Also, people are paid money to create those ads, print them, address them and mail them. So, people are paid money to kidnap, sequester and mail pieces of the relatives of rich people, that's not a reason to support the activity itself.
Just because it moves money around doesn't mean it's a good idea in the big picture.
"The conservative government, led by the Liberal Democratic Party"
There's something a little odd about that name, don't you think?
Sounds like the USA to me. "Liberal" and "Conservative", yet no matter which is elected the government expands in size and power. Clever, isn't it? That there might be no real difference between them is a fact about which we are more honest when it comes to other countries, apparently.
wipe their asses with the Family Guy scripts. Was that too strong? Seriously, FG is not that clever or funny, unless you're a complete idiot, then you might actually enjoy it greatly. Sorry about you being an idiot though. Why is blatant flamebait modded up?
How is this news for nerds [...] largely viewed by nerds, and adult animation is mostly enjoyed by nerds, and dammit, it's a good show. Why ask a question to which you know the answer?
While most of reading "American Gods" was fun, I could see many references going over my head There was a passage where I was amazed to find the imagery exactly compatible with the "mythology" of the White Wolf role playing games: To avoid a technocratic roadblock they move to the penumbra spirit world across the veil and see a giant biotechnological pattern-spider where the men in black were in the physical realm. At first I figured they had both drawn inspiration from the same source, but he described, spot on, so many of the elements the games had defined that it couldn't be mere coincidence.
So not only did he draw from a lot of mythologies, but I'm pretty sure he's also pumping pop culture for the odd bit like that.
I plan on re-reading this book at some time in the future, maybe I'll have picked up enough new stuff by then to get a few more pearls like that that I missed the first time I read them.
That part of the bible was originally written in Hebrew, not English. And it was remembered from oral accounts before it was written down. It would take a miracle for its copied and translated version to be accurate.
Excuse me? [...] I was raised in a creationist home I forgive you.
However, many of the statements in [the bible] have scientific implications. Therefore they should be investigated for validity That is right. There is implication that the earth is the center of the universe, people have been put on trial by religious authorities and their scientific publications have been banned because they had proof that the implications of the bible were false. There is implication that all geological processes were accomplished in a 24h period, this is contradicted by the sum total of all accumulated knowledge in the field of geology. There is implication that the genetic diversity of all land animals was reduced to a single mating pair of each species only a few thousand years ago: all biological data, up to and including DNA analysis, invalidate that claim. And on and on like that throughout the entire book: It does not accurately describe reality, not even remotely.
the ID "theory" does nothing of the sort. the only "innovation" it has over the overtly religious stories is the simple substitution of "god" with "intelligent designer". "The most valuable of all talents is that of never using two words when one will do."
Some people aren't learning.... They simply take whatever their political party happens to push and parrot it. Kinda like how they were made to learn at school: Take whatever the teacher happens to be pushing and parrot it on the test.
obviously a piece of granite doesn't have a soul What is obvious about that?
It's not obvious to the reincarnation beliefs of Hinduism, it's not obvious to the animist beliefs of tribes across the world, from Oceania to the great north. It was not obvious ton ancient Greeks, to whom even places had souls. It wasn't obvious to Michaelangelo, who freed beauty trapped within quarried rocks, cutting away at the corners to free what was already inside.
Do trees have a soul? Is it obvious that they do/n't?
As a Christian, the way I see it, why can't evolution be the process that God has used (and is still using) to create the universe? How it happened, by Isaac Asimov.
The Bible says that God created the world in 7 days (rested on the 7th), but does not define what a day is. Neither does it define "god", "to create", "world", nor "rest". If you're gonna start fudging what individual words mean, why stop at one? Maybe "god" means something else than what you're used to, and maybe "create" means "transform", and maybe "rest" means "forget"... And maybe the whole thing is a good ol' camp fire story, not an accurate description of reality.
It would seem that the only ones who need to know this stuff might be the people working with it. Ah, advocating mass ignorance. That's nice. Why teach history? The only people who need to know it are historians. Why teach them geography? They only need to know if it they want to become cartographers.
Lets not teach anyone anything anymore and just devolve blissfully into the world of idiocracy.
How about, "The process of evolution is a highly useful theory" instead? Even if God created the world 6,000 years ago exactly as it was 6,000 years ago, and let evolutionary processes take it from there, would it really matter? Yes. It would matter if a trickster god created the perfect appearance of evolutionary process that had not really taken place and then let evolution take it's course from that point on.
But what is truly an issue is why someone would think that said trickster god should be believed when he dictates a story to a lone guy in a desert but the tons and tons of solid evidence to the contrary should not be believed.
Oh wait - human cloning is still hype... I never knew what was so wrong about clones. So what, you have delayed twin births already (frozen embryo, reimplanted after a while), not much outrage an paranoia about that. Making a baby twin of yourself, WHAT is the big deal? It's like an offspring, or a younger orphaned sibling in your legal guardianship. The media talk about it like it's some kind of proven heresy or something. I'm not worried about clones at all.
On the other hand, he wasn't as famous as Michael Jackson or Britney Spears. Maybe if they didn't fuck over all of his works when they make movies out of 'em, he could be that famous too.
Religion is also a large part of the reason for suppression of knowledge, increases in fear and the idea that "ideas are dangerous.
Yeah, religion is evil. Just look at those religious wackos like Stalin and Brezhnev who killed millions and sent more to death camps or psychiatric hospitals just for reading the wrong books Oh wait, they were atheists.
The fact that they knew no god would stop them doesn't mean they didn't use religion for their own ends. They banned other churches because that was how they treated opposition, be it political, journalistic or religious, their monopoly was total on every front.
Why is presenting "Bad Thing B" in answer to "Bad Thing A" still considered a acceptable method of debate? Because if "Standards A" applies to "Act B" in case of "Chromosome Y" but not to "Act B" in case of "Chromosome X" then you have demonstrated "Double Standards".
When I was around 15-16 I met strangers off the internet. I never got raped, or taken advantage of. What's with all the paranoia against strangers? The world is dangerous but I'd hope your kid has enough judgement of character to judge people. The better they can take responsibility as kids, the better they can do it as adults.
The main stream media blows strangers up into big bad things, and label just about everyone as a rapist, or potential killer. Lay off the news.
I'm sure you are going to argue that you were referring to the extremeness of the GPs comment (i.e. no privacy at all until 18) but you know you'll be missing the point. I could reply with insight, but you know you'll just be an ass again if I do. He tells me that the obvious correction to his insulting comment where he intentionally misses my point is no use because that would mean I was missing the point. He was trolling, and I was certainly not just making comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage, I was replying to someone doing that to ME. I was giving a short reply to see if I was feeding a troll or addressing a sentient being, the moderator totally misjudged this thread, and the attacker proved to me that he had no intention of having a rational discussion.
Interesting that you titled your post 'Cat's in the Cradle'. The Harry Chapin song that I assume you are referring to is about a boy who resents his father for not being active in his son's childhood. I assume you were focused on the part where the son grows up and, in turn, does not make time for his own father. You missed the big picture. I know the content of the song, obviously. In it (and I prefer the Ugly Kid Joe version, btw) there is an absent father who later seeks a relationship with a now absent son and realizes, too late, that his negative behavior had inescapable consequences. I'm saying that being overbearing will poison your relationship just as much as being absent. You missed the big picture by focusing on the trivial details of that doomed relationship when the overall message can be applied to other situations (by someone intellectually honest, that is).
Just thought I'd point out that your oversight in your title extends to your oversight in the importance of good parenting. The oversight was yours and yours only. You could not make the link between one form on unhealthy relationship and another and you blindly and pompously assumed that I was wrong, when you simply failed to understand what you read.
In fact, the lack of structure you suggest I did not suggest a lack of structure. You're building yourself quite the strawman.
will probably cause the exact thing you tried to avoid: a bratty kid who gets what he (she in this case) wants. I'm sure you are going to argue that you were referring to the extremeness of the GPs comment (i.e. no privacy at all until 18) I was arguing that being a tyrant to your child is not the same as setting boundaries. You can explain to a kid why a rule has to exists, rather than imperially declaring "I am the parent and you're the child, that's why". Kids will react much better to honesty than to tyranny.
but you know you'll be missing the point. Why should anyone reply to you politely when you declare right off the bat that on top of willfully missing their point the first time around, you are also going to assume that any reply they give you will be wrong? You're being a pompous ass, don't expect anything good to come of it.
I do what I can to cultivate a trusting relationship between the two of us. You sound like a good parent. You're not laying down the law "because I'm the parent and you're the child", so I'm sure your relationship will stay healthy, rather than stay sick. Can anyone show what part of that is flamebait? Anyone?
Slashdot Mirror
Just because it moves money around doesn't mean it's a good idea in the big picture.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
Or one based on their acerbic school mate.
What's next, a spin-off about the tedious, annoying shrink from Cheers?
It's madness, I say. MADNESS!
[...]
largely viewed by nerds, and adult animation is mostly enjoyed by nerds, and dammit, it's a good show. Why ask a question to which you know the answer?
At first I figured they had both drawn inspiration from the same source, but he described, spot on, so many of the elements the games had defined that it couldn't be mere coincidence.
So not only did he draw from a lot of mythologies, but I'm pretty sure he's also pumping pop culture for the odd bit like that.
I plan on re-reading this book at some time in the future, maybe I'll have picked up enough new stuff by then to get a few more pearls like that that I missed the first time I read them.
It would take a miracle for its copied and translated version to be accurate.
[...] I was raised in a creationist home I forgive you. However, many of the statements in [the bible] have scientific implications. Therefore they should be investigated for validity That is right. There is implication that the earth is the center of the universe, people have been put on trial by religious authorities and their scientific publications have been banned because they had proof that the implications of the bible were false.
There is implication that all geological processes were accomplished in a 24h period, this is contradicted by the sum total of all accumulated knowledge in the field of geology.
There is implication that the genetic diversity of all land animals was reduced to a single mating pair of each species only a few thousand years ago: all biological data, up to and including DNA analysis, invalidate that claim.
And on and on like that throughout the entire book: It does not accurately describe reality, not even remotely.
-- Thomas Jefferson
It's not obvious to the reincarnation beliefs of Hinduism, it's not obvious to the animist beliefs of tribes across the world, from Oceania to the great north. It was not obvious ton ancient Greeks, to whom even places had souls. It wasn't obvious to Michaelangelo, who freed beauty trapped within quarried rocks, cutting away at the corners to free what was already inside.
Do trees have a soul? Is it obvious that they do/n't?
If you're gonna start fudging what individual words mean, why stop at one? Maybe "god" means something else than what you're used to, and maybe "create" means "transform", and maybe "rest" means "forget"...
And maybe the whole thing is a good ol' camp fire story, not an accurate description of reality.
Why teach history? The only people who need to know it are historians.
Why teach them geography? They only need to know if it they want to become cartographers.
Lets not teach anyone anything anymore and just devolve blissfully into the world of idiocracy.
But what is truly an issue is why someone would think that said trickster god should be believed when he dictates a story to a lone guy in a desert but the tons and tons of solid evidence to the contrary should not be believed.
Making a baby twin of yourself, WHAT is the big deal? It's like an offspring, or a younger orphaned sibling in your legal guardianship. The media talk about it like it's some kind of proven heresy or something. I'm not worried about clones at all.
Yeah, religion is evil. Just look at those religious wackos like Stalin and Brezhnev who killed millions and sent more to death camps or psychiatric hospitals just for reading the wrong books Oh wait, they were atheists.
Their religion was their own cult of personality.The fact that they knew no god would stop them doesn't mean they didn't use religion for their own ends. They banned other churches because that was how they treated opposition, be it political, journalistic or religious, their monopoly was total on every front.
The main stream media blows strangers up into big bad things, and label just about everyone as a rapist, or potential killer. Lay off the news.
So it's never happened to someone you know?
Lay off the generalizations.
Says one generalizing "strangers".He was trolling, and I was certainly not just making comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage, I was replying to someone doing that to ME. I was giving a short reply to see if I was feeding a troll or addressing a sentient being, the moderator totally misjudged this thread, and the attacker proved to me that he had no intention of having a rational discussion.
50% Flamebait
50% Overrated
How was that like comments whose sole purpose is to insult and enrage, if someone is not-so-subtly picking a fight (racial insults are a dead giveaway)?
I was replying to someone who was attacking me, I'm not the one picking a fight here.
100% Troll
What part of that was a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.???
I'm saying that being overbearing will poison your relationship just as much as being absent.
You missed the big picture by focusing on the trivial details of that doomed relationship when the overall message can be applied to other situations (by someone intellectually honest, that is). Just thought I'd point out that your oversight in your title extends to your oversight in the importance of good parenting. The oversight was yours and yours only. You could not make the link between one form on unhealthy relationship and another and you blindly and pompously assumed that I was wrong, when you simply failed to understand what you read. In fact, the lack of structure you suggest I did not suggest a lack of structure. You're building yourself quite the strawman. will probably cause the exact thing you tried to avoid: a bratty kid who gets what he (she in this case) wants. I'm sure you are going to argue that you were referring to the extremeness of the GPs comment (i.e. no privacy at all until 18) I was arguing that being a tyrant to your child is not the same as setting boundaries.
You can explain to a kid why a rule has to exists, rather than imperially declaring "I am the parent and you're the child, that's why".
Kids will react much better to honesty than to tyranny. but you know you'll be missing the point. Why should anyone reply to you politely when you declare right off the bat that on top of willfully missing their point the first time around, you are also going to assume that any reply they give you will be wrong? You're being a pompous ass, don't expect anything good to come of it.