Well, if I may direct you to the GGP you'll see in my post I largely agree with you.
However if I understand correctly, Zero__Kelvin's point appears to be that it may not be as simple as that.
If there is a possibility that the husband's lack of respect for his wife is the result of him "acting out" his lack of self-respect through something in his life he loves (his wife), then it's impossible to be sure what the problem is without further data.
Perhaps this behaviour implies that he doesn't feel he deserves her love or respect. If so, cheating on her would certainly do much to diminish both if he subconsciously allows himself to be found out. Anonymous e-mails attached to fake names aren't expensive after all.
If I have this right then it certainly follows that we cannot actually know if he respects his wife or not, as there is a much greater chance she is simply being used as a tool of his subconscious to attack himself.
That being said, reality is more complicated than so many people here imply.
I'll be first to admit I tend to simplify some issues, yes. Reading further you seem rather a lot more informed than myself on psychology of peer bonding so I'll accept the admonishment in good faith.
One cannot determine if he does or does not respect his wife based on the currently available information.
Fair enough. That said, I bet I can guess his wife's opinion on the matter!
Apologies, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but that is what I took as the thrust of your post.
I'm now genuinely unsure what you meant by the sentence I quoted and replied to. Unless I am further mistaken, how does experiencing guilt over his behaviour imply that he does have respect for his wife?
From where I sit his guilt appears meaningless as he obviously went out and dipped his wick anyway, which suggests a fundamental lack of respect for his wife in the first place.
No, it's more like asserting that you're unqualified to give relationship advice, seeing how you've never been in one.
You offer no compelling argument by simply repeating your position.
In doing so you simply demonstrate that your assertion is quite untenable. You offer no evidence nor rationale to explain or support your statement and as such I posit that you yourself are simply failing to comprehend the substance of my reply.
Oh, and you fail at analogies as well.
I'm not infallible by any means but I suspect it is actually yourself that is suffering the fail here.
Perhaps you'd be good enough to explain to me how my flawed analogy is unable to make the point that one does not necessarily need to be a chicken to know a bad egg.
I think I'll wait to see how what the community thinks before I take your words to heart, if it's all the same to you.
I've suspected Bezos has a background with the occult, from my earliest observations of him.
LOLwut? Couldn't he just be a creep as you initially suggest? What outward signs do occultists typically display? Hmm, perhaps I just need to get out more and meet some occultists.
Claiming he doesn't respect his wife assumes he doesn't have guilt over eating the Sundae,
So if he suffers guilt, he's exonerated from the consequences of his shameful behaviour then?
If "til death do us part" doesn't suit then basic Human decency suggests that one shouldn't lie to one's partner by getting married in the first place.
You are responding to the original comment rather than my reply? Well, if you're not going to respond to me then reply to the GP and not myself, you fucking idiot.
No, I'm trying to tell you that "Fuck off and live in Somalia" is not racist.
You are determine to call me racist no matter what I say. You'll go so far as to twist my words to suit your preferred interpretation because otherwise it wouldn't fit your narrative. In short, you're having a conversation with yourself because you refuse to respond to what I'm actually saying.
You still wondering why people with your attitude exasperate others?
Idiot, Somalia is borderline anarchy compared to the west. The discussion has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the governing of a society.
I've had a gutsful of fuckwits like you who choose to only see things in your own myopic terms, because you childishly project your issues onto others. Then you call them racist. You idiots sure do love your perceived 'racism'. Facts-be-damned, you want to be outraged and won't let reality interfere with your position.
It was YOU that brought up the topic of race - yet somehow it's someone else's fault, someone else's RACISM.
Then you lecture us by saying that 'adults have to compromise'. Just fuck off already.
Right, I understand now. It's an interesting question but I can't shed any further light myself.
As for a brain-wide phenomenon I'm going to need to look that up because I've been operating under the impression that emotion is handled by a discrete 'section'(1) of the brain, which is what the SSRIs are targeting (I presume).
(1) or, more likely, several areas working together
The insurance industry also used to profile based on race and gender. I'm not sure I want government policies doing everything the insurance industry does.
As far as I'm aware, they still do.
Women generally pay less for their insurance premiums than men, at least here in NZ.
If that's the case then how do Serotonin reuptake inhibitors work?
If I understand correctly, SSRIs try to inhibit the too-rapid re-uptake of neurotransmitters like Serotonin, Dopamine and Norepinephrine that appears to be behind most mood and anxiety disorders. We're talking about consciousness, sense and cognition, all of which require electricity (as best I understand it) to run the overall orchestration of many systems. Without this operational system there's nothing for SSRIs to do, so I don't really understand your question.
Sadly, this kind of argument is beyond the capacity of most slashdotters.
Oh piss off. The average intelligence of the/. readers and posting community is not in doubt, especially in comparison to more mainstream discussion forums. Contrary to popular opinion, many nerds are the man or woman of their own family, usually one made with a completely normal game of hide-the-sausage.
In my experience - and despite the 'Aspie' stereotype - nerds are keenly aware of other people's feelings and I often find they hold their own behaviour to a higher standard than most.
So, he said, "kill yourself", in response to your "kill everyone, me first" and he's the one with no cogent agument?
Are you telling me, with a straight face, that you cannot see a difference between the two concepts?
Your disagreement with the sentiment is no basis to dismiss it as a nonsense.
To your original point, there is alot of anger and resentment building. The generation that started working in the late 90's was too late for everything.
I haven't heard it put that succinctly before, but yes, I was one of those people and there's plenty of anger here.
Every job I've had was full of stories about how we used to get raises, or used to get bonuses,
This was also my experience. Everything was always better 'before'.
That's not the nub of it though. I'm pretty liberal, which to me means 'live and let live' but that's just not in fashion any more. Those who have always wanted to interfere in peoples lives now seem to have the power to do so quite effectively. We also can't discuss facts a lot of the time because of this stinking 'right to not be offended' mindset.
Progressives are gaining even more power and they want to give away even more money belonging to other people. The world feels used up to me. I'm sick of the Human race; what we've become and what we're becoming next. The people with the power are, as you say, quite happy with the status quo. We will not get our shit together, we will fight each other, AGAIN.
As always, the entire biosphere and the beautiful forms of life we have on this planet will suffer along with us when we do.
Well, I appreciate the sentiment. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of suicide as I have responsibilities, although I am pleased to say this does not include dependents.
So tell me, why do you - with the gravitas that comes with a five-digit-uid - feel that recommending my suicide is a better option that lacerating me with a cogent counter-argument?
In all honesty do I come across as someone who cannot be reasoned with?
More importantly, is my anger at what I perceive as the undoing of the last shreds of meritocracy in Western society so terribly hard to countenance that I must be put to death as punishment for speaking of it?
If so then I rightly want no part of your world, Sir.
It's the way conspiracy theories work. Ignore anything which contradicts your point of view or explain them away as not relevant to their rantings.
I guess that means this is your cue to ignore the traces of uncombusted thermite found by investigators. Don't forget to explain away the fact that the steel beams that represented evidence of a criminal act were whisked away very rapidly to be melted down offshore.
Never mind that a veritable army of architects who are very concerned at the paucity of information in the 911 report and struggle to see how the official explanation is anything more than a children's bedtime story. Then there are the demolition experts who are happy to go on the record to point out the ways the buildings were structurally weakened with clearly-visible secondary explosions on even the public footage.
Don't miss the opportunity to discredit the dozen or so people who reported underground explosions split-seconds before anything hit the above-ground structure.
I don't know what really happened on that day but I certainly have no time for the utterly vacuous bullshit provided by officials to explain the situation. The whole thing absolutely reeks and even if you don't believe in a conspiracy theory you really are kidding yourself if you think that things went down just as the official record insists.
I really love this attitude that seems so prevalent now. Rather than blowing your money like a teenager as most do until they're in their forties, you practiced commendable fiscal restraint and maturity and put some aside. You have every right to feel good about your achievement.
The response? "You fucking entitled criminal you! How dare you, when there are people who have LESS than you? What privilege!"
I've had a gutsful of people with bullshit attitudes like this. Can we just get on with the nuclear war already? I'm happy to take the first mushroom cloud myself if it'll get the ball rolling.
It's unnecessary to pedantically interpret "the oceans will die" as "100.000% of all life in the oceans will die" although I appreciate it does grant you licence to rattle off on a pointless tangent.
We couldn't exterminate all life in Earth's oceans if we tried. That doesn't mean that the ocean can't "die" for all intents and purposes; imagine if plankton began dying out. Naturally something else will step straight into its place.. unless it doesn't.
Earth's oceans are under a range of increasing anthropomorphic pressures. Some of these pressures are suppressing organisms whilst others flourish to the detriment of the oceans' biodiversity.
In terms of habitable areas of ocean it's conceivable that one day there may be nowhere left to swim away to.
There's no round of applause I could possibly give that would do justice to your comment - and I'm damn pleased to see you were modded up accordingly.
At some point one simply has to accept that Survival Of The Fittest ultimately means the death of the terminally-stupid and the resolutely-selfish. From where I sit that looks like about 99% of Humanity. With all our science, technology and understanding of the world around us, we still prefer faith to science and as such we'll get exactly what we deserve.
There have been histrionic predictions about disappearing glaciers, extinct polar bears, 50cm+ rising seas, 50 million climate refugees, catastrophic hurricane seasons, ice-free arctic, all which should have come to pass by now.
I agree, 'crying wolf' is a near-perfect way to ruin one's credibility.
Hyperbole sells movies, not science. However, there's precious little hyperbole coming from the scientists themselves.
The predictions you mention really are coming to pass. Jellies have hit their stride, they're filling the oceans. Polar bears really are dying out. Local weather systems really are making landfall with more energy than they used to. Arctic ice really is disappearing very quickly.
I live in New Zealand. Like many tourists to our little country, I to have naughtily stood upon the tongue of the Franz Josef glacier. I did this in 2000 and it looks quite different only fifteen years later, judging by this Herald article.
This is reality. That fact that it is not happening nearly as fast as we were led to believe by our hyperbolous media and silly disaster movies like '2012' should come as a surprise to absolutely no-one.
An excellent point that people who characterise Science as "arrogant" often fail to appreciate.
Science is as correct as we can possibly be at this moment. It's also flexible and keen to challenge its own findings such that our theories tend to develop and improve over time.
We've found no systematic method of research and development that works better. The evidence of its efficacy is all around us.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, if I may direct you to the GGP you'll see in my post I largely agree with you.
However if I understand correctly, Zero__Kelvin's point appears to be that it may not be as simple as that.
If there is a possibility that the husband's lack of respect for his wife is the result of him "acting out" his lack of self-respect through something in his life he loves (his wife), then it's impossible to be sure what the problem is without further data.
Perhaps this behaviour implies that he doesn't feel he deserves her love or respect. If so, cheating on her would certainly do much to diminish both if he subconsciously allows himself to be found out. Anonymous e-mails attached to fake names aren't expensive after all.
If I have this right then it certainly follows that we cannot actually know if he respects his wife or not, as there is a much greater chance she is simply being used as a tool of his subconscious to attack himself.
That being said, reality is more complicated than so many people here imply.
I'll be first to admit I tend to simplify some issues, yes. Reading further you seem rather a lot more informed than myself on psychology of peer bonding so I'll accept the admonishment in good faith.
One cannot determine if he does or does not respect his wife based on the currently available information.
Fair enough. That said, I bet I can guess his wife's opinion on the matter!
Show me where I said that.
Apologies, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth but that is what I took as the thrust of your post.
I'm now genuinely unsure what you meant by the sentence I quoted and replied to. Unless I am further mistaken, how does experiencing guilt over his behaviour imply that he does have respect for his wife?
From where I sit his guilt appears meaningless as he obviously went out and dipped his wick anyway, which suggests a fundamental lack of respect for his wife in the first place.
No, it's more like asserting that you're unqualified to give relationship advice, seeing how you've never been in one.
You offer no compelling argument by simply repeating your position.
In doing so you simply demonstrate that your assertion is quite untenable. You offer no evidence nor rationale to explain or support your statement and as such I posit that you yourself are simply failing to comprehend the substance of my reply.
Oh, and you fail at analogies as well.
I'm not infallible by any means but I suspect it is actually yourself that is suffering the fail here.
Perhaps you'd be good enough to explain to me how my flawed analogy is unable to make the point that one does not necessarily need to be a chicken to know a bad egg.
I think I'll wait to see how what the community thinks before I take your words to heart, if it's all the same to you.
I've suspected Bezos has a background with the occult, from my earliest observations of him.
LOLwut? Couldn't he just be a creep as you initially suggest? What outward signs do occultists typically display?
Hmm, perhaps I just need to get out more and meet some occultists.
So you're about as qualified to talk about marriage and relationships as a celibate Catholic priest, which is just about not at all IMHO.
Brilliant logic.
By your thinking I'm unqualified to offer an opinion on Pink Floyd because I can't play guitar like David Gilmour.
I'm equally unable to discuss what I like about BMWs because I've never personally built one.
Furthermore, it's completely beyond my reach to comment on political candidates because I've never been a political candidate.
Thanks for setting me straight!
Claiming he doesn't respect his wife assumes he doesn't have guilt over eating the Sundae,
So if he suffers guilt, he's exonerated from the consequences of his shameful behaviour then?
If "til death do us part" doesn't suit then basic Human decency suggests that one shouldn't lie to one's partner by getting married in the first place.
You are responding to the original comment rather than my reply? Well, if you're not going to respond to me then reply to the GP and not myself, you fucking idiot.
Actually, I have a better idea: go die in a fire.
No, I'm trying to tell you that "Fuck off and live in Somalia" is not racist.
You are determine to call me racist no matter what I say. You'll go so far as to twist my words to suit your preferred interpretation because otherwise it wouldn't fit your narrative. In short, you're having a conversation with yourself because you refuse to respond to what I'm actually saying.
You still wondering why people with your attitude exasperate others?
Idiot, Somalia is borderline anarchy compared to the west. The discussion has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the governing of a society.
I've had a gutsful of fuckwits like you who choose to only see things in your own myopic terms, because you childishly project your issues onto others. Then you call them racist. You idiots sure do love your perceived 'racism'. Facts-be-damned, you want to be outraged and won't let reality interfere with your position.
It was YOU that brought up the topic of race - yet somehow it's someone else's fault, someone else's RACISM.
Then you lecture us by saying that 'adults have to compromise'. Just fuck off already.
Right, I understand now. It's an interesting question but I can't shed any further light myself.
As for a brain-wide phenomenon I'm going to need to look that up because I've been operating under the impression that emotion is handled by a discrete 'section'(1) of the brain, which is what the SSRIs are targeting (I presume).
(1) or, more likely, several areas working together
No, it isn't racist, and fuck you for trying to spin it as such.
The insurance industry also used to profile based on race and gender. I'm not sure I want government policies doing everything the insurance industry does.
As far as I'm aware, they still do.
Women generally pay less for their insurance premiums than men, at least here in NZ.
If that's the case then how do Serotonin reuptake inhibitors work?
If I understand correctly, SSRIs try to inhibit the too-rapid re-uptake of neurotransmitters like Serotonin, Dopamine and Norepinephrine that appears to be behind most mood and anxiety disorders. We're talking about consciousness, sense and cognition, all of which require electricity (as best I understand it) to run the overall orchestration of many systems. Without this operational system there's nothing for SSRIs to do, so I don't really understand your question.
Sadly, this kind of argument is beyond the capacity of most slashdotters.
Oh piss off. The average intelligence of the /. readers and posting community is not in doubt, especially in comparison to more mainstream discussion forums. Contrary to popular opinion, many nerds are the man or woman of their own family, usually one made with a completely normal game of hide-the-sausage.
In my experience - and despite the 'Aspie' stereotype - nerds are keenly aware of other people's feelings and I often find they hold their own behaviour to a higher standard than most.
So, he said, "kill yourself", in response to your "kill everyone, me first" and he's the one with no cogent agument?
Are you telling me, with a straight face, that you cannot see a difference between the two concepts?
Your disagreement with the sentiment is no basis to dismiss it as a nonsense.
To your original point, there is alot of anger and resentment building. The generation that started working in the late 90's was too late for everything.
I haven't heard it put that succinctly before, but yes, I was one of those people and there's plenty of anger here.
Every job I've had was full of stories about how we used to get raises, or used to get bonuses,
This was also my experience. Everything was always better 'before'.
That's not the nub of it though. I'm pretty liberal, which to me means 'live and let live' but that's just not in fashion any more. Those who have always wanted to interfere in peoples lives now seem to have the power to do so quite effectively. We also can't discuss facts a lot of the time because of this stinking 'right to not be offended' mindset.
Progressives are gaining even more power and they want to give away even more money belonging to other people. The world feels used up to me. I'm sick of the Human race; what we've become and what we're becoming next. The people with the power are, as you say, quite happy with the status quo. We will not get our shit together, we will fight each other, AGAIN.
As always, the entire biosphere and the beautiful forms of life we have on this planet will suffer along with us when we do.
Well, I appreciate the sentiment. Unfortunately, I don't have the luxury of suicide as I have responsibilities, although I am pleased to say this does not include dependents.
So tell me, why do you - with the gravitas that comes with a five-digit-uid - feel that recommending my suicide is a better option that lacerating me with a cogent counter-argument?
In all honesty do I come across as someone who cannot be reasoned with?
More importantly, is my anger at what I perceive as the undoing of the last shreds of meritocracy in Western society so terribly hard to countenance that I must be put to death as punishment for speaking of it?
If so then I rightly want no part of your world, Sir.
It's the way conspiracy theories work. Ignore anything which contradicts your point of view or explain them away as not relevant to their rantings.
I guess that means this is your cue to ignore the traces of uncombusted thermite found by investigators. Don't forget to explain away the fact that the steel beams that represented evidence of a criminal act were whisked away very rapidly to be melted down offshore.
Never mind that a veritable army of architects who are very concerned at the paucity of information in the 911 report and struggle to see how the official explanation is anything more than a children's bedtime story. Then there are the demolition experts who are happy to go on the record to point out the ways the buildings were structurally weakened with clearly-visible secondary explosions on even the public footage.
Don't miss the opportunity to discredit the dozen or so people who reported underground explosions split-seconds before anything hit the above-ground structure.
I don't know what really happened on that day but I certainly have no time for the utterly vacuous bullshit provided by officials to explain the situation. The whole thing absolutely reeks and even if you don't believe in a conspiracy theory you really are kidding yourself if you think that things went down just as the official record insists.
and the western nations are sending them a few hundred billion to complete nuclear weapons to attack us all with.
Forgive me, but this sounds rather fanciful, unless I've missed something very obvious. Care to provide a cite (or preferably two) for the rest of us?
I really love this attitude that seems so prevalent now. Rather than blowing your money like a teenager as most do until they're in their forties, you practiced commendable fiscal restraint and maturity and put some aside. You have every right to feel good about your achievement.
The response? "You fucking entitled criminal you! How dare you, when there are people who have LESS than you? What privilege!"
I've had a gutsful of people with bullshit attitudes like this. Can we just get on with the nuclear war already? I'm happy to take the first mushroom cloud myself if it'll get the ball rolling.
It's unnecessary to pedantically interpret "the oceans will die" as "100.000% of all life in the oceans will die" although I appreciate it does grant you licence to rattle off on a pointless tangent.
We couldn't exterminate all life in Earth's oceans if we tried. That doesn't mean that the ocean can't "die" for all intents and purposes; imagine if plankton began dying out. Naturally something else will step straight into its place.. unless it doesn't.
Earth's oceans are under a range of increasing anthropomorphic pressures. Some of these pressures are suppressing organisms whilst others flourish to the detriment of the oceans' biodiversity.
In terms of habitable areas of ocean it's conceivable that one day there may be nowhere left to swim away to.
There's no round of applause I could possibly give that would do justice to your comment - and I'm damn pleased to see you were modded up accordingly.
At some point one simply has to accept that Survival Of The Fittest ultimately means the death of the terminally-stupid and the resolutely-selfish. From where I sit that looks like about 99% of Humanity. With all our science, technology and understanding of the world around us, we still prefer faith to science and as such we'll get exactly what we deserve.
Good riddance.
The Republicans hate the Earth and want to see it destroyed.
Yeah, yeah, and the Democrats all have wings and play harps, we get it.
Get lost, you partisan fool.
There have been histrionic predictions about disappearing glaciers, extinct polar bears, 50cm+ rising seas, 50 million climate refugees, catastrophic hurricane seasons, ice-free arctic, all which should have come to pass by now.
I agree, 'crying wolf' is a near-perfect way to ruin one's credibility.
Hyperbole sells movies, not science. However, there's precious little hyperbole coming from the scientists themselves.
The predictions you mention really are coming to pass. Jellies have hit their stride, they're filling the oceans. Polar bears really are dying out. Local weather systems really are making landfall with more energy than they used to. Arctic ice really is disappearing very quickly.
I live in New Zealand. Like many tourists to our little country, I to have naughtily stood upon the tongue of the Franz Josef glacier. I did this in 2000 and it looks quite different only fifteen years later, judging by this Herald article.
This is reality. That fact that it is not happening nearly as fast as we were led to believe by our hyperbolous media and silly disaster movies like '2012' should come as a surprise to absolutely no-one.
An excellent point that people who characterise Science as "arrogant" often fail to appreciate.
Science is as correct as we can possibly be at this moment. It's also flexible and keen to challenge its own findings such that our theories tend to develop and improve over time.
We've found no systematic method of research and development that works better. The evidence of its efficacy is all around us.