You're a censorship nazi because you advocate a total ban on anonymous speech. I even gave you examples of Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin (who not only published anonymously, but both were critical figures during the enlightenment period, which resulted in a shift in political discourse away from religion and more towards empirical science) and you still repeated your pro-censorship tripe.
So fuck you, Nazi.
And you really need to learn some biology - the penis is NOT removed, just surgically reshaped and repositioned.
False.
Corpus spongiosum? Gone. Corpus cavernosum? Gone. (both of them) Glans (mostly) gone (only a small part of it is left intact)
That is basically all of the penis, without even getting to the scrotum.
Here's some biology education for you:
Most of what is visible on your penis is in fact your skin, and therefore with the exception of the glans, your penis consists of internal components (in fact, even the otherwise external glans is normally almost completely covered by guess what?) Your skin is its own organ entirely and is both medically and biologically treated as such, and is in fact the largest (by mass and volume) organ in your body, with the second largest (by mass and volume) being your liver.
Basically all that is re-used is normal skin with a small portion of the glans, and what they actually use from the penis isn't enough so they also take skin from other areas of your body (usually your legs.) Yes, I've actually read about this in detail, as I have of many other subjects not relevant to myself (like narcissism for example.)
So yes, in fact, your genitals were removed, and a much larger skin graft was inserted in their place, and as I mentioned, biologically it is in fact an open wound, and tries to heal as such, requiring constant intervention to prevent it from healing.
The orgasmic capacity as well as the ability to pee both remain intact
In most cases, those functions also remain intact for people who had a medically necessary penectomy, so this is a moot point. In your particular case, much of your orgasm function comes from stimulating your prostate, which you should still have checked every year by the way, just like other men your age.
But you're more interested in attacking me because I chose to follow the recommended medical treatment for a medical condition.
Recommended by whom? Before you answer that, do you know there's actually big disagreement among medical professionals about when and where to do this? For example in the US, out of every 100 prepubescent children, only 22 are given any hormones. The reason why is because 70% to 80% of all children stop having any feelings of dysphoria on their own, which has been well established scientifically. However in other countries (especially Scandinavia) it's usually 100 out of 100 that get this. Time will tell, but I wouldn't be surprised if as these kids grow up (most of them haven't yet) you'll start seeing major backlash in this area, and it will be quite a sad thing (for the victims of bad medicine) if it does.
Of course, you're just going to chalk this up to America being right-wing or whatever other excuse you can come up with, but in the US, medical research is well ahead of the rest of the world.
Granted, you're not a child, but you're one of the 50% who do it just for attention because of your narcissistic tendencies, meaning it is purely psychological in your case, and not because of any physiological causes. There is also another 20% who do it because they are autogynepheliacs, themselves also being psychological in nature.
By the way, ever wonder why FTM transexuals are relatively rare compared to their MTF counterparts? Because the above two psychological categories I mentioned are almost non-existent in their cases. This likely explains why they do better emotionally a
Read some history. The socialism was purged out of the Nazi Party in the early 30s
No it wasn't, idiot. What they purged was communism. Do you even know what Nazi is short for? Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which in English means National Socialist Workers Party. Nazis practiced socialism for as long as they existed. Socialism means that the government owns the means of production. In other words, the government owns the factories and employs the workers. The Nazis allowed private enterprise as well, but all business owners were required to work for "the good of the people", and never for their own interest. What the "good of the people" meant varied by day (similar to how Nazi officials claimed that they get to decide who is a Jew and who isn't.)
All totalitarian regimes like to limit ownership of guns
No shit, Sherlock. By the way, doesn't this remind you of a certain American political party?
So, what you've got for your argument is animal rights? Why do you think that's left-wing? Along with environmental concerns, animal welfare has been of interest to left and right, not necessarily simultaneously.
First of all, the whole point of my post is to show just how meaningless terms like left and right are. Notice my first sentence? Honestly dude, you aren't very bright.
Anyways, let me name a few organizations, and you can tell me which way they lean according to your stupid uni-dimensional political "left-right" scale:
- PETA - ALF - ELF - Animal Justice Project
Hint: Look at their campaign contributions.
Oh, and using your dumb left-right scale, tell me, which side do Vegans typically lie on?
Honestly, this is a total red herring, and therefore a bogus argument. I really doubt students are going to shout down the professor and argue that the earth is flat. This is as dumb as saying that we should ban gay marriage because people will marry animals. Could that happen? Maybe, and in some super rare cases it probably does, but it's extremely extremely unlikely, and even if it did, it wouldn't happen because of a change in the law.
Will this happen on the internet? You bet your ass it will, but nobody really gives a shit about Alex Jones except for some fringe groups that you only ever notice when they attack slashdot or other internet forums, just like vegetarians, #BLM, Apple fans, and APK.
Besides, your post is almost an argument against the scientific method. See my post for more detail about why GGP is wrong:
Not a republican here, but I am an atheist with a strong belief in freedom of speech. That said, you are likely more unbiased here than the GGP Jzanu. Ironically, he doesn't quite understand the scientific method, and was given a +5 insightful, while I was modded troll and overrated for having a better understanding of it. Here's a more detailed explanation of where he has it wrong:
Science is about challenging belief with evidence, particularly procedurally documented and experimentally generated evidence.
No, it's not. Quite wrong, in fact. A hypothesis can challenge an existing belief without evidence; that's what a hypothesis is for. Evidence is established experimentally. It's not until evidence is established and new conclusions are reached that the new belief becomes a theory, or if it describes what is happening in a very specific (i.e. formulaic) manner then it becomes a law.
A good example of challenging a science professor would be to ask something like "well how do we know this doesn't happen because of x?" and a good response would be "well, can X be tested?" If not (i.e. saying it's because of god) then the answer should be something to the effect of "That's a question for your philosophy professor; we only deal with what can be tested here." If it's something that can be tested, a good answer would be either "well know, we know it doesn't because of Y" or if the answer is not known then a good response is "I honestly don't know, but I'll give you extra credit if you do your own research to find out why or why not, and if I determine that it's informative."
That is a great way to run a science class. Dismissing stuff outright because no immediate evidence is available is not only bad practice, but it's counterproductive to a learning environment because it discourages what can very well be very good questions.
claiming belief in the face of contrary evidence are poor imitations and must be called out as a deluded faker.
No. Going this direction is quite counterproductive to science because it discourages people who may very well be on to something, even if it sounds very unlikely.
As a network engineer, I deal with the scientific method all the time while troubleshooting, and I get paid big bucks because I'm damn good at it. If I rule out extremely unlikely things, then I may never get to a proper resolution. An example of this is I was having problems with a device deployment getting bad packet loss after we just installed new cabling for these devices. The group hypothesis was that the people who installed the cabling did a bad job. As a result of my troubleshooting, I discovered that the manufacturer had failed to perform quality control on the device NICs, and as a result, virtually all of them were defective. The later situation was extremely unlikely, but if I had ruled out that hypothesis without testing it, we would have been fighting these cable installs (wasting time and money) for much longer than we should have.
The scientific method is applicable to much more than science. Learn it and love it, and most importantly, DO NOT DISMISS THE UNLIKELY WITHOUT TESTING IT FIRST!
Apple's AI efforts are basically just market followers to other companies who were already first. In fact, Tim Cook is pretty much banking his company's future on clones of other companies products.
Think about it: What does Apple have coming down the pipe that isn't yet another iPhone/iPad/Macintosh or a clone product? They have a knockoff Amazon Echo, and Google and Tesla are already way ahead of them for self driving.
Other than that, nothing.
And even then, their existing AI, Siri, has already fallen behind Amazon's newer Alexa, and is WAY behind Google Now.
TFS makes it sound as though challenging science professors is a bad thing. So long as it isn't disruptive to the class, it shouldn't be discouraged. Science is often all about challenging long-held beliefs, even when those beliefs are held by tenured scientists.
Not every bank gives free checking, most of the ones that do have stipulations attached to that. Free checking didn't even become a thing until the 80's when deregulation occurred that allowed for that and for checking accounts to yield interest.
- Transfers between bank accounts happen truly instantly, i.e. no ACH waiting, and completes within one minute. This is 2017 god dammit. - No need for it to "clear" on the other end. If the sender's funds aren't available, then they just can't fucking send it. So this means no possibility of scamming in a manner similar to check kiting. - A process available to get money back if it's a scammer (i.e. make western union or moneygram style fraud impossible.)
It damages cells and sometimes you get cancer when they repair. That's the mechanism.
If you're just looking at it from that perspective, then literally everything causes cancer. And I do mean EVERYTHING. For example, walking and breathing would cause cancer because they cause damage to muscles and bones, which then have to repair themselves, which means increased likelihood of error when the new cells emerge.
In fact, nicotine is not classified as a carcinogen at all:
Not true. It would force all Presidential tweets to be archived for the public record, including tweets that might end up being deleted for various reasons.
Aren't there lots of people that already do exactly that? I guarantee you that 100% of Trump's tweets can be found, even the deleted ones long before he was POTUS.
Nicotine isn't necessarily harmful, it just depends on the amount, as with everything else. Certain amounts of it are actually beneficial for certain medicinal applications. Foods we often eat also carry nicotine, such as tomatoes, eggplant, and potatoes (all of which are nightshades, as is tobacco itself.) A whole eggplant carries about half a miligram of nicotine for example.
I doubt there's some kind of conspiracy anyways because this shit is super conflicting. For example it suggests that they're worse than unfiltered cigarettes, and yet recent research has shown that the filter poses an increased cancer risk:
An article about a guy working in the US, on a US based article, on a news aggregator website that is US centric...Unless you specify otherwise, (you didn't) then yeah, I'm going to assume that you're talking about the US.
You keep attacking the messenger, but you still have been unable to attack my point
Of course I have, just when you're involved it's kind of pointless.
And it's not removal
It's removal, dude. You had an organ there in the past, and now you have an open wound that continually tries to heal itself, which you actively have to prevent from happening or else it will do exactly that. Actual organs do not do this.
But again, you're a weakling who's still a virgin - we've pretty much proven that,
Who is we? You have a turd in your pocket? But no, you two have done no such thing. However you have confessed to being a censorship Nazi, which is much worse than being a virgin, even if that was true.
What part of shipbuilding? I guarantee you don't build the entire thing yourself, and any particular task you do would be transferable to other careers.
Actually in the case of silicon valley, the government goes out of its way to prevent more housing from being built.
Besides that, your original premise is invalid. Landlords don't charge based on your salary, rather they charge whatever people will pay. People will be willing to pay more in higher demand areas.
Easy fix: Move out of that area. There are plenty of jobs that pay well in other areas. Sure, they don't pay as much as silicon valley, but who cares? What good is a 100k salary when your cost of living well exceeds that? In Phoenix that much money is enough that you never need to worry about money at all. Hell, I make 20k less than that here and I don't even worry about money.
Slashdot Mirror
I were a censorship Nazi
You're a censorship nazi because you advocate a total ban on anonymous speech. I even gave you examples of Thomas Paine and Benjamin Franklin (who not only published anonymously, but both were critical figures during the enlightenment period, which resulted in a shift in political discourse away from religion and more towards empirical science) and you still repeated your pro-censorship tripe.
So fuck you, Nazi.
And you really need to learn some biology - the penis is NOT removed, just surgically reshaped and repositioned.
False.
Corpus spongiosum? Gone.
Corpus cavernosum? Gone. (both of them)
Glans (mostly) gone (only a small part of it is left intact)
That is basically all of the penis, without even getting to the scrotum.
Here's some biology education for you:
Most of what is visible on your penis is in fact your skin, and therefore with the exception of the glans, your penis consists of internal components (in fact, even the otherwise external glans is normally almost completely covered by guess what?) Your skin is its own organ entirely and is both medically and biologically treated as such, and is in fact the largest (by mass and volume) organ in your body, with the second largest (by mass and volume) being your liver.
Basically all that is re-used is normal skin with a small portion of the glans, and what they actually use from the penis isn't enough so they also take skin from other areas of your body (usually your legs.) Yes, I've actually read about this in detail, as I have of many other subjects not relevant to myself (like narcissism for example.)
So yes, in fact, your genitals were removed, and a much larger skin graft was inserted in their place, and as I mentioned, biologically it is in fact an open wound, and tries to heal as such, requiring constant intervention to prevent it from healing.
The orgasmic capacity as well as the ability to pee both remain intact
In most cases, those functions also remain intact for people who had a medically necessary penectomy, so this is a moot point. In your particular case, much of your orgasm function comes from stimulating your prostate, which you should still have checked every year by the way, just like other men your age.
But you're more interested in attacking me because I chose to follow the recommended medical treatment for a medical condition.
Recommended by whom? Before you answer that, do you know there's actually big disagreement among medical professionals about when and where to do this? For example in the US, out of every 100 prepubescent children, only 22 are given any hormones. The reason why is because 70% to 80% of all children stop having any feelings of dysphoria on their own, which has been well established scientifically. However in other countries (especially Scandinavia) it's usually 100 out of 100 that get this. Time will tell, but I wouldn't be surprised if as these kids grow up (most of them haven't yet) you'll start seeing major backlash in this area, and it will be quite a sad thing (for the victims of bad medicine) if it does.
Of course, you're just going to chalk this up to America being right-wing or whatever other excuse you can come up with, but in the US, medical research is well ahead of the rest of the world.
Granted, you're not a child, but you're one of the 50% who do it just for attention because of your narcissistic tendencies, meaning it is purely psychological in your case, and not because of any physiological causes. There is also another 20% who do it because they are autogynepheliacs, themselves also being psychological in nature.
By the way, ever wonder why FTM transexuals are relatively rare compared to their MTF counterparts? Because the above two psychological categories I mentioned are almost non-existent in their cases. This likely explains why they do better emotionally a
Read some history. The socialism was purged out of the Nazi Party in the early 30s
No it wasn't, idiot. What they purged was communism. Do you even know what Nazi is short for? Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei, which in English means National Socialist Workers Party. Nazis practiced socialism for as long as they existed. Socialism means that the government owns the means of production. In other words, the government owns the factories and employs the workers. The Nazis allowed private enterprise as well, but all business owners were required to work for "the good of the people", and never for their own interest. What the "good of the people" meant varied by day (similar to how Nazi officials claimed that they get to decide who is a Jew and who isn't.)
All totalitarian regimes like to limit ownership of guns
No shit, Sherlock. By the way, doesn't this remind you of a certain American political party?
So, what you've got for your argument is animal rights? Why do you think that's left-wing? Along with environmental concerns, animal welfare has been of interest to left and right, not necessarily simultaneously.
First of all, the whole point of my post is to show just how meaningless terms like left and right are. Notice my first sentence? Honestly dude, you aren't very bright.
Anyways, let me name a few organizations, and you can tell me which way they lean according to your stupid uni-dimensional political "left-right" scale:
- PETA
- ALF
- ELF
- Animal Justice Project
Hint: Look at their campaign contributions.
Oh, and using your dumb left-right scale, tell me, which side do Vegans typically lie on?
Honestly, this is a total red herring, and therefore a bogus argument. I really doubt students are going to shout down the professor and argue that the earth is flat. This is as dumb as saying that we should ban gay marriage because people will marry animals. Could that happen? Maybe, and in some super rare cases it probably does, but it's extremely extremely unlikely, and even if it did, it wouldn't happen because of a change in the law.
Will this happen on the internet? You bet your ass it will, but nobody really gives a shit about Alex Jones except for some fringe groups that you only ever notice when they attack slashdot or other internet forums, just like vegetarians, #BLM, Apple fans, and APK.
Besides, your post is almost an argument against the scientific method. See my post for more detail about why GGP is wrong:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Ignorant student challenging established professor is about the stupidest fucking thing on the planet
No, and that is completely the wrong attitude to have about this.
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Not a republican here, but I am an atheist with a strong belief in freedom of speech. That said, you are likely more unbiased here than the GGP Jzanu. Ironically, he doesn't quite understand the scientific method, and was given a +5 insightful, while I was modded troll and overrated for having a better understanding of it. Here's a more detailed explanation of where he has it wrong:
https://slashdot.org/comments....
Science is about challenging belief with evidence, particularly procedurally documented and experimentally generated evidence.
No, it's not. Quite wrong, in fact. A hypothesis can challenge an existing belief without evidence; that's what a hypothesis is for. Evidence is established experimentally. It's not until evidence is established and new conclusions are reached that the new belief becomes a theory, or if it describes what is happening in a very specific (i.e. formulaic) manner then it becomes a law.
A good example of challenging a science professor would be to ask something like "well how do we know this doesn't happen because of x?" and a good response would be "well, can X be tested?" If not (i.e. saying it's because of god) then the answer should be something to the effect of "That's a question for your philosophy professor; we only deal with what can be tested here." If it's something that can be tested, a good answer would be either "well know, we know it doesn't because of Y" or if the answer is not known then a good response is "I honestly don't know, but I'll give you extra credit if you do your own research to find out why or why not, and if I determine that it's informative."
That is a great way to run a science class. Dismissing stuff outright because no immediate evidence is available is not only bad practice, but it's counterproductive to a learning environment because it discourages what can very well be very good questions.
claiming belief in the face of contrary evidence are poor imitations and must be called out as a deluded faker.
No. Going this direction is quite counterproductive to science because it discourages people who may very well be on to something, even if it sounds very unlikely.
As a network engineer, I deal with the scientific method all the time while troubleshooting, and I get paid big bucks because I'm damn good at it. If I rule out extremely unlikely things, then I may never get to a proper resolution. An example of this is I was having problems with a device deployment getting bad packet loss after we just installed new cabling for these devices. The group hypothesis was that the people who installed the cabling did a bad job. As a result of my troubleshooting, I discovered that the manufacturer had failed to perform quality control on the device NICs, and as a result, virtually all of them were defective. The later situation was extremely unlikely, but if I had ruled out that hypothesis without testing it, we would have been fighting these cable installs (wasting time and money) for much longer than we should have.
The scientific method is applicable to much more than science. Learn it and love it, and most importantly, DO NOT DISMISS THE UNLIKELY WITHOUT TESTING IT FIRST!
Apple's AI efforts are basically just market followers to other companies who were already first. In fact, Tim Cook is pretty much banking his company's future on clones of other companies products.
Think about it: What does Apple have coming down the pipe that isn't yet another iPhone/iPad/Macintosh or a clone product? They have a knockoff Amazon Echo, and Google and Tesla are already way ahead of them for self driving.
Other than that, nothing.
And even then, their existing AI, Siri, has already fallen behind Amazon's newer Alexa, and is WAY behind Google Now.
You can keep your 'dumb Germans' racism.
Germany isn't a race.
What does right wing even mean?
Nazis were in favor of gun control, animal rights, and socialism. Are those typically considered right-wing concepts?
Sure, but denying them the opportunity to speak is not cool.
Restricting it how?
TFS makes it sound as though challenging science professors is a bad thing. So long as it isn't disruptive to the class, it shouldn't be discouraged. Science is often all about challenging long-held beliefs, even when those beliefs are held by tenured scientists.
But since the KGB is gone, who will do the possible programming?
Not every bank gives free checking, most of the ones that do have stipulations attached to that. Free checking didn't even become a thing until the 80's when deregulation occurred that allowed for that and for checking accounts to yield interest.
Only way this wins over venmo is if:
- Transfers between bank accounts happen truly instantly, i.e. no ACH waiting, and completes within one minute. This is 2017 god dammit.
- No need for it to "clear" on the other end. If the sender's funds aren't available, then they just can't fucking send it. So this means no possibility of scamming in a manner similar to check kiting.
- A process available to get money back if it's a scammer (i.e. make western union or moneygram style fraud impossible.)
It damages cells and sometimes you get cancer when they repair. That's the mechanism.
If you're just looking at it from that perspective, then literally everything causes cancer. And I do mean EVERYTHING. For example, walking and breathing would cause cancer because they cause damage to muscles and bones, which then have to repair themselves, which means increased likelihood of error when the new cells emerge.
In fact, nicotine is not classified as a carcinogen at all:
http://www.treatobacco.net/en/...
Not true. It would force all Presidential tweets to be archived for the public record, including tweets that might end up being deleted for various reasons.
Aren't there lots of people that already do exactly that? I guarantee you that 100% of Trump's tweets can be found, even the deleted ones long before he was POTUS.
Sola dosis facit venenum.
Nicotine isn't necessarily harmful, it just depends on the amount, as with everything else. Certain amounts of it are actually beneficial for certain medicinal applications. Foods we often eat also carry nicotine, such as tomatoes, eggplant, and potatoes (all of which are nightshades, as is tobacco itself.) A whole eggplant carries about half a miligram of nicotine for example.
I don't think anybody thinks Bitcoin is evil, except maybe those who thrive for more government control, like hardcore Democrats and Republicans.
I doubt there's some kind of conspiracy anyways because this shit is super conflicting. For example it suggests that they're worse than unfiltered cigarettes, and yet recent research has shown that the filter poses an increased cancer risk:
http://tobaccoanalysis.blogspo...
An article about a guy working in the US, on a US based article, on a news aggregator website that is US centric...Unless you specify otherwise, (you didn't) then yeah, I'm going to assume that you're talking about the US.
You keep attacking the messenger, but you still have been unable to attack my point
Of course I have, just when you're involved it's kind of pointless.
And it's not removal
It's removal, dude. You had an organ there in the past, and now you have an open wound that continually tries to heal itself, which you actively have to prevent from happening or else it will do exactly that. Actual organs do not do this.
But again, you're a weakling who's still a virgin - we've pretty much proven that,
Who is we? You have a turd in your pocket? But no, you two have done no such thing. However you have confessed to being a censorship Nazi, which is much worse than being a virgin, even if that was true.
What part of shipbuilding? I guarantee you don't build the entire thing yourself, and any particular task you do would be transferable to other careers.
Actually in the case of silicon valley, the government goes out of its way to prevent more housing from being built.
Besides that, your original premise is invalid. Landlords don't charge based on your salary, rather they charge whatever people will pay. People will be willing to pay more in higher demand areas.
Easy fix: Move out of that area. There are plenty of jobs that pay well in other areas. Sure, they don't pay as much as silicon valley, but who cares? What good is a 100k salary when your cost of living well exceeds that? In Phoenix that much money is enough that you never need to worry about money at all. Hell, I make 20k less than that here and I don't even worry about money.
Who ever said anything about a death list? He was talking about why Bill was impeached, which was accurate.
Nah I just put her on top and do the cowgirl. Real women tend to prefer it that way. You wouldn't know because you removed your genitals.