Are you saying a woman can't sexually assault (or rape, depending on your definition of rape) another woman? I know you're a misandrist, but I think your hate for men blind you completely of reality.
The most common cause for overeating is stress and other psychological problems. Food is a way to alleviate stress. Regarding the example you gave, working in an office is stressful, gardening is not.
In comparison to life in the 70s, our lives are now extremely demanding and so extremely stressful. That's why we're becoming obese.
It's true muscle mass matters. At its peak, Arnold Schwarzenegger had a BMI of 33, while having very little fat. But let's be honest, very few people have the kind muscle mass to let them win the title of Mr. Universe. Pretty much everyone who uses the argument of muscle mass is just in denial and trying to find excuses.
Also, that kind of muscle mass is almost as bad for health as fat.
Like pretty much everybody, I never look at what's ahead when in a bus. The bus stop and go, and I just don't care. It doesn't "damage" myself. Also, my parents never said "whoa" and "go" to signal me anything when I was a kid.
I agree, remove this backdoor garbage from OFFICIAL add-on repositories, but still allow me to install whatever the fuck I want. I'm seriously tired of how arrogant Mozilla developers have become.
I obviously don't live in the same part of the world as you.
1) Although I agree it's the responsibility of the driver to make sure his brake lights work properly, you should never rely on brake lights of others to determine if someone is braking or not.
2) It's not the responsibility of the driver in front of you to brake slowly because your car sucks. It's you who have the responsibility to keep a safe distance considering your car.
3) Even if the car merging come to a dead stop in front of you (it frequently happens where I live because of sudden traffic jams), it's your responsibility to be in control of your car. If you rear end him, then chances are you were not.
Basically, where I live we think the driver is responsible for his car. I know, we're weird.
No, "an eye for an eye" doesn't leave the whole world blind.
"An eye for an eye" is a naturally accepted form of justice. If I slap someone for no reason, I won't be shocked if I'm slapped back with the same level of force. "An eye for an eye" is a concept so natural that being slapped back is a possibility I will always consider. I may have a feeling of frustration if I'm slapped back, but I won't have a feeling of injustice. This means I won't have a desire for revenge if I'm slapped back.
Of course, I never slap someone for no reason. If I slap someone, it's because I want to take control and partially submit the other person to my will. If I'm slapped back, it obviously means my attempt to take control failed. Because of that, I may be tempted to increase the level of violence in order to accomplish my initial goal of taking control. But this new violence I will initiate won't be the results of a feeling of injustice, it won't be the result of a desire for revenge, it will be only the consequence of having failed the first time. I may feel frustration after a failed attempt, but frustration is a lot less powerful a feeling of injustice.
Second, initiating violence is generally a rational action. If I slapped someone with the goal of taking control, it's because I believe my action might be successful. If I'm slapped back (if my first attempt fail), I might decide to increase the level of violence, but again this behavior is rational. The moment I will judge my actions have no chance of success, the moment I believe the price I might pay because of my action is superior to what I might gain, I will stop initiating violence. I won't continue violence until the whole world is blind, I will stop violence when I see no gain.
The justice system works not because it avoids using the concept of "an eye for an eye", it works because the justice system is extremely powerful and the "victim" of the justice system can't do anything about it. Any form of violence against the justice system is doomed to fail. The justice system could use the "an eye for an eye" system and it will work as well.
The main reason society dropped the concept of an eye for an eye because "justice" is not the goal of the justice system. The goal of the justice system is to do what is best for the system we call "society". The justice system is about order, it is not about justice. This means that if we want justice, we have to do it ourselves. And that's what a lot of people do.
Working with headphones is frowned upon, if not completely forbidden in most workplaces. You really think working with a VR/AR headset will be tolerated?
If one day 80% of the population is on the autism spectrum, sure. Until then, not a chance.
Which "Canadian French" layout? There are several of them. Windows still have three I can choose from, and that's not counting the ones which were dropped from Windows 95. And seriously, all "French Canadian" layouts suck. It would be better for France (and Quebec) to adopt the Bepo layout, or even better, to use the one the AFNOR promoted in the 90s and which was created specifically because it was thought, back then, that the AZERTY keyboard was bad.
Oh, and while we're at it, we could also drop the staggered key model. But that would require an actual use of intelligence, and that's something humanity is not used to.
And I'm pointing that you are also an emperor with no clothes. We all are. Like everyone, you are also promoting hate, intolerance and fear. The way you use the pretense of history to justify your own hate is a clear indication of that. Do I blame you for creating your own enemies? Not really. As I said, it's human nature and we all have a need to fight our own windmills.
As for buying a clue, I already did. I saw the hate behind the hypocrisy. I'll certainly acknowledge only a minority of Muslims living in the West would truly (or at least openly) hate you for no other reason than who you are, but Muslims in the West are certainly not representative of the rest of the world. You said you live in the real world? Are you sure? Because I'm pretty sure your circle is not typical. Are you sure you can extrapolate the attitude of your friends to the rest of the world?
As a whole, Christians and Muslims on this planet are really not in the same category when it comes to submission to their own religion. On a more direct note, I never really had problems with Christians for being who I am, but I certainly had with Muslims. Of course not with all of them, like you I have Muslim friends, but my friends are certainly not representative of the Muslim world.
BTW, I don't watch Fox News. I'm not American. I'm an atheist, moderately anti-theists and even anti-capitalist. On the other hand, I'm certainly not a social justice warrior, nor a feminist, so I fight different windmills.
Everyone is promoting hate, intolerance and fear. For example, that's what you are doing right now when you talk about Christians. Promoting hate, intolerance and fear is simply part of human nature.
Having said that, you are right, saying that someone else is worse is not an excuse. But what you are doing right now is defending Islam, which is a lot worse than Christianity, because Christianity is not all good. That's not a simple fallacy, that's plain crazy.
Let me put it this way : It's now a minority, but still a lot of Christians will condemn you and actively try to ostracize you because of what you are. As for Muslims, the majority of them on this planet will support your murder. You choose.
Compare the number of Christians who fast during lent with the number of Muslims who fast during Ramadan, and you'll understand why the Quran is a much bigger problem than the Bible.
The idea of being "fair" or not is highly subjective.
Suppose two people are competing in a race with a $100,000 prize. The first one didn't train at all, while the second one trained really hard for six months. That second one even invested money to hire a personal trainer. But despite all the efforts of the second runner, it's still the first one won the race.
Now the question is: is if fair to give the $100,000 prize to the guy who didn't make any effort and won only because of his natural abilities? Or would it be fairer to give the prize to the second runner because of all the efforts he made?
-
In order to live, we do sacrifice animals. From simple food to medical testing, we don't hesitate to sacrifice an awful lot of living beings. We feel it's "fair" because we consider those animals have less value than a human being. We inherently believe it's OK to sacrifice the living being with the lesser value in order to let the living being with the greater value survive.
So now the question is: do all human being have the same value or do they all have different values? Do some people have more value than others? And if one person has less value than another one, is it "fair" to sacrifice that person with the lesser value in order to let the one with the greater value live?
Morality is subjective. So arguing if something is "fair" or not is just talking about your personal feelings.
Your first point is that because we are not conscious of ourselves, it follows that we have free will. That's not the definition of free will. After all, if we follow your logic, it would mean that a computer program has free will because it's not conscious of itself.
It's not suggesting that I don't have free will which is a meaningless concept, it's the concept of free will itself which is meaningless as it implies non-causality.
Your second point is that we cannot calculate a possible universe because we could modify it after the calculation. Again, this is like saying we cannot calculate x+3 simply because we could change the value of "x" after finding the answer.
I have no idea how I fundamentally make any of my decisions. I know what argument I will come up with, but I don't know why I think of some arguments and not others. I just do. I also don't know why I will judge some argument as more "valid" than others. I just do (meaning there are "arguments" I'm not even aware I'm having). Because of that, it's obvious to me I don't have any control over my decision making process. So how can I have free will if I don't have any control over the decision process? How can I have free will if I'm not completely aware of myself?
It's completely obvious to me I don't have any kind of "free will".
Also, your hypothesis of contradicting information about your future decision is illogical. If you make a different decision, then obviously the information about your future decision was false. You do not invalidate the prediction, it's the prediction which was false because you calculated a universe where you did not give the information.
Finally, the notion of personal responsibility is only because we wrongly think we have free will and has no importance. Since I don't consider anyone has free will, I judge people on who they are (as indicated by the choices they make) instead of their "choices". In the end, the result is the same.
Most dystopian sci-fi are a result of scientific progress. I'd categorize Star Wars as Space Fantasy, not as science-fiction. Saying Star Wars is science-fiction is like saying creationism or gender studies are science.
I loved those movie when I was a kid (except for RotJ, because the Ewoks were already far too childish for a 14 years old boy). I really did.
I watch them again before the release of the new trilogy, this time as an adult, and found the original trilogy to be nothing but movies for kids. Apart from the pleasure of reliving childhood memories, I was seriously disappointed.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you saying a woman can't sexually assault (or rape, depending on your definition of rape) another woman? I know you're a misandrist, but I think your hate for men blind you completely of reality.
The most common cause for overeating is stress and other psychological problems. Food is a way to alleviate stress. Regarding the example you gave, working in an office is stressful, gardening is not.
In comparison to life in the 70s, our lives are now extremely demanding and so extremely stressful. That's why we're becoming obese.
It's true muscle mass matters. At its peak, Arnold Schwarzenegger had a BMI of 33, while having very little fat. But let's be honest, very few people have the kind muscle mass to let them win the title of Mr. Universe. Pretty much everyone who uses the argument of muscle mass is just in denial and trying to find excuses.
Also, that kind of muscle mass is almost as bad for health as fat.
Like pretty much everybody, I never look at what's ahead when in a bus. The bus stop and go, and I just don't care. It doesn't "damage" myself. Also, my parents never said "whoa" and "go" to signal me anything when I was a kid.
Sorry, but your comment is idiotic.
The computer only need to do better "calculation" than the human player.
They do, and as with us, Islam is the main cause (the majority of people in the region of Xinjiang are Muslims).
I agree, remove this backdoor garbage from OFFICIAL add-on repositories, but still allow me to install whatever the fuck I want. I'm seriously tired of how arrogant Mozilla developers have become.
Do you know how many times I had to avoid a bus who suddenly decided to go in my lane? Bus drivers are by far the worse drivers on the road.
I obviously don't live in the same part of the world as you.
1) Although I agree it's the responsibility of the driver to make sure his brake lights work properly, you should never rely on brake lights of others to determine if someone is braking or not.
2) It's not the responsibility of the driver in front of you to brake slowly because your car sucks. It's you who have the responsibility to keep a safe distance considering your car.
3) Even if the car merging come to a dead stop in front of you (it frequently happens where I live because of sudden traffic jams), it's your responsibility to be in control of your car. If you rear end him, then chances are you were not.
Basically, where I live we think the driver is responsible for his car. I know, we're weird.
No, "an eye for an eye" doesn't leave the whole world blind.
"An eye for an eye" is a naturally accepted form of justice. If I slap someone for no reason, I won't be shocked if I'm slapped back with the same level of force. "An eye for an eye" is a concept so natural that being slapped back is a possibility I will always consider. I may have a feeling of frustration if I'm slapped back, but I won't have a feeling of injustice. This means I won't have a desire for revenge if I'm slapped back.
Of course, I never slap someone for no reason. If I slap someone, it's because I want to take control and partially submit the other person to my will. If I'm slapped back, it obviously means my attempt to take control failed. Because of that, I may be tempted to increase the level of violence in order to accomplish my initial goal of taking control. But this new violence I will initiate won't be the results of a feeling of injustice, it won't be the result of a desire for revenge, it will be only the consequence of having failed the first time. I may feel frustration after a failed attempt, but frustration is a lot less powerful a feeling of injustice.
Second, initiating violence is generally a rational action. If I slapped someone with the goal of taking control, it's because I believe my action might be successful. If I'm slapped back (if my first attempt fail), I might decide to increase the level of violence, but again this behavior is rational. The moment I will judge my actions have no chance of success, the moment I believe the price I might pay because of my action is superior to what I might gain, I will stop initiating violence. I won't continue violence until the whole world is blind, I will stop violence when I see no gain.
The justice system works not because it avoids using the concept of "an eye for an eye", it works because the justice system is extremely powerful and the "victim" of the justice system can't do anything about it. Any form of violence against the justice system is doomed to fail. The justice system could use the "an eye for an eye" system and it will work as well.
The main reason society dropped the concept of an eye for an eye because "justice" is not the goal of the justice system. The goal of the justice system is to do what is best for the system we call "society". The justice system is about order, it is not about justice. This means that if we want justice, we have to do it ourselves. And that's what a lot of people do.
Human values? Like the ones in Mein Kampf? Or like the ones in pretty much all religious books?
It doesn't change that this woman is a brainwashed idiot.
Working with headphones is frowned upon, if not completely forbidden in most workplaces. You really think working with a VR/AR headset will be tolerated?
If one day 80% of the population is on the autism spectrum, sure. Until then, not a chance.
Before GPS devices, in order to keep our eyes on the road, we were also using this thing we called "memory".
Which "Canadian French" layout? There are several of them. Windows still have three I can choose from, and that's not counting the ones which were dropped from Windows 95. And seriously, all "French Canadian" layouts suck. It would be better for France (and Quebec) to adopt the Bepo layout, or even better, to use the one the AFNOR promoted in the 90s and which was created specifically because it was thought, back then, that the AZERTY keyboard was bad.
Oh, and while we're at it, we could also drop the staggered key model. But that would require an actual use of intelligence, and that's something humanity is not used to.
And I'm pointing that you are also an emperor with no clothes. We all are. Like everyone, you are also promoting hate, intolerance and fear. The way you use the pretense of history to justify your own hate is a clear indication of that. Do I blame you for creating your own enemies? Not really. As I said, it's human nature and we all have a need to fight our own windmills.
As for buying a clue, I already did. I saw the hate behind the hypocrisy. I'll certainly acknowledge only a minority of Muslims living in the West would truly (or at least openly) hate you for no other reason than who you are, but Muslims in the West are certainly not representative of the rest of the world. You said you live in the real world? Are you sure? Because I'm pretty sure your circle is not typical. Are you sure you can extrapolate the attitude of your friends to the rest of the world?
As a whole, Christians and Muslims on this planet are really not in the same category when it comes to submission to their own religion. On a more direct note, I never really had problems with Christians for being who I am, but I certainly had with Muslims. Of course not with all of them, like you I have Muslim friends, but my friends are certainly not representative of the Muslim world.
BTW, I don't watch Fox News. I'm not American. I'm an atheist, moderately anti-theists and even anti-capitalist. On the other hand, I'm certainly not a social justice warrior, nor a feminist, so I fight different windmills.
Everyone is promoting hate, intolerance and fear. For example, that's what you are doing right now when you talk about Christians. Promoting hate, intolerance and fear is simply part of human nature.
Having said that, you are right, saying that someone else is worse is not an excuse. But what you are doing right now is defending Islam, which is a lot worse than Christianity, because Christianity is not all good. That's not a simple fallacy, that's plain crazy.
Let me put it this way : It's now a minority, but still a lot of Christians will condemn you and actively try to ostracize you because of what you are. As for Muslims, the majority of them on this planet will support your murder. You choose.
No, I don't forget that Christianity WAS as much of a problem as Islam is now. But the key point here is : "WAS".
Compare the number of Christians who fast during lent with the number of Muslims who fast during Ramadan, and you'll understand why the Quran is a much bigger problem than the Bible.
The idea of being "fair" or not is highly subjective.
Suppose two people are competing in a race with a $100,000 prize. The first one didn't train at all, while the second one trained really hard for six months. That second one even invested money to hire a personal trainer. But despite all the efforts of the second runner, it's still the first one won the race.
Now the question is: is if fair to give the $100,000 prize to the guy who didn't make any effort and won only because of his natural abilities? Or would it be fairer to give the prize to the second runner because of all the efforts he made?
-
In order to live, we do sacrifice animals. From simple food to medical testing, we don't hesitate to sacrifice an awful lot of living beings. We feel it's "fair" because we consider those animals have less value than a human being. We inherently believe it's OK to sacrifice the living being with the lesser value in order to let the living being with the greater value survive.
So now the question is: do all human being have the same value or do they all have different values? Do some people have more value than others? And if one person has less value than another one, is it "fair" to sacrifice that person with the lesser value in order to let the one with the greater value live?
Morality is subjective. So arguing if something is "fair" or not is just talking about your personal feelings.
Both your points are illogical.
Your first point is that because we are not conscious of ourselves, it follows that we have free will. That's not the definition of free will. After all, if we follow your logic, it would mean that a computer program has free will because it's not conscious of itself.
It's not suggesting that I don't have free will which is a meaningless concept, it's the concept of free will itself which is meaningless as it implies non-causality.
Your second point is that we cannot calculate a possible universe because we could modify it after the calculation. Again, this is like saying we cannot calculate x+3 simply because we could change the value of "x" after finding the answer.
I have no idea how I fundamentally make any of my decisions. I know what argument I will come up with, but I don't know why I think of some arguments and not others. I just do. I also don't know why I will judge some argument as more "valid" than others. I just do (meaning there are "arguments" I'm not even aware I'm having). Because of that, it's obvious to me I don't have any control over my decision making process. So how can I have free will if I don't have any control over the decision process? How can I have free will if I'm not completely aware of myself?
It's completely obvious to me I don't have any kind of "free will".
Also, your hypothesis of contradicting information about your future decision is illogical. If you make a different decision, then obviously the information about your future decision was false. You do not invalidate the prediction, it's the prediction which was false because you calculated a universe where you did not give the information.
Finally, the notion of personal responsibility is only because we wrongly think we have free will and has no importance. Since I don't consider anyone has free will, I judge people on who they are (as indicated by the choices they make) instead of their "choices". In the end, the result is the same.
Most dystopian sci-fi are a result of scientific progress. I'd categorize Star Wars as Space Fantasy, not as science-fiction. Saying Star Wars is science-fiction is like saying creationism or gender studies are science.
About Alanis... Cosmic irony. Look it up.
Awesome? Really?
I loved those movie when I was a kid (except for RotJ, because the Ewoks were already far too childish for a 14 years old boy). I really did.
I watch them again before the release of the new trilogy, this time as an adult, and found the original trilogy to be nothing but movies for kids. Apart from the pleasure of reliving childhood memories, I was seriously disappointed.