I don't care what video games think about the issue. The term "race" came about because in the 19th century, scientists believed that there was a big biological distinction between what they termed white, black, brown, yellow, and red people. I'll let you figure out which those correspond to. However modern science has found that to not be the case; there actually isn't a significant enough difference between us for different races to be called a subspecies (i.e. how a dog is a subspecies of a wolf.)
What gawker did in the Hogan case was completely wrong, and it doesn't matter who was backing action against them, even if it was Adolf Hitler. You likewise can't validate what they did just because you don't like the prosecution.
Err, no. I see people talking about black skin and light skin in the conversation. That's skin colour, not race. You do know that there's more than one race with black skin, don't you? Just like there's more than one race with light skin.
Well if you want to be a dick and split hairs over semantics then you're wrong because humans are just one race.
Even if you orgasm with thought alone, you're creating the circumstances that will trigger it; thought alone can make your heart beat faster as well. However you can't just orgasm on demand, and if you could have an erection on demand, then nobody would ever buy Viagra.
And no, attractiveness or lack thereof isn't ever racist. I found myself less attracted to this girl I knew who changed her hair to blonde, and I don't have anything against blonde, I'm just not as attracted to it. And guess what? That's very common. Skin color is much more noticeable than hair color, so it makes sense that somebody would feel that way. And believe it or not, humans have a natural biological preference to associate with people who look more like themselves, which includes relationships.
Here's a tip though. The novelty of having a magazine body wears off quickly. And it doesn't guarantee good sex either. It certainly doesn't correlate with a good personally or good relationship either. Once the lights are off, once you get into doing things together... there are more important things.
Also, there is something wrong with not ever wanting to date a black person. What possible reason could there be other than racism? Black people have all body types, all personality types... if it's just skin colour, that's terrible.
That might be the way you want things to be, but our biology doesn't work that way. Believe it or not, it is completely impossible for a male to control whether or not he has an erection and thus can even have intercourse. It truly is an involuntary function, much like your heartbeat. Sure, you can produce the circumstances that cause you to have an erection, just like you can run to cause your heart to beat faster, but it still remains out of your control. This is also why it's possible for a female to rape a male, triggering involuntary ejaculation. Similar biological processes determine what the male would rather have in a mate, and that can exclude any number of things, big or small, from hair color to personality.
Likewise, it's not racist to have no attraction to somebody of the opposite race, just as it's not sexist for homosexuals to have no attraction to the opposite sex.
The point comes off to me as being that some people aren't happy with the fact that most males have their own ideas about what is attractive to them (which sometimes includes other males while excluding all females) and that often means no attractiveness to certain body types, of which being grossly overweight often falls out of bounds (which if you consider evolution, that actually does make sense.)
I don't think it is right or wrong for anybody to have a particular thing that they're attractive to and thus want to prefer it, rather, it just is, and that's life. However I do think it is wrong for people to shame other people for not wanting a relationship with a certain segment of the population. For example, if you're white and you don't want to ever date a black person, that is perfectly acceptable.
Umm...in case you forgot, Europe did the natives MUCH worse than the US did prior to it even existing, namely the destruction of the Aztec and Inca empires via enslavement, disease, and "convert to christianity or die" terms. The US killed them and forced them off of their land, yes, but we didn't commit any form of genocide or enslavement.
But since you asked, let's go on: Even more recent than the holocaust was mass european colonialism that caused a lot of African, Middle-Eastern, and Asian countries to hate the west, which was not only recent but spans at least 400 years. And not only did you start the second world war, but the first one as well, communism, numerous inquisitions, crusades, and the dark ages. There's a lot more I can't think of at the moment or are somewhat localized (i.e the reign of terror) but Europe doesn't have a peaceful past at all, rather this "second renaissance" is only a recent thing, and may end soon thanks to at least 25% of the European population voting for self admitted fascists into office (and no, Trump doesn't even begin to qualify as fascist, even if he does get elected.)
Yet somehow you guys have yourselves convinced that, aside from the holocaust, you've never done any harm to anybody, and when it comes to politics often identify yourselves as "the rest of the world" when you compare yourselves to the US. That probably comes from the fact that you've colonized most of it and installed your own culture, while you just assume that everybody else thinks the same as you, even though they actually don't. Try reading wikipedia in non-european languages; you'll find that most of the world which doesn't speak a European language doesn't think anything like you when it comes to politics.
And I'm not hating on Europeans just to hate on Europeans. Lots of countries are guilty of similar crimes. However, you had to ask, so I told.
No, it's just that in the US, freedom of expression is something we culturally value far more than Europe does. You can express something no matter how backwards the rest of us think it is. For example, in the US, most of us hate communism, fascism, and wahhabism, but, people are allowed to glorify them if they want, or denigrate them if they want, and you won't risk persecution.
In Europe on the other hand, glorifying fascism can often land you in jail, while denigrating wahhabism can in many cases be considered a hate crime and also land you in jail.
Again, I'm a bit perplexed since I can't imagine why you would think saying something to make a point about the real world is not supposed to reflect the real world.
Because the point isn't to create an alternate reality, like you seem to think I'm attempting. The point is to show the weakness in the argument in favor of suggesting that we need to create exclusionary educational programs that cater only to minorities and females, which I did pretty effectively I might add.
Look, you want to write a work of fiction, go ahead, but at least add the standard disclaimer.
So in other words, you're saying that you thought the numbers I posted earlier were real, and I had to explicitly tell you otherwise?....Oh....
Yep, Greenpeace totally wants them to go blind, and doesn't suggest alternative solutions, they're not at all concerned that this magic bullet isn't effective, and isn't a scam taking money away from other options that are proven to work. [greenpeace.org]
Honestly you're an idiot if you think any of that is true. Seriously this is the same shit that anti-vaxers claim, only for a different "conspiracy".
Better than 80 years ago, when we had the Dust Bowl, but I guess you'd blame that on the Hippies too.
Eh sorry, not falling for your straw man argument.
No, they're not, they're just beholden to US laws. They can however refuse most requests if they want, and even challenge the ones that are legally made. Chinese owned companies will ultimately have to do anything that the government asks.
, and doesn't ship from the US. My SG made Cisco gear never passes through the US.
I didn't say all equipment does, rather what was meant by my comment is that so far it's only the gear that is shipped from the US that has been known to have been compromised.
Huawei has never had a vulnerability found
Neither did Cisco, until Snowden leaked it, and if that didn't happen then we'd still probably remain unaware of it to this day. And even then, there isn't any evidence that Cisco was even aware of it happening.
I think the reason for that is that this kind of gear is critical infrastructure gear, and Huawei, like any Chinese company, is ultimately beholden to the demands of their government. Other countries avoid Cisco for a slightly different reason. Cisco isn't beholden to the US government, however the problem is that their gear ships from the US, which means that there's nothing stopping the US government from adulterating it some time between when it leaves Cisco's hands and ends up in its customer's hands, and even though they're technically not allowed to do that, they do it anyways.
So I guess your answer to my question is that you got in a tricked out DeLorean and traveled to 2046 and grabbed the latest copy of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and brought it back in time?
Not a farmer, an agribusinessman there is a big difference. The famer loves and cares for the land where as the later just uses it until its broke and moves on to go break somewhere else
Except the one you describe as "agribusinessman" typically has owned their farm for many generations. I think the term you meant to use was "hippie". And yes, greenpeace is full of hippies that oppose GMO, and even vehemently oppose a GMO crop that can easily solve TON of chronic diseases in eastern countries (such as blindness) called golden rice.
Why? Because again, greenpeace are hippies, and they oppose it just over the principle of the fact that it's GMO, and really don't give a shit about the people with chronic illness, nevermind that there's no actual profit motive for golden rice (if the target consumer of golden rice actually had money, they would be able to afford more than just rice, and wouldn't have any problems related to malnutrition.)
And as is well known, hippies will never be satisfied until agricultural technology reverts to the way we had to do things 70 years ago.
So? I'm not sure that was unrecognized, I'm really quite perplexed at what you are trying to assert. Are you saying that your thought experiment can't be examined or challenged?
No. You specifically complained that it's not reflective of the real world. A thought experiment isn't supposed to be a real world situation, otherwise it would just be a survey.
Honestly you're a bit on the retarded side dude, I don't think any rational thought will ever make any sense to you. Have a nice...existence.
This is the problem with your logic. You are supposing an ideal condition of inherent worker satisfaction, that is not evident from the real world, or even likely. And in fact, the real world, has a lot more than 25 people, or 100 people, and it's full of a lot of different things.
It's called a thought experiment.
It's funny that your example is based on the music industry, professional performers at that, a very small subset of individuals. But it's also an industry FULL of problems, and questions.
The whole point of bringing up that industry is that it's highly reflective of the cultural values of its listeners, and I didn't use it for any other purpose.
Anyways, you're nothing more than a douche, so get over yourself already.
Safety is a red herring. I have two objections to GM crops: biodiversity and lock-in (though they don't both apply to the same crops).
The biodiversity issue has nothing to do with GM crops and is a problem with agriculture as a whole, regardless of where the seeds come from.
This means that, if they breed true, then they are going to displace all of the originals and you will end up with a homogeneous group, which is then vulnerable to a single parasite/bacterium.
In case you haven't noticed, this already happens. None of the shit we grow on farmland even exists in the wild. Take bananas for example; notice how they don't have any seeds? How do you suppose they breed? At least with GM technology, if a pathogen spreads that begins to kill off a given crop, we can fix the problem in a much shorter amount of time than is the case with conventional breeding.
The second problem is that many of them don't breed true or, indeed, at all. You must keep buying new seeds from the same company, you can't collect your own seed stock. This means that your food supply becomes entirely dependent on a small number of companies.
Not only have you just contradicted yourself (with regard to your earlier statement about GMO being hardier and replacing their conventional counterparts -- you can't have it both ways here) but this is false. Although Monsanto patented terminator genes, they've never actually sold anything with them. Besides, your argument is horribly out of date:
Most of those organizations are pro business growth at any cost, that's why they like GMO and fund research to sell it.
Did you happen to notice how prophetic my third sentence was?
The farmers of the world that GMO claims to help are so sick of top down reorganization they will not buy it , its that simple. GMO farming is buying into a system you don't control that will ultimately control you. Notice the careful wording about the situations where pests become resistant, that's because its not magic. If you offer a choice to indiginous farmers (without destroying their land first) they reject it.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't care what video games think about the issue. The term "race" came about because in the 19th century, scientists believed that there was a big biological distinction between what they termed white, black, brown, yellow, and red people. I'll let you figure out which those correspond to. However modern science has found that to not be the case; there actually isn't a significant enough difference between us for different races to be called a subspecies (i.e. how a dog is a subspecies of a wolf.)
Oh don't worry, Hillary will just email them to a more responsible person.
Given that those restaurants are owned by franchisees, it doesn't affect McDonalds. Besides, nobody is going to fault them for hoodlum behavior.
What gawker did in the Hogan case was completely wrong, and it doesn't matter who was backing action against them, even if it was Adolf Hitler. You likewise can't validate what they did just because you don't like the prosecution.
No, you only think you can, but in reality you can't. That entire function is part of your autonomic nervous system.
Err, no. I see people talking about black skin and light skin in the conversation. That's skin colour, not race. You do know that there's more than one race with black skin, don't you? Just like there's more than one race with light skin.
Well if you want to be a dick and split hairs over semantics then you're wrong because humans are just one race.
There is an opposite race?
Strictly within the context of the conversation, only two were mentioned, so yes.
Even if you orgasm with thought alone, you're creating the circumstances that will trigger it; thought alone can make your heart beat faster as well. However you can't just orgasm on demand, and if you could have an erection on demand, then nobody would ever buy Viagra.
And no, attractiveness or lack thereof isn't ever racist. I found myself less attracted to this girl I knew who changed her hair to blonde, and I don't have anything against blonde, I'm just not as attracted to it. And guess what? That's very common. Skin color is much more noticeable than hair color, so it makes sense that somebody would feel that way. And believe it or not, humans have a natural biological preference to associate with people who look more like themselves, which includes relationships.
It's not about individual's preferences.
Here's a tip though. The novelty of having a magazine body wears off quickly. And it doesn't guarantee good sex either. It certainly doesn't correlate with a good personally or good relationship either. Once the lights are off, once you get into doing things together... there are more important things.
Also, there is something wrong with not ever wanting to date a black person. What possible reason could there be other than racism? Black people have all body types, all personality types... if it's just skin colour, that's terrible.
That might be the way you want things to be, but our biology doesn't work that way. Believe it or not, it is completely impossible for a male to control whether or not he has an erection and thus can even have intercourse. It truly is an involuntary function, much like your heartbeat. Sure, you can produce the circumstances that cause you to have an erection, just like you can run to cause your heart to beat faster, but it still remains out of your control. This is also why it's possible for a female to rape a male, triggering involuntary ejaculation. Similar biological processes determine what the male would rather have in a mate, and that can exclude any number of things, big or small, from hair color to personality.
Likewise, it's not racist to have no attraction to somebody of the opposite race, just as it's not sexist for homosexuals to have no attraction to the opposite sex.
The point comes off to me as being that some people aren't happy with the fact that most males have their own ideas about what is attractive to them (which sometimes includes other males while excluding all females) and that often means no attractiveness to certain body types, of which being grossly overweight often falls out of bounds (which if you consider evolution, that actually does make sense.)
I don't think it is right or wrong for anybody to have a particular thing that they're attractive to and thus want to prefer it, rather, it just is, and that's life. However I do think it is wrong for people to shame other people for not wanting a relationship with a certain segment of the population. For example, if you're white and you don't want to ever date a black person, that is perfectly acceptable.
Umm...in case you forgot, Europe did the natives MUCH worse than the US did prior to it even existing, namely the destruction of the Aztec and Inca empires via enslavement, disease, and "convert to christianity or die" terms. The US killed them and forced them off of their land, yes, but we didn't commit any form of genocide or enslavement.
But since you asked, let's go on: Even more recent than the holocaust was mass european colonialism that caused a lot of African, Middle-Eastern, and Asian countries to hate the west, which was not only recent but spans at least 400 years. And not only did you start the second world war, but the first one as well, communism, numerous inquisitions, crusades, and the dark ages. There's a lot more I can't think of at the moment or are somewhat localized (i.e the reign of terror) but Europe doesn't have a peaceful past at all, rather this "second renaissance" is only a recent thing, and may end soon thanks to at least 25% of the European population voting for self admitted fascists into office (and no, Trump doesn't even begin to qualify as fascist, even if he does get elected.)
Yet somehow you guys have yourselves convinced that, aside from the holocaust, you've never done any harm to anybody, and when it comes to politics often identify yourselves as "the rest of the world" when you compare yourselves to the US. That probably comes from the fact that you've colonized most of it and installed your own culture, while you just assume that everybody else thinks the same as you, even though they actually don't. Try reading wikipedia in non-european languages; you'll find that most of the world which doesn't speak a European language doesn't think anything like you when it comes to politics.
And I'm not hating on Europeans just to hate on Europeans. Lots of countries are guilty of similar crimes. However, you had to ask, so I told.
No, it's just that in the US, freedom of expression is something we culturally value far more than Europe does. You can express something no matter how backwards the rest of us think it is. For example, in the US, most of us hate communism, fascism, and wahhabism, but, people are allowed to glorify them if they want, or denigrate them if they want, and you won't risk persecution.
In Europe on the other hand, glorifying fascism can often land you in jail, while denigrating wahhabism can in many cases be considered a hate crime and also land you in jail.
That was before the cola wars devastated Canada. Nowadays Justin Beiber is the pride of Canada and presently reigns supreme.
That or I was going to say that a Hepatologist doesn't need to experience liver failure to be an expert at understanding liver disease.
You can be an expert on a subject without necessarily participating in it.
Again, I'm a bit perplexed since I can't imagine why you would think saying something to make a point about the real world is not supposed to reflect the real world.
Because the point isn't to create an alternate reality, like you seem to think I'm attempting. The point is to show the weakness in the argument in favor of suggesting that we need to create exclusionary educational programs that cater only to minorities and females, which I did pretty effectively I might add.
Look, you want to write a work of fiction, go ahead, but at least add the standard disclaimer.
So in other words, you're saying that you thought the numbers I posted earlier were real, and I had to explicitly tell you otherwise? ....Oh....
Yep, Greenpeace totally wants them to go blind, and doesn't suggest alternative solutions, they're not at all concerned that this magic bullet isn't effective, and isn't a scam taking money away from other options that are proven to work. [greenpeace.org]
Honestly you're an idiot if you think any of that is true. Seriously this is the same shit that anti-vaxers claim, only for a different "conspiracy".
Better than 80 years ago, when we had the Dust Bowl, but I guess you'd blame that on the Hippies too.
Eh sorry, not falling for your straw man argument.
Cisco is beholden to the US government
No, they're not, they're just beholden to US laws. They can however refuse most requests if they want, and even challenge the ones that are legally made. Chinese owned companies will ultimately have to do anything that the government asks.
, and doesn't ship from the US. My SG made Cisco gear never passes through the US.
I didn't say all equipment does, rather what was meant by my comment is that so far it's only the gear that is shipped from the US that has been known to have been compromised.
Huawei has never had a vulnerability found
Neither did Cisco, until Snowden leaked it, and if that didn't happen then we'd still probably remain unaware of it to this day. And even then, there isn't any evidence that Cisco was even aware of it happening.
I think the reason for that is that this kind of gear is critical infrastructure gear, and Huawei, like any Chinese company, is ultimately beholden to the demands of their government. Other countries avoid Cisco for a slightly different reason. Cisco isn't beholden to the US government, however the problem is that their gear ships from the US, which means that there's nothing stopping the US government from adulterating it some time between when it leaves Cisco's hands and ends up in its customer's hands, and even though they're technically not allowed to do that, they do it anyways.
So I guess your answer to my question is that you got in a tricked out DeLorean and traveled to 2046 and grabbed the latest copy of the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and brought it back in time?
Not a farmer, an agribusinessman there is a big difference. The famer loves and cares for the land where as the later just uses it until its broke and moves on to go break somewhere else
Except the one you describe as "agribusinessman" typically has owned their farm for many generations. I think the term you meant to use was "hippie". And yes, greenpeace is full of hippies that oppose GMO, and even vehemently oppose a GMO crop that can easily solve TON of chronic diseases in eastern countries (such as blindness) called golden rice.
Why? Because again, greenpeace are hippies, and they oppose it just over the principle of the fact that it's GMO, and really don't give a shit about the people with chronic illness, nevermind that there's no actual profit motive for golden rice (if the target consumer of golden rice actually had money, they would be able to afford more than just rice, and wouldn't have any problems related to malnutrition.)
And as is well known, hippies will never be satisfied until agricultural technology reverts to the way we had to do things 70 years ago.
So? I'm not sure that was unrecognized, I'm really quite perplexed at what you are trying to assert. Are you saying that your thought experiment can't be examined or challenged?
No. You specifically complained that it's not reflective of the real world. A thought experiment isn't supposed to be a real world situation, otherwise it would just be a survey.
Honestly you're a bit on the retarded side dude, I don't think any rational thought will ever make any sense to you. Have a nice...existence.
This is the problem with your logic. You are supposing an ideal condition of inherent worker satisfaction, that is not evident from the real world, or even likely. And in fact, the real world, has a lot more than 25 people, or 100 people, and it's full of a lot of different things.
It's called a thought experiment.
It's funny that your example is based on the music industry, professional performers at that, a very small subset of individuals. But it's also an industry FULL of problems, and questions.
The whole point of bringing up that industry is that it's highly reflective of the cultural values of its listeners, and I didn't use it for any other purpose.
Anyways, you're nothing more than a douche, so get over yourself already.
Safety is a red herring. I have two objections to GM crops: biodiversity and lock-in (though they don't both apply to the same crops).
The biodiversity issue has nothing to do with GM crops and is a problem with agriculture as a whole, regardless of where the seeds come from.
This means that, if they breed true, then they are going to displace all of the originals and you will end up with a homogeneous group, which is then vulnerable to a single parasite/bacterium.
In case you haven't noticed, this already happens. None of the shit we grow on farmland even exists in the wild. Take bananas for example; notice how they don't have any seeds? How do you suppose they breed? At least with GM technology, if a pathogen spreads that begins to kill off a given crop, we can fix the problem in a much shorter amount of time than is the case with conventional breeding.
The second problem is that many of them don't breed true or, indeed, at all. You must keep buying new seeds from the same company, you can't collect your own seed stock. This means that your food supply becomes entirely dependent on a small number of companies.
Not only have you just contradicted yourself (with regard to your earlier statement about GMO being hardier and replacing their conventional counterparts -- you can't have it both ways here) but this is false. Although Monsanto patented terminator genes, they've never actually sold anything with them. Besides, your argument is horribly out of date:
https://www.technologyreview.c...
Anyways go back to your food religion church to congregate.
Most of those organizations are pro business growth at any cost, that's why they like GMO and fund research to sell it.
Did you happen to notice how prophetic my third sentence was?
The farmers of the world that GMO claims to help are so sick of top down reorganization they will not buy it , its that simple. GMO farming is buying into a system you don't control that will ultimately control you. Notice the careful wording about the situations where pests become resistant, that's because its not magic. If you offer a choice to indiginous farmers (without destroying their land first) they reject it.
Really? Perhaps you could explain this one then:
https://www.technologyreview.c...