Allegiance? Yeah, I think you need to go to Mexico and ask around about how Mexicans think of America. I have a feeling you'd be shocked at their attitudes. Allegiance! Haha.
Frankly, you're worse than the Americans about taking an unrelated subject and injecting bafflingly out-of-context nationalism. Concorde? That was 50 years ago, dude. And I assure you that the American indifference towards soccer is genuine. (Shouldn't you be lecturing us about how it's actually called "football" and our sport should be called "[insert insulting name here]"? I thought that was standard procedure.)
Austerity is a loaded word. Its true meaning is "don't spend more than you make." Sound advice. It is a masterpiece of media manipulation how it's been made into an evil act that should be avoided at all costs.
I notice you seem to be an educated, erudite individual. How is it, then, that you feel comfortable inserting an epithet like 'carny' into your conversation? It sounds like gypsy, pickaninny, or redneck. On what planet is this acceptable?
You have to buy the new one if you want to play with your friends. Moreover, like other people have said, they'll turn off the multiplayer servers of the older versions to drive sales of the new edition. This move is a no-brainer from a marketing perspective.
The "right to work" laws vary from state to state. The other kind of state REQUIRES workers to join a union and pay dues (a kind of non-government tax) in order to get a job. If you don't join the union, you have no right to work. Sucks, doesn't it? Basically, unions got so politically powerful in certain states that they used their unfair advantage to bribe politicians to pass laws in the unions' own interest, forcing workers to join them, in order to increase their own power.
Article 23.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." The phrase "the right to work" was coined by the French socialist leader Louis Blanc in the 19th century.
"Freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with..... And since I am sure of this in general, and since I'd expect most of you to be so too, I shall probably shock you when I say it is the purpose of my lecture tonight to argue in one particular area just the opposite. To argue, in short, in favour of censorship against freedom of expression, and to do so in an area of life that has traditionally been regarded as sacrosanct. I am talking about moral and religious education. And especially the education a child receives at home....parents (have) no god-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose....in short, children have the right not to have their minds addled by (religion). And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon. That's the negative side of what I want to say. But there will be a positive side as well. If children have a right to be protected from false ideas, they have too a right to be succored by the truth. And we as a society have a duty to provide it."
-- Nicholas Humphrey, addressing Amnesty International
Echh...such a poverty of intellect. Japan = anime. This is equivalent to hearing "America" and immediately thinking of Disney animated films to the exclusion of everything else. Japan offers so, so much more. *sigh*
Since when has classified material ever been included under free speech?
There are all sorts of restrictions on so-called "free" speech. Racism, hate, right-wing rhetoric, Islamophobia, all these have been banned at one time or another, with the approval of the courts and to the applause of the American public. Heck, just last week the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon called Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones and told him to shut up. Here's another one: "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others." Spoken by the US State Department. Heck Obama himself last week reached out to Youtube in an unprecedented move and asked them to block a trailier of a satirical film of Mohammed (Youtube denied the request). So, I'm not sure where this freedom of speech pride is coming from. You sure this isn't some Hollywood fiction that you believed?
Whaaaat? A greeting in China translates to "have you eaten yet?" This is a throwback to the days when there wasn't enough food to go around, due to the pure socialist economic system in place at the time. You bet moms tell their kids to eat up. Honestly, I remember my Mom telling me to eat up for the nutritional value of the food, the waste part was secondary. She thought lima beans were particularly good for me...ugh. Overeating? What, we don't have control over what gets put on the plate in the first place?
Oh, and let's not worship the Chinese way, OK? You're putting chopsticks to your lips and then putting them back in the communal bowls. The Chinese have an idiom that translates as "blind worship of foreign cultures" and there's definitely a part of our society that does this, especially when it comes to Eastern cultures. Chinese tattoos and such. Chinese love to waste food at meals. It shows you're prosperous and can afford enough food. Again, an overreaction to the bad old days under real socialism.
Nope. I once took a 70 year old peasant farmer from China to KFC and he freaking loved it. The man had never been to a restaurant in his life. Seriously, his village was freaking medieval. Where do you get such bizarre ideas?
There are three professions where being untruthful is the key to success: Lawyers, salespeople, and advertising. All three are hired to portray their client in the most favorable light possible, and the very best ones lie through their teeth. The worst of these three are the advertisers because they have legions of psychologists and scientists trying to figure out the best way to lie to people.
No, Christian persecution is not covered by the MSM as it is the WRONG narrative. There are oppressors and there are victims, and everyone knows who is who. Portraying Christians as victims messes up the narrative. The fact that it's true - well when the hell has that been part of news-gathering in the last 10 years?
Also quite telling that you are beyond convinced that the post was up to +5 due to manipulation. How would you even jump to such a conclusion, out of the blue? Why, does your side of the argument continuously engage in this reprehensible behavior?
I note in passing the implied violence and explicit profanity in your thoughts. Those in power get very angry indeed when contrary thoughts correctly challenge their pre-established convictions.
Yeah, it's not fast food. WhatEVER kids eat at an early age, that's why they'll enjoy for the rest of their lives. It's called "human culture". Fast food's got nothing to do with it.
Liking fast food is essentially chemistry. Science (yay, science!) has basically figured out what tastes good on the human taste bud. Fast food supplies this. Sure, you gourmands out there will choke and puke at the thought of fast food, but that is purely social conditioning (the kind that intelligent people insist they're too smart to fall for). Take someone with no preconceptions, say a barbarian from a pre-modern society, and serve them two meals: one of a Big Mac and the other Thai-Burmese-Argentinian fusion or whatever is considered haute cuisine these days, and the barbie will pick the Big Mac every time.
Nope. The position you advocate would result in Americans holding themselves higher than other nations, something that has been disallowed for some time now. Americans are not permitted to think themselves better than anyone. As a matter of fact, Americans are always worse. Why?
A pervasive argument appearing in the post-colonial paradigm is that of Moral Equivalence. In the case of Islamic terrorism the dynamics of moral equivalence can be seen among some figures of the western intelligentsia in their vociferous moral indignation at the behavior of Western nations that, they allege, led to acts of terror, and their understanding attitude towards the terrorist acts themselves (HRC). Even if they do not intentionally excuse terrorism, such writers produce the unhappy consequence of explaining Islamic terrorism in terms of Western misdeeds and faults, and of framing the debate in terms of what the West did to deserve such attacks and, therefore, reverse the moral equation. The Westâ(TM)s âoewrongsâ come to be seen as more reprehensible than the reaction (however âoeharshâ and inexcusable) by terrorists. The easy moral challenge is: âoeAre we not hypocrites, when we do the same thing?â
At some level, this is a pathology of self-criticism (MOS) â" it is all our fault, and if we were better, then we could fix everything. Meanwhile, while we demand the highest standards of ourselves, we treat the terrorists as morally challenged, who canâ(TM)t even understand the questions of intention and cannot be expected to self-criticize. We become incapable of making the distinction between victims and perpetrators, and end up blaming the victim.
Women say: "My body, my choice." Nobody can tell them otherwise when they decide to have an abortion. They can have one at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all.
Well, obviously, the NYT started with the conclusion, and worked backwards from there. The conclusion: we are bad people, we waste electricity and hurt baby duckies and puppies. The topic really doesn't matter, this conclusion works for every story. They're so insular and out-of-touch at the NYT, no diversity of thought, everyone thinks the same. Thus, it's a surprise when reactions like this happen.
Eichberg? Never heard of it. You know, I really take issue with false pronouncements like "To win a majority vote shows that our members are not just a marginal phenomenon; but are in the midst of society." As much as I support the concept behind the Pirate Party, grandiose statements like this make me cringe. They sound far too similar to "the vanguard of the revolution will inevitably usher in the dictatorship of the proletariat" rhetoric which was equally as false.
Just for fun, I looked up Eichberg on the internet, expecting to find a city of 100,000 - 500,000. What did I get? "Eichberg has an area, as of 2006, of 5.5 km2 (2.1 sq mi). Eichberg has a population (as of 31 December 2011) of 1,481." You know what we call these in America? Hick towns. Flyover territory. Rednecksville. A place you sincerely hope your car doesn't break down because then the banjos start playing and it never ends well. Just like a hick town, the population is lily-white with no diversity. Unfortunately, most of the population are religious, and we all know what that does for the credibility of the local voters. There are only 82 rational atheists in the whole little village whose opinions can be trusted.
So, I'm having a hard time understanding the "in the midst of society" part. It sounds to me like this is an inconsequential rural area, whose vote means nothing. 1,481? I'm pretty sure the population of NPCs in Ultima V is higher than this. Pirate Party, I salute your win, however inconsequential, but stop pretending that this means anything. Win the votes of real people who don't believe in the Invisible Sky Wizard and maybe it will mean something.
But it's an important part of social activism to hit people where it hurts - their daily lives. The actual helium saved is irrelevant. What matters is to make people feel bad. And just think of all the smug environmentalists who now have another issue to shit all over people about. "Balloons at your party? You know there are medical patients not able to get helium due to your rampant waste? Tut tut tut." Don't underestimate this part, enviros love looking down on others who don't meet their standards. It's the same feeling that religious nuts get by looking down on those of loose morals or bad behavior.
That capacity is in reserve for bursts of activity, which are when something important happens. "Oh, sorry, can't service your request, we're at capacity now, come back later when you've totally lost interest or forgotten about this." Typical lack of insight by the NYT. They did what comes naturally, write the story about how something is bad and then find a lawyerly justification later. I mean, how would it be if they spent all that money on consultants and then failed to find that things are bad?
Oh, and the little shitty comment "This is the price being paid to ensure everyone has instant access to every email they've ever received, or for their instant Facebook status update" by the submitter is totally uncalled for. That's not what it's about, but it's the reaction the NYT is looking for. Reload these comments at -1, you'll see the submitter's "First post!" comment there. What an idiot.
Well duh. How could anyone miss it, being clearly labeled 'Canada' with a flag right there? You know, it's funny, Canadians are among the most anti-nationalists out there. As an American, I hear the criticism long and loud. Nationalism and patriotism are bullshit. Nonetheless...how is it that Canadians are first and foremost when it comes to trumpeting their own flag-waving nationalism? I just have a hard time understanding it.
Slashdot Mirror
Allegiance? Yeah, I think you need to go to Mexico and ask around about how Mexicans think of America. I have a feeling you'd be shocked at their attitudes. Allegiance! Haha.
Frankly, you're worse than the Americans about taking an unrelated subject and injecting bafflingly out-of-context nationalism. Concorde? That was 50 years ago, dude. And I assure you that the American indifference towards soccer is genuine. (Shouldn't you be lecturing us about how it's actually called "football" and our sport should be called "[insert insulting name here]"? I thought that was standard procedure.)
Austerity is a loaded word. Its true meaning is "don't spend more than you make." Sound advice. It is a masterpiece of media manipulation how it's been made into an evil act that should be avoided at all costs.
I notice you seem to be an educated, erudite individual. How is it, then, that you feel comfortable inserting an epithet like 'carny' into your conversation? It sounds like gypsy, pickaninny, or redneck. On what planet is this acceptable?
You have to buy the new one if you want to play with your friends. Moreover, like other people have said, they'll turn off the multiplayer servers of the older versions to drive sales of the new edition. This move is a no-brainer from a marketing perspective.
So, what's the deal? Someone want to explain? My understanding of Kohoutek is limited to old "Snoopy" cartoons.
[citation needed]
Article 23.1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:
"Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment."
The phrase "the right to work" was coined by the French socialist leader Louis Blanc in the 19th century.
"Freedom of speech is too precious a freedom to be meddled with..... And since I am sure of this in general, and since I'd expect most of you to be so too, I shall probably shock you when I say it is the purpose of my lecture tonight to argue in one particular area just the opposite. To argue, in short, in favour of censorship against freedom of expression, and to do so in an area of life that has traditionally been regarded as sacrosanct. I am talking about moral and religious education. And especially the education a child receives at home....parents (have) no god-given licence to enculturate their children in whatever ways they personally choose....in short, children have the right not to have their minds addled by (religion). And we as a society have a duty to protect them from it. So we should no more allow parents to teach their children to believe, for example, the literal truth of the Bible, or that the planets rule their lives, than we should allow parents to knock their children's teeth out or lock them in a dungeon. That's the negative side of what I want to say. But there will be a positive side as well. If children have a right to be protected from false ideas, they have too a right to be succored by the truth. And we as a society have a duty to provide it."
-- Nicholas Humphrey, addressing Amnesty International
Because as we all know, spammers and content filters are way too dumb to ever change their keywords to facilitate ban evasion. *rolls eyes*
Echh...such a poverty of intellect. Japan = anime. This is equivalent to hearing "America" and immediately thinking of Disney animated films to the exclusion of everything else. Japan offers so, so much more. *sigh*
Since when has classified material ever been included under free speech?
There are all sorts of restrictions on so-called "free" speech. Racism, hate, right-wing rhetoric, Islamophobia, all these have been banned at one time or another, with the approval of the courts and to the applause of the American public. Heck, just last week the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the Pentagon called Koran-burning pastor Terry Jones and told him to shut up. Here's another one: "We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others." Spoken by the US State Department. Heck Obama himself last week reached out to Youtube in an unprecedented move and asked them to block a trailier of a satirical film of Mohammed (Youtube denied the request). So, I'm not sure where this freedom of speech pride is coming from. You sure this isn't some Hollywood fiction that you believed?
Oh, and let's not worship the Chinese way, OK? You're putting chopsticks to your lips and then putting them back in the communal bowls. The Chinese have an idiom that translates as "blind worship of foreign cultures" and there's definitely a part of our society that does this, especially when it comes to Eastern cultures. Chinese tattoos and such. Chinese love to waste food at meals. It shows you're prosperous and can afford enough food. Again, an overreaction to the bad old days under real socialism.
Nope. I once took a 70 year old peasant farmer from China to KFC and he freaking loved it. The man had never been to a restaurant in his life. Seriously, his village was freaking medieval. Where do you get such bizarre ideas?
There are three professions where being untruthful is the key to success: Lawyers, salespeople, and advertising. All three are hired to portray their client in the most favorable light possible, and the very best ones lie through their teeth. The worst of these three are the advertisers because they have legions of psychologists and scientists trying to figure out the best way to lie to people.
No, Christian persecution is not covered by the MSM as it is the WRONG narrative. There are oppressors and there are victims, and everyone knows who is who. Portraying Christians as victims messes up the narrative. The fact that it's true - well when the hell has that been part of news-gathering in the last 10 years?
Also quite telling that you are beyond convinced that the post was up to +5 due to manipulation. How would you even jump to such a conclusion, out of the blue? Why, does your side of the argument continuously engage in this reprehensible behavior?
I note in passing the implied violence and explicit profanity in your thoughts. Those in power get very angry indeed when contrary thoughts correctly challenge their pre-established convictions.
Yeah, it's not fast food. WhatEVER kids eat at an early age, that's why they'll enjoy for the rest of their lives. It's called "human culture". Fast food's got nothing to do with it.
Liking fast food is essentially chemistry. Science (yay, science!) has basically figured out what tastes good on the human taste bud. Fast food supplies this. Sure, you gourmands out there will choke and puke at the thought of fast food, but that is purely social conditioning (the kind that intelligent people insist they're too smart to fall for). Take someone with no preconceptions, say a barbarian from a pre-modern society, and serve them two meals: one of a Big Mac and the other Thai-Burmese-Argentinian fusion or whatever is considered haute cuisine these days, and the barbie will pick the Big Mac every time.
Nope. The position you advocate would result in Americans holding themselves higher than other nations, something that has been disallowed for some time now. Americans are not permitted to think themselves better than anyone. As a matter of fact, Americans are always worse. Why?
A pervasive argument appearing in the post-colonial paradigm is that of Moral Equivalence. In the case of Islamic terrorism the dynamics of moral equivalence can be seen among some figures of the western intelligentsia in their vociferous moral indignation at the behavior of Western nations that, they allege, led to acts of terror, and their understanding attitude towards the terrorist acts themselves (HRC). Even if they do not intentionally excuse terrorism, such writers produce the unhappy consequence of explaining Islamic terrorism in terms of Western misdeeds and faults, and of framing the debate in terms of what the West did to deserve such attacks and, therefore, reverse the moral equation. The Westâ(TM)s âoewrongsâ come to be seen as more reprehensible than the reaction (however âoeharshâ and inexcusable) by terrorists. The easy moral challenge is: âoeAre we not hypocrites, when we do the same thing?â
At some level, this is a pathology of self-criticism (MOS) â" it is all our fault, and if we were better, then we could fix everything. Meanwhile, while we demand the highest standards of ourselves, we treat the terrorists as morally challenged, who canâ(TM)t even understand the questions of intention and cannot be expected to self-criticize. We become incapable of making the distinction between victims and perpetrators, and end up blaming the victim.
Women say: "My body, my choice." Nobody can tell them otherwise when they decide to have an abortion. They can have one at any time, for any reason, or no reason at all.
Well, obviously, the NYT started with the conclusion, and worked backwards from there. The conclusion: we are bad people, we waste electricity and hurt baby duckies and puppies. The topic really doesn't matter, this conclusion works for every story. They're so insular and out-of-touch at the NYT, no diversity of thought, everyone thinks the same. Thus, it's a surprise when reactions like this happen.
Hitler was Austrian, dumbass.
Eichberg? Never heard of it. You know, I really take issue with false pronouncements like "To win a majority vote shows that our members are not just a marginal phenomenon; but are in the midst of society." As much as I support the concept behind the Pirate Party, grandiose statements like this make me cringe. They sound far too similar to "the vanguard of the revolution will inevitably usher in the dictatorship of the proletariat" rhetoric which was equally as false.
Just for fun, I looked up Eichberg on the internet, expecting to find a city of 100,000 - 500,000. What did I get? "Eichberg has an area, as of 2006, of 5.5 km2 (2.1 sq mi). Eichberg has a population (as of 31 December 2011) of 1,481." You know what we call these in America? Hick towns. Flyover territory. Rednecksville. A place you sincerely hope your car doesn't break down because then the banjos start playing and it never ends well. Just like a hick town, the population is lily-white with no diversity. Unfortunately, most of the population are religious, and we all know what that does for the credibility of the local voters. There are only 82 rational atheists in the whole little village whose opinions can be trusted.
So, I'm having a hard time understanding the "in the midst of society" part. It sounds to me like this is an inconsequential rural area, whose vote means nothing. 1,481? I'm pretty sure the population of NPCs in Ultima V is higher than this. Pirate Party, I salute your win, however inconsequential, but stop pretending that this means anything. Win the votes of real people who don't believe in the Invisible Sky Wizard and maybe it will mean something.
But it's an important part of social activism to hit people where it hurts - their daily lives. The actual helium saved is irrelevant. What matters is to make people feel bad. And just think of all the smug environmentalists who now have another issue to shit all over people about. "Balloons at your party? You know there are medical patients not able to get helium due to your rampant waste? Tut tut tut." Don't underestimate this part, enviros love looking down on others who don't meet their standards. It's the same feeling that religious nuts get by looking down on those of loose morals or bad behavior.
Oh, and the little shitty comment "This is the price being paid to ensure everyone has instant access to every email they've ever received, or for their instant Facebook status update" by the submitter is totally uncalled for. That's not what it's about, but it's the reaction the NYT is looking for. Reload these comments at -1, you'll see the submitter's "First post!" comment there. What an idiot.
Well duh. How could anyone miss it, being clearly labeled 'Canada' with a flag right there? You know, it's funny, Canadians are among the most anti-nationalists out there. As an American, I hear the criticism long and loud. Nationalism and patriotism are bullshit. Nonetheless...how is it that Canadians are first and foremost when it comes to trumpeting their own flag-waving nationalism? I just have a hard time understanding it.