Tens of thousands. You mean the 11,944 peer reviewed scientific studies conducted from 1991-2011, of which 32.6% endorse AGW and 97.1% of those claim it's human-made, giving 3,894 papers endorsing global warming, of which 3,777 claim it's human-caused?
Actual study: We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Actual study summary: 32.6% of published, peer-reviewed scientific papers about 'global climate change' or 'global warming' espouse a position. 97.1% of these endorse that humans cause this. Overall, 31.7% of published, peer-reviewed scientific papers studied agree that global warming is a real, human-made thing.
Claim made: 97% of studies [unqualified for publishing or peer-review] agree that humans cause global warming:
Yeah well except that 97% of studies agree about man's impact on accelerating climate change.
Claim made: 97% of climate scientists agree that humans cause global warming.
I guess 97% of experts could be wrong but you look at some charts you don't fully understand must be right.
Fact: Less than a third of published, peer-reviewed studies in the source study cited take the position that global warming is a real and man-made phenomena.
But that would involve admitting some facts, instead of citing naturaltemperaturechanges only to cover things contrary to your view, and dismiss when they actively contradict your views. It's also better instead to assume that anyone who believes different has been taken by a scam artist.
Everyone else makes the argument that interference will always result in less harm. The point of a counter-argument is to argue from a conflicting standpoint.
Besides, you're oversimplifying. Your wording even shows it: "Helping someone"? That's your internal justification--your ideal that you're "doing what's right" or "what needs to be done". It absolves you of the consequences of your actions if they turn out to be wrong.
The world is all economics. Even human suffering is an economics issue: do your actions cause more human suffering or less? Do they give short-term gains at the cost of long-term sustainability, or do they only give the appearance of gains (i.e. stock price inflation) without real substance? This is the only valid mode of thinking. Moral decisions made without actually considering their real impact can easily contradict the moral impetus that they're ostensibly carried under.
Everything has variation. There's a logical fallacy for this. It's like citing XKCD really.
People don't care about rights. They care about the dog and pony show. They care about people saying they're different, not as capable as other people at certain things, etc. Whether it's true or not, or whether it even impacts them at all, doesn't matter; they'll start screaming about it and crying about being "offended" or something.
In any case, saying that people who think rationally and scientifically are all perfect, altruistic beings with some weird belief that everyone is exactly the same. People who are rational and scientific are going to understand things about the world like how it's not fair, it's not run by karma, it's not run by a vengeful god that's specifically targeting you or going to send bad things your way for being a dick, etc. They're also going to notice patterns and accept them, because statistics are extremely useful--I know a LOT of girls who "need guy friends" or "won't have any girl friends" for reasons that aren't very nice, to say the least (apparently girls have no sense of loyalty and can't be trusted... I guess Linda Tripp would know about that).
In a scientific world, everyone would have long ago accepted my proposal that we sterilize people who violate their breeding allotment. 2 childs per person border pregnancy (if that last one is twins, well, okay, that's fine), with more by application and merit. Merit becomes increasingly difficult: demonstration of higher intellectual achievement, personal achievement, physical fitness, unique genetics, etc. This would maintain biodiversity and remove the weak; of course in our current world, it would just be a bribe haven and we'd have a lot of rich people with 20 kids... oh well. (Yes this is abridged; the entire theory is large, fairly open ended, and essentially revolves around culling congenital defects and unsustainable population expansion without creating population shrinkage or reducing biodiversity, or damaging human rights. Having 18 children is NOT a human right--I had a coworker who had 11 children and another who had 18, this is a real thing.)
The White House has indicated that they're going to bomb Syria just for show, but that's a separate issue altogether. (NBC reports)
Remember that nobody is altruistic in this politicosphere. The US will want Syria for only strategic value. Human rights are a good excuse; we're good at trampling them while claiming we're protecting them. So your personal ideals on what to do might not mesh up with "...thus, the government should..." because they'll probably not achieve anything you think should be achieved, nor care.
I don't like modern wars. This isn't our war; people have something to fight for now, something that makes sense. We're going to go stomp around for a while to fluff our feathers up in the UN, and kill some innocent people, just 'cause. I'd rather let them fight it out, or traffic the rebels arms.
NOW says women are just as strong and capable as men as firefighters. They develop muscle mass in the same way with the same effort and are by default inherently as ready as men without any special accommodation or intensive training.
Political leanings and idealism of women, their ability in leadership and technical roles, and their ability to solve complex social and intellectual problems differs from men's. The results are different, some better and some worse, depending on who is trying to do what; there are general patterns that follow gender, age, cultural upbringing, and so on. There are, again, socio-political groups claiming this isn't true and that a woman will produce exactly the same results with the same training as a man if given the same job, whether centered on physical or mental skills.
Peoples' ideals are a lot of the reason for suffering. They lampshaded it in Deep Space 9, but also subverted it with the "you just can't know" argument: a bunch of ridiculously smart autistic kids figured out there would be 900 billion deaths in a protracted war and a permanent loss that would take thousands of years to wriggle out of to little effect; whereas a surrender would lead to a couple generations of oppression, 2 billion deaths, then a strong uprising and greater freedom and a stronger federation of planets that would last thousands of years. The better option with less suffering was to throw away all fantasy idealism; but nobody was going to consign an entire several generations to "oppression" which involved significant freedom (more freedom than you get in the USA). The end resolution was broken: they used psychohistory (the longer you go out, the more accurate it gets, because the group functions as a composite of the variations of all individuals and the statistical probabilities of certain factions forming and moving certain ways as a whole), then said that it couldn't be really accurate because they couldn't predict the actions of a single person in a 20 minute time span, so there may be variation.
So here we have this ideal: we don't like dead children. We'll create MORE dead children as a show of force to show our anger at dead children. Then we'll stabilize the area with... an even more oppressive regime that will turn over again anyway and cause more suffering. It may be better to let twice as many children die while they fight it out, either ending in a full turnover of power or an exhaustion of the regime's will to hold the reigns and a concession of increased human rights that permanently provides a greater standing for the great many future generations. Straight out: letting the people fight their own bloody revolution without intervention might (historically, does) turn out for the best in terms of minimized long-term human suffering.
We would rather "stick to our ideals" and show that we're "willing to fight for what's right", even if it means inflicting maximized suffering on the weak and innocent and ensuring only a temporary, if any, standing of human rights. It just looks better on your resume.
In my scientific mind, I believe that most of the "harm" done by rape is just people being pissy little coddlefish. We stand up a whole horrific narrative about rape, burn it into everyone's mind, and then wonder why it's so damaging when someone gets raped. People who don't buy into it see it as an experience to be survived or escaped, and have no abnormal psychological trauma. Many people develop more psychological trauma after being raped due to the whole "group support" thing, feeling like they're not feeling hurt enough because everyone's telling them their experience was so terrible--they begin to believe it more strongly, it becomes worse.
In other words: society's complete demonization of sexual crimes (not just violence, but child molestation) creates most of the pain and suffering from these crimes. Society should instead treat these as crimes, determine that they don't fit in with the so-called rights they feel people have (that is, those guarantees which people require in order to feel secure in society--impossible to guarantee, but supported by enforcement via physical force), and handle them as such. Stop telling victims that they are now damaged, and instead tell them to build a bridge and get the fuck over it and that the criminal perpetrator is the one who bears blame and is defective.
Second, people believe in a just world. This is required for normal human psychology--people believe in a just world because it's required for them to rationalize the world's problems away. Bad things don't happen to good people; bad things happen, but good people get a break and will come out better in the end. Otherwise life is despair. The truth is bad people only need to get away with it and their lives are a hell of a lot better than moral, upstanding folks'. In fact, if you want to make the world a better place to support you, you should be a cutthroat morally bankrupt robber baron until you're rich enough to effect positive change on the communities around you, which achieves both at once.
Science also tells us that women are not men; but people use "scientific" arguments to argue that they're the same. No social or physical differences, no intellectual differences, nothing. Women and men think exactly the same way and are just as capable at all tasks in exactly the same situations at all times. Scientifically this is bunk. Women are more socialist and emotional than men in general. Popular political opinion tends to be egocentric: people want what's good for them, or what sounds good to them; men going "I want/need XXXX for free that I can't afford and rich people should pay for" and women going "we should all share and get along, and nobody should have to go without food and doctors" will garner the same output but are obviously not the same thinking.
Appeal to Emotion. Invalid. There will be more dead children, dead men, dead women, dead innocents, and dead civilians if we have a war. Is this the best course of action?
That was pretty funny. The same thing happens with "chemicals" and "preservatives" (one of the best preservatives in certain contexts is Vitamin C...) as with "Genetically Modified Food". We can cross-breed plants all day and get weird hybrids and such, then inbreed them and try to avoid genetic defects... hell, all navel oranges are cloned, and all Haas avocados come from cuttings or seeds from one tree that's a hybrid. No way to test if these are safe, since we're just slamming shit together; but if we insert a single, controlled, understood gene into something, suddenly it's probably got formaldehyde and poisonous proteins that will cause kidney failure.
Then there's stuff like Round-Up (they say it's safe; studies are showing this is entirely untrue) versus Hydretain. Round-Up was supposed to be safe, but seems to be extremely toxic to marine life; doesn't break down as fast as it should and runs-off; and gets into the food supply, now showing up in kids' blood and causing weird hormonal issues. Hydretain... you can drink it, it's safe, it'll make water go into your intestines and you'll shit a lot, nice stuff; people will look suspiciously at anything like that and go, "Stop pouring toxic chemicals all over golf fields! This is why honey bees are dying and whales are going extinct!"
That depends. I knew a fellow who quit paying his because he couldn't pay it off. The banks didn't know who owned his mortgage, so he cut the payments. Nobody ever contacted him.
So, we should stop calling 13 year olds "children," and consensual sex with them "rape." They're "young adults" and what you had is "consensual sexual contact with a minor."
We really should; but the example tends to underscore certain emotional responses people have to meaning. Calling collisions and other vehicular incidents "accidents" disclaims responsibility. Accidents have consequences; accidents happen and that's okay, they can't be prevented and we should really accept them, nobody is wrong, we make amends for the damage done but have no real moral responsibility.
Incident. It's not an "accident", stop disclaiming responsibility. It's some moron somewhere that did something stupid. Wrong tires, fucking with the radio, texting, trying to corner in an unsafe area, even a civil engineer designing a blind curve that's impossible to reasonably and safely navigate (sometimes you can't take the utmost precaution because it's unreasonable--and sometimes what's necessary IS unreasonable and would make the throughway unusable).
I'm tired of people taking vocabulary as a security blanket. Whenever I bring this up, they try to explain that it's just "words"--but then we have people telling us we can't say "shit" and "fuck" on TV and we can't offer to black people as "niggers" and I'm like "so what's the difference then?"
Collision. Traffic incident. No accidents, only stupidity and failure. Driving down the road 85mph on really shitty cheap tires worn bald with radial, take a hard turn, slam the brakes and hit a teenager driving. "Shit, I got in an accident.." no you were being a retarded asshole and your complete and total negligence and disregard for safety and sanity ended badly. A temporary lapse of focus isn't an "accident" either; it's a failure, it happens, we all do it all the time, usually somebody else slams on their brakes and gives us the finger. Luck.
It's not "responsibility free" when you can get/pass herpes and HIV. The illusion is there though.
Page 33 of the development plan addresses health concerns. The top five causes of death are, in order from most frequent, Heart Disease, Cancer, HIV, Stroke, and Drug Overdose. Heart Disease is a catch-all for "natural causes, but not old enough for my tastes". Welcome to the hood.
That was basically my only moral issue with abortion. I posited that it would lead to a responsibility separation from sex, whereby people no longer worry about the consequences; these days it seems like sex without a condom is common--this actually surprised and frightened me, because people here fuck random people they just met in bathrooms at bars without rubbers--and the neighborhood I live in has its three top killers as Heart Disease, Cancer, and HIV. Yes, HIV is the #3 primary cause of death in my neighborhood. Clinic gives out free condoms but hell, if you get pregnant you just get an abortion.
People babble about all this right and wrong stuff, but I just like to point at cause and effect. Absolution of responsibility is a cause, and its effects are often predictable largely and unpredictable in the minor.
To use a computer to solve more than trivial pocket calculator problems, you need to either A) learn to program; or B) learn to use a good program. Think about e-mail: it delivers messages you could just as well get by snail-mail, but you have to take the time to text-to-speech them and listen, or actually read them still. Want to make 3D art or music? You have to learn how to manipulate the medium and how to apply artistic concepts--there is no "art pill" that you pop that makes you an expert artist. Even video games are a matter of building skill through some effort.
Boats bring safety and, like computers, feasibility into marine situations. You can carry equipment and avoid sharks in boats. You're more looking for an analogy like putting a water jetpack on your back so you can swim in a race, without actually learning to swim or getting strong.
Look outside. People want to eat at mcdonalds all day, then take green tea pills or megadoses of caffeine or lipitor to lose weight and stay healthy. Gastric bypasses and tying a rope around your stomach so you can't eat so fucking much are the new version of... just not eating so fucking much. Are you telling me something good will come of this "engineering solution," in the same way that something good came of MRIs and ambulances? I think something good will come of this "engineering solution" as with mass media news: people don't have to think to stay informed, rather just take the slop shoved down their throat. That's a huge labor savings over being inquisitive and trying to find any facts for yourself.
It won't happen, but it could. The aji is still there. I don't feel it's right to destroy it. If someone else starts the revolution, I can't denounce them for it; there is valid justification. I just wouldn't feel like a hero even if I went and flipped the country all by myself; I'd feel like a power-mad douche playing god and creating consequences I can't possibly understand. Feasibility aside.
You pass off jail time like it's no big deal, he'll be out by 40 and everything will be fine. You have no fucking clue what just the plain time shift does, much less the psychological damage, the physical abuse from other inmates, potential rape, diseases, poor medical care...
Slashdot Mirror
Tens of thousands. You mean the 11,944 peer reviewed scientific studies conducted from 1991-2011, of which 32.6% endorse AGW and 97.1% of those claim it's human-made, giving 3,894 papers endorsing global warming, of which 3,777 claim it's human-caused?
Patently false.
Actual study: We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11,944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.
Actual study summary: 32.6% of published, peer-reviewed scientific papers about 'global climate change' or 'global warming' espouse a position. 97.1% of these endorse that humans cause this. Overall, 31.7% of published, peer-reviewed scientific papers studied agree that global warming is a real, human-made thing.
Claim made: 97% of studies [unqualified for publishing or peer-review] agree that humans cause global warming:
Yeah well except that 97% of studies agree about man's impact on accelerating climate change.
Claim made: 97% of climate scientists agree that humans cause global warming.
I guess 97% of experts could be wrong but you look at some charts you don't fully understand must be right.
Fact: Less than a third of published, peer-reviewed studies in the source study cited take the position that global warming is a real and man-made phenomena.
But that would involve admitting some facts, instead of citing natural temperature changes only to cover things contrary to your view, and dismiss when they actively contradict your views. It's also better instead to assume that anyone who believes different has been taken by a scam artist.
Everyone else makes the argument that interference will always result in less harm. The point of a counter-argument is to argue from a conflicting standpoint.
Besides, you're oversimplifying. Your wording even shows it: "Helping someone"? That's your internal justification--your ideal that you're "doing what's right" or "what needs to be done". It absolves you of the consequences of your actions if they turn out to be wrong.
The world is all economics. Even human suffering is an economics issue: do your actions cause more human suffering or less? Do they give short-term gains at the cost of long-term sustainability, or do they only give the appearance of gains (i.e. stock price inflation) without real substance? This is the only valid mode of thinking. Moral decisions made without actually considering their real impact can easily contradict the moral impetus that they're ostensibly carried under.
Everything has variation. There's a logical fallacy for this. It's like citing XKCD really.
People don't care about rights. They care about the dog and pony show. They care about people saying they're different, not as capable as other people at certain things, etc. Whether it's true or not, or whether it even impacts them at all, doesn't matter; they'll start screaming about it and crying about being "offended" or something.
In any case, saying that people who think rationally and scientifically are all perfect, altruistic beings with some weird belief that everyone is exactly the same. People who are rational and scientific are going to understand things about the world like how it's not fair, it's not run by karma, it's not run by a vengeful god that's specifically targeting you or going to send bad things your way for being a dick, etc. They're also going to notice patterns and accept them, because statistics are extremely useful--I know a LOT of girls who "need guy friends" or "won't have any girl friends" for reasons that aren't very nice, to say the least (apparently girls have no sense of loyalty and can't be trusted... I guess Linda Tripp would know about that).
In a scientific world, everyone would have long ago accepted my proposal that we sterilize people who violate their breeding allotment. 2 childs per person border pregnancy (if that last one is twins, well, okay, that's fine), with more by application and merit. Merit becomes increasingly difficult: demonstration of higher intellectual achievement, personal achievement, physical fitness, unique genetics, etc. This would maintain biodiversity and remove the weak; of course in our current world, it would just be a bribe haven and we'd have a lot of rich people with 20 kids... oh well. (Yes this is abridged; the entire theory is large, fairly open ended, and essentially revolves around culling congenital defects and unsustainable population expansion without creating population shrinkage or reducing biodiversity, or damaging human rights. Having 18 children is NOT a human right--I had a coworker who had 11 children and another who had 18, this is a real thing.)
The White House has indicated that they're going to bomb Syria just for show, but that's a separate issue altogether. (NBC reports)
Remember that nobody is altruistic in this politicosphere. The US will want Syria for only strategic value. Human rights are a good excuse; we're good at trampling them while claiming we're protecting them. So your personal ideals on what to do might not mesh up with "...thus, the government should..." because they'll probably not achieve anything you think should be achieved, nor care.
I don't like modern wars. This isn't our war; people have something to fight for now, something that makes sense. We're going to go stomp around for a while to fluff our feathers up in the UN, and kill some innocent people, just 'cause. I'd rather let them fight it out, or traffic the rebels arms.
Citation?
NOW says women are just as strong and capable as men as firefighters. They develop muscle mass in the same way with the same effort and are by default inherently as ready as men without any special accommodation or intensive training.
Political leanings and idealism of women, their ability in leadership and technical roles, and their ability to solve complex social and intellectual problems differs from men's. The results are different, some better and some worse, depending on who is trying to do what; there are general patterns that follow gender, age, cultural upbringing, and so on. There are, again, socio-political groups claiming this isn't true and that a woman will produce exactly the same results with the same training as a man if given the same job, whether centered on physical or mental skills.
Weren't you here for the 90s? What are you, 12?
Peoples' ideals are a lot of the reason for suffering. They lampshaded it in Deep Space 9, but also subverted it with the "you just can't know" argument: a bunch of ridiculously smart autistic kids figured out there would be 900 billion deaths in a protracted war and a permanent loss that would take thousands of years to wriggle out of to little effect; whereas a surrender would lead to a couple generations of oppression, 2 billion deaths, then a strong uprising and greater freedom and a stronger federation of planets that would last thousands of years. The better option with less suffering was to throw away all fantasy idealism; but nobody was going to consign an entire several generations to "oppression" which involved significant freedom (more freedom than you get in the USA). The end resolution was broken: they used psychohistory (the longer you go out, the more accurate it gets, because the group functions as a composite of the variations of all individuals and the statistical probabilities of certain factions forming and moving certain ways as a whole), then said that it couldn't be really accurate because they couldn't predict the actions of a single person in a 20 minute time span, so there may be variation.
So here we have this ideal: we don't like dead children. We'll create MORE dead children as a show of force to show our anger at dead children. Then we'll stabilize the area with ... an even more oppressive regime that will turn over again anyway and cause more suffering. It may be better to let twice as many children die while they fight it out, either ending in a full turnover of power or an exhaustion of the regime's will to hold the reigns and a concession of increased human rights that permanently provides a greater standing for the great many future generations. Straight out: letting the people fight their own bloody revolution without intervention might (historically, does) turn out for the best in terms of minimized long-term human suffering.
We would rather "stick to our ideals" and show that we're "willing to fight for what's right", even if it means inflicting maximized suffering on the weak and innocent and ensuring only a temporary, if any, standing of human rights. It just looks better on your resume.
In my scientific mind, I believe that most of the "harm" done by rape is just people being pissy little coddlefish. We stand up a whole horrific narrative about rape, burn it into everyone's mind, and then wonder why it's so damaging when someone gets raped. People who don't buy into it see it as an experience to be survived or escaped, and have no abnormal psychological trauma. Many people develop more psychological trauma after being raped due to the whole "group support" thing, feeling like they're not feeling hurt enough because everyone's telling them their experience was so terrible--they begin to believe it more strongly, it becomes worse.
In other words: society's complete demonization of sexual crimes (not just violence, but child molestation) creates most of the pain and suffering from these crimes. Society should instead treat these as crimes, determine that they don't fit in with the so-called rights they feel people have (that is, those guarantees which people require in order to feel secure in society--impossible to guarantee, but supported by enforcement via physical force), and handle them as such. Stop telling victims that they are now damaged, and instead tell them to build a bridge and get the fuck over it and that the criminal perpetrator is the one who bears blame and is defective.
Second, people believe in a just world. This is required for normal human psychology--people believe in a just world because it's required for them to rationalize the world's problems away. Bad things don't happen to good people; bad things happen, but good people get a break and will come out better in the end. Otherwise life is despair. The truth is bad people only need to get away with it and their lives are a hell of a lot better than moral, upstanding folks'. In fact, if you want to make the world a better place to support you, you should be a cutthroat morally bankrupt robber baron until you're rich enough to effect positive change on the communities around you, which achieves both at once.
Science also tells us that women are not men; but people use "scientific" arguments to argue that they're the same. No social or physical differences, no intellectual differences, nothing. Women and men think exactly the same way and are just as capable at all tasks in exactly the same situations at all times. Scientifically this is bunk. Women are more socialist and emotional than men in general. Popular political opinion tends to be egocentric: people want what's good for them, or what sounds good to them; men going "I want/need XXXX for free that I can't afford and rich people should pay for" and women going "we should all share and get along, and nobody should have to go without food and doctors" will garner the same output but are obviously not the same thinking.
Is that an actual question or just leading rhetoric to act as a counter-argument?
Appeal to Emotion. Invalid. There will be more dead children, dead men, dead women, dead innocents, and dead civilians if we have a war. Is this the best course of action?
Maybe. We'd have to tear down that blight called the United Nations first, and dismantle the great police forces of Satan called NATO.
That was pretty funny. The same thing happens with "chemicals" and "preservatives" (one of the best preservatives in certain contexts is Vitamin C...) as with "Genetically Modified Food". We can cross-breed plants all day and get weird hybrids and such, then inbreed them and try to avoid genetic defects... hell, all navel oranges are cloned, and all Haas avocados come from cuttings or seeds from one tree that's a hybrid. No way to test if these are safe, since we're just slamming shit together; but if we insert a single, controlled, understood gene into something, suddenly it's probably got formaldehyde and poisonous proteins that will cause kidney failure.
Then there's stuff like Round-Up (they say it's safe; studies are showing this is entirely untrue) versus Hydretain. Round-Up was supposed to be safe, but seems to be extremely toxic to marine life; doesn't break down as fast as it should and runs-off; and gets into the food supply, now showing up in kids' blood and causing weird hormonal issues. Hydretain... you can drink it, it's safe, it'll make water go into your intestines and you'll shit a lot, nice stuff; people will look suspiciously at anything like that and go, "Stop pouring toxic chemicals all over golf fields! This is why honey bees are dying and whales are going extinct!"
People are nuts.
That depends. I knew a fellow who quit paying his because he couldn't pay it off. The banks didn't know who owned his mortgage, so he cut the payments. Nobody ever contacted him.
Why? Your bank goes under, you're off the hook for the loan, whee!
So, we should stop calling 13 year olds "children," and consensual sex with them "rape." They're "young adults" and what you had is "consensual sexual contact with a minor."
We really should; but the example tends to underscore certain emotional responses people have to meaning. Calling collisions and other vehicular incidents "accidents" disclaims responsibility. Accidents have consequences; accidents happen and that's okay, they can't be prevented and we should really accept them, nobody is wrong, we make amends for the damage done but have no real moral responsibility.
That's how you get Volvo drivers.
Incident. It's not an "accident", stop disclaiming responsibility. It's some moron somewhere that did something stupid. Wrong tires, fucking with the radio, texting, trying to corner in an unsafe area, even a civil engineer designing a blind curve that's impossible to reasonably and safely navigate (sometimes you can't take the utmost precaution because it's unreasonable--and sometimes what's necessary IS unreasonable and would make the throughway unusable).
I'm tired of people taking vocabulary as a security blanket. Whenever I bring this up, they try to explain that it's just "words"--but then we have people telling us we can't say "shit" and "fuck" on TV and we can't offer to black people as "niggers" and I'm like "so what's the difference then?"
Collision. Traffic incident. No accidents, only stupidity and failure. Driving down the road 85mph on really shitty cheap tires worn bald with radial, take a hard turn, slam the brakes and hit a teenager driving. "Shit, I got in an accident.." no you were being a retarded asshole and your complete and total negligence and disregard for safety and sanity ended badly. A temporary lapse of focus isn't an "accident" either; it's a failure, it happens, we all do it all the time, usually somebody else slams on their brakes and gives us the finger. Luck.
What is so bad about forced sex?
How do we drive them to the ghettos? By building fences they can climb? Asking them nicely? Glaring at them in disapproval?
Studies show that people visiting the beach three times in a season are 50% more likely to be shot by a dog swimming with a handgun in its mouth.
It's not "responsibility free" when you can get/pass herpes and HIV. The illusion is there though.
Page 33 of the development plan addresses health concerns. The top five causes of death are, in order from most frequent, Heart Disease, Cancer, HIV, Stroke, and Drug Overdose. Heart Disease is a catch-all for "natural causes, but not old enough for my tastes". Welcome to the hood.
That was basically my only moral issue with abortion. I posited that it would lead to a responsibility separation from sex, whereby people no longer worry about the consequences; these days it seems like sex without a condom is common--this actually surprised and frightened me, because people here fuck random people they just met in bathrooms at bars without rubbers--and the neighborhood I live in has its three top killers as Heart Disease, Cancer, and HIV. Yes, HIV is the #3 primary cause of death in my neighborhood. Clinic gives out free condoms but hell, if you get pregnant you just get an abortion.
People babble about all this right and wrong stuff, but I just like to point at cause and effect. Absolution of responsibility is a cause, and its effects are often predictable largely and unpredictable in the minor.
To use a computer to solve more than trivial pocket calculator problems, you need to either A) learn to program; or B) learn to use a good program. Think about e-mail: it delivers messages you could just as well get by snail-mail, but you have to take the time to text-to-speech them and listen, or actually read them still. Want to make 3D art or music? You have to learn how to manipulate the medium and how to apply artistic concepts--there is no "art pill" that you pop that makes you an expert artist. Even video games are a matter of building skill through some effort.
Boats bring safety and, like computers, feasibility into marine situations. You can carry equipment and avoid sharks in boats. You're more looking for an analogy like putting a water jetpack on your back so you can swim in a race, without actually learning to swim or getting strong.
Look outside. People want to eat at mcdonalds all day, then take green tea pills or megadoses of caffeine or lipitor to lose weight and stay healthy. Gastric bypasses and tying a rope around your stomach so you can't eat so fucking much are the new version of... just not eating so fucking much. Are you telling me something good will come of this "engineering solution," in the same way that something good came of MRIs and ambulances? I think something good will come of this "engineering solution" as with mass media news: people don't have to think to stay informed, rather just take the slop shoved down their throat. That's a huge labor savings over being inquisitive and trying to find any facts for yourself.
It won't happen, but it could. The aji is still there. I don't feel it's right to destroy it. If someone else starts the revolution, I can't denounce them for it; there is valid justification. I just wouldn't feel like a hero even if I went and flipped the country all by myself; I'd feel like a power-mad douche playing god and creating consequences I can't possibly understand. Feasibility aside.
You pass off jail time like it's no big deal, he'll be out by 40 and everything will be fine. You have no fucking clue what just the plain time shift does, much less the psychological damage, the physical abuse from other inmates, potential rape, diseases, poor medical care...
Prison *is* death.