If what you said was true, then animals would not expand into new territories that would force them to evolve; which is obviously false.
A species of animal can expand into a new territory, evolve, etc.
An individual animal still can't claim more territory than it is able to use at one time.
A neighborhood cat might claim a few blocks of the town as its territory. He can patrol around, catch the mice running around in his area, make sweet, sweet love to the lady cats, chase other male cats away, etc.
An especially ambitious cat might try to claim ownership of the entire city, but he will still only be able to patrol a few blocks on his own. He can claim it's all his, but he can't use the law and other social constructs to deny other cats the use of the property he claims as his own.
As someone else said earlier, property rights only came to importance when humans settled down and began to use agriculture on a mass scale- a few thousand years ago. For the majority of human history, we were living in hunter-gather tribes. My tribe might live in the area with the best deer hunting, and we might try to keep your tribe from hunting in our general area if you get too close (since that would put a strain on resources we need to survive,) but we have no way of claiming land we're currently not using, or denying you use of that property because we "own" it.
So what you're saying is, other than Africa, Asia, the Pacific islands, the US and Australia, World War II was primarily a localized European conflict?
The Democrats (control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency) have managed to double the total federal debt in just two years? How exactly did the GOP do that?
They managed to start two wars, and then fuck up the economy, which necessitated an increased spending on unemployment insurance & Medicaid, and the huge bailouts, coupled with decreasing tax receipts (due to the tanking economy.)
I mean, the health care costs haven't started yet. There hasn't been a huge increase in government employment. There haven't really been any new social programs- just an increase in usage of the same old ones. The unpopular massive federal spending has largely been an attempt to clean up the GOP economic mess. Whether or not you think it was necessary, or helpful is another matter entirely.
If you admit they are fake why acknowledge their use of the title? I can claim to be President but that doesn't make it so.
It's their interpretation of christian theology, that's how they self-identify, that's how other people identify them, etc.
The same way we call groups of people "liberals" or "conservatives." If I describe someone is described as a right-wing christian nutjob, you know exactly the kind of person I'm talking about; it doesn't necessitate a theological discussion. It's cultural shorthand.
Hence some libertarians prefer to call themselves classical liberals instead of giving in to the cultures mutation of terms, in the same way hackers differentiate themselves from crackers, although with even less success.
Also, it gives libertarians yet another way to feel smug, superior, and different from the rest of society.
You're displaying a complete ignorance of actual Christian values here, you should treat your neighbor as yourself. The exceptions you list afterwards are the failings of people, not the teachings of the Bible.
There is a strong political movement of "Christianity" in American politics which uses bigotry and hatred to further their political goals. It doesn't really matter whether or not they are "true" Christians. They're claiming the title, picking and choosing which parts of the bible they want to enforce, and trying to push for that to be the law of the land.
Look at mexico. Pretty much blank-slate legalization of most drugs. Cartels running amok.
Are you sure it's legal? I'm pretty sure the drug cartels and the Mexican army are always killing each other.
It's not the potheads i worry about, it's the Cocaine and Heroin addicts, their motivations, and their associations that i don't want to live in the same country with.
People are already cocaine and heroin addicts, and they will exist whether or not the drugs are legalized. Whether or not there would be more addicts if drugs were legalized is up for debate. In either case, it should be treated more as a public health issue rather than a criminal issue. Due to the war on drugs, the US has more people in prison than any other country on earth. Think of the worst, most oppressive police state on earth- per capita, the US has more prisoners than that country.
I would like to point out thought that both Obama and Bush II have socialistic tendencies - starting with TARP, extending to the federal purchase of AIG and GM.
I'd argue that the economic policies of Obama and Bush II have much more in common with fascism (AKA corporatism) than any real sort of socialism. I think people are loath to use the term "fascism" since it's pretty loaded and often overused, but it applies pretty well as far as our economic system is concerned.
So how long did it take for the Liberals to convince you that only they care about civil liberties and human rights? Actually, it was the conservatives that convinced me of that.
There's a saying that goes, "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
It's also been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.
Sometimes the wolves win and the sheep loses (even with appropriate safeguards in place.) That's unfortunate for the sheep, but it's part of the risk of having a vote on anything.
Not so. Children are required to attend school and there they are taught English.
There's no requirement that US citizen children are required to attend school in the United States. They could be born in the US and then grow up in another country.
The one thing that always bothered me about students selling their textbooks after completing the course it that this action basically says "I took this class because the degree required it, and I will never have the need to recall this information for the rest of my days."
Or they have better sources than old textbooks. Or they're broke and need the money. Or they've learned everything in the textbook so thoroughly that they never have to refer to it again;)
I used to do martial arts. One of the things you learn is that most black belts get their asses kicked in a streetfight.
A big part of this is because most "martial arts" are pretty useless in a real fight, black belt or no. Giving someone false confidence can be pretty dangerous.
And the lists go on. I'm surrounded by warnings that if a good actions puts yourself at risk, then the action is BAD. And I weep a little...
Feel free to ignore the warnings.
Psych studies show that in a crisis, most people are going to stand there like idiots and do nothing anyway, so encouraging them to get the hell out of danger is a good thing (for them, if not the human race in general.)
Very few people are going to attempt something heroic. If that's you, then you should go for it anyway.
My best burglary story involves my sister: Someone broke into her apartment and stole some CDs and miscellaneous other things. A few days later the burglar got caught and was locked up.
So my sister went to the guy's house, confronted the burglar's girlfriend, and demanded her stuff back (and got it.)
Don't forget that there's a strong thread in most forms of Christianity that being a generally good, charitable person who helps do God's work makes you more likely to be accepted into heaven rather than being damned to a rather unpleasant eternity spent in hell. This turns "just asking for charity" into "extracting money with (vague, ill-defined) menaces" in my book.
Disclaimer: I'm an atheist.
Most forms of Christianity teach that faith in Jesus is the way to salvation, not charitable works. However, if you're truly faithful and a follower of Jesus, then you're going to love your fellow humans and want to do good works for them. It just shows that you really got the message about loving your fellow man and whatnot.
What's the saying, works without faith are empty and that faith without works is dead?
Then copy your own damn papers, its not like copiers are futuristic alien technology that only high end corporations have access to.
So only people who can afford to buy their own copiers should have the ability to make copies without having to fear they're going to get into some kind of trouble because they happen to photocopy a page with some unknown secret banned keywords on it?
The reason it increases their size is because it keeps them disease-free.
Also, it allows the farmer to cram the cow full of corn (increasing its size,) which will kill the cow unless it gets a constant stream of antibiotics along with it.
Just look at Afghanistan - and they are armed to the teeth even compared to the US gun nuts.
And look how long we've been bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq with little progress being made. A heavily armed civilian population is a nightmare to deal with.
religion helps a believer to lead happy life and frees him from anxiety.
Really? Many religious people I know are intensely anxious because their religion teaches them that they're one false move away from burning in hell for all eternity. In fact, in many religions there is an attempt to reject our animal instincts, things that feel very natural for us to do, and threaten unimaginable punishment for those unable to resist our natural urges. That tends to cause a bit of anxiety and unhappiness.
The entries in the galactic database, or whatever, were a few short paragraphs describing what conditions were probably like on the planet, but no explorers had ever returned to find out. I remember when I played those games I would click through the text unthinkingly so I could go blow some shit up.
Of course, the cynic in me sees the future human just clicking through that galactic database crap so they can go blow some shit up...
Slashdot Mirror
If what you said was true, then animals would not expand into new territories that would force them to evolve; which is obviously false.
A species of animal can expand into a new territory, evolve, etc.
An individual animal still can't claim more territory than it is able to use at one time.
A neighborhood cat might claim a few blocks of the town as its territory. He can patrol around, catch the mice running around in his area, make sweet, sweet love to the lady cats, chase other male cats away, etc.
An especially ambitious cat might try to claim ownership of the entire city, but he will still only be able to patrol a few blocks on his own. He can claim it's all his, but he can't use the law and other social constructs to deny other cats the use of the property he claims as his own.
As someone else said earlier, property rights only came to importance when humans settled down and began to use agriculture on a mass scale- a few thousand years ago.
For the majority of human history, we were living in hunter-gather tribes. My tribe might live in the area with the best deer hunting, and we might try to keep your tribe from hunting in our general area if you get too close (since that would put a strain on resources we need to survive,) but we have no way of claiming land we're currently not using, or denying you use of that property because we "own" it.
So what you're saying is, other than Africa, Asia, the Pacific islands, the US and Australia, World War II was primarily a localized European conflict?
The Democrats (control of the House, Senate, and the Presidency) have managed to double the total federal debt in just two years? How exactly did the GOP do that?
They managed to start two wars, and then fuck up the economy, which necessitated an increased spending on unemployment insurance & Medicaid, and the huge bailouts, coupled with decreasing tax receipts (due to the tanking economy.)
I mean, the health care costs haven't started yet. There hasn't been a huge increase in government employment. There haven't really been any new social programs- just an increase in usage of the same old ones. The unpopular massive federal spending has largely been an attempt to clean up the GOP economic mess. Whether or not you think it was necessary, or helpful is another matter entirely.
If you admit they are fake why acknowledge their use of the title? I can claim to be President but that doesn't make it so.
It's their interpretation of christian theology, that's how they self-identify, that's how other people identify them, etc.
The same way we call groups of people "liberals" or "conservatives." If I describe someone is described as a right-wing christian nutjob, you know exactly the kind of person I'm talking about; it doesn't necessitate a theological discussion. It's cultural shorthand.
Hence some libertarians prefer to call themselves classical liberals instead of giving in to the cultures mutation of terms, in the same way hackers differentiate themselves from crackers, although with even less success.
Also, it gives libertarians yet another way to feel smug, superior, and different from the rest of society.
You're displaying a complete ignorance of actual Christian values here, you should treat your neighbor as yourself. The exceptions you list afterwards are the failings of people, not the teachings of the Bible.
There is a strong political movement of "Christianity" in American politics which uses bigotry and hatred to further their political goals.
It doesn't really matter whether or not they are "true" Christians. They're claiming the title, picking and choosing which parts of the bible they want to enforce, and trying to push for that to be the law of the land.
Look at mexico. Pretty much blank-slate legalization of most drugs. Cartels running amok.
Are you sure it's legal? I'm pretty sure the drug cartels and the Mexican army are always killing each other.
It's not the potheads i worry about, it's the Cocaine and Heroin addicts, their motivations, and their associations that i don't want to live in the same country with.
People are already cocaine and heroin addicts, and they will exist whether or not the drugs are legalized. Whether or not there would be more addicts if drugs were legalized is up for debate. In either case, it should be treated more as a public health issue rather than a criminal issue. Due to the war on drugs, the US has more people in prison than any other country on earth. Think of the worst, most oppressive police state on earth- per capita, the US has more prisoners than that country.
I would like to point out thought that both Obama and Bush II have socialistic tendencies - starting with TARP, extending to the federal purchase of AIG and GM.
I'd argue that the economic policies of Obama and Bush II have much more in common with fascism (AKA corporatism) than any real sort of socialism.
I think people are loath to use the term "fascism" since it's pretty loaded and often overused, but it applies pretty well as far as our economic system is concerned.
So how long did it take for the Liberals to convince you that only they care about civil liberties and human rights?
Actually, it was the conservatives that convinced me of that.
There's a saying that goes, "Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner."
It's also been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried.
Sometimes the wolves win and the sheep loses (even with appropriate safeguards in place.) That's unfortunate for the sheep, but it's part of the risk of having a vote on anything.
In every state I've lived in, I've been given the opportunity to register to vote for free when I get my license from the DMV.
Poor people often don't have cars or driver's licenses.
Not so. Children are required to attend school and there they are taught English.
There's no requirement that US citizen children are required to attend school in the United States. They could be born in the US and then grow up in another country.
The one thing that always bothered me about students selling their textbooks after completing the course it that this action basically says "I took this class because the degree required it, and I will never have the need to recall this information for the rest of my days."
Or they have better sources than old textbooks. Or they're broke and need the money. Or they've learned everything in the textbook so thoroughly that they never have to refer to it again ;)
I used to do martial arts. One of the things you learn is that most black belts get their asses kicked in a streetfight.
A big part of this is because most "martial arts" are pretty useless in a real fight, black belt or no. Giving someone false confidence can be pretty dangerous.
And the lists go on. I'm surrounded by warnings that if a good actions puts yourself at risk, then the action is BAD. And I weep a little...
Feel free to ignore the warnings.
Psych studies show that in a crisis, most people are going to stand there like idiots and do nothing anyway, so encouraging them to get the hell out of danger is a good thing (for them, if not the human race in general.)
Very few people are going to attempt something heroic. If that's you, then you should go for it anyway.
My best burglary story involves my sister:
Someone broke into her apartment and stole some CDs and miscellaneous other things. A few days later the burglar got caught and was locked up.
So my sister went to the guy's house, confronted the burglar's girlfriend, and demanded her stuff back (and got it.)
Don't forget that there's a strong thread in most forms of Christianity that being a generally good, charitable person who helps do God's work makes you more likely to be accepted into heaven rather than being damned to a rather unpleasant eternity spent in hell. This turns "just asking for charity" into "extracting money with (vague, ill-defined) menaces" in my book.
Disclaimer: I'm an atheist.
Most forms of Christianity teach that faith in Jesus is the way to salvation, not charitable works.
However, if you're truly faithful and a follower of Jesus, then you're going to love your fellow humans and want to do good works for them. It just shows that you really got the message about loving your fellow man and whatnot.
What's the saying, works without faith are empty and that faith without works is dead?
Then copy your own damn papers, its not like copiers are futuristic alien technology that only high end corporations have access to.
So only people who can afford to buy their own copiers should have the ability to make copies without having to fear they're going to get into some kind of trouble because they happen to photocopy a page with some unknown secret banned keywords on it?
It's just that what's stressful to a human may not be stressful to an animal. Especially one so different as a chicken.
We can't ask a chicken if it feels stress or not (well, we could ask it, but it won't be likely to answer...)
But there are other ways to tell if an animal is stressed- check for physiological changes, etc.
Grass/Corn debate is crap
Grass-fed does taste better, tho.
The reason it increases their size is because it keeps them disease-free.
Also, it allows the farmer to cram the cow full of corn (increasing its size,) which will kill the cow unless it gets a constant stream of antibiotics along with it.
For what it's worth though, the US has higher disposable income per head of population on average than pretty much every European state
"On average" is largely a meaningless metric here, as we also have a very high rate of income inequality in the US.
Just look at Afghanistan - and they are armed to the teeth even compared to the US gun nuts.
And look how long we've been bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq with little progress being made.
A heavily armed civilian population is a nightmare to deal with.
religion helps a believer to lead happy life and frees him from anxiety.
Really? Many religious people I know are intensely anxious because their religion teaches them that they're one false move away from burning in hell for all eternity. In fact, in many religions there is an attempt to reject our animal instincts, things that feel very natural for us to do, and threaten unimaginable punishment for those unable to resist our natural urges. That tends to cause a bit of anxiety and unhappiness.
The entries in the galactic database, or whatever, were a few short paragraphs describing what conditions were probably like on the planet, but no explorers had ever returned to find out. I remember when I played those games I would click through the text unthinkingly so I could go blow some shit up.
Of course, the cynic in me sees the future human just clicking through that galactic database crap so they can go blow some shit up...