust.
Unless, of course, we decide to act collectively and rationally. That seems pretty unlikely though. and hey, magic fairies will probably show up any day. so screw it, why try?
I was walking down the street today and I had skipped lunch. That hobo I passed that didn't buy me a sandwich was a real asshole, eh?
Now that would be an appropriate analogy, but only if the hobo were a quadriplegic schizophrenic crack addict and if I were, say, the sole owner of ConAgra foods. And we were standing in one of my Peter Pan Peanut Butter factories.
asshole hobos.
I count 17 democratic nays and 29 Yeas. Nice try though, "less than half" guy. Again, most voted for it. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&vote=00237&session=2 . Or is that some kind of cover up?
You may differentiate between an authorization for military force and war. I do not. When you authorize our president to kill people, that is war by any useful definition of the term as far as I am concerned. If you want to play semantics, go for it. You can dance around and excuse those who errantly made colossal errors in judgement. I do not. I regard war as a necessary evil in some cases, but I will not split hairs between military actions, police actions, and war and I will not excuse those who wield that power lightly. Our government pointing guns and bombs at people and killing them is war. But I have the freedom to see that clearly, because I am not a lawyer.
I never said it was *primarily* congress's fault. but the fact is, it could not have happened without them, and the democrats share culpability.
I am CERTAINLY not saying the republicans are better. They are both weasels and cowards. and you are wasting your time jumping to the defense of one of them.