"Sorry, but no European culture goes back 'thousands of years'."
We're not saying that culture is *identical* going back thousands of years. Culture isn't even identical going back *50* years. But, there is an unbroken chain of culture going back 1000s of years. Cultures change all the time. However, the cultures in Europe *do* go back 1000s of years.
"should they be forced to abstain from practising their sexual preferences (in a consensual way of course) because of society's disapproval?"
No, pedophiles should be forced to abstain from practicing their sexual preferences because it hurts children, emotionally and physically. It's sort of the same reason that men shouldn't be allowed to have sex with any women they want -- most of those women won't want to have sex with every guy that comes on to them. With children and adults, there is no consensual sex. It's all rape. Children are not emotionally and physically mature enough to handle sex with adults.
However, if two men are having consensual sex with each other, that's fine. They are not hurting each other in any special way. Their relationship may not be perfect, but that's true for any heterosexual relationship. If there is abuse in the relationship, that's a fact of the two particular personalities, not the fact that there are two men in the relationship.
So sex with minors is wrong, because minors can't give consent and it hurts them. Sex with an unwilling partner is wrong, because they haven't given consent and it hurts them. However, consensual heterosexual relationships don't hurt anybody, just like heterosexual relationships.
Hey, quit throwing this in my face, you fag! If you want to suck cock, go ahead. Just leave me out of your man-trains. </sarcasm>
AFAICT, guys who hate on gays are closeted gays and can't come to grips with it. They unconsciously fantasize constantly, like all guys do. That's why they're always talking "gay this, fag that" -- they constantly have gay on the mind. However, when these gay scenes bubble up in their minds, they have to alienate themselves from it. They sort of throw it from themselves, and on to someone or something else. Thus the hatred and abuse of others. If they can pin their own gay fantasies on someone else, it relieves their cognitive dissonance. Also note this is why their gay bashing is so full of explicit gay imagery. They are gay, and their subconscious mind is constantly creating gay fantasies. When these gay images hit the conscious mind, they have to blame them on someone else, with violence and hatred.
Except you didn't prove that Nagin and Oprah were lying. You don't know that for a fact. They could have been relaying a rumor. So what that there is a news report that came out later saying there were no rapes or murders? That doesn't mean that they knew it at the time. Which makes you a hypocrite, because you claim that Oprah and Nagin knew there was not murder and rape in the superdome. You don't know that. You are a liar.
Silly me to miss that you are the same troll who started this thread. You call three numerous? Learn to count. Or just stick to your Bush brownshirt meetings.
What the hell are you talking about "fake but accurate"?
All I did was point out that grandparent was making a statement that he had no evidence to back it up with, which was his complaint about Oprah and Nagin. That makes him a hypocrite.
Look, if you're going to call someone out as a liar, it doesn't help you case if you are lying when you do so.
"The mayor of the fucking city has more than a slight responsibility to figure out what is going on in his city before he goes to hang out with Oprah and spread bullshit."
Do you know for certain that they were deliberately lying? Or were they simply relaying false news, which one might reasonably expect in an emergency on the scale of Katrina.
Unless you know for certain that Oprah and Nagin were conspiring to lie to and decieve the public, you are a hypocrite. You are deceiving the public using the same technique you denounce.
Hey slashdot readers -- follow the link in parent! This guy is Hil-arious!
A snippet: "At first I was puzzled by the fact that most of Frey's fans were women. Once again, I was deluded by all that Berkeley nonsense, assuming that women would object to the gross misogyny in Frey's novels, his habit of killing off women characters for cheap tears, his atavistic Hemingway swagger, his inevitable conclusion (in My Friend Leonard) that chicks are chapters while men are books-that only homoerotic friendships between Manly Men are truly worthy."
"The state we are currently in is more an accident of nature. It will eventually settle back to normality where intelligence is a drawback."
If that's the case, that it's more beneficial to be strong and brutish than smart, how come are ancestors show a progession of larger cranial capacity and more creative and clever tools? In other words, why are we getting smarter?
If you look all over the world and throughout history, you'll find that people who don't live in civilization (read: cities) are just as smart as us modern cityfolk.
Don't be stupid and risk your life killing a bear. If you try it and die, you'll have absolutely *no* reproductive success. Instead, build a trap that kills the bear *for* you, so you can come pick it up at your leisure.
Want to bring down a wolly mammoth to feed the whole tribe for a week? First, track them for a few days so you know their routine and habits. Figure out at what point on their daily route they are least nervous. Get to know them better then they know themselves. Then, get a bunch of your buddies and cover yourselves in leaves and mud to hide your figure and scent. Then, when the time is right, everyone throws a stick tipped with razor sharp obsidian. Whatever you do, don't go it alone with your bare hands! You will definately get killed, and you will get no more pussy if you are killed. Instead, use your brain. Craft some high precision weapons and organize a bunch of your buddies to go with you. Or, hook up with some guy who already has a plan. Much less risk, much greater chance of reward.
If you look at who runs societies, from the jungles to the cities, it's not athelets or brutes. It is elder statesmen, who have excelled at politics and have spent their whole life climbing and building the social hierarchy.
Well, the fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination, so I think that that would get Enron execs off the hook, since I think they are under charges for criminal behavior. I guess that's why the summary said that attorneys said this would be more useful for civil cases -- the fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination. However, you may not get that protection in civil suits.
"Duh, how about "Gold is easy to work, shines, is pretty, and is overall a fucking much better decoration -- especially for a solar god that's supposed to shine upon his subject -- than wood or lead?"
Duh, how about it takes 40 Indians 2 years to pan enough gold out of a river to make one idol, while carving one out of stone takes 1 artisan one month? Why go through all that trouble for a worthless metal? Why go through all the time and trouble to make *all of the gods out of gold*, not just the sun god? You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It's ironic because at first, you accused *me* of knowing nothing about the subject. That makes you a hypocrite.
"Nay, I said that during the conquest of center and south america by the spaniards, the natives were not fighting for more land, more possessions, gold, or whatever increase of power you may think of, they were fighting to protect themselves."
That's bullshit. Up until now, your whole point in this thread was that gold had no value for the Native Americans.
In your first reply, you said "oh, wait, gold had a near-nonexistant value for them..." [Emphasis mine].
Then, you said "...for both center and south america natives alike, gold and silver had no intrisic value..."[Emphasis mine]
Finally, you said "The fact that gold had was highly valued in Europe... because of their greed and craving for gold doesn't mean that it had much value for the natives. It didn't. "[Emphasis mine]
Now that I completely disproved your thesis, that gold was totally valueless to Native Americans, you backpedal and start talking about how they were fighting for their land. Way to change the subject, troll.
Where did you go to school again? You never answered that.
"The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't work this way."
Uh, be careful relying on that argument *too* much when it comes to wikipedia. Encyclopedias don't let just *anyone* edit them, either.
The point is, we have to see where wikipedia isn't working as well as it could. We can't assume that this current incarnation of wikipedia is the best version.
Sure, gold was so unimportant to the ruling class that, rather than decorate their buildings with, say, wood, they instead conquered village after village so that their subjects would pan tiny flakes of gold out of rivers to eventually have enough gold to decorate buildings and icons. That's much more effecient than just throwing some paint on wood or stone. Gold was so unimportant, so valueless, that they choose to depict the *gods* in gold. The most powerful beings in the world were depicted in a worthless metal. Why didn't they just use lead? It's easy to find, all over the place, easy to melt and work with? Why didn't they just use stone? That's much easier than panning tiny flakes out of rivers.
You are clearly unable to think logically. The conquering Aztecs and, Incas, and Mayas were bloodthirsty, power-hungry despots, just like every other empire in human history. Sure, Joe Indian fought for their lives and their families. So did Joe Spaniard. However, their leaders were evil, power-hungry totalitarians. They ordered armies to conquer other people in order to increase their wealth. The lives of their subject's are secondary concerns to Kings -- first comes power.
I missed your response in your post. Where did you learn human history again? Native Americans are not hippies.
Jade was more valuable than gold, only because it was more rare. However, gold had tremendous value and was used for jewelry and a medium of exchange.
If gold had no value, why did the Aztecs greet Cortez with gifts of gold? In fact, if you read the wikipedia article about Cortez, notice how all the gift-giving and fighting is about gold.
So where did *you* learn so much about human history, that you missed the whole conquest of South America being about *gold*?
I'm not talking about a "stable" and "development" branch. I'm talking about multiple concurrent versions. That way no side of the debate feels left out. Each side presents their case in the way they see fit. Currently what we have is contention for *the* single article. Well, there are a lot of subjects that a lot of people aren't going to agree upon.
Now, that won't lead to each person writing their own wikipedia about every article. Most people will buy into certain factions that promote a particular view of an article. Controversial topics will have many branches, while uncontroversial topics.
The point is not to have one view 'win out' over all the others, but give everyone a chance to present their view, and not have to constantly battle for article space.
For instance, take the Hitler article. You would have a branch that is the most popular and agreed upon, that he was probably an insane megalomaniac who brought a lot of evil and mistery into the world. This branch would have a lot of readers and agreement. You would have a white supremacist/Neo Nazi branch that would hold that Hitler was the greatest thing since sliced bread. There would probably be a small but ardent group that promotes this branch. You probably disagree with them, but that doesn't mean we have to remove that branch -- in fact, if we do, we are simply inviting an editing war in another branch. Then, you might have another faction of, say, David Icke's view on Hitler. While this article would be anti-Hitler, a lot of people would disagree because it would probably say that *all* world leaders and heads of state are evil alien reptile shape-shifters, all as evil as Hitler. Again, we might disagree with them, but we don't have to eradicate their views. If we try to do so, we just end up with edit wars.
Even if we do end up with thousands of forks, some will be more popular and informative than others, so it's no big deal.
Point well taken. Up until about 100 years ago, before the industrial revolution & modern chemistry and electronics, it had little practical value. Even today it's much more valuable as a status symbol and a currency.
"Gold has no more intrinsic value than a dollar bill has."
B.S.
In every part of the world (that gold is avaiable), and throughout time, gold has been one of the most precious commodities. This is because of some feature of human psychology -- we are attracted to bright, shiny, colorful things. Gold is easily made into shiny little trinkets that strike people in just the right way. It has intrinsic value in kind of the same way that a pretty painting does -- people like to look at it, because it makes them happy. Pleasure circuits fire when people gaze at gold.
The fact that it has little *pratical* use means that it works well as a currency -- no one is pulling it out of the market to actually *use* it. It stays in exchange.
To me, the problem is that wikipedia is presented in "traditional mode" where the user assumes that the current article to be the best of the best, like traditional encyclopedias.
I think wikipedia would be better understood, and therefore a better tool, if it were presented as multiple concurrent articles, instead of the latest winner of a revision war posing as a proper encyclopedia entry.
Some physics entry might have one branch, whereas a controversial subject like abortion would have multiple branches.
The trick is to present the branches to the user so that they understand immediately that there is contention. Otherwise, there is no reason for them to think that Wikipedia should be questionable, since it does *look* like a traditional encyclopedia.
Yes, I am aware that there are mistakes in traditional encyclopedias. However, you are certainly not going to find flames and 0-day trolls in Brittanica. Wikipedia's current interface does a poor job of helping non-technical users understand this.
"Why do you think they haven't already tried impeachment? "
Because the public does not (yet) support it.
"Because there's no evidence. "
The Congress does not need evidence to start an impeachment. The public probably will not support impeachment without evidence, but still, it's not strictly required.
"If and when evidence shows up, I'll be behind you 100%"
Evidence is not just going to walk up to the Congress and say "hi". Especially since Bush & Co. avoided going to the courts to avoid making an evidence trail, and now that the cat is out of the bag, there is probably a huge effort to *cover-up* any thing that could be used as evidence.
What we need is for congress to create an independent investigator, a Kenneth Star, to invesigate and find the evidence.
The evidence isn't going to show up on its own. We need to get on Congress's ass so that they will set up an independent investigator.
Slashdot Mirror
"Sorry, but no European culture goes back 'thousands of years'."
We're not saying that culture is *identical* going back thousands of years. Culture isn't even identical going back *50* years. But, there is an unbroken chain of culture going back 1000s of years. Cultures change all the time. However, the cultures in Europe *do* go back 1000s of years.
"should they be forced to abstain from practising their sexual preferences (in a consensual way of course) because of society's disapproval?"
No, pedophiles should be forced to abstain from practicing their sexual preferences because it hurts children, emotionally and physically. It's sort of the same reason that men shouldn't be allowed to have sex with any women they want -- most of those women won't want to have sex with every guy that comes on to them. With children and adults, there is no consensual sex. It's all rape. Children are not emotionally and physically mature enough to handle sex with adults.
However, if two men are having consensual sex with each other, that's fine. They are not hurting each other in any special way. Their relationship may not be perfect, but that's true for any heterosexual relationship. If there is abuse in the relationship, that's a fact of the two particular personalities, not the fact that there are two men in the relationship.
So sex with minors is wrong, because minors can't give consent and it hurts them. Sex with an unwilling partner is wrong, because they haven't given consent and it hurts them. However, consensual heterosexual relationships don't hurt anybody, just like heterosexual relationships.
Does that clear things up?
"Do you really want to see a guild war between the Pro Lifes and the Pro Choices?"
Hell, Yes!
In fact, I am in favor of decided *all* political issues in MMORPGs.
The Geek Shall Inherit the Earth!
"Wingnuts, care to respond to this?"
Hey, quit throwing this in my face, you fag! If you want to suck cock, go ahead. Just leave me out of your man-trains. </sarcasm>
AFAICT, guys who hate on gays are closeted gays and can't come to grips with it. They unconsciously fantasize constantly, like all guys do. That's why they're always talking "gay this, fag that" -- they constantly have gay on the mind. However, when these gay scenes bubble up in their minds, they have to alienate themselves from it. They sort of throw it from themselves, and on to someone or something else. Thus the hatred and abuse of others. If they can pin their own gay fantasies on someone else, it relieves their cognitive dissonance. Also note this is why their gay bashing is so full of explicit gay imagery. They are gay, and their subconscious mind is constantly creating gay fantasies. When these gay images hit the conscious mind, they have to blame them on someone else, with violence and hatred.
Can't do anything else?! What do you think it takes to do this?
Except you didn't prove that Nagin and Oprah were lying. You don't know that for a fact. They could have been relaying a rumor. So what that there is a news report that came out later saying there were no rapes or murders? That doesn't mean that they knew it at the time. Which makes you a hypocrite, because you claim that Oprah and Nagin knew there was not murder and rape in the superdome. You don't know that. You are a liar.
Silly me to miss that you are the same troll who started this thread. You call three numerous? Learn to count. Or just stick to your Bush brownshirt meetings.
Oh man, thanks, I was looking for that!
What the hell are you talking about "fake but accurate"?
All I did was point out that grandparent was making a statement that he had no evidence to back it up with, which was his complaint about Oprah and Nagin. That makes him a hypocrite.
Look, if you're going to call someone out as a liar, it doesn't help you case if you are lying when you do so.
"The mayor of the fucking city has more than a slight responsibility to figure out what is going on in his city before he goes to hang out with Oprah and spread bullshit."
So you agree that grandparent is a hypocrite?
Do you know for certain that they were deliberately lying? Or were they simply relaying false news, which one might reasonably expect in an emergency on the scale of Katrina.
Unless you know for certain that Oprah and Nagin were conspiring to lie to and decieve the public, you are a hypocrite. You are deceiving the public using the same technique you denounce.
Hey slashdot readers -- follow the link in parent! This guy is Hil-arious!
A snippet: "At first I was puzzled by the fact that most of Frey's fans were women. Once again, I was deluded by all that Berkeley nonsense, assuming that women would object to the gross misogyny in Frey's novels, his habit of killing off women characters for cheap tears, his atavistic Hemingway swagger, his inevitable conclusion (in My Friend Leonard) that chicks are chapters while men are books-that only homoerotic friendships between Manly Men are truly worthy."
So who is defining what is healthy an unhealthy, mentally or otherwise?
"The state we are currently in is more an accident of nature. It will eventually settle back to normality where intelligence is a drawback."
If that's the case, that it's more beneficial to be strong and brutish than smart, how come are ancestors show a progession of larger cranial capacity and more creative and clever tools? In other words, why are we getting smarter?
If you look all over the world and throughout history, you'll find that people who don't live in civilization (read: cities) are just as smart as us modern cityfolk.
Don't be stupid and risk your life killing a bear. If you try it and die, you'll have absolutely *no* reproductive success. Instead, build a trap that kills the bear *for* you, so you can come pick it up at your leisure.
Want to bring down a wolly mammoth to feed the whole tribe for a week? First, track them for a few days so you know their routine and habits. Figure out at what point on their daily route they are least nervous. Get to know them better then they know themselves. Then, get a bunch of your buddies and cover yourselves in leaves and mud to hide your figure and scent. Then, when the time is right, everyone throws a stick tipped with razor sharp obsidian. Whatever you do, don't go it alone with your bare hands! You will definately get killed, and you will get no more pussy if you are killed. Instead, use your brain. Craft some high precision weapons and organize a bunch of your buddies to go with you. Or, hook up with some guy who already has a plan. Much less risk, much greater chance of reward.
If you look at who runs societies, from the jungles to the cities, it's not athelets or brutes. It is elder statesmen, who have excelled at politics and have spent their whole life climbing and building the social hierarchy.
Well, the fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination, so I think that that would get Enron execs off the hook, since I think they are under charges for criminal behavior. I guess that's why the summary said that attorneys said this would be more useful for civil cases -- the fifth amendment protects against self-incrimination. However, you may not get that protection in civil suits.
"Duh, how about "Gold is easy to work, shines, is pretty, and is overall a fucking much better decoration -- especially for a solar god that's supposed to shine upon his subject -- than wood or lead?"
... because of their greed and craving for gold doesn't mean that it had much value for the natives. It didn't. "[Emphasis mine]
Duh, how about it takes 40 Indians 2 years to pan enough gold out of a river to make one idol, while carving one out of stone takes 1 artisan one month? Why go through all that trouble for a worthless metal? Why go through all the time and trouble to make *all of the gods out of gold*, not just the sun god? You clearly have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. It's ironic because at first, you accused *me* of knowing nothing about the subject. That makes you a hypocrite.
"Nay, I said that during the conquest of center and south america by the spaniards, the natives were not fighting for more land, more possessions, gold, or whatever increase of power you may think of, they were fighting to protect themselves."
That's bullshit. Up until now, your whole point in this thread was that gold had no value for the Native Americans.
In your first reply, you said "oh, wait, gold had a near-nonexistant value for them..." [Emphasis mine].
Then, you said "...for both center and south america natives alike, gold and silver had no intrisic value..."[Emphasis mine]
Finally, you said "The fact that gold had was highly valued in Europe
Now that I completely disproved your thesis, that gold was totally valueless to Native Americans, you backpedal and start talking about how they were fighting for their land. Way to change the subject, troll.
Where did you go to school again? You never answered that.
"The purpose of Wikipedia is to create an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias don't work this way."
Uh, be careful relying on that argument *too* much when it comes to wikipedia. Encyclopedias don't let just *anyone* edit them, either.
The point is, we have to see where wikipedia isn't working as well as it could. We can't assume that this current incarnation of wikipedia is the best version.
Sure, gold was so unimportant to the ruling class that, rather than decorate their buildings with, say, wood, they instead conquered village after village so that their subjects would pan tiny flakes of gold out of rivers to eventually have enough gold to decorate buildings and icons. That's much more effecient than just throwing some paint on wood or stone. Gold was so unimportant, so valueless, that they choose to depict the *gods* in gold. The most powerful beings in the world were depicted in a worthless metal. Why didn't they just use lead? It's easy to find, all over the place, easy to melt and work with? Why didn't they just use stone? That's much easier than panning tiny flakes out of rivers.
You are clearly unable to think logically. The conquering Aztecs and, Incas, and Mayas were bloodthirsty, power-hungry despots, just like every other empire in human history. Sure, Joe Indian fought for their lives and their families. So did Joe Spaniard. However, their leaders were evil, power-hungry totalitarians. They ordered armies to conquer other people in order to increase their wealth. The lives of their subject's are secondary concerns to Kings -- first comes power.
I missed your response in your post. Where did you learn human history again? Native Americans are not hippies.
Nice try, troll.
Jade was more valuable than gold, only because it was more rare. However, gold had tremendous value and was used for jewelry and a medium of exchange.
If gold had no value, why did the Aztecs greet Cortez with gifts of gold? In fact, if you read the wikipedia article about Cortez, notice how all the gift-giving and fighting is about gold.
So where did *you* learn so much about human history, that you missed the whole conquest of South America being about *gold*?
I'm not talking about a "stable" and "development" branch. I'm talking about multiple concurrent versions. That way no side of the debate feels left out. Each side presents their case in the way they see fit. Currently what we have is contention for *the* single article. Well, there are a lot of subjects that a lot of people aren't going to agree upon.
Now, that won't lead to each person writing their own wikipedia about every article. Most people will buy into certain factions that promote a particular view of an article. Controversial topics will have many branches, while uncontroversial topics.
The point is not to have one view 'win out' over all the others, but give everyone a chance to present their view, and not have to constantly battle for article space.
For instance, take the Hitler article. You would have a branch that is the most popular and agreed upon, that he was probably an insane megalomaniac who brought a lot of evil and mistery into the world. This branch would have a lot of readers and agreement. You would have a white supremacist/Neo Nazi branch that would hold that Hitler was the greatest thing since sliced bread. There would probably be a small but ardent group that promotes this branch. You probably disagree with them, but that doesn't mean we have to remove that branch -- in fact, if we do, we are simply inviting an editing war in another branch. Then, you might have another faction of, say, David Icke's view on Hitler. While this article would be anti-Hitler, a lot of people would disagree because it would probably say that *all* world leaders and heads of state are evil alien reptile shape-shifters, all as evil as Hitler. Again, we might disagree with them, but we don't have to eradicate their views. If we try to do so, we just end up with edit wars.
Even if we do end up with thousands of forks, some will be more popular and informative than others, so it's no big deal.
Typical nerd response -- unaware of social reality ;)
Those are only useful qualities after the industrial revolution, where we have modern chemistry and electronics.
Gold is still oftentimes more valuable as a currency and status symbols, because of its properties on the human nervous system.
Point well taken. Up until about 100 years ago, before the industrial revolution & modern chemistry and electronics, it had little practical value. Even today it's much more valuable as a status symbol and a currency.
"Gold has no more intrinsic value than a dollar bill has."
B.S.
In every part of the world (that gold is avaiable), and throughout time, gold has been one of the most precious commodities. This is because of some feature of human psychology -- we are attracted to bright, shiny, colorful things. Gold is easily made into shiny little trinkets that strike people in just the right way. It has intrinsic value in kind of the same way that a pretty painting does -- people like to look at it, because it makes them happy. Pleasure circuits fire when people gaze at gold.
The fact that it has little *pratical* use means that it works well as a currency -- no one is pulling it out of the market to actually *use* it. It stays in exchange.
"And if you bring in guards, who will guard the guards?"
Everyone. Have everyone watch everyone.
To me, the problem is that wikipedia is presented in "traditional mode" where the user assumes that the current article to be the best of the best, like traditional encyclopedias.
I think wikipedia would be better understood, and therefore a better tool, if it were presented as multiple concurrent articles, instead of the latest winner of a revision war posing as a proper encyclopedia entry.
Some physics entry might have one branch, whereas a controversial subject like abortion would have multiple branches.
The trick is to present the branches to the user so that they understand immediately that there is contention. Otherwise, there is no reason for them to think that Wikipedia should be questionable, since it does *look* like a traditional encyclopedia.
Yes, I am aware that there are mistakes in traditional encyclopedias. However, you are certainly not going to find flames and 0-day trolls in Brittanica. Wikipedia's current interface does a poor job of helping non-technical users understand this.
"Why do you think they haven't already tried impeachment? "
Because the public does not (yet) support it.
"Because there's no evidence. "
The Congress does not need evidence to start an impeachment. The public probably will not support impeachment without evidence, but still, it's not strictly required.
"If and when evidence shows up, I'll be behind you 100%"
Evidence is not just going to walk up to the Congress and say "hi". Especially since Bush & Co. avoided going to the courts to avoid making an evidence trail, and now that the cat is out of the bag, there is probably a huge effort to *cover-up* any thing that could be used as evidence.
What we need is for congress to create an independent investigator, a Kenneth Star, to invesigate and find the evidence.
The evidence isn't going to show up on its own. We need to get on Congress's ass so that they will set up an independent investigator.