I believe the first principle in a "democracy" is that politicians we elect represent the population. Based on this, even if I disagree with what my government is doing, even if I didn't vote for the current party in power, I'm still responsible for the actions of my government.
Nobody "needs" fancy stuff when the goal is only to have fun, but a heart rate monitor is now pretty much essential for serious training and amateur competition. Not only it allows you to train with much better efficiency, but during competition it allows you to better manage your energy and counter the crowd effect. More fancy stuff will even give you data about your stride to correct mistakes you might not be aware while running. Analyzing your race might reveal weaknesses and so indicate what kind of training you should do.
Sure, if the goal is only to escape and have fun then all this is not needed, but then why participate in a competition? An organized marathon is a very bad place to enjoy time with your wife.
As for enjoying running, it takes a lot of time before that happens. Weekend runners never truly enjoy running.
False. Operating the Buk system [wikipedia.org] is too complicated for "peaceful coal-miners" to have done it
During my military service, I knew several conscripts who trained to operate anti-tank guided missiles. Anyone with a bit of a brain could learn to operate them quite easily. It only took a few hours of training. Military weapons are rarely complicated to use. The idea that the Buk system is too complicated except for elite troops is just propaganda.
for an accusation of such gravity, you better have more solid citations than your own "pretty sure". Do you?
What you said could certainly apply to your claim that Russia shot down that plane. So where are your solid citations? Double standard much?
First of all, that was an honest mistake.
One of the reason we knew it was the rebels who shot down the plane is because of some communications which were celebrating the shot down of a plane. A few hours after, not only there was no more communication about this "success", but it looks like some of the messages about it were deleted.
Guess what, that was also a mistake. No one had anything to win with shooting down that plane. The idea that it was Russia and that it was on purpose is just US propaganda. You're obviously a good citizen who listen to his government.
Having said, you should ask yourself why this plane had the authorization to fly over a war zone. OK. I'll help you : it was in part because the US didn't want to consider Ukraine as a war zone for political reasons. The goal with Ukraine was to diminish the influence of Russia over its neighbors. The US wanted the regime change to be as smooth as possible to show Russia had very little power. That's also why the US was against a partition of Ukraine. Think about it.
So?.. Your desperation in trying to switch the topic is really showing.
What desperation? I'm Canadian. I don't care that much about Ukraine or Russia. I have nothing to win or lose here. The only thing I hate is people being dumb enough to repeat propaganda without thinking.
Why imagine it in Mexico, when saw it actually happen in Cuba
The Bay of Pigs invasion. Does it ring a bell to you?
Again, I'm Canadian. I don't watch Kremlin-TV. But on your case, it certainly looks like you spend to much time watching White House-TV.
It was not Russia who shot down MH17, it was rebels from Ukraine which were armed by Russia. If you count that as Russia, than considering the US have armed rebels pretty much everywhere around the world, I'm pretty sure a good number of the commercial airplanes which were shot down could be attributed to the US.
I'd also like to remind you that the US also directly shot a commercial airplane (Iran air flight 655), killing 290 civilians.
Finally, Ukraine also shot a Russian commercial aircraft in 2001.
And by the way, the US certainly played an important role in the current Ukrainian situation. The ones who are in power right now in Ukraine had support from the US and Europe. It's even surprising Russia didn't get directly involved in this. Imagine if Russia was supporting a successful coup in Mexico. I'm pretty sure the US would invade Mexico immediately.
Your understanding is very superficial. There's no irony at all. No one is honestly saying it is only about a technical detail. It's about moral, social and political values for both camps.
Personally, I'm tired of feminists and SJW. I think they had far too much influence on our society, for far too long. Their moral values and their vision of society go directly against my moral values and my vision of society. I now live in a world I really don't like. And since they don't want to compromise, there's no way I will submit to their views without saying or doing anything.
To put it in an overly dramatically tone, it's now war.
I'm sorry, but I was there in the 80s. And no, women were not half of the "computer system analyst", if by "computer system analyst" you're talking about software engineers or programmers. They were not even one tenth. I'm guessing with "computer system analyst" they include data-entry employees, as pretty much all of them were women.
The problem with sexism in our society is now men are a lot more often victims of sexism than women. Pretty much all schools and workplaces are now organized with feminine social interactions in mind. There's not much place where hierarchy and separation of tasks prevail, a social organization which is natural for men, still exists. Schools and workplaces are now all about "sharing" and other form of feminine interactions. But somehow, sexism against men is ignored. In 1980 there were as much men than women in universities. Now, after countless reforms to make schools and universities more appealing to girls, there's 50% more women than men. But this is ignored. Men's need are ignored, only women matter.
The computer field is one of the last which is still somewhat organized primarily in a masculine way. It's still about separation of tasks instead of sharing tasks. So I wonder if it's not men who are rushing in this field as it's one of the last place which is not entirely feminized, rather than women fleeing it.
You're talking about "culture". But you have to realize that we can't have a "culture" which satisfies both sexes. It's either a "culture" for men or a "culture" for women. So what do we do with this? Do we just ignore men's need because, let's be honest, they are not socially as important as women?
Will you also say that this difference among children of an average age of 36.7 hours, is because of societal sexism?
I learned how to program alone in the beginning of the 80s. It's me who asked my parents for a computer as my Christmas gift. And I insisted a lot. It's not something they would have done otherwise. No one pushed me into programming as no one knew what it was about.
The interesting thing is in the 80s there was even fewer girls into computers then now. And no, no one was trying to dissuade them to learn to program as no one knew what is was. But the fact is computers and programming are just more natural for boys than girls. It's not because of sexism, it's because boys and girls have different interests. I'm pretty sure that if there wasn't social pressure for "equality", we would be like in the beginning of the 80s, that is with even less women in programming than the situation now.
So when you talk about sexism, give me a fucking break. No. Scratch that. There is a problem of sexism in tech : women are privileged over men.
I'm not sure what is it you reproach to the person you're replying to. Basically, he or she is just saying : no special treatment for anyone, just merit. But somehow, it seems this idea of equality offends you. It seems you find the idea of women being considered only for their accomplishments as offensive. Why?
So you think a woman can't defend herself from one guy being a dick? You think men should always play the roles of protectors? Don't you realize you are both naive and sexist?
Women are really good with psychological violence. They will manipulate and get what they want a lot more easily than men. So unless physical violence is involved, women really don't need any kind of protection. And even if physical violence is involved, I'm sure a woman will be able to manipulate a few guys to protect her anyway.
I've seen literally a lot of people on the Internet saying really stupid shit and, when confronted by someone reasonable, who then invented some "life experience" to try to justify the stupid shit they said in the first place.
Have you seen what some prostitutes look like? I can tell you that a 45 years old crack addict is not what we can call "gorgeous and desirable". Yet, not only she can find a few clients to have sex with her each night, but she can make them pay for it!
Marriage is a civil law agreement which generally has the assumption of sexual fidelity. Unless the two spouses agree to waive that part of the agreement, they are bound to it by remaining married.
No, they are not legally bound to it. Unless your marriage contract has some weird (and potentially invalid) clauses, you can't sue your spouse for cheating. It now won't even be taken into consideration when, for example, calculating alimony.
As for fidelity being an assumption, even though there's no real stats about it, the idea that a lot of people will cheat is well accepted. Because of that, still having this assumption of fidelity is pretty much wishful thinking.
Deliberately participating in a deceitful action that has a propensity to cause a great deal of harm to another is generally considered immoral.
Infidelity does not cause direct harm. Any harm someone may feel because of infidelity is only in his own head. It's the same kind of harm some religious fanatics claim when someone "insults" their religion. We do not have a moral obligation to bow to anyone "sensitivities", no matter how they will be psychologically affected by the destruction of their illusions.
No, and I view such perspectives as patriarchal BS. Spouses are not "property."
Women demand ownership of spouses as much as men. I fail to see the "patriarchy" in this.
I mean, do we really have to go into explaining why participating in deceitful behavior that could ruin people's lives is wrong?
Yes, you do. Please explain how your spouse having sex with someone else will "ruin" your life. If she cut your penis, sure. But if she just has sex one night with a coworker and then come home, can you explain what are the consequences you will have to suffer?
I can understand why you think a legal contract should generally be respected (of course sometimes respecting a legal contract can be morally wrong), but fidelity is simply not part of the legal contract.
What next? Will you say the obligation to cherish your spouse until death is also part of the contract?
Don't get me wrong, I will consider lying for personal gain as morally wrong, but saying banging someone else's spouse is morally wrong is only based on an idea of control, idea of control which in itself could be qualified as morally wrong.
Statistics tend to show that marriages, open or not, do not work. Where I live, about 50% of marriages end in a divorce, and from my experience, a lot of others end up with two people barely tolerating each other. I wouldn't call that a good environment for children.
What percentage of marriages truly work and offer a good environment for children? I have no idea, but I strongly believe it's only a minority.
Also based on my personal experience, sexual desires are a major factor in a lot of separations. Either one spouse cheated on the other or wish to have sex with someone else. One common joke is that once a man is married, he can say goodbye to sex. Pretty much all my married friends feel sexual frustrations on some level. So I wonder if it's having sex with someone other than one's spouse which destroy marriage or if having an affair is just a result of a failed marriage because of sexual frustration.
So what if our culture thought us that free sex is OK, even within marriage? What if our culture thought us that the need for sexual exclusivity is not "sane"? What if our culture thought us that marriage is only about living together and raising children, not about sexual exclusivity? Could this form of environment be more stable for children?
BTW, If a woman cheated on me, would I be upset? Well, it happened to me, (twice that I know of), and I although I pretended to be upset for social norms reasons, the truth is I didn't care.
I fail to see why a spouse having sex with someone else will hurt the children. Sure the other parent might choose to indirectly hurt his or her children as a retaliation for not having sexual exclusivity, but in this case it's this other parent who's at fault. The kid argument is really an argument against divorce, not an argument against extramarital affaires.
Each person has his own view of what is moral or not. Some people will say that sex outside of marriage is immoral. Some people will say homosexuality is immoral. It's less common now, but some people will say sex between people of different skin color is immoral. The Catholic church even said it was immoral to use contraceptives.
You can take anything anyone could desire, and there's a good probability at least some people will view this as "immoral".
So for the sake of arguments... can you explain why you view banging someone else's spouse as immoral? What is the basis for this moral judgement? For example, is it because you think the spouse is some form of property, so banging someone else spouse is like stealing?
As a related question, why do you think it's moral to forbid your spouse to have sex with whoever he or she wants?
Slashdot Mirror
We should care about his opinion BECAUSE he's not a Star Wars fan.
You're completely wrong. Physics is only interested in describing the universe, it is not interested in explaining why the universe is the way it is.
No, we still have the luxury to live our own lives, what we don't have anymore is the luxury to lie in order to abuse other people.
I believe the first principle in a "democracy" is that politicians we elect represent the population. Based on this, even if I disagree with what my government is doing, even if I didn't vote for the current party in power, I'm still responsible for the actions of my government.
Nobody "needs" fancy stuff when the goal is only to have fun, but a heart rate monitor is now pretty much essential for serious training and amateur competition. Not only it allows you to train with much better efficiency, but during competition it allows you to better manage your energy and counter the crowd effect. More fancy stuff will even give you data about your stride to correct mistakes you might not be aware while running. Analyzing your race might reveal weaknesses and so indicate what kind of training you should do.
Sure, if the goal is only to escape and have fun then all this is not needed, but then why participate in a competition? An organized marathon is a very bad place to enjoy time with your wife.
As for enjoying running, it takes a lot of time before that happens. Weekend runners never truly enjoy running.
False. Operating the Buk system [wikipedia.org] is too complicated for "peaceful coal-miners" to have done it
During my military service, I knew several conscripts who trained to operate anti-tank guided missiles. Anyone with a bit of a brain could learn to operate them quite easily. It only took a few hours of training. Military weapons are rarely complicated to use. The idea that the Buk system is too complicated except for elite troops is just propaganda.
for an accusation of such gravity, you better have more solid citations than your own "pretty sure". Do you?
What you said could certainly apply to your claim that Russia shot down that plane. So where are your solid citations? Double standard much?
First of all, that was an honest mistake.
One of the reason we knew it was the rebels who shot down the plane is because of some communications which were celebrating the shot down of a plane. A few hours after, not only there was no more communication about this "success", but it looks like some of the messages about it were deleted.
Guess what, that was also a mistake. No one had anything to win with shooting down that plane. The idea that it was Russia and that it was on purpose is just US propaganda. You're obviously a good citizen who listen to his government.
Having said, you should ask yourself why this plane had the authorization to fly over a war zone. OK. I'll help you : it was in part because the US didn't want to consider Ukraine as a war zone for political reasons. The goal with Ukraine was to diminish the influence of Russia over its neighbors. The US wanted the regime change to be as smooth as possible to show Russia had very little power. That's also why the US was against a partition of Ukraine. Think about it.
So?.. Your desperation in trying to switch the topic is really showing.
What desperation? I'm Canadian. I don't care that much about Ukraine or Russia. I have nothing to win or lose here. The only thing I hate is people being dumb enough to repeat propaganda without thinking.
Why imagine it in Mexico, when saw it actually happen in Cuba
The Bay of Pigs invasion. Does it ring a bell to you?
Again, I'm Canadian. I don't watch Kremlin-TV. But on your case, it certainly looks like you spend to much time watching White House-TV.
It was not Russia who shot down MH17, it was rebels from Ukraine which were armed by Russia. If you count that as Russia, than considering the US have armed rebels pretty much everywhere around the world, I'm pretty sure a good number of the commercial airplanes which were shot down could be attributed to the US.
I'd also like to remind you that the US also directly shot a commercial airplane (Iran air flight 655), killing 290 civilians.
Finally, Ukraine also shot a Russian commercial aircraft in 2001.
And by the way, the US certainly played an important role in the current Ukrainian situation. The ones who are in power right now in Ukraine had support from the US and Europe. It's even surprising Russia didn't get directly involved in this. Imagine if Russia was supporting a successful coup in Mexico. I'm pretty sure the US would invade Mexico immediately.
Your understanding is very superficial. There's no irony at all. No one is honestly saying it is only about a technical detail. It's about moral, social and political values for both camps.
Personally, I'm tired of feminists and SJW. I think they had far too much influence on our society, for far too long. Their moral values and their vision of society go directly against my moral values and my vision of society. I now live in a world I really don't like. And since they don't want to compromise, there's no way I will submit to their views without saying or doing anything.
To put it in an overly dramatically tone, it's now war.
I'm sorry, but I was there in the 80s. And no, women were not half of the "computer system analyst", if by "computer system analyst" you're talking about software engineers or programmers. They were not even one tenth. I'm guessing with "computer system analyst" they include data-entry employees, as pretty much all of them were women.
The problem with sexism in our society is now men are a lot more often victims of sexism than women. Pretty much all schools and workplaces are now organized with feminine social interactions in mind. There's not much place where hierarchy and separation of tasks prevail, a social organization which is natural for men, still exists. Schools and workplaces are now all about "sharing" and other form of feminine interactions. But somehow, sexism against men is ignored. In 1980 there were as much men than women in universities. Now, after countless reforms to make schools and universities more appealing to girls, there's 50% more women than men. But this is ignored. Men's need are ignored, only women matter.
The computer field is one of the last which is still somewhat organized primarily in a masculine way. It's still about separation of tasks instead of sharing tasks. So I wonder if it's not men who are rushing in this field as it's one of the last place which is not entirely feminized, rather than women fleeing it.
You're talking about "culture". But you have to realize that we can't have a "culture" which satisfies both sexes. It's either a "culture" for men or a "culture" for women. So what do we do with this? Do we just ignore men's need because, let's be honest, they are not socially as important as women?
Look at this study : Sex differences in human neonatal social perception.
Will you also say that this difference among children of an average age of 36.7 hours, is because of societal sexism?
I learned how to program alone in the beginning of the 80s. It's me who asked my parents for a computer as my Christmas gift. And I insisted a lot. It's not something they would have done otherwise. No one pushed me into programming as no one knew what it was about.
The interesting thing is in the 80s there was even fewer girls into computers then now. And no, no one was trying to dissuade them to learn to program as no one knew what is was. But the fact is computers and programming are just more natural for boys than girls. It's not because of sexism, it's because boys and girls have different interests. I'm pretty sure that if there wasn't social pressure for "equality", we would be like in the beginning of the 80s, that is with even less women in programming than the situation now.
So when you talk about sexism, give me a fucking break. No. Scratch that. There is a problem of sexism in tech : women are privileged over men.
I'm not sure what is it you reproach to the person you're replying to. Basically, he or she is just saying : no special treatment for anyone, just merit. But somehow, it seems this idea of equality offends you. It seems you find the idea of women being considered only for their accomplishments as offensive. Why?
So you think a woman can't defend herself from one guy being a dick? You think men should always play the roles of protectors? Don't you realize you are both naive and sexist?
Women are really good with psychological violence. They will manipulate and get what they want a lot more easily than men. So unless physical violence is involved, women really don't need any kind of protection. And even if physical violence is involved, I'm sure a woman will be able to manipulate a few guys to protect her anyway.
I've seen literally a lot of people on the Internet saying really stupid shit and, when confronted by someone reasonable, who then invented some "life experience" to try to justify the stupid shit they said in the first place.
Yes, and let's see the effect of this mass on the pilot when doing high-G maneuvers.
Microsoft was never a "monopoly" either, but that (rightfully) didn't stop the anti-trust lawsuit against them.
Really? It doesn't seem to be the case, at least according to this source : http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/. Are you saying NASA is part of a conspiracy?
I'm pretty sure there are a lot more books published each year than TV shows, and yet it seems this does not pose a problem for writers.
Well, we now all know that most of it is worthless and so does not qualify as science.
Have you seen what some prostitutes look like? I can tell you that a 45 years old crack addict is not what we can call "gorgeous and desirable". Yet, not only she can find a few clients to have sex with her each night, but she can make them pay for it!
No, seriously, this is rated +5 insightful? I guess, it's really true there are a lot of virgins on slashdot!
No, they are not legally bound to it. Unless your marriage contract has some weird (and potentially invalid) clauses, you can't sue your spouse for cheating. It now won't even be taken into consideration when, for example, calculating alimony.
As for fidelity being an assumption, even though there's no real stats about it, the idea that a lot of people will cheat is well accepted. Because of that, still having this assumption of fidelity is pretty much wishful thinking.
Infidelity does not cause direct harm. Any harm someone may feel because of infidelity is only in his own head. It's the same kind of harm some religious fanatics claim when someone "insults" their religion. We do not have a moral obligation to bow to anyone "sensitivities", no matter how they will be psychologically affected by the destruction of their illusions.
Women demand ownership of spouses as much as men. I fail to see the "patriarchy" in this.
Yes, you do. Please explain how your spouse having sex with someone else will "ruin" your life. If she cut your penis, sure. But if she just has sex one night with a coworker and then come home, can you explain what are the consequences you will have to suffer?
I can understand why you think a legal contract should generally be respected (of course sometimes respecting a legal contract can be morally wrong), but fidelity is simply not part of the legal contract.
What next? Will you say the obligation to cherish your spouse until death is also part of the contract?
Don't get me wrong, I will consider lying for personal gain as morally wrong, but saying banging someone else's spouse is morally wrong is only based on an idea of control, idea of control which in itself could be qualified as morally wrong.
Statistics tend to show that marriages, open or not, do not work. Where I live, about 50% of marriages end in a divorce, and from my experience, a lot of others end up with two people barely tolerating each other. I wouldn't call that a good environment for children.
What percentage of marriages truly work and offer a good environment for children? I have no idea, but I strongly believe it's only a minority.
Also based on my personal experience, sexual desires are a major factor in a lot of separations. Either one spouse cheated on the other or wish to have sex with someone else. One common joke is that once a man is married, he can say goodbye to sex. Pretty much all my married friends feel sexual frustrations on some level. So I wonder if it's having sex with someone other than one's spouse which destroy marriage or if having an affair is just a result of a failed marriage because of sexual frustration.
So what if our culture thought us that free sex is OK, even within marriage? What if our culture thought us that the need for sexual exclusivity is not "sane"? What if our culture thought us that marriage is only about living together and raising children, not about sexual exclusivity? Could this form of environment be more stable for children?
BTW, If a woman cheated on me, would I be upset? Well, it happened to me, (twice that I know of), and I although I pretended to be upset for social norms reasons, the truth is I didn't care.
Yes I do.
More than that, I think it's a moral obligation to denounce betrayers in order to protect other potential victims.
I fail to see why a spouse having sex with someone else will hurt the children. Sure the other parent might choose to indirectly hurt his or her children as a retaliation for not having sexual exclusivity, but in this case it's this other parent who's at fault. The kid argument is really an argument against divorce, not an argument against extramarital affaires.
Each person has his own view of what is moral or not. Some people will say that sex outside of marriage is immoral. Some people will say homosexuality is immoral. It's less common now, but some people will say sex between people of different skin color is immoral. The Catholic church even said it was immoral to use contraceptives.
You can take anything anyone could desire, and there's a good probability at least some people will view this as "immoral".
So for the sake of arguments... can you explain why you view banging someone else's spouse as immoral? What is the basis for this moral judgement? For example, is it because you think the spouse is some form of property, so banging someone else spouse is like stealing?
As a related question, why do you think it's moral to forbid your spouse to have sex with whoever he or she wants?