The fundamental problem with the second amandment is that the only group I can actively imagine making use of it against the government is also the group I least want to see use it against the government.
On a Swedish now defunct website for political discussion there used to hang out a Crazy radical feminist woman who had a Universal Theory of science.
In her opinion, it was impossible to say what is science and what is not and as such nobody has the power to say that something is scientific and something else isn't. To her, everything is scientific and the people who disagree are proponents of "scientism".
This tied in with the radical feminist angle because she also argued that science as it currently exists has been overtaken by men and now serves only male and masculine purposes such as technology and weapons. She elaborates that male science is destructive because it picks things apart to understand how they work and it creates destructive inventions.
She says that female science, by contrast, does not pick anything apart. Instead it would look at things and examine them as a whole, and come to answers using hermeneutic analysis. (hint: it means you sit around and talk about it for a long time)
Her ultimate point is that she believes it is not right to call something non-scientific simply because it cannot be empirically tested.
She also got into weird and ultimately bizarre postmodernist arguments such as if someone believed a partcular treatment actually helped them, then the treatment was effective. She was strongly pro-homeopathy, crystal healing and whatever.
(she also drove everyone insane by writing in 50 word sentences)
Not if he cannot be promoted at his current position and if wage increases are unlikely.
Then it's an issue of staying at some place and knowing you can't get more, and possibly lose some of what you get now to start working at a position where NOT being promoted isn't a certainty.
1: Feminism is reacting to the historical fact that it has usually been the reverse that was true. It is only contraceptives which have managed to change this.
2: This is compounded, and this is where it probably gets "too complex" for a lot of people, by the fact that this behavior IS inherently sexist. Of course, here a lot of people fail to understand that the famous "patriarchy", which feminists decry, is also sexist toward men.
Women, it says, are all harmless victims who cannot abuse children. Women are perfect parents who should stay home and care for their children. Men are child abusers and rape monsters and are not fit to care for children.
Note that there's some overlap between a certain subset of feminists (known as radical feminists) and conservatives to confuse the matter further.
That's because culture shapes interpretations of religious texts. You cannot simply look at a religious text and, using only that, make broad statements about the religion itself.
The religion filters the text through human interpretations. What you put in is not necessarily what you get out.
Libraries are not legally allowed to keep on record which books you have borrowed. They are only allowed to track which books you currently have in your possession.
This is the case in the socialist shithole called Sweden. It might be better in the capitalist paradise of the US.
Slashdot Mirror
The fundamental problem with the second amandment is that the only group I can actively imagine making use of it against the government is also the group I least want to see use it against the government.
That's the way in the book too. Damn I hated that guard.
That's basically my conclusion as well.
Particularily as someone non-american I see it as the result of very effective corporate propaganda.
Creative mode is useless.
The only way to play is modded survival.
The main problem is the network model seems to suck as. 200 kB/s in some occasions.
On a Swedish now defunct website for political discussion there used to hang out a Crazy radical feminist woman who had a Universal Theory of science.
In her opinion, it was impossible to say what is science and what is not and as such nobody has the power to say that something is scientific and something else isn't. To her, everything is scientific and the people who disagree are proponents of "scientism".
This tied in with the radical feminist angle because she also argued that science as it currently exists has been overtaken by men and now serves only male and masculine purposes such as technology and weapons. She elaborates that male science is destructive because it picks things apart to understand how they work and it creates destructive inventions.
She says that female science, by contrast, does not pick anything apart. Instead it would look at things and examine them as a whole, and come to answers using hermeneutic analysis. (hint: it means you sit around and talk about it for a long time)
Her ultimate point is that she believes it is not right to call something non-scientific simply because it cannot be empirically tested.
She also got into weird and ultimately bizarre postmodernist arguments such as if someone believed a partcular treatment actually helped them, then the treatment was effective. She was strongly pro-homeopathy, crystal healing and whatever.
(she also drove everyone insane by writing in 50 word sentences)
So if the people says we gotta kill dem jews then the government should refurnish some shower rooms and stock up on poison gas.
I think he's mixing up american vs european liberalism.
In Sweden at least, neo-liberals are ultra pro market people. (as are traditional liberals)
What's a fallacy of genus?
That's ridiculous. If we wanted to cause as much damage to the criminals as possible, why not simply reinstate torture?
That's basically what she seems to want.
(no we shouldn't do that)
Just pointing out to anyone taking the above poster seriously that he's quoting a nazi site. Friatider.se.
Swapped X and Y by mistake.
The given problem: Environment X sucks for population Y.
Your solution: Forbid population X from working in environment Y.
You also conflate thinking about sex and being sexist. Those are distinct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A...
GP is wrong. Even in, say, Sweden, fiber isn't close to be standard. ADSL pretty much IS standard, though.
Yes because a "We just cured cancer"-discovery isn't going to be profitable AT ALL. Nope. Not at all.
You know i think the fundamental problem with the american system is how easy it is to sue.
It sounds like a fundamental limitation on the target system the fact that it only has a garbage text editor.
What "enemy"?
I'm talking about government influence, not random acts of violence.
But if you want to argue random acts of violence I think Breivik takes the cake.
Not if he cannot be promoted at his current position and if wage increases are unlikely.
Then it's an issue of staying at some place and knowing you can't get more, and possibly lose some of what you get now to start working at a position where NOT being promoted isn't a certainty.
I think you're overestimating the influence of the islamic far right in Europe while underestimating the christian far right.
There are two reasons for that.
1: Feminism is reacting to the historical fact that it has usually been the reverse that was true. It is only contraceptives which have managed to change this.
2: This is compounded, and this is where it probably gets "too complex" for a lot of people, by the fact that this behavior IS inherently sexist. Of course, here a lot of people fail to understand that the famous "patriarchy", which feminists decry, is also sexist toward men.
Women, it says, are all harmless victims who cannot abuse children. Women are perfect parents who should stay home and care for their children. Men are child abusers and rape monsters and are not fit to care for children.
Note that there's some overlap between a certain subset of feminists (known as radical feminists) and conservatives to confuse the matter further.
We need the sarcasm font to be made into a standard.
That's because culture shapes interpretations of religious texts. You cannot simply look at a religious text and, using only that, make broad statements about the religion itself.
The religion filters the text through human interpretations. What you put in is not necessarily what you get out.
Look at christianity, for example.
Libraries are not legally allowed to keep on record which books you have borrowed. They are only allowed to track which books you currently have in your possession.
This is the case in the socialist shithole called Sweden. It might be better in the capitalist paradise of the US.