The way I see it, alot of really smart people are smart enough not to be motivated. They are smart enough not to play the progress game, and instead just to accept things the way they are. At least thats how my 144 IQ brain likes to rationalize it.
I don't think that's nearly as inevitible, and I don't really see a way to reduce the harm caused by it. As a society we need to try to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and that includes little girls. The best way to accomplish that task is to prohibit all sex between older men and little girls. The best way to protect teenagers is to teach them about condums.
I don't want schools to push any morality. If they teach abstinence, that is pushing a perticular morality. You can't hide behind the fact that it is saying NOT to do something. The schools would also be teaching morality if they went around telling people they should have sex, and here are the ways to do it. What they should do is say look, here are the facts, here are how all the contraceptives and everything work, and we aren't going to tell you whether or not your should have sex, because that is a personal decision. But if you are, here's some stuff you might wanna know.
I don't really know that I would call it human nature, though perhaps it is, but that is really beside the point. Most people are GOING to mess around, and there is NOTHING you can do about it. It makes little sense to waste time trying to stop the inevitable when you could be reducing the harm caused.
You have to laugh at the whole abstinence-based sex education thing, or else you are liable to cry. It would be like if in drivers ed they told people not to drive, because they might get into a car accident. That would be absurd. Just about everyone is going to drive anyway. Instead, the rational thing to do is to teach people to be safe drivers, wear seatbelts, etc. This is how sex education classes should operate as well.
Time Warner could just as easily do this on its own. The only thing AOL would offer is a crappy dialup ISP, which is dying. Time Warner, on the other hand, has a cable devision, and could easily over broadband in place of AOL. AOL is nothing but a burden.
Yes Ashcroft v. Raich is going to be most interesting on a number of levels. For one thing, if the ruling of the 9th circuit is allowed to stand, I don't see why the same reasoning wouldn't apply to marijuana for personal recreational use. I know states would still be able to continue prohibition but then at least there might be some reasonable state I could move to. Also from an intellectual perspective, I will be interested to see how the court rules on the Commerce Clause argument. It seems like a good argument to me, but then the consequences of such a ruling could be negative. Without the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, what would happen to laws such as the Endangered Species Act?
I have to say my hope for humanity has been greatly diminished by the comments to this article. I never realized how many people just don't understand science.
Slashdot Mirror
Supposedly this is it, but I'll believe it when I can install it.
http://thepiratebay.org/details.php?id=3343842
None, its all a lie.
top level ones that "don't exist."
Western society is obsessed with progress, to the point of neglecting happiness.
The way I see it, alot of really smart people are smart enough not to be motivated. They are smart enough not to play the progress game, and instead just to accept things the way they are. At least thats how my 144 IQ brain likes to rationalize it.
I don't think that's nearly as inevitible, and I don't really see a way to reduce the harm caused by it. As a society we need to try to protect those who cannot protect themselves, and that includes little girls. The best way to accomplish that task is to prohibit all sex between older men and little girls. The best way to protect teenagers is to teach them about condums.
I don't want schools to push any morality. If they teach abstinence, that is pushing a perticular morality. You can't hide behind the fact that it is saying NOT to do something. The schools would also be teaching morality if they went around telling people they should have sex, and here are the ways to do it. What they should do is say look, here are the facts, here are how all the contraceptives and everything work, and we aren't going to tell you whether or not your should have sex, because that is a personal decision. But if you are, here's some stuff you might wanna know.
I don't really know that I would call it human nature, though perhaps it is, but that is really beside the point. Most people are GOING to mess around, and there is NOTHING you can do about it. It makes little sense to waste time trying to stop the inevitable when you could be reducing the harm caused.
You have to laugh at the whole abstinence-based sex education thing, or else you are liable to cry. It would be like if in drivers ed they told people not to drive, because they might get into a car accident. That would be absurd. Just about everyone is going to drive anyway. Instead, the rational thing to do is to teach people to be safe drivers, wear seatbelts, etc. This is how sex education classes should operate as well.
Time Warner could just as easily do this on its own. The only thing AOL would offer is a crappy dialup ISP, which is dying. Time Warner, on the other hand, has a cable devision, and could easily over broadband in place of AOL. AOL is nothing but a burden.
But he's right...
It seems to me that ID people basicall think, "if there is any doubt at all, god must have done it."
Is ignorance bliss?
Yes Ashcroft v. Raich is going to be most interesting on a number of levels. For one thing, if the ruling of the 9th circuit is allowed to stand, I don't see why the same reasoning wouldn't apply to marijuana for personal recreational use. I know states would still be able to continue prohibition but then at least there might be some reasonable state I could move to. Also from an intellectual perspective, I will be interested to see how the court rules on the Commerce Clause argument. It seems like a good argument to me, but then the consequences of such a ruling could be negative. Without the broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause, what would happen to laws such as the Endangered Species Act?
Serenity Tranquility Peace aka 2,5-dimethoxy-4-methylamphetamine. I'm sure you could see black holes with that stuff, there or not.
This sounds familiar.
King Philip came over from germany sunday.
Oh no, you've been reading searle haven't you? You poor thing.
You can't argue that determinism is false based on its implications. Thats just not a valid logical argument.
Back in the 70s when the national speed limit went into effect they withheld highway funding.
Good for them, god's a bastard anyway.
Its sad, but you can't argue with these people. They just don't understand science.
Obvious to you, but most people are idiots.
This post pushes this story into 6th place.
I have to say my hope for humanity has been greatly diminished by the comments to this article. I never realized how many people just don't understand science.