Your story hinged on the fact that the thief might need the coat more than you, and that some people might have it worse than you. How does that line of reasoning work with murder, genocide, war, etc.? Does someone need your life more than you do?
I'm not sure if you're actually trying to bait me or whether you're just refusing to understand what I was saying. I'll explain it as best I can:
I wasn't implying that my coat getting stolen was in any way some huge measurement of suffering. In fact, it was quite the opposite: I was stating that by such a small value for "suffering" (e.g. getting a coat stolen), I was still able to feel compassion for the guy who stole my coat, because obviously he had it way worse off than I did. Thus, I felt compassion because despite my problems, they weren't nearly so bad as they seemed at the moment.
To take the example to your extreme: My small inconveniences, such as a coat getting stolen, also help me to feel compassion for those who have it WAY worse off than me, such as those who are getting murdered or caught in a war.
What's more, people who have experienced REAL suffering, unlike my ridiculously small amounts by comparison, are shown to have far more compassion than those who have not.
Um, I fail to see how a MORE extreme example of suffering should affect whether I feel compassion in the coat story. If I feel compassion for the guy who stole my coat, doesn't that mean that I would, by logic, feel MORE compassion for a more extreme story?
If god requires us to suffer to make us compassionate then he isn't really omnipotent.
One of the defining characteristics of being human, from a religious standpoint, is the concept of Free Will. If you give something Free Will and then you force it to do something (or believe something, or act in some way, etc.) then it doesn't really have Free Will. So in essence, these are God's set rules for Himself and he must then work within the confines of those rules.
Personally, I think a world that was entirely perfect and all-pleasant, all-the-time... well, it would be really boring. We have conflict so that we can resolve it.
The way I see it, omnipotence isn't about doing everything yourself. What would be the point of that, or the fun? Part of the "fun" of watching the world is to see what people do in certain circumstances.
If you think it's so lame, how would you rationalize the existence of suffering, given an benevolent, omnipotent being?
Because suffering teaches us to be more compassionate. How is that so hard to believe?
A couple years ago, I had my coat stolen at a bar. I was pissed, and rightly so, because it was right around Christmas, and I had to use all my Christmas money to buy another one. My father said something about the situation that completely took the wind out of my sails: he said, "You know what your grandmother would've said?" (My grandmother is SUPER Catholic, for the record.) "She would have said, 'Maybe the person that took your coat just needed it more than you did.'"
Hard enough to believe as it is, the entire world isn't about me me me all the time. Putting that in mind in reference to my coat, I didn't feel so angry about it anymore. I mean, after all, at least I HAD the money to buy another coat.
Still, at the same time, it's a good example of thoughtcrime. I don't dispute that it's illegal, but WHY is it illegal to have an intent to do something but not do it?
I'm not sure whether I should thank you for pointing me to such an awesome game or damn you for pointing me to something that will waste SO DAMN MUCH of my time...
You don't want to have to show your identification to the police so you won't carry it with you.
If you get pulled over and don't have your identification then you have a 14 day grace period to do what?
To go show your identification to the police!
If I get pulled over for a moving violation, I have no problem with showing the police my identification. What I was referring to in my first post was a situation like the one in TFA. If I've done nothing and a policeman just happens to stop by and ask me for my ID, I don't have to give it to him because I don't have it. Since I've done nothing illegal and he wouldn't be investigating a crime, he'd have no legal recourse to make me show it within 14 days at the police station, either. If I've been stopped for speeding, though, I have to show it and I have no problem with that.
Not to mention you probably annoyed the police as well.
Why would that be? "I'm so sorry, officer, but when I put these pants on this morning, I forgot to put my wallet in my back pocket. I'd be happy to go to the station later on and show my ID there."
So my solution is to not carry my ID around with me, so that I can never be required to show identification if I'm illegally asked for it?
Hell, it sounds like a good idea to me. If I get pulled over by a policeman in my car and I don't have my driver's license, I legally have a grace period of fourteen days to produce it to the state police department, so why carry one at all, unless I'm going to a bar?
This is erroneous. At the proper film speed, you can have both a fast shutter speed AND wide depth of field. If you have ISO800 or ISO1600 film in your camera, it's quite easy to get a 1/1000 second photo and have the aperture completely shut. Hell, given enough light, you could do that with 400 speed film, but that's cutting it close.
Since when does it matter what your material is? If I performed the research, then it's documented periodical information and needs to be cited as such. Whether my research involves rats' responses to certain drugs or game strategies is irrelevant. Your assertion that just because it's a listing of game moves it doesn't matter is erroneous.
Furthermore, who do you give credit to? The forum owners? The owners of the posts? If it's the owners of the posts, how do you acquire their real names?
First of all, any reasonably intelligent person would understand that based on the rules of any internet forum (including this one), all posts are owned by the respective post's author. As to the last question, I would think that the obvious choice of contacting the user and asking for their name so that you could accurately cite them would be a logical course of action.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I think there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with them. I like her breasts very much. But if pressed to use an adjective to describe them, "ample" would definitely not have been at the top of the list.:)
I've never once seen kilometers described with KM as opposed to km. The only reason the road signs are in caps is because ALL road signs are in caps. You don't describe miles as MILES, either, but it says that on the road signs (well, OUR road signs; obviously you don't use miles).
Well, I can't claim to know, actually... I assumed that the Messianic prophecies were inclusive of Judaism from the start. Please excuse my ignorance, or rather, my neglect to verify my assumptions.:)
Yes. Jews knew at the time that they were not going to Heaven, given that they were waiting for their Messiah. Moses would have to know that when he died, he'd be going to Purgatory to wait for the Messianic arrival.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, but there was only one object in that sentence and thus no pronoun ambiguation. :)
Oh, I just assumed that what you meant was to turn somebody upside down and drop him on his head. :)
A *real* geek would just hack into NSA or SAC and arrange for somebody to be accidently dropped on his head.
Why would you drop somebody on his head? That's not nice to either of them.
The ambiguous pronoun reminds me of a line from Clue:
"He threatened to kill me in public."
"Why would he want to kill you in public?"
"I think she meant he threatened, in public, to kill her."
My TDMA phones would do the same thing.
I don't experience the same issues with my Verizon CDMA phone.
Your story hinged on the fact that the thief might need the coat more than you, and that some people might have it worse than you. How does that line of reasoning work with murder, genocide, war, etc.? Does someone need your life more than you do?
I'm not sure if you're actually trying to bait me or whether you're just refusing to understand what I was saying. I'll explain it as best I can:
I wasn't implying that my coat getting stolen was in any way some huge measurement of suffering. In fact, it was quite the opposite: I was stating that by such a small value for "suffering" (e.g. getting a coat stolen), I was still able to feel compassion for the guy who stole my coat, because obviously he had it way worse off than I did. Thus, I felt compassion because despite my problems, they weren't nearly so bad as they seemed at the moment.
To take the example to your extreme: My small inconveniences, such as a coat getting stolen, also help me to feel compassion for those who have it WAY worse off than me, such as those who are getting murdered or caught in a war.
What's more, people who have experienced REAL suffering, unlike my ridiculously small amounts by comparison, are shown to have far more compassion than those who have not.
Yes, exactly!
No, wait...
Um, I fail to see how a MORE extreme example of suffering should affect whether I feel compassion in the coat story. If I feel compassion for the guy who stole my coat, doesn't that mean that I would, by logic, feel MORE compassion for a more extreme story?
If god requires us to suffer to make us compassionate then he isn't really omnipotent.
One of the defining characteristics of being human, from a religious standpoint, is the concept of Free Will. If you give something Free Will and then you force it to do something (or believe something, or act in some way, etc.) then it doesn't really have Free Will. So in essence, these are God's set rules for Himself and he must then work within the confines of those rules.
Personally, I think a world that was entirely perfect and all-pleasant, all-the-time... well, it would be really boring. We have conflict so that we can resolve it.
The way I see it, omnipotence isn't about doing everything yourself. What would be the point of that, or the fun? Part of the "fun" of watching the world is to see what people do in certain circumstances.
If you think it's so lame, how would you rationalize the existence of suffering, given an benevolent, omnipotent being?
Because suffering teaches us to be more compassionate. How is that so hard to believe?
A couple years ago, I had my coat stolen at a bar. I was pissed, and rightly so, because it was right around Christmas, and I had to use all my Christmas money to buy another one. My father said something about the situation that completely took the wind out of my sails: he said, "You know what your grandmother would've said?" (My grandmother is SUPER Catholic, for the record.) "She would have said, 'Maybe the person that took your coat just needed it more than you did.'"
Hard enough to believe as it is, the entire world isn't about me me me all the time. Putting that in mind in reference to my coat, I didn't feel so angry about it anymore. I mean, after all, at least I HAD the money to buy another coat.
Stranger in a Strange Land would be rated NC17 because of all of the "free love" going on toward the end of the story. :)
"Obscenity is the crutch of the inarticulate motherfucker."
Plus, wasn't Yoda 900 years old, anyway?
All in all, a hooker has better pay scale, less hours, and a chance to negotiate a better working environment. Also less likely to be outsourced.
Plus there's actually the occasional orgasm for a hooker. When was the last time you were able to come while adding a rule to your firewall?
Forgive me if I'm being blunt, but I just assumed that maybe he meant to type $500,000?
Still, at the same time, it's a good example of thoughtcrime. I don't dispute that it's illegal, but WHY is it illegal to have an intent to do something but not do it?
I'm not sure whether I should thank you for pointing me to such an awesome game or damn you for pointing me to something that will waste SO DAMN MUCH of my time...
Are you a fucking retard or what?
You don't want to have to show your identification to the police so you won't carry it with you.
If you get pulled over and don't have your identification then you have a 14 day grace period to do what?
To go show your identification to the police!
If I get pulled over for a moving violation, I have no problem with showing the police my identification. What I was referring to in my first post was a situation like the one in TFA. If I've done nothing and a policeman just happens to stop by and ask me for my ID, I don't have to give it to him because I don't have it. Since I've done nothing illegal and he wouldn't be investigating a crime, he'd have no legal recourse to make me show it within 14 days at the police station, either. If I've been stopped for speeding, though, I have to show it and I have no problem with that.
Not to mention you probably annoyed the police as well.
Why would that be? "I'm so sorry, officer, but when I put these pants on this morning, I forgot to put my wallet in my back pocket. I'd be happy to go to the station later on and show my ID there."
So my solution is to not carry my ID around with me, so that I can never be required to show identification if I'm illegally asked for it?
Hell, it sounds like a good idea to me. If I get pulled over by a policeman in my car and I don't have my driver's license, I legally have a grace period of fourteen days to produce it to the state police department, so why carry one at all, unless I'm going to a bar?
This is erroneous. At the proper film speed, you can have both a fast shutter speed AND wide depth of field. If you have ISO800 or ISO1600 film in your camera, it's quite easy to get a 1/1000 second photo and have the aperture completely shut. Hell, given enough light, you could do that with 400 speed film, but that's cutting it close.
Since when does it matter what your material is? If I performed the research, then it's documented periodical information and needs to be cited as such. Whether my research involves rats' responses to certain drugs or game strategies is irrelevant. Your assertion that just because it's a listing of game moves it doesn't matter is erroneous.
Furthermore, who do you give credit to? The forum owners? The owners of the posts? If it's the owners of the posts, how do you acquire their real names?
First of all, any reasonably intelligent person would understand that based on the rules of any internet forum (including this one), all posts are owned by the respective post's author. As to the last question, I would think that the obvious choice of contacting the user and asking for their name so that you could accurately cite them would be a logical course of action.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I think there's absolutely NOTHING wrong with them. I like her breasts very much. But if pressed to use an adjective to describe them, "ample" would definitely not have been at the top of the list. :)
the ample bussoms of Milla Jovovich
:) And secondly... what exactly about Milla Jovovich's bosoms is AMPLE? :D
Well, first of all, it's "bosoms".
I've never once seen kilometers described with KM as opposed to km. The only reason the road signs are in caps is because ALL road signs are in caps. You don't describe miles as MILES, either, but it says that on the road signs (well, OUR road signs; obviously you don't use miles).
Well, I can't claim to know, actually... I assumed that the Messianic prophecies were inclusive of Judaism from the start. Please excuse my ignorance, or rather, my neglect to verify my assumptions. :)
Yes. Jews knew at the time that they were not going to Heaven, given that they were waiting for their Messiah. Moses would have to know that when he died, he'd be going to Purgatory to wait for the Messianic arrival.