I will focus on Christianity since I know most about it.
Do not try to extort money from members by charging exorbitant amounts of money for religious services.
Opinions differ on tithing, but we also have examples of monetary payment for sins.
Do not claim to have supernatural effects on reality.
People often pray for people to be healed and they will be healed. That is clearly belief in supernatural influence on reality.
Do not believe that all members of Other Religion X are doomed to damnation.
Are you kidding? It is even worse than believing they are doomed, but that you must go and punish (kill) them yourself. See Deuteronomy 8-19, 13-6, 13-12, Jeremiah 1-16, and 16-10. And this nearly pales in comparison to Islam.
I am afraid many more religions offer this bunk than you seem to believe.
I've got your brain scanned in case something bad should happen to you. Here, I'll put you on: “if you get to use visual studio at work is because you are not good enough to be hired as a Unix coder.” See! That's you! That's how dumb you sound.
If you argue with GlaDOS, you will not receive cake.
When people are confronted with the idea of abolishing behemoths like the IRS and the Fed, even if it was possible, they see it as too monumental of a task to believe it's possible.
The executive can set law enforcement priorities. It can also pardon or commute the sentences of convicts. Ron Paul can tell the nation: “stop paying your income tax and I will pardon you.” He could also do the same for organizations like Liberty Dollar. Not saying this is the intent (or maybe it is—some call this a revolution after all), but these are two tactics that could be used to enact large-scale change.
Let me know how your web browser works with popups, invalid HTML, bad CSS, and barely-functional JavaScript when compared to WebKit, never mind the ever-helpful resolution-independent interface on Mobile Safari.
You are assuming far too much from my comments. What I wrote is what I meant. But I want to be clear, so here I go again.
If you think there's anything consciously rational about the way _human beings_ usually make everyday decisions, you really need to go back to school. Even smart people do suboptimal/irrational/dumb things all the flippin' time. But unless you're a supreme tool (or an economist) you understand this and just wanted to take the "nothing rational about women" comment completely literally since that made the flimsiest straw man.
Maybe I reacted because of experience in geek culture and because I held a similar position way back when. In either case, this joke that women are irrational and impossible to understand started getting old and stopped being funny in geek culture about a decade ago, in my opinion.
So, maybe it's possible that you and your wife have the only rational relationship on earth and are so clearly better than us all, due to your ultra-enlightened/educated status, that you really don't get this. However, a 'rational' person would conclude it's far more likely that your intention was just to brag about your wife, and to try to act smart but dignified while insulting someone for making a joke.
Rationality is important in any relationship and it is not unusual for people to have relationships wherein problems can be worked out meaningfully (as opposed to impassioned shouting matches). But I was not even speaking to relationships, only to provide a substantive counter-example to the generalization I rejected.
Here's a hint- all the hey-its-a-real-logical-argument verbosity just seems pathetic when you aren't making a particularly complicated one. If you just said "nuh-uh, mah wife is rational, cuz _she's_ a doctor", it would have sounded kind of childish, right? Well, thats still all you said so dressing it up doesn't make you look smart. It just makes you look like you need to put down the thesaurus find something useful to be outraged about.
If I had said "I know a woman who is rational" and nothing else, I suspect I would have been challenged for baseless opinion. To avoid that, I cited personal experience and her credentials, that latter indicating she must at least be capable of rational thought. I hope you can see how that would fly directly in the face of: “[t]here is nothing rational about women.”
And if your wife is a real doctor, not like the liberal-arts type but the useful kind—
Mathematics. Define “useful kind”.
I'd recommend you tone it down a bit. Makes you look a little insecure. Women hate that.
Once again, my only position was and is that my wife, a woman, is clearly capable of rationality and that counters the aforementioned generalization. Explain to me how I should “tone it down”.
The original comment was: “[t]here is nothing rational about women”, to which I made two points in response.
One, that holding such a firm belief (having a vagina instead of a penis disqualifies an individual for rationality) without support is itself irrational.
Two, that the generalization is false because I can provide a single counter-example (“in place” of attempt at proof), which I attempted to reinforce with personal experience (the ability to work out problems rationally “serves to hold together parts or elements”) and a mention of credentials (that cannot be gotten by someone incapable of rational thought).
Nowhere did I make a general claim about women (or men) one way or the other and I did not even remotely imply that my wife does not behave irrationally at times (surprise, all humans do). My only position was and is that my wife, a woman, is clearly capable of rationality. Nothing more.
You have misconstrued my simple position and extrapolated it beyond any sensical ends, disparaging me along the way without ever comprehending or speaking directly to my claims, making some absurd assumptions, and never taking the time to open your dictionary. How is the water down there on the deep end anyway?
Well, it is fair enough to say that nobody is entirely rational. As I mentioned in an earlier response, that was not my intention. To clarify the point, it is incorrect to say: a person is irrational because they are a woman. Perhaps we can accurately say: a person may be either rational or irrational, disregarding gender.
Your humility is commendable and something most of the rest of us could learn a great deal from.
But if I ever accused her of being a rational being, she'd break my cranium, and then subtly change something to keep me off balance.
She, like you and I, is both rational and irrational. And the allocation of the two differs from person to person and I do not believe that gender is a prevailing factor (although nurture most definitely is). While I know nothing about the mechanics of your relationship and I am definitely a psychology layman, that sort of behavior seems to me like a form of play. Participants in all sorts of social groups engage each other in games, and I think couples are no different.
Geeks do know about women. Just not very much.
As much as you can learn about anybody, I suppose.
If this is a rational world, why would rational women read cosmo? Why would rational men read maxim, look at playboy, or watch the man show?
If my comments implied even the faintest idea that all people are always rational actors in a rational world, then I wrote them poorly and I enjoy that you point out the contrary. My next question is: why is reading Cosmo or Playboy irrational? That is meant to be rhetorical, of course. We can easily find good reasons to explore fashion or consume pornography, but motives in these cases may simply boil down to entertainment.
Anyways, time for an assumption, given your wife has a PHD I would postulate that you too, have at least reached some manner of success in your career, education, or business. If not, you're probably good in bed and she's quite a bit older. Presuming gigolo gold diggers post on myspace not slashdot, I guess you both have achieved a nominal degree of success in at least one area of your lives. I assert this leaves the both of you with a predisposition for at least marginal success, if not happiness in love. You are not Mr. and Mrs. Joe & Jane A. Verage and Love is never necessarily rational.
It is hard to compare success, let alone measure it across two different fields or in physical relationships. The intimate details here are unimportant as far as I am concerned, but only because they clutter the conversation with distractions. I think what we have developed is a balanced partnership, cemented by mutual intellectual and emotional satisfaction.
Love is, in my opinion, often rational. Not only is it a biochemical process that can be measured and affected, it has clear evolutionary purposes. That is an entirely different discussion, however, and I think Dawkins explains it far better than I ever could.
Women often claim that "men are dumb" or things like "all the good ones are taken" or whatever. At what point do these idioms of dating angst become misogynistic? Is it really when we're talking about a movie where two nerds have trouble with the opposite sex and decide to build their own girl?
I am a little annoyed by those comments. Most times I encounter those statements—regardless the gender of whoever is making them—and their like, they are used to gloss over some misunderstanding or failure to clearly communicate. I understand your example of the man-made woman, but that could also be commentary on the attractiveness of the men themselves.
Well, I am not widely respected and I am no great philosopher of my time. How then do I refute such bold and allegedly well-founded claims by men of such stature who predate me by hundreds or thousands of years? Only some objective reasoning is required.
First, each person in your line-up lived and practiced philosophy when women were treated with even less equality than today. I think it is hardly necessary that I dig through their biographies to demonstrate that fact. (If pressed, I would reluctantly build the tired case.) Some are indeed well-known for misogyny, and so I think it fair to take their biases into account.
Second, that they stated their opinions long ago does not somehow translate those opinions into fact. Many respectable individuals once believed the earth was flat. One of your notables believed matter was composed of five elements. Although I would hope you reject such nonsense, you nevertheless propose that their “thousands of years of respected philosophy” are indisputable.
Third, what does Kant use to support his assertion? You provide such an elegant quote that is absolutely bereft of evidence! What empirical observations can he supply us that leads us to reasonably believe that the biological processes of the female brain are so radically different than those of the male brain, nurturing being equal?
Fourth, are you, in good conscience, offering that subjugation of (as suggested by Schopenhauer) and violence towards (as suggested by Nietzsche) women are legitimate means to conclude that women are irrational in comparison to men? Am I also to accept that we may substitute “woman” with “negro”? It chills me to think there are still people today that champion these ideas.
Fifth, I might speculate on the origins of your viewpoint considering you listed “God” among sources stating women are irrational. Not only is there deep irony on the face of your suggestion, but I find it laughable that you derive your opinion from fictional characters invented by men in times when women were regarded little more than as breeding vessels and considered property on par with oxen.
I cannot resist the urge to discuss the merits of philosophy. At the risk of going far afield, it should be obvious that philosophy is not science. Thinking up ideas in your head and then holding them up as truth is no basis for establishing fact. Of course, these figures you offer did present some important, valuable, and defensible ideas. They also produced piles of rubbish fit for the trash heaps of human history. We are free to use our reasoning minds to cherry-pick what they got right and discard what they got wrong.
Lastly, if I read between the lines, I am inclined to believe arguing this subject with you would go nowhere. That being said, I will at least ask you to be skeptical and understand that you need not agree completely with anyone despite partial agreement, no matter how respected they are.
Would you care to support that statement? If you cannot or choose not to, what does that say about your rationality? (It is worth noting I believe you are likely a male rather than a female who writes to degrade and misunderstand members of her own gender.)
In lieu of evidence backing up your claim, I offer my wife as an example contradicting your generalization (even if my assumption regarding your sex is incorrect). A lynchpin of the relationship I have with her is our mutual ability to consistently solve our problems rationally. To reinforce that point, her name is prefixed with the title of “doctor”, a respected and enlightened status one does not achieve without the ability to reason.
Care to respond or are we all going to just let these anachronistic and misogynistic myths perpetuate ad infinitum?
Opinions, beliefs, and moral inclinations are not hereditary. They, along with social class/social standing are more often similar to the parents than not, because of nurture, not nature.
Evolution only deals with genetics.
I believe Richard Dawkins (among others) would disagree, having produced some work on evolutionary factors that suggests evolution is not merely genetic. Cultural byproducts such as desires beyond basic survival can influence behaviors that affect the likelihood of reproduction. Contemplating what forces in our society may deter child bearing is an exercise I leave for the reader.
As the pro-choice gene has not been demonstrated to exist, I'm going to go ahead and conclude that evolution and abortion don't belong in the same argument.
There is no need to demonstrate it and it likely does not exist. However, there is no need for such a specific gene as simple constructs often give rise to greater sophistication, especially in biological systems. I propose that a thought experiment—even in the absence of empirical data—may be revealing. Suppose we have some number of couples. One third choose always to bear children from pregnancy, the next third does so conditionally (suppose 50%), and the last third always avoids or terminates pregnancy. What conclusions do you think we can make about following generations? My prediction is the genetic and memetic factors that promote reproduction over competing interests will become dominant, marginalizing those that are permissive of abortion.
Grouping them together leads down a dangerous road.
I am assuming self-selection (or deselection as the case may be). If people personally choose or make choices that prohibit the propagation of their genes (and memes) then we do not have Social Darwinism, just the regular variety. (And we sometimes laugh at these types.)
I am going to romp into speculation here, as your comments have courted some less developed thoughts I have on the matter. Bear with me.
[B]irth control should have happened long before an abortion is part of any plan.
It goes without saying that birth control is not perfect. I read some article some time ago (which I cannot find) about a woman and her husband who practice birth control because they already had three children and had no desire to increase their family. That method failed and she tried to gain access to Plan B. Unfortunately for her, she was denied repeatedly by some over-zealous pharmacists and was eventually forced to visit her local abortion clinic. That is tangental, but exemplifies a situation where reasonable precautions from responsible individuals failed. This begs the question: should those people be punished by having the option removed because there are irresponsible actors out there? (I think not.)
And without objections, how long until someone decides that you can perform an abortion outside the human body? Lets say you can kill the kid until his 5th birthday.
Let me go on the record that I am opposed to abortion after brain activity is measurable, unless the mother is in danger.
So it has basically went from a parasite inside the body to one outside the body. At some age, it will be able to find another host so you would have to stop considering it something other then a human being that is a parasite.
I think the argument hinges on the notion that the fetus is part of the body until it becomes detached and functionally self-sustainable. Also, I would be careful not to use the term parasite too loosely.
There is a trend to punish mothers who kill their kids for whatever reason less depending on the age of the child. [W]hen it is valuable enough to receive the fullest protects of the law including the fullest punishment possible when someone kills it.
I think whether or not society wants to admit it, I believe all humans tend towards valuing others based on their material contribution to the survival of the group. For example, have you ever found yourself dismissive towards coworkers who seem not to pull their weight on the job? If you advocate the removal of “dead wood”, you are advocating for adverse effects on their very survival (income honestly translates to food and shelter). You may find this reasoning underpins why the age of the child influences the sentencing. There are mitigating circumstances as well. The parents of an unwanted newborn are more likely to be panicked and irrational than those that have been raising their child for five years. I am not speaking to the justifications, but the influence of perceived value, I believe, is unmistakable.
Economic standing, race, religion, and so on do not factor in.
I should explain why I choose to eliminate those variables. People both rich and poor; black and white; and of various religions have all practiced abortion. More to the point, we can identify overlapping concerns among these groups that weaken any correlation these factors have with groups utilizing abortion. And to shake up arguments of economic causality, there is an incentive in the United States for the poor to have children for additional welfare income.
Organisms predisposed to eliminate all their offspring will not make any contributions to the gene pool. Economic standing, race, religion, and so on do not factor in. This is why it is so incredibly stupid for people to oppose abortion: if left unchecked, the “problem” solves itself over time. In other words, if you hate abortion, it is in your best interests to let it run rampant because individuals sharing your opinion are more likely to reproduce. (But, uh-oh, you have just accepted a fundamental tenant of evolution!) The other question is: why the opposition to couples wanting to have sex but not wanting to have children? That is perfectly reasonable, especially considering some couples that abort are parents with families who do not want or need more children. Give it a rest. You anti-choice people are so confused on this matter that you cannot even form cogent, sensical arguments.
We can all get warm fuzzy feelings over this, but that will do little good to encourage these sort of decisions. Vote with your dollars and buy music from EMI if they end up cutting back their cartel involvement.
Is it weird to have both hammers and screwdrivers? While on the topic, I remind you that virtualization is used throughout modern operating systems, and in ways that are completely transparent to you. A Java runtime environment is just one of many such forms.
It seems my understanding was skewed. Unfortunately, I hit the submit button before getting proper vetting on that comment. My wife weighed in with these comments after the fact: “I'd agree with ‘most people just treat it as the past’, not that ‘understand that both sides suffer casualties in war’. This was a war imposed upon us; we didn't look for it or ask for it. We will never forget or forgive I think, but we understand there's no point to play the blame game here.”
Ask the Vietnamese, they can vouch for the humanism and compassion in napalm form they received by your country!
Let me first say that I am not disagreeing with you, but I want to offer a surprising observation I have made in the past few years.
My wife is Vietnamese and I interact with some people from Viet Nam regularly. The most astonishing thing I have ever learned about the “American War” is the near absence of animosity that is today held by the Vietnamese towards the United States for our military action there. This is in stark contrast to my own discontent with US behavior and involvement. To paraphrase my wife: people there simply recognize that brutality is inescapable in armed conflict.
This is in no way meant to justify or belittle the grotesque violence that ensues from war. Like any sane person, I hate war and firmly oppose it unless it is brought to us and we have no other choice. In addition, if we are to engage in armed conflict, I hold my country to the highest of all standards in its conduct, and remain disgusted by the use of napalm or other weaponized horrors. That being said, my point is simply that the typical Vietnamese does not single us out as an egregious violator of humanism and compassion. And after decades of occupation by foreign powers, our brief participation marked the beginning of their independence.
The first time you touch a hot heating element on a stove is usually the last time. Otherwise, you do not last too long. If people get burned on these sorts of products enough, maybe the hint will sink in that buyers should be aware of what they are buying before the buy it. In that event, the demand for this crap will dry out and then the supply. In sort, no, I do not want more of these manipulative companies. I do, however, want more personal responsibility so people make informed choices instead of wandering through life blindly, buying whatever they stumble upon without much (if any) thought and the hope that someone will protect their wallet for them.
In the circumstances you described, the thought process should go as follows. “I want to buy a Nintendo Wii remote. This looks like the Wii remote. Is it made by Nintendo? No. Does the word ‘Wii’ appear on the package? No. Therefore, it is not a Wii remote. Do not buy.” Are my expectations of such simple analysis really so lofty? No. And if a person in unsure, they ought to behave as any responsible adult should and get themselves informed before spending money.
I can exemplify with a personal anecdote. One time I needed to replace my shower head. I have virtually no experience and absolutely no training as a plumber, aside from plunging toilets. Faced with this task, I went to my local home improvement shop. I approached staff and asked them for assistance. In addition to the shower head, they informed me I would also need teflon tape and gave me some installation pointers on how to prevent leaks. This task is entirely trivial but buying a Wii remote from Wal-Mart is far easier still. Reflecting on this, how can you reasonably believe we need baby-sitters to hold the hands of shoppers as they got out spending?
I do not blame people for lacking knowledge. I do, however, think it is fair to fault them for lacking the initiative to correct their ignorance. Why it has become our social norm to accept intellectual laziness is part of a much larger discussion, but I am sure this direction will not take us anywhere but down.
Who cares if some fool is so easily taken by this product. If someone could be so stupid to plunk down their hard-earned cash without understanding what they are paying for in the first place then they should suffer the consequnces. Promoting nannyism to prevent dumb behavior will solve nothing. Idiocy has to hurt or people will never stop being idiots.
It is patently ridiculous to imply there is some secret or sophisticated method to undoing the twirl effect as available in Photoshop. All one needs to do is find the bounds of the distortion (which, admitted, is a painful process of trial and error), then perform the distortion with an opposite value to the original. This particular effect is not intended to destroy any pixels, only relocate them, so restoration is intuitive. You can all try this at home: simply load an image, twirl it, then perform the inverse as I describe. And with a little determination, you can successfully reverse the effect on the article photograph (as I did).
Slashdot Mirror
I will focus on Christianity since I know most about it.
Opinions differ on tithing, but we also have examples of monetary payment for sins.
People often pray for people to be healed and they will be healed. That is clearly belief in supernatural influence on reality.
Are you kidding? It is even worse than believing they are doomed, but that you must go and punish (kill) them yourself. See Deuteronomy 8-19, 13-6, 13-12, Jeremiah 1-16, and 16-10. And this nearly pales in comparison to Islam.
I am afraid many more religions offer this bunk than you seem to believe.
If you argue with GlaDOS, you will not receive cake.
The executive can set law enforcement priorities. It can also pardon or commute the sentences of convicts. Ron Paul can tell the nation: “stop paying your income tax and I will pardon you.” He could also do the same for organizations like Liberty Dollar. Not saying this is the intent (or maybe it is—some call this a revolution after all), but these are two tactics that could be used to enact large-scale change.
Let me know how your web browser works with popups, invalid HTML, bad CSS, and barely-functional JavaScript when compared to WebKit, never mind the ever-helpful resolution-independent interface on Mobile Safari.
Both would prefer no other pleasures exist to compete with their interests, as suggested by George Orwell.
You are assuming far too much from my comments. What I wrote is what I meant. But I want to be clear, so here I go again.
Maybe I reacted because of experience in geek culture and because I held a similar position way back when. In either case, this joke that women are irrational and impossible to understand started getting old and stopped being funny in geek culture about a decade ago, in my opinion.
Rationality is important in any relationship and it is not unusual for people to have relationships wherein problems can be worked out meaningfully (as opposed to impassioned shouting matches). But I was not even speaking to relationships, only to provide a substantive counter-example to the generalization I rejected.
If I had said "I know a woman who is rational" and nothing else, I suspect I would have been challenged for baseless opinion. To avoid that, I cited personal experience and her credentials, that latter indicating she must at least be capable of rational thought. I hope you can see how that would fly directly in the face of: “[t]here is nothing rational about women.”
Mathematics. Define “useful kind”.
Once again, my only position was and is that my wife, a woman, is clearly capable of rationality and that counters the aforementioned generalization. Explain to me how I should “tone it down”.
The original comment was: “[t]here is nothing rational about women”, to which I made two points in response.
One, that holding such a firm belief (having a vagina instead of a penis disqualifies an individual for rationality) without support is itself irrational.
Two, that the generalization is false because I can provide a single counter-example (“in place” of attempt at proof), which I attempted to reinforce with personal experience (the ability to work out problems rationally “serves to hold together parts or elements”) and a mention of credentials (that cannot be gotten by someone incapable of rational thought).
Nowhere did I make a general claim about women (or men) one way or the other and I did not even remotely imply that my wife does not behave irrationally at times (surprise, all humans do). My only position was and is that my wife, a woman, is clearly capable of rationality. Nothing more.
You have misconstrued my simple position and extrapolated it beyond any sensical ends, disparaging me along the way without ever comprehending or speaking directly to my claims, making some absurd assumptions, and never taking the time to open your dictionary. How is the water down there on the deep end anyway?
Well, it is fair enough to say that nobody is entirely rational. As I mentioned in an earlier response, that was not my intention. To clarify the point, it is incorrect to say: a person is irrational because they are a woman. Perhaps we can accurately say: a person may be either rational or irrational, disregarding gender.
Your humility is commendable and something most of the rest of us could learn a great deal from.
She, like you and I, is both rational and irrational. And the allocation of the two differs from person to person and I do not believe that gender is a prevailing factor (although nurture most definitely is). While I know nothing about the mechanics of your relationship and I am definitely a psychology layman, that sort of behavior seems to me like a form of play. Participants in all sorts of social groups engage each other in games, and I think couples are no different.
As much as you can learn about anybody, I suppose.
If my comments implied even the faintest idea that all people are always rational actors in a rational world, then I wrote them poorly and I enjoy that you point out the contrary. My next question is: why is reading Cosmo or Playboy irrational? That is meant to be rhetorical, of course. We can easily find good reasons to explore fashion or consume pornography, but motives in these cases may simply boil down to entertainment.
It is hard to compare success, let alone measure it across two different fields or in physical relationships. The intimate details here are unimportant as far as I am concerned, but only because they clutter the conversation with distractions. I think what we have developed is a balanced partnership, cemented by mutual intellectual and emotional satisfaction.
Love is, in my opinion, often rational. Not only is it a biochemical process that can be measured and affected, it has clear evolutionary purposes. That is an entirely different discussion, however, and I think Dawkins explains it far better than I ever could.
I am a little annoyed by those comments. Most times I encounter those statements—regardless the gender of whoever is making them—and their like, they are used to gloss over some misunderstanding or failure to clearly communicate. I understand your example of the man-made woman, but that could also be commentary on the attractiveness of the men themselves.
Well, I am not widely respected and I am no great philosopher of my time. How then do I refute such bold and allegedly well-founded claims by men of such stature who predate me by hundreds or thousands of years? Only some objective reasoning is required.
First, each person in your line-up lived and practiced philosophy when women were treated with even less equality than today. I think it is hardly necessary that I dig through their biographies to demonstrate that fact. (If pressed, I would reluctantly build the tired case.) Some are indeed well-known for misogyny, and so I think it fair to take their biases into account.
Second, that they stated their opinions long ago does not somehow translate those opinions into fact. Many respectable individuals once believed the earth was flat. One of your notables believed matter was composed of five elements. Although I would hope you reject such nonsense, you nevertheless propose that their “thousands of years of respected philosophy” are indisputable.
Third, what does Kant use to support his assertion? You provide such an elegant quote that is absolutely bereft of evidence! What empirical observations can he supply us that leads us to reasonably believe that the biological processes of the female brain are so radically different than those of the male brain, nurturing being equal?
Fourth, are you, in good conscience, offering that subjugation of (as suggested by Schopenhauer) and violence towards (as suggested by Nietzsche) women are legitimate means to conclude that women are irrational in comparison to men? Am I also to accept that we may substitute “woman” with “negro”? It chills me to think there are still people today that champion these ideas.
Fifth, I might speculate on the origins of your viewpoint considering you listed “God” among sources stating women are irrational. Not only is there deep irony on the face of your suggestion, but I find it laughable that you derive your opinion from fictional characters invented by men in times when women were regarded little more than as breeding vessels and considered property on par with oxen.
I cannot resist the urge to discuss the merits of philosophy. At the risk of going far afield, it should be obvious that philosophy is not science. Thinking up ideas in your head and then holding them up as truth is no basis for establishing fact. Of course, these figures you offer did present some important, valuable, and defensible ideas. They also produced piles of rubbish fit for the trash heaps of human history. We are free to use our reasoning minds to cherry-pick what they got right and discard what they got wrong.
Lastly, if I read between the lines, I am inclined to believe arguing this subject with you would go nowhere. That being said, I will at least ask you to be skeptical and understand that you need not agree completely with anyone despite partial agreement, no matter how respected they are.
Would you care to support that statement? If you cannot or choose not to, what does that say about your rationality? (It is worth noting I believe you are likely a male rather than a female who writes to degrade and misunderstand members of her own gender.)
In lieu of evidence backing up your claim, I offer my wife as an example contradicting your generalization (even if my assumption regarding your sex is incorrect). A lynchpin of the relationship I have with her is our mutual ability to consistently solve our problems rationally. To reinforce that point, her name is prefixed with the title of “doctor”, a respected and enlightened status one does not achieve without the ability to reason.
Care to respond or are we all going to just let these anachronistic and misogynistic myths perpetuate ad infinitum?
I believe Richard Dawkins (among others) would disagree, having produced some work on evolutionary factors that suggests evolution is not merely genetic. Cultural byproducts such as desires beyond basic survival can influence behaviors that affect the likelihood of reproduction. Contemplating what forces in our society may deter child bearing is an exercise I leave for the reader.
There is no need to demonstrate it and it likely does not exist. However, there is no need for such a specific gene as simple constructs often give rise to greater sophistication, especially in biological systems. I propose that a thought experiment—even in the absence of empirical data—may be revealing. Suppose we have some number of couples. One third choose always to bear children from pregnancy, the next third does so conditionally (suppose 50%), and the last third always avoids or terminates pregnancy. What conclusions do you think we can make about following generations? My prediction is the genetic and memetic factors that promote reproduction over competing interests will become dominant, marginalizing those that are permissive of abortion.
I am assuming self-selection (or deselection as the case may be). If people personally choose or make choices that prohibit the propagation of their genes (and memes) then we do not have Social Darwinism, just the regular variety. (And we sometimes laugh at these types.)
I am going to romp into speculation here, as your comments have courted some less developed thoughts I have on the matter. Bear with me.
It goes without saying that birth control is not perfect. I read some article some time ago (which I cannot find) about a woman and her husband who practice birth control because they already had three children and had no desire to increase their family. That method failed and she tried to gain access to Plan B. Unfortunately for her, she was denied repeatedly by some over-zealous pharmacists and was eventually forced to visit her local abortion clinic. That is tangental, but exemplifies a situation where reasonable precautions from responsible individuals failed. This begs the question: should those people be punished by having the option removed because there are irresponsible actors out there? (I think not.)
Let me go on the record that I am opposed to abortion after brain activity is measurable, unless the mother is in danger.
I think the argument hinges on the notion that the fetus is part of the body until it becomes detached and functionally self-sustainable. Also, I would be careful not to use the term parasite too loosely.
I think whether or not society wants to admit it, I believe all humans tend towards valuing others based on their material contribution to the survival of the group. For example, have you ever found yourself dismissive towards coworkers who seem not to pull their weight on the job? If you advocate the removal of “dead wood”, you are advocating for adverse effects on their very survival (income honestly translates to food and shelter). You may find this reasoning underpins why the age of the child influences the sentencing. There are mitigating circumstances as well. The parents of an unwanted newborn are more likely to be panicked and irrational than those that have been raising their child for five years. I am not speaking to the justifications, but the influence of perceived value, I believe, is unmistakable.
I should explain why I choose to eliminate those variables. People both rich and poor; black and white; and of various religions have all practiced abortion. More to the point, we can identify overlapping concerns among these groups that weaken any correlation these factors have with groups utilizing abortion. And to shake up arguments of economic causality, there is an incentive in the United States for the poor to have children for additional welfare income.
Organisms predisposed to eliminate all their offspring will not make any contributions to the gene pool. Economic standing, race, religion, and so on do not factor in. This is why it is so incredibly stupid for people to oppose abortion: if left unchecked, the “problem” solves itself over time. In other words, if you hate abortion, it is in your best interests to let it run rampant because individuals sharing your opinion are more likely to reproduce. (But, uh-oh, you have just accepted a fundamental tenant of evolution!) The other question is: why the opposition to couples wanting to have sex but not wanting to have children? That is perfectly reasonable, especially considering some couples that abort are parents with families who do not want or need more children. Give it a rest. You anti-choice people are so confused on this matter that you cannot even form cogent, sensical arguments.
We can all get warm fuzzy feelings over this, but that will do little good to encourage these sort of decisions. Vote with your dollars and buy music from EMI if they end up cutting back their cartel involvement.
Is it weird to have both hammers and screwdrivers? While on the topic, I remind you that virtualization is used throughout modern operating systems, and in ways that are completely transparent to you. A Java runtime environment is just one of many such forms.
It seems my understanding was skewed. Unfortunately, I hit the submit button before getting proper vetting on that comment. My wife weighed in with these comments after the fact: “I'd agree with ‘most people just treat it as the past’, not that ‘understand that both sides suffer casualties in war’. This was a war imposed upon us; we didn't look for it or ask for it. We will never forget or forgive I think, but we understand there's no point to play the blame game here.”
Let me first say that I am not disagreeing with you, but I want to offer a surprising observation I have made in the past few years.
My wife is Vietnamese and I interact with some people from Viet Nam regularly. The most astonishing thing I have ever learned about the “American War” is the near absence of animosity that is today held by the Vietnamese towards the United States for our military action there. This is in stark contrast to my own discontent with US behavior and involvement. To paraphrase my wife: people there simply recognize that brutality is inescapable in armed conflict.
This is in no way meant to justify or belittle the grotesque violence that ensues from war. Like any sane person, I hate war and firmly oppose it unless it is brought to us and we have no other choice. In addition, if we are to engage in armed conflict, I hold my country to the highest of all standards in its conduct, and remain disgusted by the use of napalm or other weaponized horrors. That being said, my point is simply that the typical Vietnamese does not single us out as an egregious violator of humanism and compassion. And after decades of occupation by foreign powers, our brief participation marked the beginning of their independence.
They have got to be joking. Did Metal Gear honestly escape their attention? (On second thought, that is very appropriate.)
The first time you touch a hot heating element on a stove is usually the last time. Otherwise, you do not last too long. If people get burned on these sorts of products enough, maybe the hint will sink in that buyers should be aware of what they are buying before the buy it. In that event, the demand for this crap will dry out and then the supply. In sort, no, I do not want more of these manipulative companies. I do, however, want more personal responsibility so people make informed choices instead of wandering through life blindly, buying whatever they stumble upon without much (if any) thought and the hope that someone will protect their wallet for them.
In the circumstances you described, the thought process should go as follows. “I want to buy a Nintendo Wii remote. This looks like the Wii remote. Is it made by Nintendo? No. Does the word ‘Wii’ appear on the package? No. Therefore, it is not a Wii remote. Do not buy.” Are my expectations of such simple analysis really so lofty? No. And if a person in unsure, they ought to behave as any responsible adult should and get themselves informed before spending money.
I can exemplify with a personal anecdote. One time I needed to replace my shower head. I have virtually no experience and absolutely no training as a plumber, aside from plunging toilets. Faced with this task, I went to my local home improvement shop. I approached staff and asked them for assistance. In addition to the shower head, they informed me I would also need teflon tape and gave me some installation pointers on how to prevent leaks. This task is entirely trivial but buying a Wii remote from Wal-Mart is far easier still. Reflecting on this, how can you reasonably believe we need baby-sitters to hold the hands of shoppers as they got out spending?
I do not blame people for lacking knowledge. I do, however, think it is fair to fault them for lacking the initiative to correct their ignorance. Why it has become our social norm to accept intellectual laziness is part of a much larger discussion, but I am sure this direction will not take us anywhere but down.
Who cares if some fool is so easily taken by this product. If someone could be so stupid to plunk down their hard-earned cash without understanding what they are paying for in the first place then they should suffer the consequnces. Promoting nannyism to prevent dumb behavior will solve nothing. Idiocy has to hurt or people will never stop being idiots.
Because the Macintosh is the Gay Computer.
It is patently ridiculous to imply there is some secret or sophisticated method to undoing the twirl effect as available in Photoshop. All one needs to do is find the bounds of the distortion (which, admitted, is a painful process of trial and error), then perform the distortion with an opposite value to the original. This particular effect is not intended to destroy any pixels, only relocate them, so restoration is intuitive. You can all try this at home: simply load an image, twirl it, then perform the inverse as I describe. And with a little determination, you can successfully reverse the effect on the article photograph (as I did).