Here's a thought that'll make you feel warm and fuzzy in your sleep tonight. Hold all these 'malcontents' in this fenced area, then at the conclusion of the media event, when all the tv cameras and crews are long gone, why not load thes same 'malcontents' up for a nice long vacation in Gitmo as 'enemy combatants', since they're obviously enemies of the regime, thus, by extension, enemies of the state?
Indeed, why not do that?
That's not rhetorical. Tell me why the Bush regime should NOT do precisely what you dreamed about.
So if China had a military base, say in Houston, TX, you would not feel occupied? You'd feel safer?
I sure wouldn't. Then again, I think the Chinese government is an oppressive evil and the PLA is their menacing agent of destruction.
Now if there were a British or Australian military base in Houston, TX, then I wouldn't be nearly as bothered. Then again, if the UK and Australia started a policy of killing and jailing dissidents, forced abortions, and poisoning our children and pets through malice or incompetence, then I might feel a bit differently.
Not very many Americans are killed by nuclear bombs.
Yet.
The mujahedin are much more patient than you. It's not a secret that watching a major US city go up in nuclear hellfire would bring joy to their hearts. They pine for it.
(Maybe you would regard such a thing as "chickens coming home to roost"?)
The question is: SHOULD we be at war?
"It takes two to make peace, but it only takes one to make war."
I can't remember who said that, but it is obviously true. If we stop fighting the mujahedin, do you think they'll choose to stop fighting us? Perhaps a more thorough study of the Koran and the Sunnah (do you even know what that is?) would be helpful to you.
We should treat terrorism the same as we treat any other organized criminal enterprise.
Why do you keep calling jihad "terrorism"? Do you even know the history of jihad? Do you know what Al-Andlalus is? Do you know who Muhammad Al-Durah was? Do you know who Sayid Qutb was? Do you know what Sura 9:29 says?
This issue isn't just about you being ignorant of Islam. I think this is about you wanting to be ignorant about Islam. In other words, it's a character flaw, not just an issue of you being uninformed. Case in point:
Otherwise you people wouldn't still be crying about the "threat" from "terrorists".
Riiiight. There is no threat, and those mujahedin are merely freedom fighters for a noble cause. Now we can get back to the real bad guy, George W. Bush, who blew up the World Trade Center!
Your "We're destroying the earth!" is not merely run-of-the-mill religious global destruction fantasy. It's also inherently un-scientific and thus qualifies as FUD. Ditch that bullshit!
No, the definition is crap, because it pretends that it isn't a term that is already partisan.
All charges of hypocrisy have their basis in the rejection of a partisan position.
* The greenpeace-sticker-on-a-land-rover sticker that you brought up implies the failure to live up to the partisan position of environmentalism.
* The Evangelical-caught-having-gay-sex implies the failure to live up to the partisan position of Christian morality.
* The limousine liberal implies the failure to live up to the partisan positions of community property and the common good.
As far as political hypocrisy goes, however, no one can hold a candle to the right
That's a value judgment. And you've already shown yourself to be strongly biased toward the left, which is precisely why you want to change the conversation away from the failings of the left and toward the failings of the right.
In other words, you think that the right is the worst because you have defined them that way. What difference should facts make to you? The right is the worst, and that is that! Am I reading you correctly?
Does that make Larry Craig a limousine liberal? Or Mark Foley? Or all the other social conservatives with mistresses, hookers, or a penchant for anonymous gay sex?
Translation: "I'm very uncomfortable by these points being defined because there is some truth to them. At the same time, I'm an unrepentant partisan and would do anything to keep my side (the Left) from looking bad. Hence, I'm going to bring up sex scandals (especially gay sex scandals) in Republicans despite my side's values of sexual liberation and gay rights in the effort to embarrass my hated enemies and otherwise derail the conversation from the valid criticisms of the Left."
I'm curious how being against a religion is racist?
A very good question! You'll see that charge frequently from dhimmis and other such "progressive" Islamic apologists when they are faced with legitimate criticisms against the despicable religion of Islam. Everyone knows that Islam isn't a race (unless you account for Arab supremacy which is found among many Muslims, but that's a different discussion), so the charge of "racism" as a response to criticism against Islam seems illogical. Let's delve into the weird religion of "progressivism" so you understand where that retarded accusation comes from.
To "progressives", all of society's problems stem from discrimination. If you like someone more than someone else, or even disapprove of anything someone does, that's "discrimination". Likewise, if you decide to commit genocide against all Jews or enslave all black people, that's also "discrimination". Hence, all discrimination the same thing as genocide or slavery. It helps to think of discrimination as "sin" in the "progressive" religion. Therefore, all "racism" (the definition of that word is slippery, of course) is also tantamount to genocide or slavery. And everyone knows that genocide is what Hitler did (forget that Jew-bashing has become trendy among the more ultra-nuanced "progressives"), so discrimination = racism = Hitler. In other words, "progressive" morality is Godwin's law turned into an ideology.
So, if you don't like anything about Islam, then you're being discriminatory, you little Eichmann. (The fact that many Muslims have dark-colored skin helps the "Muslims are victims" meme.)
Here you're probably going to say, "But progressives discriminate against Faux News and Evangelical Christians, so what you say is bunk!" Hey buddy, back off. No one said it had to make sense! Do you see Christian Evangelicals explaining how Jesus can be fully god and fully man simultaneously? This isn't reason we're talking about here. It's religion!
Furthermore, such warfare tactics induce serious ill-will and would ensure that alternatives come hard and fast. Finally, radio is not the only transmission medium; there is satellite, line of sight optical networks, and wide-spectrum radio systems. Developing and running a wide-spectrum jammer is even more expensive than narrow-band jammers; this monopoly would be fighting a never-ending guerilla war that they have no hope of ever winning.
You're butting up against an article of Leftist faith. In their religion, individuals are helpless, exploited morons who are powerless to stop the onslaught of merciless, vicious corporations. Only the single greatest monopoly ever, the government, can save those pathetic losers. This is core Truth to a Leftist and your examples to the contrary mean nothing to them. Save your energy.
So the only reason you're not a lefty is because of some ridiculous notion that we're all a bunch of treehuggers who smell like peyote and have drum circles?
Are you saying you have a problem with treehuggers? Are they unacceptable to you? Are they people who discolor what you stand for and whom you would rather see kicked out?
Let me try and clarify this point with some personal experience. I am a gay man. Meaning, I am a man who is with another man. And yet, I despise the "gay pride" parade. I see it as a parade where everyone's sexual fetish gets its own float. If I were to march in the gay pride parade, then it implies that I accept everyone within it as part of the "gay community". It means that I would have no problem whatsoever marching behind the United Gay Fisters float. It means I accept them. And if I march behind them, then I say to the world that I *AM* them. I say to the worlds, "Yes, I and the United Gay Fisters are gay!" I lump them and me under the same ideological umbrella and say that we are all one.
So if you accept treehuggers then, for all intents and purposes, you *are* treehuggers. When an individual says, "As to the Left, the hippy stuff just bugs me that all. I don't like drum circles nuff said." He's not saying that you are a treehugger. He's saying that he wouldn't mind being a part of the left except for the fact that you have to accept treehuggers as "one of us" if you want to be part of the Left, and he doesn't want to do that.
Then again, if you despise treehuggers and would rather see them kicked to the curb than part of the Left, then everything I said above is moot. I would have great sympathy for that position because I don't count myself part of "gay culture" because I think circuit parties suck and drag queens are disgusting. And if you know anything about gay culture, then you must accept those things if you want to be counted as "one of us".
Look, I'm not promoting legislation to force people to have less kids and consume less. I'm just trying to make a simple plea to stop and think of where we're going for a while.
I deleted all my snarky replies because my real motivation here is compassion. What I'm trying to get you to do is to stop being so negative so pessimistic. It is harmful to your health and brings everyone else around you down. It seems like you're not fully committed to your "human virus" statement, so I'm wondering if you wrote that when you were feeling angry about something.
Alas, I haven't been a young college student for a while now.
To the young and inexperienced, six months seems like a really long time. How long is "a while" for you? A year?
Seeing as how I'm arguing on how to improve our welfare, it doesn't make me much of a misanthrope either.
I'm convinced: you feel great, passionate love for the "Human Virus". Sure you want to improve "our" welfare, provided that I'm lucky enough to be one of the chosen ones who gets to survive in your utopia. I wouldn't dare call you an elitist.
A true misanthrope would promote a rapid increase in population and take joy in the suffering that ensues.
Ah, yes, but no TRUE Scotsman eats porridge!
Your ad hominem rant was entertaining, nonetheless.
You seem to have missed the meat of the matter, so I'll make it very clear. If we "stop having so many fucking kids", how will we avoid the huge problem that is facing Italy right now where there are too many old people and not enough young people to support them?
Well, I have the usual Californian's reaction to that.
If the "usual Californian's reaction" is myopic, self-centered, and indulgent, then you're entirely accurate. But California is a highly-populated state, and I refuse to believe that most Californians are as selfish as you are.
Even so, having lived up and down the California coast, I can tell you that it is by no means paradise, if by paradise you mean a place where the average person is willing to live without using heat and AC.
Yeah, that sounds like a ripe hell-hole. It certainly explains the vast quantities of cheap land out there on the California coast. Do you remember what happened in France a few years back when about 20,000 old people were not willing to live without AC? Something tells me their sacrifice was steeper than those who suffer the indignities of living up and down the idyllic California coast. Yes, I've been there. Yes, it's idyllic.
The real problems are (a) too many people
Bring on the misanthropy! Whom should we kill off first? Albertans? Texans? Tell us!
The Iraq war is nothing but a way of paying for the unnaturally cheap energy we get in the U.S.
You should get a blue ribbon for that clause. Not only is it one of the stupidest comments I've ever read about the war in Iraq, but it's also one of the stupidest things I've ever read. How, precisely, do we get "unnaturally" cheap energy? Does George W. Bush pray for it, and Jesus delivers? Do Scientologists audit it out of thin air? And how in the world does conducting an immensely expensive, futile war which necessitates massive expenditures in fuel for the thousands of trucks, humvees, stykers, planes, and helicopters "pay for" cheap energy? The *least* we could have done was steal Iraq's oil, but we're letting them keep it!
The interstate highway system is one big subsidy for fossil fuels.
Nevermind all of the millions of people who use the interstates to get to work, or the millions of trucks that use the interstates to get food and clothes on the shelves, and all those aforementioned people who depend on fossil fuels to do all those things. I suppose that you enlightened Northern Californians, living in your charming, 2.2 million dollar bungalows in Monterrey or Santa Cruz, know the right way that everyone else should live. We should all live like you do.
Global warming is going to be the ultimate subsidy for the 20th century's fossil fuel addiction, and it's a subsidy that's going to be paid for by my grandkids.
When cities discuss zoning and density, the big issue is always traffic and parking; again, it amounts to a subsidy for the automobile.
All those people should just take the bus. If it works for you, it must work for everyone! Life is so simple in San Francisco! Why can't everyone live like that? They must simply be stupid and selfish. No wonder they inhabit inhabitable places like Alberta and Texas.
The trouble is that people are selfish, stupid, and shortsighted
And the answer is that you are selfless, intelligent, and enlightened. I get it, now! I should add you as a friend because you are clearly as prophetic as your ideas are fresh and new.
But the real key to improving our world and our lives on it.. Stop. Having. So many. Fucking. Kids. Reduce the population.
Thank god we finally have a college student who's brave enough to share with us the key to improving the world and all our lives! Unfortunately, your solution is a moldy old idea. Much of Europe and Japan has already been following your advice for decades now. As a result, those societies are having brand new problems for college students to solve. Young, healthy people (people like you, 100% of which come from "fucking kids") are rapidly diminishing in numbers while crunchy old people stubbornly refuse to die off like they used to, thanks to our ever-improving medical system. Who will pay for old people's social security? Who will pay for old people's medicare? It takes young people to do that -- young people to work and create the economy that people who vote (read: old people) will leech from.
Japan's solution to this problem is to build robots. Europe's solution seems to be militant denial with an extra helping of cow-towing to Islamic Fundamentalists on the side.
I'm guessing your solution will be to do... what? Tell us, o brave college student!
It's time we stop being the Human Virus and return to the Human Race.
Which human viruses do you propose we shall kill off first? It must be awesome to be in the comfortable position of deciding who lives and who dies. Oh wait, you weren't advocating for the deaths of the abhorrent human virus? What's the use in being a half-assed misanthrope? It sounds like you're not really very committed to your ideals.
Instead of having all those clunky, square objects (like refrigerators, clothes washers, televisions, computers), just do without! Drum circles are round, after all! So are drums!
otherwise change your lifestyle
Also known as, "Can't see the forest for the trees." If you insist on a dome, then you're going to have to make some likely uncomfortable sacrifices in your lifestyle. Why not just say that and stop pretending that a dome is the next-best-thing compared to cold fusion? That question isn't for the parent poster. It's for all the starry-eyed geeks who are waxing dreamy about their next dome home.
I disagree that it is your perception that society "seems to want to push a certain desire to young girls". I would, instead, call that a suspicion. What you perceive, rightly, is culture (in particular, magazines) that showcases "beautiful" (meaning thin, proper hip-to-waist-ratio, large-breasted, made-up, etc.) women as opposed to "ugly" (the opposites of what I listed) women. Why does our culture do this? What you suspect is that there is a push emanating from those in control of culture (magazines in particular) in order to pressure girls look a certain way. I don't share your suspicion because I don't see any evidence for it. Perhaps some testimonies from moguls of women's magazines would change my mind.
The problem is that girls *want* to be Kate Moss; specifically, they want to be more beautiful than other girls so that they can attract (and, more importantly, keep) a good man. "Here's how to work with what you've got" is a tacit accusation of ugliness, and that does NOT sell. In other words, the only reason that there is a push for "try to be Kate Moss, but skinnier" is because that's what girls want. Now another way to approach this problem is for our culture to redefine the standard of beauty for women. Then there would be market for plus-sized dolls, as girls will then, like now, pursue their innate desire to become more beautiful to land a good man. I suppose then that there would be people who would accuse others of "pushing" a standard of "overweight" girls and marginalizing other girls. In the end, it's easier to blame Barbie than to change culture, so have at it.
I understand, and I apologize for taking the lecturing tone with you. That said, do you think that, "it really does seem like girls are pushed toward beauty with all else as a secondary goal" is a bit too strong? If such a thing really is an innate desire, as you believe, then is the market merely responding to demand (as opposed to there being some kind of "push")?
What an insufferably snotty criticism of my insufferably snotty criticism!
I agree with you that you were snotty and disagree with you that I matched you in tone. You came off like a pompous buffoon who was insulted that someone of his stature didn't receive the appropriate bootlicking.
But the joke's on you. I do so little mathematics these days that I rarely think of myself as one. Usually it's "software developer" or "geophysical researcher" or "overpaid paper pusher" some such thing.
What's funny about that? If you're trying to tell me that the "profession" of being a mathematician is overrated, then I agree with you.
But since when have mathematicians not been given enough respect? I've never seen that.
If that's true, then why did you act so pissed-off that someone didn't show mathematicians enough respect on Slashdot?
What a quaint way of putting it. One gets a sense that the journalist doesn't know much about what it's like to be mathematician.
What an insufferably snotty criticism.
I agree that it would have been useful if there had been more information provided, but I think what irritates you is respect, rather, the lack of it, which you think you (and your profession) deserve but persistently fail to receive.
Girls are told they're supposed to aspire to beauty above all else. The idea here is to show them that you can have that without giving up intelligence.
In other words, the book is telling girls that they don't have to sacrifice what is most important to them (their marketability to men, measured primarily in looks) to have a geeky job. Therefore, the book that you're praising is part of the sinister "they" who are telling girls that they're supposed to aspire to beauty above all else.
Or maybe what you observe isn't actually the sinister machinations of a wicked patriarchal plot. Maybe women's desire to be beautiful to men is mostly an innate desire. Doesn't that seem to coincide with men's mostly innate desire to have as many sexual partners as possible?
I'm kind of peeved that you're so close-minded you think a little teeny bit of creativity is terrible.
Forgive me for putting words into the parent poster's mouth, but I think he was NOT peeved by the "teeny bit of creativity". Rather, he was peeved that superstitious garbage (horoscopes, namely, and yes, they are superstitious garbage) was being inserted into the last place where it should be: a math textbook.
Similarly, if you want to present geography material using Feng Shui rules to outline the discussion, then go for it.
Likewise, if you want to use the Majesty of Jesus Christ to outline the discussion in English, then go for it. Hell, if it makes science learning more "fun", then why not present it using Flat Earth rules? Whatever keeps the classroom discussion going, right? We've got to get through that lesson plan at all costs!
Slashdot Mirror
Here's a thought that'll make you feel warm and fuzzy in your sleep tonight. Hold all these 'malcontents' in this fenced area, then at the conclusion of the media event, when all the tv cameras and crews are long gone, why not load thes same 'malcontents' up for a nice long vacation in Gitmo as 'enemy combatants', since they're obviously enemies of the regime, thus, by extension, enemies of the state?
Indeed, why not do that?
That's not rhetorical. Tell me why the Bush regime should NOT do precisely what you dreamed about.
Restricted freedom of travel (been to an airport recently?).
Yes, I have. It's inconvenient and retarded (we should be spying on mosques, not hassling travelers), but my freedom of travel is not restricted.
Have you ever been denied entry onto a plane?
Free speech zones.
How, specifically, did this deny you a civil liberty?
Right to a fair and speedy trial.
Have you, personally, been denied the right to a fair and speedy trial?
Tapping of communications with no oversight.
Has this happened to you?
The whole Real ID thing.
You mean the one that hasn't happened yet?
Ditto for New Orleans.
Bush caused a hurricane?
Which civil liberties have you personally lost?
You, not some website.
Talk about what you, personally, lost and how it made your life worse.
Give concrete examples.
So if China had a military base, say in Houston, TX, you would not feel occupied? You'd feel safer?
I sure wouldn't. Then again, I think the Chinese government is an oppressive evil and the PLA is their menacing agent of destruction.
Now if there were a British or Australian military base in Houston, TX, then I wouldn't be nearly as bothered. Then again, if the UK and Australia started a policy of killing and jailing dissidents, forced abortions, and poisoning our children and pets through malice or incompetence, then I might feel a bit differently.
Not very many Americans are killed by nuclear bombs.
Yet.
The mujahedin are much more patient than you. It's not a secret that watching a major US city go up in nuclear hellfire would bring joy to their hearts. They pine for it.
(Maybe you would regard such a thing as "chickens coming home to roost"?)
The question is: SHOULD we be at war?
"It takes two to make peace, but it only takes one to make war."
I can't remember who said that, but it is obviously true. If we stop fighting the mujahedin, do you think they'll choose to stop fighting us? Perhaps a more thorough study of the Koran and the Sunnah (do you even know what that is?) would be helpful to you.
We should treat terrorism the same as we treat any other organized criminal enterprise.
Why do you keep calling jihad "terrorism"? Do you even know the history of jihad? Do you know what Al-Andlalus is? Do you know who Muhammad Al-Durah was? Do you know who Sayid Qutb was? Do you know what Sura 9:29 says?
This issue isn't just about you being ignorant of Islam. I think this is about you wanting to be ignorant about Islam. In other words, it's a character flaw, not just an issue of you being uninformed. Case in point:
Otherwise you people wouldn't still be crying about the "threat" from "terrorists".
Riiiight. There is no threat, and those mujahedin are merely freedom fighters for a noble cause. Now we can get back to the real bad guy, George W. Bush, who blew up the World Trade Center!
Either way, how has this affected your life? What rights have been violated?
Let's make this a more general request to all the "progressives" out there:
Which civil liberties have you personally lost as a result of Bush's regime? Be specific.
It might outlast Earth.
Repeat after me:
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Matter cannot be created nor destroyed.
Your "We're destroying the earth!" is not merely run-of-the-mill religious global destruction fantasy. It's also inherently un-scientific and thus qualifies as FUD. Ditch that bullshit!
No, the definition is crap, because it pretends that it isn't a term that is already partisan.
All charges of hypocrisy have their basis in the rejection of a partisan position.
* The greenpeace-sticker-on-a-land-rover sticker that you brought up implies the failure to live up to the partisan position of environmentalism.
* The Evangelical-caught-having-gay-sex implies the failure to live up to the partisan position of Christian morality.
* The limousine liberal implies the failure to live up to the partisan positions of community property and the common good.
As far as political hypocrisy goes, however, no one can hold a candle to the right
That's a value judgment. And you've already shown yourself to be strongly biased toward the left, which is precisely why you want to change the conversation away from the failings of the left and toward the failings of the right.
In other words, you think that the right is the worst because you have defined them that way. What difference should facts make to you? The right is the worst, and that is that! Am I reading you correctly?
Does that make Larry Craig a limousine liberal? Or Mark Foley? Or all the other social conservatives with mistresses, hookers, or a penchant for anonymous gay sex?
Translation: "I'm very uncomfortable by these points being defined because there is some truth to them. At the same time, I'm an unrepentant partisan and would do anything to keep my side (the Left) from looking bad. Hence, I'm going to bring up sex scandals (especially gay sex scandals) in Republicans despite my side's values of sexual liberation and gay rights in the effort to embarrass my hated enemies and otherwise derail the conversation from the valid criticisms of the Left."
I'm curious how being against a religion is racist?
A very good question! You'll see that charge frequently from dhimmis and other such "progressive" Islamic apologists when they are faced with legitimate criticisms against the despicable religion of Islam. Everyone knows that Islam isn't a race (unless you account for Arab supremacy which is found among many Muslims, but that's a different discussion), so the charge of "racism" as a response to criticism against Islam seems illogical. Let's delve into the weird religion of "progressivism" so you understand where that retarded accusation comes from.
To "progressives", all of society's problems stem from discrimination. If you like someone more than someone else, or even disapprove of anything someone does, that's "discrimination". Likewise, if you decide to commit genocide against all Jews or enslave all black people, that's also "discrimination". Hence, all discrimination the same thing as genocide or slavery. It helps to think of discrimination as "sin" in the "progressive" religion. Therefore, all "racism" (the definition of that word is slippery, of course) is also tantamount to genocide or slavery. And everyone knows that genocide is what Hitler did (forget that Jew-bashing has become trendy among the more ultra-nuanced "progressives"), so discrimination = racism = Hitler. In other words, "progressive" morality is Godwin's law turned into an ideology.
So, if you don't like anything about Islam, then you're being discriminatory, you little Eichmann. (The fact that many Muslims have dark-colored skin helps the "Muslims are victims" meme.)
Here you're probably going to say, "But progressives discriminate against Faux News and Evangelical Christians, so what you say is bunk!" Hey buddy, back off. No one said it had to make sense! Do you see Christian Evangelicals explaining how Jesus can be fully god and fully man simultaneously? This isn't reason we're talking about here. It's religion!
Furthermore, such warfare tactics induce serious ill-will and would ensure that alternatives come hard and fast. Finally, radio is not the only transmission medium; there is satellite, line of sight optical networks, and wide-spectrum radio systems. Developing and running a wide-spectrum jammer is even more expensive than narrow-band jammers; this monopoly would be fighting a never-ending guerilla war that they have no hope of ever winning.
You're butting up against an article of Leftist faith. In their religion, individuals are helpless, exploited morons who are powerless to stop the onslaught of merciless, vicious corporations. Only the single greatest monopoly ever, the government, can save those pathetic losers. This is core Truth to a Leftist and your examples to the contrary mean nothing to them. Save your energy.
So the only reason you're not a lefty is because of some ridiculous notion that we're all a bunch of treehuggers who smell like peyote and have drum circles?
Are you saying you have a problem with treehuggers? Are they unacceptable to you? Are they people who discolor what you stand for and whom you would rather see kicked out?
Let me try and clarify this point with some personal experience. I am a gay man. Meaning, I am a man who is with another man. And yet, I despise the "gay pride" parade. I see it as a parade where everyone's sexual fetish gets its own float. If I were to march in the gay pride parade, then it implies that I accept everyone within it as part of the "gay community". It means that I would have no problem whatsoever marching behind the United Gay Fisters float. It means I accept them. And if I march behind them, then I say to the world that I *AM* them. I say to the worlds, "Yes, I and the United Gay Fisters are gay!" I lump them and me under the same ideological umbrella and say that we are all one.
So if you accept treehuggers then, for all intents and purposes, you *are* treehuggers. When an individual says, "As to the Left, the hippy stuff just bugs me that all. I don't like drum circles nuff said." He's not saying that you are a treehugger. He's saying that he wouldn't mind being a part of the left except for the fact that you have to accept treehuggers as "one of us" if you want to be part of the Left, and he doesn't want to do that.
Then again, if you despise treehuggers and would rather see them kicked to the curb than part of the Left, then everything I said above is moot. I would have great sympathy for that position because I don't count myself part of "gay culture" because I think circuit parties suck and drag queens are disgusting. And if you know anything about gay culture, then you must accept those things if you want to be counted as "one of us".
Look, I'm not promoting legislation to force people to have less kids and consume less. I'm just trying to make a simple plea to stop and think of where we're going for a while.
I deleted all my snarky replies because my real motivation here is compassion. What I'm trying to get you to do is to stop being so negative so pessimistic. It is harmful to your health and brings everyone else around you down. It seems like you're not fully committed to your "human virus" statement, so I'm wondering if you wrote that when you were feeling angry about something.
Alas, I haven't been a young college student for a while now.
To the young and inexperienced, six months seems like a really long time. How long is "a while" for you? A year?
Seeing as how I'm arguing on how to improve our welfare, it doesn't make me much of a misanthrope either.
I'm convinced: you feel great, passionate love for the "Human Virus". Sure you want to improve "our" welfare, provided that I'm lucky enough to be one of the chosen ones who gets to survive in your utopia. I wouldn't dare call you an elitist.
A true misanthrope would promote a rapid increase in population and take joy in the suffering that ensues.
Ah, yes, but no TRUE Scotsman eats porridge!
Your ad hominem rant was entertaining, nonetheless.
You seem to have missed the meat of the matter, so I'll make it very clear. If we "stop having so many fucking kids", how will we avoid the huge problem that is facing Italy right now where there are too many old people and not enough young people to support them?
Well, I have the usual Californian's reaction to that.
If the "usual Californian's reaction" is myopic, self-centered, and indulgent, then you're entirely accurate. But California is a highly-populated state, and I refuse to believe that most Californians are as selfish as you are.
Even so, having lived up and down the California coast, I can tell you that it is by no means paradise, if by paradise you mean a place where the average person is willing to live without using heat and AC.
Yeah, that sounds like a ripe hell-hole. It certainly explains the vast quantities of cheap land out there on the California coast. Do you remember what happened in France a few years back when about 20,000 old people were not willing to live without AC? Something tells me their sacrifice was steeper than those who suffer the indignities of living up and down the idyllic California coast. Yes, I've been there. Yes, it's idyllic.
The real problems are (a) too many people
Bring on the misanthropy! Whom should we kill off first? Albertans? Texans? Tell us!
The Iraq war is nothing but a way of paying for the unnaturally cheap energy we get in the U.S.
You should get a blue ribbon for that clause. Not only is it one of the stupidest comments I've ever read about the war in Iraq, but it's also one of the stupidest things I've ever read. How, precisely, do we get "unnaturally" cheap energy? Does George W. Bush pray for it, and Jesus delivers? Do Scientologists audit it out of thin air? And how in the world does conducting an immensely expensive, futile war which necessitates massive expenditures in fuel for the thousands of trucks, humvees, stykers, planes, and helicopters "pay for" cheap energy? The *least* we could have done was steal Iraq's oil, but we're letting them keep it!
The interstate highway system is one big subsidy for fossil fuels.
Nevermind all of the millions of people who use the interstates to get to work, or the millions of trucks that use the interstates to get food and clothes on the shelves, and all those aforementioned people who depend on fossil fuels to do all those things. I suppose that you enlightened Northern Californians, living in your charming, 2.2 million dollar bungalows in Monterrey or Santa Cruz, know the right way that everyone else should live. We should all live like you do.
Global warming is going to be the ultimate subsidy for the 20th century's fossil fuel addiction, and it's a subsidy that's going to be paid for by my grandkids.
Whatever you do, don't read this!
When cities discuss zoning and density, the big issue is always traffic and parking; again, it amounts to a subsidy for the automobile.
All those people should just take the bus. If it works for you, it must work for everyone! Life is so simple in San Francisco! Why can't everyone live like that? They must simply be stupid and selfish. No wonder they inhabit inhabitable places like Alberta and Texas.
The trouble is that people are selfish, stupid, and shortsighted
And the answer is that you are selfless, intelligent, and enlightened. I get it, now! I should add you as a friend because you are clearly as prophetic as your ideas are fresh and new.
Woz is perfect for a dome home, which has no ill-fitting angles and corners for Woz's supple physique.
But the real key to improving our world and our lives on it.. Stop. Having. So many. Fucking. Kids. Reduce the population.
... what? Tell us, o brave college student!
Thank god we finally have a college student who's brave enough to share with us the key to improving the world and all our lives! Unfortunately, your solution is a moldy old idea. Much of Europe and Japan has already been following your advice for decades now. As a result, those societies are having brand new problems for college students to solve. Young, healthy people (people like you, 100% of which come from "fucking kids") are rapidly diminishing in numbers while crunchy old people stubbornly refuse to die off like they used to, thanks to our ever-improving medical system. Who will pay for old people's social security? Who will pay for old people's medicare? It takes young people to do that -- young people to work and create the economy that people who vote (read: old people) will leech from.
Japan's solution to this problem is to build robots. Europe's solution seems to be militant denial with an extra helping of cow-towing to Islamic Fundamentalists on the side.
I'm guessing your solution will be to do
It's time we stop being the Human Virus and return to the Human Race.
Which human viruses do you propose we shall kill off first? It must be awesome to be in the comfortable position of deciding who lives and who dies. Oh wait, you weren't advocating for the deaths of the abhorrent human virus? What's the use in being a half-assed misanthrope? It sounds like you're not really very committed to your ideals.
Just
Uh oh, here we go.
Build your own furniture
Sounds easy!
(or have it built)
Custom-built furniture is cheap!
come up with different ways to use the space
Instead of having all those clunky, square objects (like refrigerators, clothes washers, televisions, computers), just do without! Drum circles are round, after all! So are drums!
otherwise change your lifestyle
Also known as, "Can't see the forest for the trees." If you insist on a dome, then you're going to have to make some likely uncomfortable sacrifices in your lifestyle. Why not just say that and stop pretending that a dome is the next-best-thing compared to cold fusion? That question isn't for the parent poster. It's for all the starry-eyed geeks who are waxing dreamy about their next dome home.
I disagree that it is your perception that society "seems to want to push a certain desire to young girls". I would, instead, call that a suspicion. What you perceive, rightly, is culture (in particular, magazines) that showcases "beautiful" (meaning thin, proper hip-to-waist-ratio, large-breasted, made-up, etc.) women as opposed to "ugly" (the opposites of what I listed) women. Why does our culture do this? What you suspect is that there is a push emanating from those in control of culture (magazines in particular) in order to pressure girls look a certain way. I don't share your suspicion because I don't see any evidence for it. Perhaps some testimonies from moguls of women's magazines would change my mind.
The problem is that girls *want* to be Kate Moss; specifically, they want to be more beautiful than other girls so that they can attract (and, more importantly, keep) a good man. "Here's how to work with what you've got" is a tacit accusation of ugliness, and that does NOT sell. In other words, the only reason that there is a push for "try to be Kate Moss, but skinnier" is because that's what girls want. Now another way to approach this problem is for our culture to redefine the standard of beauty for women. Then there would be market for plus-sized dolls, as girls will then, like now, pursue their innate desire to become more beautiful to land a good man. I suppose then that there would be people who would accuse others of "pushing" a standard of "overweight" girls and marginalizing other girls. In the end, it's easier to blame Barbie than to change culture, so have at it.
I understand, and I apologize for taking the lecturing tone with you. That said, do you think that, "it really does seem like girls are pushed toward beauty with all else as a secondary goal" is a bit too strong? If such a thing really is an innate desire, as you believe, then is the market merely responding to demand (as opposed to there being some kind of "push")?
What an insufferably snotty criticism of my insufferably snotty criticism!
I agree with you that you were snotty and disagree with you that I matched you in tone. You came off like a pompous buffoon who was insulted that someone of his stature didn't receive the appropriate bootlicking.
But the joke's on you. I do so little mathematics these days that I rarely think of myself as one. Usually it's "software developer" or "geophysical researcher" or "overpaid paper pusher" some such thing.
What's funny about that? If you're trying to tell me that the "profession" of being a mathematician is overrated, then I agree with you.
But since when have mathematicians not been given enough respect? I've never seen that.
If that's true, then why did you act so pissed-off that someone didn't show mathematicians enough respect on Slashdot?
What a quaint way of putting it. One gets a sense that the journalist doesn't know much about what it's like to be mathematician.
What an insufferably snotty criticism.
I agree that it would have been useful if there had been more information provided, but I think what irritates you is respect, rather, the lack of it, which you think you (and your profession) deserve but persistently fail to receive.
Girls are told they're supposed to aspire to beauty above all else. The idea here is to show them that you can have that without giving up intelligence.
In other words, the book is telling girls that they don't have to sacrifice what is most important to them (their marketability to men, measured primarily in looks) to have a geeky job. Therefore, the book that you're praising is part of the sinister "they" who are telling girls that they're supposed to aspire to beauty above all else.
Or maybe what you observe isn't actually the sinister machinations of a wicked patriarchal plot. Maybe women's desire to be beautiful to men is mostly an innate desire. Doesn't that seem to coincide with men's mostly innate desire to have as many sexual partners as possible?
I'm kind of peeved that you're so close-minded you think a little teeny bit of creativity is terrible.
Forgive me for putting words into the parent poster's mouth, but I think he was NOT peeved by the "teeny bit of creativity". Rather, he was peeved that superstitious garbage (horoscopes, namely, and yes, they are superstitious garbage) was being inserted into the last place where it should be: a math textbook.
Similarly, if you want to present geography material using Feng Shui rules to outline the discussion, then go for it.
Likewise, if you want to use the Majesty of Jesus Christ to outline the discussion in English, then go for it. Hell, if it makes science learning more "fun", then why not present it using Flat Earth rules? Whatever keeps the classroom discussion going, right? We've got to get through that lesson plan at all costs!