Realize that if it is the last pain you ever feel you won't have to remember it later, so infinite amounts of pain are irrelevant at the time of death.
It doesn't matter how many hours you put in if you were enticed by and promised things that don't exist in the game. You could love the game, give it honestly rave reviews, and play it every day for 8 hours. Doesn't matter. Your playing or not playing the game, or a better way to put it is, the behavior of the purchaser subsequent to purchase has no bearing on the advertising tactics and their honesty/dishonesty in describing the game. Money should be refunded based on the request of the purchaser because of the actions of the selling company previous to purchase. Everything that happens after purchase is immaterial.
Why? Because even if someone played the game for 400000 hours, they would never get what was promised in the advertising. IMHO the penalties should go up with play time. It means that person has been defrauded of the missing material more than someone who barely plays the game.
In that vein, how much will the climate change in the future and how does that impact the long-term survival of humans? The Earth has been considerably hotter at times in the past, even without anthropocentric intervention (that we know of.) Additionally, the Earth has been considerably cooler at times in the past. If the past is the best indicator of the future, and you extrapolate forward into the future on a long enough timeline, it becomes self evident that we are ill prepared for what inevitably will come.
So, the question arises again, "Will our shortsighted, selfish approach to existence do us in (finally!), or will our wily human ingenuity find yet another way out of the hole we have dug ourselves into?"
Not to be pedantic, just precise, the wording of the passage you mention about "taking up the sword" refers specifically to criminality and not to war.
Writing this as someone who listens with open ears and mind when you speak on matters concerning gender spectrum, trans/gay and trans/straight community relations, gender intelligence, etc. You are cogent, empathetic, and well read; all qualities I respect and that I look for and notice. And, as a personal note, I prefer the company of people who can face themselves and choose to drop societal norms and external reference points for their identity and in doing so free themselves to truly be themselves. I get from reading your posts that you have done this, and traveled a road that many of us don't have the fortitude to face.
So, with all of your intentionality in creating an online persona that has credibility in the realms I mentioned above, why oh why would you repeat such an obviously fabricated attack on the 2nd amendment that is so easily contradicted with authoritative sources?
I honestly would like to know. I respect your intelligence and the strength you show in standing for others. It is inspiring. What I can't fathom is how something like this juvenile misrepresentation of fact could slip by you. If you would like to oppose gun rights there are better approaches than this thoroughly debunked intentional misreading of the constitution. I challenge you to do better. Not that I support curtailing gun rights for law abiding citizens, far from it. I just know from reading your posts that you are capable of a better argument than that.
As steel sharpens steel, so one mind sharpens another.
Are you willing to put the survival of your employer above your own and will you do blatantly illegal things for them? Are you socially liberal but psychologically pathological? Have you misplaced your conscience so thoroughly you sometimes wonder if you ever had one? Have you kidnapped an albino child and sacrificed them to Yog-Sothoth over a deep ocean trench? If not, would you for the chance at $50k per year and mediocre benefits?
If so there is one of these jobs waiting for you! Just place the tattered remains of your soul in the receptacle and you're in! Please stay out of the sun for the rest of your life, which should last forever now.
Just because people are stupid doesn't mean capitalism is bad. By analogy, let's say your dad has stage 4 cancer and has an operation to extend his life. The operation is going well by then he dies on the operating table. You might, under the same stupid and misguided logic of your own assumptions listed above, declare that the medical profession is evil. It doesn't make it so, but I am sure you could convince a bunch of people to follow you in this idea if you put it on the Internet with the proper heart string pulling emotional appeals. There's even a ready-made fertile audience of recently discredited anti-vaccers just itching to support you in your unfounded attacks on the medical profession. Regardless of the level of support, it doesn't mean that calling something evil makes it so.
I like how you question the validity of the consensus view of the past, then immediately you assertively declare how the past was, without any question to the validity of your personal view of the past.
Thank you for the very accurate description of the underlying issues with Assange and his "extradition" to Sweden.
That you were modded down is indicative of the problems with stating the truth. Someone who knows the truth, but feels it is an impediment to their false narrative, will ultimately want to bury the information. If I had mod points I would try to un-bury your post.
For some reason the military, even those in jail, do not tolerate someone who they consider an oath breaker and traitor.
That reason couldn't be a reduced sentence for proving your loyalty to your superiors on the outside, could it? It would never occur to a military or political leader to order one prisoner to attack another prisoner in return for a reduction in charges, would it? It's obvious that military and political leaders who engage in illegal activities will, once exposed by a whistle blower, meekly submit themselves to the law, make a full confession of all possible illegal or even questionable activities they engaged in, and throw themselves on the mercy of the American public, right? They would never, ever, ever try to cover up their activities or attempt to punish a whistle blower. No...no way, no how. Uh uhh. Nooooooooo. Nooooooooooooooooooooooo!/sarcasm
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are only considering the flow of dollars in one direction, and seeing the pricing increase from the aspect of only the customer. There are many more sides to this issue.
For instance, if you want at-will employees to interrupt their time off and drive into an area with panicked people and bombs going off you will need to incentivize them.
See, that right there should be enough to explain the difference between this scenario and the incredibly stupid drug analogy you tried to clumsily apply to this situation. If that is not enough, see the scenario below.
Imagine you are in your house, chilling. Its your day off. You see the news and realize someone is bombing a part of the city that is a ways across town. You're thinking "I was going to go get a slice of pizza down the street, but fuck that! Glad I have the day off and am safe in my house right now." Right about then, your boss calls and says "Hey, there's a bunch of crazy people setting off bombs in the city. I need you to go drive down where the bombs are and all the crazy people and the screaming and yelling and such. Take your personal car, go pick up strangers. I'll pay you your normal wages for this."
If your response is "Fuck that and fuck you, boss." you answered correctly.
You see, in your completely short sighted analogy the person selling the drug experiences no risk, only massive profit. The person driving into a shitstorm in their personal car, on their day off, to pick people up? You and almost everyone else didn't even consider them.
While I catch your meaning, religions is used to provide instant, irrefutable answers to important questions.
Based on this quote from your post I can declare that you know nothing of the serious study of ancient documents that are considered "religious" in nature. Not that I would expect you to, but if you were to take a look at just these simple subjects about one religion you might figure out how misplaced your assertions are: texual criticism, canonicity, isagogics, exegetics, systematic theology.
The "answers" in an ancient text like the Bible for instance, require hundreds of hours to discern and are far from irrefutable. The questions that are answered are even harder to figure out! Sure there are a multitude of people who use a text like the Bible to create an artificial authority structure based on the power that ancient books have over some people, but you can bet your bottom dollar that those people aren't actually teaching what is in the book. They are more likely to use guilt motivation, religious superiority complex indoctrination, and shame to line their pockets and control their parishioners, none of which is supported by the text in the book.
Even better, go read "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell. That book alone will give you a hint about how instant an answer religion will give you about one single subject.
You, like many others, make the mistake of conflating "What people do" and "What a book says." The two may not have anything to do with each other, and in the case of the Bible, they frequently could not be farther separated.
Also, if you ask some priests and/or scholars you will get different answers than the one you referred to ("7 days.")
Great point. However what you advocate is contrary to the way the current "two party + the media" system works. The media and the politicians can meta-discuss the discussion of the discussions, ad infinitum. This allows them to avoid any policy discussions, completely. This is not a side effect. This is by intention.
Homosexuality was considered a mental illness until 1973, a full 30 years after the founding of the AAPS. It was in the DSM-II and was treated in a number of shocking ways, including institutionalization, drug treatment, and ECT. I don't know about you, but imprisoning people, drugging them up, and forcing shock treatments on them would not be on my list of things to do with government medical dollars. And yet, with the way that homosexuality was considered by the medical and psychiatric establishment, that is exactly what socialized, government controlled medicine would have done. Your tax dollars would have been used to imprison (in mental health facilities) and torture homosexuals.
Not trying to support the AAPS, just pointing to the fact that socialized medicine under government control would have created a medical torture state for homosexuals if not for the dedication of groups and people devoted to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine."
I keep hearing this quote "if he had just put the money in an indexed fund..." Whenever I do, I wonder what kind of person would just sit on a huge pile of money, collecting interest and just fucking off every single day of their life. Apparently that is what everyone who states this quote respects: a lazy, entitled do-nothing without ambition, drive, experience, or the guts to take a risk in life. That is the measure of success you are appealing to Pfhorrest. That is what you are idolizing. Not the rugged American spirit of get out and make something of yourself, but an aristocratic model of inherited ascendance where indolent opulence without struggle or fear is the earthly Nirvana we should all strive for.
I am not trying to be rude when I say this, but you are an imbecile.
I am not a Trump supporter. That being said, I understand intrinsically that playing with a huge pile of cash might teach you some rules of the games that people with huge piles of cash play. People like all of the politicians we elect to office. People that run huge corporations. People like foreign heads of state. I also understand that someone who engages in investments and speculation learns more about business and how people work than someone who spends all of their time living off of daddy's trust fund. Given the choice between a person who just sits around on their ass for their entire life collecting interest, and someone who wakes up every day and decides to work their ass off when they don't even have to, I'll take the guy with work ethic every single time. Given a choice between some rich person who hides behind their inheritance, insulated from the vicissitudes of life by their immense wealth, and someone who has seen the ups and downs of commerce and business first hand, who knows how to confront their own failure and get back up and keep going, I'll pick the gritty fucker who doesn't give up.
I value someone with 10,000 hours of business experience, not 10,000 hours of couch surfing with unlimited quantities of hookers and blow. You, apparently, value dead-end, trust funded do-nothings with no ambition. Fine with me. I get it. You are firmly in the camp of the ultra-wealthy just sitting back and hoarding their income rather than creating business ventures and putting that money to work for others. I get that too. But the least you can do is to call it that up front. Don't couch it in terms of derision for someone who put on their big-boy pants and made an effort in life.
You miss the point. Supporting one of candidate/party so much that you aren't willing to even discuss the the moles on the face of your favored candidate is a problem. Instead you throw mud and false accusations in response to serious discussion of the problems your candidate created. That is indicative of voluntary myopia, a chosen disassociation and disorientation to reality. Don't feel singled out. This type of thought is epidemic.
For instance: I never mentioned third party voting. You didn't even read what I said, or you can't comprehend it from behind your bunkers of self reinforcing, tail chasing, rah-rah bullshit.
What I am more concerned about than the person who is elected? If your candidate won, would you hold them accountable for their actions during their tenure, or continue to blindly support them regardless of their actions, just because they are your chosen party candidate? Based on how little of that is going around before the election and during the last presidency...well lets just say that I have serious doubts that you would.
So, the reality is that one of these fucking jokers will get elected, and the people that support them will not take them to task and hold them accountable when they do incredibly destructive things to our nation. That is a problem. Keep pointing fingers all you want. Until you learn to point them at the people who run your own party things will continue to deteriorate.
Slashdot Mirror
Realize that if it is the last pain you ever feel you won't have to remember it later, so infinite amounts of pain are irrelevant at the time of death.
It doesn't matter how many hours you put in if you were enticed by and promised things that don't exist in the game. You could love the game, give it honestly rave reviews, and play it every day for 8 hours. Doesn't matter. Your playing or not playing the game, or a better way to put it is, the behavior of the purchaser subsequent to purchase has no bearing on the advertising tactics and their honesty/dishonesty in describing the game. Money should be refunded based on the request of the purchaser because of the actions of the selling company previous to purchase. Everything that happens after purchase is immaterial.
Why? Because even if someone played the game for 400000 hours, they would never get what was promised in the advertising. IMHO the penalties should go up with play time. It means that person has been defrauded of the missing material more than someone who barely plays the game.
There are only two parties. The voters (electorate) and the people who get elected. Any other viewpoint turns you into a tool of the elected.
I think we can all safely say they pale in comparison to audiophiles...{shudder}
Putting a Hitler mustache on it made it hilarious!
Grow a funny bone and join me in laughing at what folly it is to be human.
In that vein, how much will the climate change in the future and how does that impact the long-term survival of humans? The Earth has been considerably hotter at times in the past, even without anthropocentric intervention (that we know of.) Additionally, the Earth has been considerably cooler at times in the past. If the past is the best indicator of the future, and you extrapolate forward into the future on a long enough timeline, it becomes self evident that we are ill prepared for what inevitably will come.
So, the question arises again, "Will our shortsighted, selfish approach to existence do us in (finally!), or will our wily human ingenuity find yet another way out of the hole we have dug ourselves into?"
Until then it fits in the bucket of "it's only wrong when a white male does it".
Looks like the ante has been upped and the phrase should be amended to reflect the new reality: "it's only prosecutable when a white male does it"
Seen through that lens it may reveal the prevailing winds of racism in this country.
Not to be pedantic, just precise, the wording of the passage you mention about "taking up the sword" refers specifically to criminality and not to war.
Writing this as someone who listens with open ears and mind when you speak on matters concerning gender spectrum, trans/gay and trans/straight community relations, gender intelligence, etc. You are cogent, empathetic, and well read; all qualities I respect and that I look for and notice. And, as a personal note, I prefer the company of people who can face themselves and choose to drop societal norms and external reference points for their identity and in doing so free themselves to truly be themselves. I get from reading your posts that you have done this, and traveled a road that many of us don't have the fortitude to face.
So, with all of your intentionality in creating an online persona that has credibility in the realms I mentioned above, why oh why would you repeat such an obviously fabricated attack on the 2nd amendment that is so easily contradicted with authoritative sources?
I honestly would like to know. I respect your intelligence and the strength you show in standing for others. It is inspiring. What I can't fathom is how something like this juvenile misrepresentation of fact could slip by you. If you would like to oppose gun rights there are better approaches than this thoroughly debunked intentional misreading of the constitution. I challenge you to do better. Not that I support curtailing gun rights for law abiding citizens, far from it. I just know from reading your posts that you are capable of a better argument than that.
As steel sharpens steel, so one mind sharpens another.
"He's not keeping all of the, though:"
Well, I either!
Are you willing to put the survival of your employer above your own and will you do blatantly illegal things for them? Are you socially liberal but psychologically pathological? Have you misplaced your conscience so thoroughly you sometimes wonder if you ever had one? Have you kidnapped an albino child and sacrificed them to Yog-Sothoth over a deep ocean trench? If not, would you for the chance at $50k per year and mediocre benefits?
If so there is one of these jobs waiting for you! Just place the tattered remains of your soul in the receptacle and you're in! Please stay out of the sun for the rest of your life, which should last forever now.
I listened to the noise in the "article" and it sounds more like a feedback from a hot mic coming out the speaker or something like that,
That observation is just downright scary...
No, of course they're not listening to you, right? RIGHT?!?!
If that were the case it would have been "Nixxongate" not "Watergate."
You should be complaining about water!
Just because people are stupid doesn't mean capitalism is bad. By analogy, let's say your dad has stage 4 cancer and has an operation to extend his life. The operation is going well by then he dies on the operating table. You might, under the same stupid and misguided logic of your own assumptions listed above, declare that the medical profession is evil. It doesn't make it so, but I am sure you could convince a bunch of people to follow you in this idea if you put it on the Internet with the proper heart string pulling emotional appeals. There's even a ready-made fertile audience of recently discredited anti-vaccers just itching to support you in your unfounded attacks on the medical profession. Regardless of the level of support, it doesn't mean that calling something evil makes it so.
Those with "the greatest need" aren't taking a frickin Uber. They're in an ambulance or on Life Flight. Everyone else has the same level of "need."
"The glass ceiling is in you. The glass ceiling is conscience."
—Jacob Holtzbrinck, The Keys to the Planet
I like how you question the validity of the consensus view of the past, then immediately you assertively declare how the past was, without any question to the validity of your personal view of the past.
Inconsistent much?
Thank you for the very accurate description of the underlying issues with Assange and his "extradition" to Sweden.
That you were modded down is indicative of the problems with stating the truth. Someone who knows the truth, but feels it is an impediment to their false narrative, will ultimately want to bury the information. If I had mod points I would try to un-bury your post.
For some reason the military, even those in jail, do not tolerate someone who they consider an oath breaker and traitor.
That reason couldn't be a reduced sentence for proving your loyalty to your superiors on the outside, could it? It would never occur to a military or political leader to order one prisoner to attack another prisoner in return for a reduction in charges, would it? It's obvious that military and political leaders who engage in illegal activities will, once exposed by a whistle blower, meekly submit themselves to the law, make a full confession of all possible illegal or even questionable activities they engaged in, and throw themselves on the mercy of the American public, right? They would never, ever, ever try to cover up their activities or attempt to punish a whistle blower. No...no way, no how. Uh uhh. Nooooooooo. Nooooooooooooooooooooooo! /sarcasm
Wrong, wrong, wrong. You are only considering the flow of dollars in one direction, and seeing the pricing increase from the aspect of only the customer. There are many more sides to this issue.
For instance, if you want at-will employees to interrupt their time off and drive into an area with panicked people and bombs going off you will need to incentivize them.
See, that right there should be enough to explain the difference between this scenario and the incredibly stupid drug analogy you tried to clumsily apply to this situation. If that is not enough, see the scenario below.
Imagine you are in your house, chilling. Its your day off. You see the news and realize someone is bombing a part of the city that is a ways across town. You're thinking "I was going to go get a slice of pizza down the street, but fuck that! Glad I have the day off and am safe in my house right now." Right about then, your boss calls and says "Hey, there's a bunch of crazy people setting off bombs in the city. I need you to go drive down where the bombs are and all the crazy people and the screaming and yelling and such. Take your personal car, go pick up strangers. I'll pay you your normal wages for this."
If your response is "Fuck that and fuck you, boss." you answered correctly.
You see, in your completely short sighted analogy the person selling the drug experiences no risk, only massive profit. The person driving into a shitstorm in their personal car, on their day off, to pick people up? You and almost everyone else didn't even consider them.
While I catch your meaning, religions is used to provide instant, irrefutable answers to important questions.
Based on this quote from your post I can declare that you know nothing of the serious study of ancient documents that are considered "religious" in nature. Not that I would expect you to, but if you were to take a look at just these simple subjects about one religion you might figure out how misplaced your assertions are: texual criticism, canonicity, isagogics, exegetics, systematic theology.
The "answers" in an ancient text like the Bible for instance, require hundreds of hours to discern and are far from irrefutable. The questions that are answered are even harder to figure out! Sure there are a multitude of people who use a text like the Bible to create an artificial authority structure based on the power that ancient books have over some people, but you can bet your bottom dollar that those people aren't actually teaching what is in the book. They are more likely to use guilt motivation, religious superiority complex indoctrination, and shame to line their pockets and control their parishioners, none of which is supported by the text in the book.
Even better, go read "The Hero with a Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell. That book alone will give you a hint about how instant an answer religion will give you about one single subject.
You, like many others, make the mistake of conflating "What people do" and "What a book says." The two may not have anything to do with each other, and in the case of the Bible, they frequently could not be farther separated.
Also, if you ask some priests and/or scholars you will get different answers than the one you referred to ("7 days.")
Great point. However what you advocate is contrary to the way the current "two party + the media" system works. The media and the politicians can meta-discuss the discussion of the discussions, ad infinitum. This allows them to avoid any policy discussions, completely. This is not a side effect. This is by intention.
Homosexuality was considered a mental illness until 1973, a full 30 years after the founding of the AAPS. It was in the DSM-II and was treated in a number of shocking ways, including institutionalization, drug treatment, and ECT. I don't know about you, but imprisoning people, drugging them up, and forcing shock treatments on them would not be on my list of things to do with government medical dollars. And yet, with the way that homosexuality was considered by the medical and psychiatric establishment, that is exactly what socialized, government controlled medicine would have done. Your tax dollars would have been used to imprison (in mental health facilities) and torture homosexuals.
Not trying to support the AAPS, just pointing to the fact that socialized medicine under government control would have created a medical torture state for homosexuals if not for the dedication of groups and people devoted to "fight socialized medicine and to fight the government takeover of medicine."
People like you scare me.
I keep hearing this quote "if he had just put the money in an indexed fund..." Whenever I do, I wonder what kind of person would just sit on a huge pile of money, collecting interest and just fucking off every single day of their life. Apparently that is what everyone who states this quote respects: a lazy, entitled do-nothing without ambition, drive, experience, or the guts to take a risk in life. That is the measure of success you are appealing to Pfhorrest. That is what you are idolizing. Not the rugged American spirit of get out and make something of yourself, but an aristocratic model of inherited ascendance where indolent opulence without struggle or fear is the earthly Nirvana we should all strive for.
I am not trying to be rude when I say this, but you are an imbecile.
I am not a Trump supporter. That being said, I understand intrinsically that playing with a huge pile of cash might teach you some rules of the games that people with huge piles of cash play. People like all of the politicians we elect to office. People that run huge corporations. People like foreign heads of state. I also understand that someone who engages in investments and speculation learns more about business and how people work than someone who spends all of their time living off of daddy's trust fund. Given the choice between a person who just sits around on their ass for their entire life collecting interest, and someone who wakes up every day and decides to work their ass off when they don't even have to, I'll take the guy with work ethic every single time. Given a choice between some rich person who hides behind their inheritance, insulated from the vicissitudes of life by their immense wealth, and someone who has seen the ups and downs of commerce and business first hand, who knows how to confront their own failure and get back up and keep going, I'll pick the gritty fucker who doesn't give up.
I value someone with 10,000 hours of business experience, not 10,000 hours of couch surfing with unlimited quantities of hookers and blow. You, apparently, value dead-end, trust funded do-nothings with no ambition. Fine with me. I get it. You are firmly in the camp of the ultra-wealthy just sitting back and hoarding their income rather than creating business ventures and putting that money to work for others. I get that too. But the least you can do is to call it that up front. Don't couch it in terms of derision for someone who put on their big-boy pants and made an effort in life.
You miss the point. Supporting one of candidate/party so much that you aren't willing to even discuss the the moles on the face of your favored candidate is a problem. Instead you throw mud and false accusations in response to serious discussion of the problems your candidate created. That is indicative of voluntary myopia, a chosen disassociation and disorientation to reality. Don't feel singled out. This type of thought is epidemic.
For instance: I never mentioned third party voting. You didn't even read what I said, or you can't comprehend it from behind your bunkers of self reinforcing, tail chasing, rah-rah bullshit.
What I am more concerned about than the person who is elected? If your candidate won, would you hold them accountable for their actions during their tenure, or continue to blindly support them regardless of their actions, just because they are your chosen party candidate? Based on how little of that is going around before the election and during the last presidency...well lets just say that I have serious doubts that you would.
So, the reality is that one of these fucking jokers will get elected, and the people that support them will not take them to task and hold them accountable when they do incredibly destructive things to our nation. That is a problem. Keep pointing fingers all you want. Until you learn to point them at the people who run your own party things will continue to deteriorate.