anchor
stringlengths 100
28k
| negative
stringlengths 105
28k
|
|---|---|
What allowed them to refine iron before anyone else? How good was their iron compared to bronze at the time? Did this technological advancement lead to military dominance, or were they content to defend themselves and secure their borders? Was the technique itself a closely guarded secret, the way silk was in China?
|
As the stalemate of trench warfare dragged on, did the British/French or Germans ever consider landing soldiers behind enemy lines by means of a naval landing? How prepared would either side have been for such an attack? Did the technology even exist at the time to perform an operation of this scale?
|
You can either stoop to his level or give as good as you get. If he casually calls you a dick, laugh it off, give a emphatic "playful" punch on the arm and call him a prick. If he tells you to do something, just tell him straight up to fuck off or shut up, laugh it off.
Or just be the bigger person and totally ignore him. You don't owe him anything as far as civility or "keeping the peace" is concerned. If your friends make a deal out of you making an atmosphere and they think of more the "atmosphere" than your well being, then they probably aren't your friends anyway.
Dont take shit either way OP, don't let some arrogant dick, or anyone for that matter, belittle you.
|
The idea is silly, but you gotta spend money to make money. Just have to spend it wisely which the government doesn't do well.
If my $50 could buy me a chair, buy the chair maker his materials, the materials man some more efficient harvesting tools, and so on, spending more money works wonders. If i take said $50 bucks and hide it in a box or wipe my ass with it and light it on fire to grief my flatmate, I just fucked myself and everyone (including the government) in that chain over.
|
I recently started my first salaried job. I was a bit afraid because I've seen people be screwed over by salaried systems before.
My place, however, is pretty laid back. I generally get in between 7 and 8 and leave between 4 and 6. I've stopped on on a few Saturdays, but it hasn't been all day or anything. If shit hit the fan, I'd work around the clock, gladly.
I can take any reasonable amount of unpaid vacation. Take a day off if needed or work on the weekend to make up for it.
It's IT, so if everything is working, they stay off my butt. That said, I do need to be there to help with devices and whatnot.
|
I worked at a restaurant doing room service for two hotels nearby. When not running orders to the hotels, I'd help with seating, running the bar, running food, etc.
I got along pretty well with the kitchen staff, who worked their asses off. One of the busser/dish guys had a birthday party for his kid, and asked if I could cover a Saturday shift for him. It was something like 8-3, so I'd get the breakfast and lunch rush.
I said sure, and then ended up working harder than I ever have in my life. I was never really able to get ahead, and as soon as I'd get close, we'd have to change over from breakfast to lunch, and the kitchen would send back a ton of shit. Or the prep guys would finish their stuff and bring over all the shit they were using. It was brutal.
At the end of their shifts, the wait staff gave me and the other guy bussing a share of their tips. It would be 5-10 bucks normally, not much, but it added up.
One waitress gave me two dollars. I looked at it, looked at her, and just handed it back. (I occasionally cashed out wait staff at the end of their shifts, I knew she probably made well over 100$ in tips that day.) She looked a bit confused, and I just said, "If this is what you normally give the bussers for their help, it's a fucking insult, and it would be better if you just kept it."
|
The average cost of living in the United States is just under 50K per year. So if you had 1 million dollars you could live 20 years modestly without working. If you decided to go a little lavishly, you would last about 10 years. A million dollars isn't that much unless you are constantly replenishing it or growing the capital.
|
I think a lot of Americans are like you, they have never seen a roundabout unless they have traveled out of the country. If they move to a different state with roundabouts, they might be very confused when they encounter one. Also, if you are an American who has never driven a stick shift and has never seen a roundabout, you can travel to England, use your American license to rent a manual car (almost all cars in England are manual), and then start driving. I imagine those people would get very confused at the roundabouts in England, especially when we are talking about huge multi-lane double roundabouts.
As far as roundabouts in America, here is my personal experience. I started Driving in Nebraska, and I don't recall seeing any roundabouts there. When I moved to Oregon I started seeing some roundabouts, normally in newer areas. I then visited family in Washington state, and again saw some roundabouts, normally in newer areas. I then eventually moved to Reno NV, where again I saw some roundabouts, normally in newer areas. So while I don't have any data to back it up, it seems to me from personal experience that the roundabout is a growing trend in the west coast.
|
Running as a third party isn't about winning the election. We all know they won't win major elections. They run to get their issues out into the mainstream. So if the democrats see that 1 million people voted for the Green Party, for example, they look at those million people as "lost" votes for themselves. And then may look to adopt some Green issues since the Green Party has proven to have support, to try and attract voters to the Democrats.
|
Might want to consider freezing your credit. [(FTC FAQ)](https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0497-credit-freeze-faqs) Basically it blocks people from checking your credit, without affecting your credit. If you need a credit-check done, because you're getting any kind of loan, getting a job, renting something, etc. then you'll need to unfreeze it. But it should effectively prevent someone from opening credit cards in your name.
|
I'm in this camp. I like to find recent immigrant barbers b/c a) they don't speak English and don't try to chit chat, b) they're trying to make money so they cut your hair and get you out fast, and c) they're usually cheaper. I'm happy to tip if you forego being nice and get me out in 20 minutes.
|
What the grocery stores (and big box stores) seem to have missed re: self-checkout is that:
1) most customers are used to having a cashier ring them up. If you want me to be your store's employee to save you money, you ought to incentivize me to do it by giving me a discount. It's not your customer's job to maximize your company's profits by serving as an unpaid labor force
2) The technology sucks, especially if you're buying fresh produce at a grocery store or anything that doesn't fit into a shopping cart at Home Depot (which is a lot of what they sell). The self-checkout user experience doesn't improve the customer experience.
|
I think it's kinda fucked somebody that physically treks near 20 miles a day somehow deserves less pay than a person that crunches numbers.
Hard work is not rewarded as it should be.
Thinking major retailer that pays desk jockey administrators more than lowly dock boys.
Say, "Well if they got the education we have, they could make the big money, too."
But they ain't gonna get that same education without the money to afford it.
|
Let her stop talking to you. Let her take you to court. You will have a chance to be represented in court, too. She is likely bluffing. A judge ain't gonna look kindly on a Mom that has maxed out a kid's credit card.
Has she agreed to put the car in your name? Then she's not going to.
She has leverage over you. I know you are low income, but go buy a junker for a few hundred bucks to get you through.
|
What time does the bank open, what time is your flight, how far apart are they? I didn't love BoA, but I loved that they had a branch in the old international terminal at SFO.
But I've gotten away with missing my flight and getting put on a later one with no penalty. Helps if you have status with the airline.
If there is absolutely no partner bank you can use as Al_Scarface_Capone suggested, call when you get there, tell them the card was lost and have them get a new card to you SAP. (I wouldn't report them all lost, just pick one.)
|
Then wouldn't asking for the emplacement of her grave to her parent be better than looking for the obituary online? If it's to give flower/pay her respect/pray to her it could possibly mend the relationship with her parent a little. (without pushing it too much)
That way if she did die, they will know she was loved, even by a "bad influence" and even now. They might be happy to know that. And either way, it would show some repentance from his part to them and her. (He might have nothing to do with it, but the blame is always really easy to pin on somebody.)
However, if they don't want to answer then looking it up may be good.
But I agree with you that a support group would probably do him good to pass through that dark phase he need to go through to get his life back in his hands.
|
Unlikely that it is untrue in your and some others personal opinion. That still does not meet the required standard for a criminal conviction.
We created the judicial systems of the world as checks and balances against mob justice, the Internet has brought it into the 21st century and made it bigger than ever. Now several million people can all hold the same round about opinion about an alleged crime, try and negatively affect the alleged defendants lives and not give a damn about the right to be considered innocent till proven guilty before a formal court of law because 'hey I'm a private citizen, I'm not bound to protect defendants rights and I'm probably right anyway'.
|
To add to the good points already made; consider your target audience and their current level of understanding and knowledge. Things which may seem like simple general knowledge may be alien concepts to them. Especially with a topic like computing where generations just 10 years apart have grown up with totally different experiences.
For example, would they be familiar with terms like 'analogue', 'magnetic tape' or 'binary' ?
Would they be able to imagine what life was like before computers? The need for business to balance accounts without calculators? The need for government offices to store and efficiently find information when dealing with physical records? How cumbersome this could be and how revolutionary computing was in its early days?
It might be an idea to talk with a select group of students and gauge the existing knowledge base and where the gaps are.
P.S
I'm curious - are you going to teach about [LEO](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LEO_(computer)) my grandma was a <PERSON> tea Lady during WW2 and I find it quite incongruous to connect that image of her as a waitress in traditional tea-rooms with the history of modern computing!
|
Ah, you seem to be working from the assumption that I believe some past period was some sort of "golden age." I am quite aware that we as a species are hugely better off than we were in the past. However, at the same time that same progress which we have made has created a slew of new problems and situations which previously simply did not exist. In effect you are trying to say that our problems aren't serious, because there have been other problems which we would like even less.
The point you keep making is that since quality of life is so much better then it used to be, we should not have to work harder to solve our new problems. Unfortunately, I contend that the truth is quite the the opposite. The improvement to our quality of life mirrors the improvement of our technology. In turn the improvement of our technological powers constantly raise the stakes of what happens when things go wrong.
In the past problems were things like "guy A is killing people B," the solution was "well, let's kill guy A and all his doods," and the worst that could happen as a consequence was that a bunch of people got killed needlessly. It might not have been easy, but there were clear goals, simple reasons, and definitive results. Now the questions are not so cut and dry. Our problems are things like "Does the government have the right to know where every person is at any given time?" the potential solutions are near infinite, while the working solutions are non-existent, and the consequences... Well, they've never been the same.
In effect we are in a race against ourselves; as we progress our technology towards the point where we could seriously damage our entire species, we have to also become the type of species that would know better than to do the things that might cause such a result. You of all people should understand this from your profession. In other words, we as a society have to start adapting at the rate of technology, not at the rate of evolution. If we don't, then... quite frankly we're fucked.
As for your comfort trusting others, I think this may be the issue with what kind of person you are, and what you do with that. Perhaps you are simply young and idealistic, or perhaps your job is not particularly political, or maybe you are just one of those genuinely lucky people who surrounded himself with other good people. If any of those are the case then I am genuinely happy for you. You should hang on to that, because there are few people like that in the world. Perhaps if there were more then we would not be having such a discussion.
Unfortunately the rest of us simply do not have the luxury of treating people in such a fashion. The world that we live in is much more brutal, and much less forgiving of even the smallest mistakes. These are lessons that we had to learn through experience. Time, and again. The solution to this is certainly not to sulk on the sidelines. That accomplishes nothing. At the same time hope and compassion will often leave you without the tools to get out of a horrible situation. This is why the best I can offer to most is cold awareness. I will trust people only as much as I feel they have shown themselves to be trustworthy, and the same applies to any other entity.
I understand now there is quite literally nothing I could say to change your opinion on this matter. It is at the very core of who you are. The only way I could see this changing it through some event so horrible that I would not wish it upon anyone. At least it's good to know that it's a person like you doing biophysics, and not someone with a gigantic chip on his shoulder.
At least I would like you to understand that there are other very rational, and very intelligent people that are simply having to deal with issues you have genuinely never had to address. A lot of those issues are dependent of very complex details of fields well outside your area of expertise. These details are the reasons why the approaches you are proposing would not work. Often times ideals like yours have already been tried, and were found to be very wanting given the context they were thrust into. I'll grant that yours is a good ideal to strive towards, but as always things look a lot easier when you're already at the destination. Don't sell short the sheer amount of work society needs to do before views like yours could be the norm.
|
Sure, but I disagree that this is God "hiding," in that I think such a conception of God is incorrect to begin with. It focuses to closely on the "bigness" of God as an inter-dimensional miracle machine. I am more interested in the "smallness" of God as he functions in the life of an individual.
As such it doesn't bother me in the slightest if such a study came back entirely inconclusive. But you are correct in that this poses a serious problem to Americas more evangelical christians who are highly concerned with having a big god.
But sadly I doubt such a study would actually change anyones view, as prayer is considered very mystical in its results. Most would likely retreat into such a view, and if they were pressed it would only polarize society more, which doesn't seem terribly helpful to anyone.
|
If you were indeed parked on the roadway itself, this would not hold. Traffic laws would generally require a person driving away after parking to yield to all others, but I can't find a rule to that effect here. Maybe someone else can point it out if it's there.
As for the truck being parked, I agree with /u/KillerPotato_BMW that you'll have a hard time getting people to believe that story.
|
I really don't care to argue with you, but my words:
> Maybe he's busy fixing things that are actually his problem.
are likely on spot. No dig was intended. The guy is probably busy with things he's obligated to attend to. You haven't said what your lease states about your washer, but unless it says it's his job to fix it, it's probably low on his list to answer your call about it.
|
>In addition, a disproportionate number of 4chan users are NEETs who have never had a job, a degree and a significant other so they cannot offer good advice related to work, college and dating due to their limited life experience.
>Reddit also has a lot of subreddits whereas 4chan has a limited number of boards. If you are looking for advice related to something specific (eg. the job market for accontants in Finland), it is better to ask in a Reddit subreddit where a lot of its subscribers are familiar with the topic.
What about advice about neet lifestyle or how to become a misogynistic shitlord ? Wouldn't 4chan be more competent on those subjects ?
|
>It's never directly happened, in that I've never actually made a move on a girl. I don't interact with them a lot but when I do it's fine. I think only one time a girl made comment on height and she was a friend. The thing is I'm not one of those 'nice' guys either I don't do nice things for people and think I'm owed something back. But the reason I'd never try to engage a girl is because I already have low confidence so if I did get rejected because of height it'd crush what little confidence I did have
The low self-confidence is going to make it hard to ask people out no matter what, so the first thing to do is work on that. But more to the point: unless the girl says, "No, you're too short for me," you won't know why she rejected you. Sure, it might be because of your height, but it also might be because of your face, or your hair, or your clothes, or the way you asked, or the fact that she's just not interested and doesn't need a reason not to be into you. Low self esteem is likely to make you feel like it's due to your height, but she just might not be into you, and that's a bummer, but it's okay.
>I went to a councillor a year ago, it lasted to 7 months maybe. It's funny, back then I said I didn't really worry about my height. Back then my worry was losing my hair and that still is a big worry but I'm going to take medication to put it under control. I think going to a therapist or psychiatrist would be beneficial because I also suffer from clinical depression which is partly caused by me body image.
Yeah, dude, back to therapy. I also deal with depression, and while it doesn't tend to affect my body image, it can do some serious damage on other parts of my life when I'm not in therapy. Go back.
>Not really attracted to a skinny supermodel types. I mainly go on the face if they have a cute face I'm fine. I wouldn't care if they had small boobs or assess I mean I guess it's positive but not a necessity but I feel like height is treated more like a necessity rather than something along the lines of 'it'd be nice if he was tall but it's still fine'
You're pretty much proving my point. Think of all the girls who worry they'll never get a date because they're not skinny supermodels, when you're not even into skinny supermodels in the first place. And yes, height for most people is absolutely one of those "it'd be nice" kind of qualities. Like, height is good. But better a short guy who's funny and handsome than a tall guy who's just fine, by a mile.
|
Write down a list of the things that you think are worthwhile to accomplish.
Write down a list of things that you like doing.
If any of those things overlap, then you know what to do. If they don't overlap then try to figure out if any of the things you think are worthwhile include any of the things you like doing.
A beneficial habit would be to make some goals for yourself including short term for each day, and long term.
You could also try volunteering for a non-profit so even if you can't figure out what you want to do with your life, you could would be helping someone else accomplish a goal that they found worthwhile enough to create a whole organization.
|
I'm talking about recognizing something with one person. For instance if a person spends most of their time and effort playing video games but also happens to volunteer at a homeless shelter I would think they'd rather be recognized for what they spent the most time and effort on.
In this particular case I think that if a person happens to be well read and attractive they should rather be complimented on the effort it takes to look good than the effort it takes to get educated. Specifically regarding high school education in particular since you have no control over whether or not you went to a good school or one of the schools that just tries to get you literate with basic math skills and usually fails.
|
Because champagne and caviar is nothing to do with chicken or eggs which are both cheap forms of protein.
There is no reason why a person on food stamps shouldn't be able to buy those.
Your Champagne and caviar comment has nothing, and I mean zero, to do with a person being able to buy chicken or eggs.
And you can't even buy booze on food stamps anyway.
|
As an American I think you are whining about a figurehead with little to no power who willingly donates far more money while being Queen than it costs to support her or than you would get if you were to abolish the position then tax them like normal people. Because then they would have no reason to willingly donate their profits from the lands.
You just sound like whiners.
|
So, people celebrate holidays very differently, be it from country to country, from town to town, from continent to continent or from family to family, different traditions come up and stay and some of them would seem rather weird to other people while they're standard for you.
I'm gonna throw in one of mine as a start: so, in Germany we have a holiday called "Herrentag" which would translate to Gentlemen's Day or just Men's Day. Sometimes also referred to as Father's Day, but especially in the part of Germany where I live, it's a general day for all men to celebrate. We also have a Women's Day, but that's a different story. So, on this holiday, which is always on a Thursday with Friday being a bridge day, most people just party and get drunk. Now, for me and my mates, that isn't special and blokey enough, so what we do is we take my lawn mower (or lawn tractor, which seems like a more fitting word) attach a trailer, that is specifically for lawn mowers, to it (we also made seats, obviously) and tour around the village and the countryside around with it while getting drunk. Tremendous fun. It's also neither illegal or dangerous driving a lawn mower when you're drunk. Seeing as it doesn't go very fast, (it surprisingly enough doesn't slow down dragging half a metric ton of weight behind it) and there's no one around anyway as we take the sort of "back roads" that aren't traveled very often. After we do that, we go camping at the lake in my village where sometimes some other people are there which sometimes join us at the campfire.
So, let's hear your traditions.
|
I started about 6 years ago or so. I was always involved in some kind of sport and before triathlon I had done judo for a long time, but eventually got tired of it. When I quit, my parents forced me, thankfully, to choose another physical activity since standing around is no good. Triathlon was on the table and I ended up going for it, since my mom had also been a triathlete when the sport had just reached our country several years ago.
The passion came from doing things I never thought I'd be able to do, in all the segments, swimming, cycling and running. Seeing my own body as a well oiled machine capable of almost anything was just fantastic, so I kept reaching farther and farther until I felt nearly invincible (mind you, I was never a superstar, but adjusted for my reality, I did rather nicely).
|
> how come different cultures have different consciousness and behavior,
Culture.
>this sounds as if you are advocating objective morallity
If you define objective as "common to all humans", then yes, there *are* some objective morals laid into our brains by biology. Like "Try not to kill members of your kin-group", fairness, etc.
But those aren't "objective" as in "a property of the universe" or anything like that. They're just baked into human brains.
|
Avoiding lethal stimuli is more "avoid that scary thing" (the animal is clueless as to *why* that object/situation/thing is scary, it only knows that it *is* scary) than it is "try not to die", and "try to live" posits living as an end in itself.
To have living as a goal, you must have the conceptual apparratus to know what "life" is. It seems unreasonable to suppose most animals are cognitively endowed to that extent.
|
I observe what gender they are displaying, not what sex they are. What sex they are does not matter unless I have giving them specific medications or having sexual relations with them. In those situations sex is known (or should be). Having a dna check to enter a bathroom, or to scan people when we meet is invasive and not acceptable. The technology also does not exist.
|
Resent away, merely giving credit is not sufficient to not violate copyright. Its the custom but really means nothing. Legally you are not to use someones work without permission with a few exceptions. If you are not meeting the exception (and I have no idea) you would be violating the law/a thief regardless of the effort you put in to try to abide by the law.
|
>I have been debating the idea that historically, stable regimes tend to last 200-300 years before revolutions/major regime shifts occur, and that at this point a government like the US seem as though they are heading towards collapse and maybe that is indicative of this trend.
**Whoa there, <PERSON>**. Trying to predict the stability of a modern democracy from the stability of absolute monarchies from the last few thousand years of recorded human history is ... well, I think you're trying to point what is otherwise an interesting question in the direction of a very, very shaky conclusion.
The biggest problem with your premise is that modern democracies are literally *designed* to be less "stable" than the pure monarchies of the past; it's a feature, not a bug. Taking the U.S. as an example, it undergoes "regime change" in the executive branch every 4-8 years, as presidents are restricted to two four-year terms at most. For the two legislative bodies, a member of the House of Representatives could be in office for as little as two years: a Senator, six. Supreme Court justice are in office from the time of their appointment to either retirement or death. As they're appointed and confirmed in their early to mid-50s on average, that usually means they're in office for 20-30 years. If you want to generalize across the three branches, a U.S. president is in office for a short time, a U.S. Supreme Court justice is in office for a long time, and a legislator's term is usually somewhere between the two, but ultimately subject to voter discretion. As a result, the U.S. government changes constantly.
So that, right there, makes it extremely difficult to compare a modern democracy to past monarchies or dictatorships, simply because modern democratic governments "collapse" all the time. They are *designed* to "collapse" in order to prevent the problems generated by absolute monarchies and dictatorships -- namely, that the quality of the government that resulted wasn't one over which the public had any control. That didn't usually make for good government. (Exceptions existed -- you can make a case for such 20th century examples as <PERSON> in South Korea -- but they were not common.)
If I might ask, why are you arguing that the U.S. government is headed for a more traditional collapse?
|
>I would explain to you but
***you fucking can't, because it didn't fucking happen.*** <PERSON> didn't return in 1914. If that was a prophecy, then it's a *failed prophecy*. I repeat, ***it didn't fucking happen***. I don't know how the hell you can hope to defend this. It has jack shit to do with my "mental capability" and everything to do with your *refusal* to admit the plain facts.
>But did they claim to have seen visions? NO ... so you are wrong ...
Nope. When you claim to have a *new interpretation* of a 1600-year-old holy book that has no basis in fact, that's what you call a revelation. It doesn't *matter* what they called it - they believed they'd discovered a new bit of hidden knowledge buried in the Bible. Seeing how the Bible explicitly says that the thing they were claiming to predict *could not be known by anyone - even by <PERSON>* - the only way they'd be convinced they were right about it is if they felt they had been guided by God himself to find it.
>You are asserting that anything contrary to popular opinion would have to be visionary which I don't think you even believe.
I'm asserting that they *believed* they had a revelation. Otherwise, they wouldn't be convinced that they could "know about that day or the hour" when the Bible says "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." If you actually believe what the book says, then the only way you can be convinced you know is if you think you've been given a revelation. If you're actually just stuck on the word 'revelation', fine - call it an epiphany. The word isn't important. The simple fact is that these men thought they'd discovered some hidden secret about the Bible and invented new doctrine on the basis of it.
|
Yes. You hit it on the head. I saw it in the theater when it first came out and was blown away. As soon as it came out on video, I bought it and when I watched it the second time I noticed a lot of things that I missed the first time around because of the way <PERSON> messed with the timeline.
I could see how it might seem unimpressive now because since then a million different movies have copied some of the things that made Pulp Fiction such a hit.
The other brilliant thing he does with his movies is the sound track. Pulp Fiction is full of unknown songs by fairly popular artists.
|
I ran a website in the early 00s and back then we signed up with advertisers individually. They would have someone look at our site and choose the banners they thought would be appropriate and then they emailed us the code to include on the site. The code would link to an image on their server, not some 3rd party ad farm. If they wanted a new banner, they changed the image. They tracked views and clicks and sent us $.
Then a lot of advertisers stopped wanting to spend time on this and hired 3rd parties to manage their ads and we got the mess we have now. I think we need to go back to image banners.
|
> sue me
Too much of an effort, but I really recommend automatic spell checking.
It's easy, available and free: the effort required is very low.
If you don't take that effort, that's what you can expect from your audience in dealing with your content.
So while I can understand the appeal of the attitude you showed, I do think it would be win-win if you'd spent a couple of seconds to better present what you made in a couple of minutes.
|
As I have said: knowing every detail and action involved in acquiring and eating chips will not stop me from enjoying it.
So I guess the question you need to answer is: why does it make sense in my case to still want and go after the chips, but for some reason if it's more than just chips, it doesn't make sense anymore.
My point is that knowing everything about a thing does not stop you from enjoying it.
I am fully aware that my example is small in stupid. But it still illustrates the point. So it's up to you to explain why it works in my case, but not in the case of a God.
Saying that my example is small doesn't help. Why does that matter?
What if my example was a dad knowing every detail of what raising a song would be like in advance? He may still want to do it.
|
Not that a human bartender should need them either, ideally. Y'know, paying people a decent living wage and all that.
Edit: I'm guessing that some of you are mistaking me. I'm not saying you don't need to tip your Bartender in America - You absolutely do, because they rely on your tips to be able to put a roof over their head and food in their belly.
I'm saying that you should pay them a living wage independent of the tips they receive, so that they're not reliant on your gratuity to be able to live, and the tip one again becomes what it should be - a reward for exemplary service, rather than an expected 15% extra charge on your food bill, where the service quality comes from the threat of removal or reduction rather than the bonus, or an extra buck or two per drink(plus your bigger opening tip, if you know what you're doing.)
Remember - how you treat people in the service industry says a lot about you as a person, and as a nation. And right now, it's not saying good things.
|
Because keeping an eye on your drink doesn't affect your expression of your identity, whereas being told not to wear certain clothes, or not to display 'girly' accessories, does. It's like responding to someone who's experienced homophobia by telling them to just stay in the closet. Sure, they'd be harassed less often - but they'd also be hiding part of themselves and conforming in order to do so. Similarly, carrying mace or a rape alarm is something that allows you to protect yourself more easily without changing the way you present yourself every day of your life.
I'm not saying that women aren't more likely to be harassed if they dress in a certain way - I've noticed that I only ever get catcalled when my legs are on show, for example - but telling someone to just never dress in a way that's comfortable for them, or to never use accessories that might advertise the fact that they're female, shouldn't be the way to deal with that problem.
|
In my opinion, the <PERSON> campaign seems to be at least partially conducting itself in a sarcastic manner - while they are not presidential, many of <PERSON>'s antics and remarks are funny in the context of what a comic politician would say. Even if he is taking himself at least partially, many of his supporters online are trolls; 4chan, notorious for the large amount of people who say shocking Nazi-like stuff on /pol/ and /int/ in particular, has been a major online source of support for the <PERSON> campaign, and at least one 4chan video (in the "Can't Stump the Trump" series) has been tweeted by the <PERSON> himself, as have several memes. <PERSON>'s first attack ad is [glorified YouTube poop](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMZqS7q7voY).
TL;DR - Even if he's being serious, <PERSON>'s supporters include a high percentage of trolls and must be taken with a healthy dose of <PERSON>'s law.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*
|
I still have a lot of the writing I've done since I was a little kid (the earliest verifiable piece of writing I have is from when I was ~8 about a biography of my future self, the world's benevolent dictator). A lot times it is cringey, even stuff from a few months, heck, a few weeks or days ago. But sometimes I see the hidden gems, and that keeps my spirits up.
|
Your username told me 1 was a truth. Number 3 (out of the ones remaining) was not as believable.
Mine is really hard. No one has guessed it right before!
I once went to a summer camp and we were going to have a campfire and make SMores. It took us a while to get the fire going but, once we got it going, it started raining and our fire was out. Everyone was soaking wet and a thunderstorm started.
I helped someone get into their dream college but they were unable to attend it, unfortunately!
I have a giant T Rex fossil on my desk and it is my favorite dinosaur. Also, it was a gift from my aunt!
|
Would you feel better if the cousin stayed in the room with her? I have a similar living situation but I'm the roommate. 2 roommates in the other room and they're a couple with a dog and I'm single in the other room (fairly small 2 bedroom).
I would DEFINITELY NOT want someone living in the living room because I wouldn't want to see them all the time and I'd just start to be uncomfortable in my own house and not want to come out.
But, I didn't really mind when my roommate moved her gf in (her gf is not on the lease) because she stays in the room so I don't have to see her every day I come home. And I'm used to it now.
That being said, would you feel more comfortable if the cousin moved into the room because you could say that you agree IF your roommate can put the cousin in their room. Then, the hope would be that the cousin would REFUSE to do that and then you could be like "oh well, I compromised but it's you that isn't willing to do it now" and put it on your roommate that he won't move out.
But I'm more straight forward and don't beat around the bush. I'd be more straight up and say "no I'm not okay with that and I'm not letting it happen. If you have any issues with what I do, you can let me know and we can work through them. But you having issues with what I do is not an excuse to give me something to have an issue with by bringing your cousin in here."
|
Key point, especially since gallons were brought up, the US does not and never has used the imperial system. That was codified after our independence. We use the US Customary system which is slightly different than the British imperial system. The US gallons was derived from the English wine gallon whereas the imperial gallon was based of the English ale gallon. The imperial gallon is about 700 mL larger.
|
Well did actually request the loan but didn't register for school in time. He should have been on top of it to make sure the loan didn't go through instead of assuming that the school would take care of everything for him. Basically, he got a $10,000 private loan to be paid to the school. Yes, the school should not have accepted it but he still took out the money.
|
I wouldn't say that :)
I don't even think this is such a huge problem that happens with every parent, I just said that I've never experienced it in real life (or heard anyone talking about it), while I've seen it mentioned on Reddit more than once and lots of people had similar stories to share.
|
That's certainly true, but without context I felt like your comment gave a wrong impression of what happened. The Romans called almost everyone a barbarian, after all.
We often think Romans were the first to bring civilization to northern and central Europe and forget that especially the Celts had a pretty sophisticated civilization of their own. No hard feelings :)
|
I will take this question at face value.
President <PERSON> will not resign and nor should he. Let’s flip this situation. You happen to be the president of the United States. You say and or do something that offends me. Should you resign?
Red or blue congress or senate will not result in an impeachment either. The reason being? At least a few of them have something called critical thinking instead of critical opinions. People with critical thinking understand that in three to seven years there might be a democratic president. Do you really want being offended to be an impeachable event?
|
People can’t agree on the beginning of the decline of the Ottoman Empire partly because the decline was not linear. There were periods of decline and periods of resurgence. The definitions of “decline” and “begin” might also be different for different people. Finally, perspective matters. The “beginning of the decline” of the Ottoman Empire might look different from Persia or Russia, or Egypt, or Austria, or Rome, or Portugal, or Constantinople.
I suggest that one possible “beginning” of the relative decline of the Ottoman Empire might have been when they (together with allies) lost the naval battle of Diu to the Portuguese, in 1509, and failed to regain control of the Indian Ocean.
This allowed the Portuguese to set up an alternative trade route (by sea around the Cape of Good Hope) between Europe and the East, which bypassed the routes controlled by the Ottomans. This deprived the Ottomans of a source of income and wealth, and increased the wealth of the Europeans (through profits made by the Portuguese and later others, and because Eastern goods became cheaper in Europe, and less wealth flowed out of Europe towards obtaining them). This might be seen as the start of a long shift in relative wealth and power, which led eventually to the decline and downfall of the Ottoman Empire.
Since <PERSON> arrived in the Indian Ocean in 1498, the Portuguese had been fighting Calicut and allying with the Kingdom of Cochin, to establish a spice trade back to Europe around the Cape of Good Hope and undercut the old trade routes through the Mediterranean which were controlled by Mamluk Egypt, the Ottoman Empire, and the Venetians.
In 1507, the Ottomans sent disassembled galleys to Egypt, which were reassembled on the red sea coast. These Turkish galleys, together with Mamluk vessels ventured into the Indian Ocean and surprised a small Portuguese fleet at Chaul in 1508. They captured one of the Portuguese ships and killed the Portuguese commander, <PERSON>. The rest of the Portuguese ships escaped.
The Muslim fleet then sailed to the port of Diu.
The Portuguese viceroy in the Indian Ocean was <PERSON>, father of the commander who had been killed at Chaul. He was determined to defeat the Muslim fleet, both for strategic reasons, but also for revenge. He sent the Muslim fleet a message saying that he was going to revenge himself on them, and that if they did not fight he would take the City of Diu.
Such was <PERSON>’s thirst for revenge that he threw his replacement as Portuguese Viceroy in the Indian Ocean into jail so he could not interfere with or take command of <PERSON>’s naval war.
The combined fleet of the Mamluks, the Ottomans, the Sultan of Gujarat and <PERSON> Calicut, amounted to 12 major ships (6 carracks and 6 galleys) and over 80 smaller local dhows.
<PERSON> assembled 5 large ‘naus’, four smaller ‘naus’, four ‘caravelas redondas’, two ‘caravelas’, two galleys and one ‘bergantim’, and sailed these 18 ships to Diu.
The Muslim fleet decided not to come out to attack the Portuguese, but to defend the harbor of Diu, protected by the cannon of the harbor forts.
<PERSON> sailed straight in with all guns blazing.
The entire Muslim fleet was destroyed or captured with great losses of sailors and soldiers. The town of Diu was taken.
The strongly built, seaworthy, and powerfully cannon-armed Portuguese ships were the key technology which enabled the Europeans to dominate the Indian Ocean. No other power in the vast area could compete with this technology. No other power proved able to rapidly copy or duplicate this technology.
<PERSON> said, “as long as (we) may be powerful at sea (we) will hold India…If (we) do not possess this power, little will avail a fortress on the shore.”
The Ottomans made several subsequent attempts to reverse the defeat at Diu and re-challenge Portuguese control of the Indian Ocean. In 1538, they sent 54 ships to besiege Diu, but suffered a crushing defeat. In 1547, <PERSON> sent another fleet to attack Diu, but this was also defeated, marking the end of Ottoman attempts to gain control of the Indian Ocean.
http://forum.worldofwarships.eu/index.php?/topic/2462-naval-battle-of-diu-indian-ocean-1509/
http://books.google.com/books?id=Kl3IR3RJTIEC&pg=PA213&lpg=PA213&dq=Portuguese+naval+battles+in+the+Indian+Ocean&source=bl&ots=iCN51Q98ha&sig=JOHw5oRgJGa1O1X99KavhmQwjlc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LEJuU5nMFMeayASs74GQDw&ved=0CFoQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=Portuguese%20naval%20battles%20in%20the%20Indian%20Ocean&f=false
http://historyofislam.com/contents/onset-of-the-colonial-age/the-portuguese-devastations-in-the-indian-ocean/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Diu_(1509)
Of course it was not very obvious at the time that this might have been an inflection point for the Ottoman Empire. It continued to expand and trouble its neighbors for a long time.
After the Battle of Diu, the Ottomans were heavily involved in expanding into Europe. In 1521 they captured Belgrade. In 1522 they conquered Rhodes. In 1526, at the battle of <PERSON>, <PERSON> defeated Hungary and Bohemia. In 1529 The Ottomans besieged (failed) Vienna. In 1533, they conquered Iraq (taking a break from European operations). In 1541 they conquered Budapest. In 1551 they took over Libya.
In 1571, however, the Ottomans lost the great naval battle of Lepanto in the Mediterranean against the forces of Venice, the Pope and the <PERSON>. Although it would not be readily apparent for another 100 years, this is often seen as the beginning of the decline of the Ottoman Empire.
It might be possible to assert that the beginning of the decline was even earlier in 1509, when the Ottomans lost the battle of Diu and could not regain control of the Indian Ocean from the Portuguese. This gradually reduced Ottoman wealth from controlling the spice trade, and increased Western European wealth.
|
Healthcare can't function as a true free market because the consumer doesn't have the option to back out of the transaction. Everyone will need healthcare at some point.
As for why it has to be the government? Well, I guess it doesn't. It could be non-profit private entities instead, but the key is A) to remove the for-profit middleman, and B) to simplify administration, which is enormously expensive in the current American system.
As for the question of why there needs to be a middle man at all, it's mostly because all individuals couldn't afford to pay for healthcare out of pocket, even if the costs were drastically reduced. If the goal is universal healthcare, then there has to be a middleman that pays the bills to ensure that A) everyone has access to care, and B) that the providers get paid consistently.
|
No, race is arbitrary. There's no biological or physiological evidence for "racial" distinctions. People have different genetics, sure, but the concept of distinct "races" is a stupid myth.
A better analogy would be like having everyone stop talk about WWII. If you just put a bunch of newborns on a new planet, it would work, but anything short of that would be futile. Not only was our culture, politics, and society shaped by WWII, but the physical architecture of our world was changed. So simply ignoring the fact that WWII happened might seem like it would solve the problem, but it is impossible to eliminate an element of our society like that.
|
If proven true, it would mean that reincarnation becomes a phenomenon that one can study. If done trough the memory of past lives, studies will be launched to try to trigger those memories, understand the mechanism through which they are transmitted, and so on.
Your 1., 2. and 3. are not mutually exclusive. 1. is a scientifical explanation (and not the only one), 2. and 3. are philosophical interpretation of the phenomenon.
Today, one could suggest that genetics is a spiritual mechanism with some greater purpose, but this is also a biological mechanism.
|
I believe that the answer to most (if not all) the big questions that religions claim to answer is 'I don't know (but let's find out).'
In this case, I don't believe either in Christianity or heaven or hell or salvation, but I like an ideology to be internally consistent. And the concept of a just God does not seem consistent with the idea that different people get different amounts of time to determine their fate for all eternity, hence my question.
|
This has nothing to do with the sale of actual drugs. The samples you were giving away didn't cost you money out of your personal pocket, the samples could not be sold for hundreds of dollars for a small amount, you were not trying to get people physically addicted. Also there is no built-in demand that is the same anywhere in the world, you were dealing with substances people didn't even know about so they needed to be introduced to them through your samples. My point is we are talking about completely different things.
|
Again, you completely missed the point. I am not saying they want to ban all guns but that they don't want to further the pro-gun agenda. Moving only in one direction makes them liberal, not moderate. You are arguing they will only go so far, that is irrelevant to my point.
Also assault weapons don't exist. It is a made up term which is constantly redefined.
|
My brother's and my names sounded alike when heard from a muffled yell behind walls. We both came, it wasn't a big deal. I'm sure if it becomes a constant issue smart people can figure out a way to fix it by adding the middle name or initials or something. It's not big enough of a deal to make someone rethink a name they really like.
|
Was there an error in the paperwork like someone left off a zero, or your trade in was added twice, or something like a number was subtracted from the price instead of added? If there was the dealership may have a valid reason to correct their error. If they just decided to sell you a car for a certain price and changed their mind later, the contract is what you follow.
|
Why did they suspend you account? Did you violate their TOS? If so, it would not necessarily get you out of the contract. You'd really have to look at the TOS to see how things are handled.
> I get that it's in their TOS, but I'm fairly certain they could put anything in their TOS and that fact alone doesn't make it legally binding (that certainly wasn't there when I signed on with them years ago).
A TOS is legally binding. You are bound by the terms you originally agreed to, but many TOS have provisions that allow them to update it over time.
|
This is why verbal agreements suck and you shouldn't sign anything that you don't agree to.
> it would be fine to park all 3 of our cars **by** the apartment.
> the only other spots we can use are not **close.**
What does by mean? What is close? Who knows. Perhaps a block over is "by" in their minds. Perhpas that isn't close enough for your purposes. How can a 3rd party figure out what was mean't by these ambiguous terms? In your case, easy, we look to what you signed saying 1 car per apartment.
What you need to do is send a letter stating your understanding of the agreement and ask them to either agree or to clarify. If they disagree, ask to break the lease cause you were not in agreement of a material important term to you. That way if you decide to leave and they sue you for breach you have some evidence that you weren't in wrong. Will it work? Depends on judge, as it is now you can't force them to give you a spot that you didn't agree to and by your statement its impossible to tell that they are even in breach of the verbal agreement.
|
Goofed? I've had things downvoted that were just me posting citations for something. It's more obvious that the downvote system on reddit is rather broken. That or the rules need to be changed to say "downvotes mean you disagree" rather than the currently ignored "this does not add to the conversation".
|
We don't know what lead to that decision. If it's a variable fine, that they just decided to set at 2000, OP could well try to argue it down and it'd be up to the judge to decide. I never argue with police officers beyond an initial "where do we stand on this". I also let them know, if we different of opinion, that I'll let a judge decide.
|
That doesn't make sense. It's supposed to be universal healthcare. They should've planned for *everyone* to sign up... Besides, I don't think the government would've known who planned to sign up and who didn't, like you seem to be saying. You're making it out to be like the gov was ordering pizza for a party of 20 people, but only ten want some so that's how much they order, then when it gets there all 20 try to take a piece and there's not even enough for those who wanted it first. Unless you made some mistake in how you presented it, which I would understand, that is kind of ridiculous.
|
They already hadn't gotten a tip, so even if it's a surefire way to not get a tip, they're just back at square 1. Then there's the fact that a lot of people avoid awkwardness and don't stand up for themselves, so telling someone your expectations that they give is actually a really good way to get a tip in that situation. You could argue it's a good way to hurt the business - could stop someone from coming back. Well, I'll just say you're right. If that is *just* an employee it's still a good idea IMO since he might not care about the 5 month trajectory of the food place he works at packing food and servicing tables. If it's someone with ownership in the company, well, I'll just say the behavior is no good unless they got the goods to demand the shoulds, like the best X in town.
|
Death stats are inherently skewed due to the fact that we can save more people today than they could in Vietnam, and wounded stats are also bad representations due to the fact that technologies have mean that soldiers are better protected from threats that would have resulted in injuries in Vietnam.
A limb being blown off now is not nearly as risky as it was in Vietnam, there is a better chance of getting to hospital and being saved. The soldiers in Vietnam lacked body armour that can protect like today's, it was minimal protection at best. Soldiers today can also better sweep for IEDs than soldiers in Vietnam.
Afghanistan and Iraq have their own challenges absent from Vietnam, just as many aspects of Vietnam are missing from the Middle East. Comparing them directly is pointless as they are not the same at all. There isn't any Agent Orange, but that child who is waving at you from the side of the street has a very high risk of having a bomb strapped to his chest and someone just clicking call on a phone from a safe distance...
EDIT: Also forgot to mention, the soldiers in Vietnam were largely conscripted which isn't the case in Iraq/Afghanistan. This will massively blow out a comparison, they are better trained and professional soldiers, not 18/19 year olds shitting themselves in something they didn't want to be part of, they are less likely to make silly mistakes that cost them their lives. It also means that many of the soldiers in the Middle East have been on more than one tour, which builds experience, which increases your chances of learning what to do and what not to do, rather than 12 month cycle in and cycle out. The units do build ups before they leave, they don't just get a new guy dropped in who has no clue what he is doing.
Essentially we're smarter about it now, that's the difference.
|
The decision to serve and the conflicts that the United States are engaged in are morally independent.
I joined because I believe the United States and its ideals to be generally good, and that in serving I will be able to accomplish good in the world.
I may be sent to fight in a conflict that I disagree with, but a good man in a shitty situation can still do good. I have no say in why I am sent somewhere, but I do have a say in how my particular section of the war is conducted.
If I am given an order that is illegal or immoral I am legally and ethically obligated to disobey it. Granted, the immorality and illegality of the order must be plainly apparent. For example, the order "Torture this guy" would be plainly illegal, whereas "Battery Alpha, fire on Target 001" would not be. I am likewise neither equipped nor obligated to evaluate the legality of the general casus belli beyond the most cursory of evaluations.
A few other critiques:
Combat is no longer as simple as "kill this guy". A patrol could be observed by someone setting up an ambush, know this guy was recording their movements for setting up an ambush, and be unable to fire on him because the rules of engagement do not permit it, because there is the *tiniest* chance that the guy with the binoculars, map, and cell phone is just doing...something other than directing an ambush. Few invading forces care about preventing civilian casualties as much as the modern American military.
Is the hatred of Muslims more due to American military involvement in the Middle East, or might it have more to do with the acts of violent Islamic extremists across the world?
How is general unrest in the world in the interest of the United States? As an economic hegemon, doesn't it make more sense to try and ensure stability?
How do you know when a "just war" will pop up? Would you rather create an army of hastily trained draftees or have a standing army of trained professionals?
I would argue that an apathetic public is more to blame for electing representatives who tolerate unnecessary wars than the instrument of warfare. When someone decides to go get a DUI, you don't blame the car or the alcohol, you blame the idiot who decided to get plastered and go for a drive. I am assuming, of course, that you think it is appropriate that the world's sole remaining superpower maintain a military force.
|
My ex's little brother was similar to this. He was 13 to 14 at the time, and would masturbate everywhere. Under the blanket on the couch, infront of the computer in the living room, dining room, backyard etc. It was odd and his parents were concerned. He would look up hardcore "tiny teen gets fucked hard" hardcore rough sex porn. His parents out him into therapy and he's been slowly getting better. He said he would feel very guilty about it but just couldn't stop himself. Now instead if masturbating whenever his dicks hard he moves to the bathroom, pretends like he's showering and then masturbates. He will be in there for hours sometimes. Entire days, only coming out to eat dinner then going back in. It's not great, but it's better than before. Does your bfs little brother feel guilty about it at all? What does he have to say when confronted about this odd behavior ?
|
Back when Myspace was still a thing, before Facebook or before it was popular my friend decided to post on my Myspace account I left logged in. I got a text from my friend telling me I should check Myspace..... It said somthing stupid like "I like cock or I'm gay." Ok you're fair game. Your e-mail is still saved on my pc so I got that. I know your birthday, and zip code. He was downstairs hanging out with my brother while I was on my pc his security questions were pretty simple to get when I walked down stairs and simply asked him the answers. He was dumb enough to give them not knowing the reason behind it. So now I have his e-mail password from Yahoo. I send a lost password request from Myspace. His background changed to pink and purple. My friend had made a picture of him with a giant cock on it squirting out white paint from MSpaint to look like cum. He changed from straight to gay. It was actually pretty hilarious. He laughed his ass off said "you got me good you fucker" and changed it back.
TL;DR: Friend used my logged in Myspace to post "I'm gay" or something stupid like that. I used his e-mail to crack his Myspace and changed almost everything on it.
|
Well, now you are making me look things up. I am not sure I follow exactly.
But according to wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Relations_Area_Files
>The Human Relations Area Files, Inc. (HRAF), located in New Haven, Connecticut is a nonprofit international membership organization with over 300 member institutions in the U.S. and more than 20 other countries. A financially autonomous research agency based at Yale University since 1949
Which I interpret as they finically independent from yale. And likely receive their money from paying insitutions.
But reading more, it looks like they are just housed located in new haven:
>On February 26, 1949, delegates from Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Oklahoma, the University of Washington, and Yale University met in New Haven, Connecticut to pledge their membership in a new nonprofit research consortium to be based at Yale
|
Your choice.
1. Be extremely rich and famous. Able to get what you want and to get away with a number of crimes. And be the subject of a few jokes
2. Live paycheck to paycheck. Get arrested. And not be made fun of. Well other than by the guy who shares your jail cell.
>So, because he's famous we get to put aside our humanity and mock him in a way we would never treat a "normal" person? Why is it wrong in one case and right in the other?
uh, yes. That is what happens to famous people. It is much like being photographed by the paparazzi. It is much like being unable to go the store without being surrounded by fans.
And before you think of yourself as a better person for being offended that <PERSON> has a few jokes told about him remember this. He has had jokes made about it from the very beginning. Also, ask yourself are you offended at all jokes that make fun of someone? Do you feel that it is wrong to make jokes about <PERSON>, <PERSON>, <PERSON>, <PERSON>, <PERSON>, and every other celebrity?
If so, what do you find funny? What sitcom do you like? What bit from /standupshots do you laugh at? Know that 90% of humor will offend someone somewhere including the jokes you find funny
|
I would find that rather compelling unless I had reason to suspect they mistook our transmission for god.
We have only been transmitting for 100 years. I suppose it is unreasonable to presume with light travel time of our signals, that the aliens could have captured translated, believed and flew here before we could leave.
|
Welfare keeps the poor down and in the long term subsidises the existence of poverty. It creates a dependant class that is still poor and inclined to crime.
You may disagree and think it is a good thing. So you get to act on your belief and fund you welfare state. What happens if I try to act on my belief? So where is the freedom of conscience?
|
> If an infallible conscience were to exist, would it be wrong for us to judge decision X made by said deity?
If someone claims something like 'the problem of evil doesn't work because my god is infallible', then they have an obligation to show that their god is actually infallible. Otherwise it's just more ad hoc rationalization.
> Also, does a creator get to do whatever it pleases with its creation?
I consider biological parents the creators of children, but I don't think it would be moral to let any possible parent do whatever it pleases with its children. I see no reason to hold a creator god to a lower standard than I hold people.
|
> I'd say that preventing an existence without asking for the opinion of the person who's existence you are preventing IS wrong.
You're saying that it's possible to wrong someone who will never exist? Also, your argument applies to every possible potential person, which would entail an obligation to produce as many of them as is physically possible. Refraining from having sex (most of the time) causes a potential person not to exist who would have had you not refrained, but clearly we aren't shedding any tears over our failure to actualize all the future persons. It's just really impossible to formulate any defense of people who will never exist being wronged, because it always creates absurdities like this.
|
I'm not sure if the fact that cooking objectively changes the substance matters. I think what matters is the taste, or the culinary experience, if you will. For example, steak snobs are against the use of strong sauces, which in their mind seems to have an association with well-done steaks. They don't like strong sauces because it interferes with tasting high quality beef, whether it's cooked well-done or rare, I imagine. (I don't know if in general they advocate no condiments or sauces as you mention. I think the strongest ones though do advocate only pepper and salt.)
As for inarizushi and makizushi, these are closer to gimbap and sushi rolls IMO, as I've mentioned. But speaking as a sushi snob, you'll notice that none of the above except for the "Western" sushi roll actually uses raw fish. That makes sense. Inarizushi is very sweet, makizushi contains a lot of vegetables, pickles, and egg, and gimbap is similar to that. There's no "reason" to use good sushi fish in these rolls. The culinary experience of sushi rolls is similar to that - a variety of flavors that gets help from vegetables and sauces. Just like the guy who argued that you should eat a "cheap london broil" instead of a well-done steak, a sushi snob would say that if you go to a decent sushi place, you should eat inarizushi/makizushi/gimbap instead of a sushi roll.
|
I'm not sure why others in this thread think otherwise, but it seems reasonable to me to say that with a sufficient understanding of a system and a definition of self-awareness one could hypothetically determine whether said system is self-aware. We do not have a sufficient understanding of how brains work to have a physical definition for self-awareness yet, and furthermore it is possible that the necessary information to diagnose a system may be nearly impossible to attain without destroying the system or something, but I see no reason why physical law would prevent the determination of whether a system is self-aware. It just might be prohibitively difficult.
To answer your apparent conundrum, I think that if two systems are identical in function and one is self-aware, it is trivially obvious that the other is too.
|
1. If you seriously believe that any amount of rednecks with guns would be any sort of a problem for an organised military, you're kidding yourself. Tyranny would have no problem with armed population. Your 9mm can't do shit to soldiers in a fucking tank.
2. Genocide of what sort? Why would it be an impossibility? Tyranny would actually have some hurdles, but genocide can rely on artillery, so that armed rednecks never even come into contact with opposing forces.
3. Government in US couldn't give two shits about public discontent. Cops do whatever the fuck they want, because they have "such a dangerous job". Public discontent on a scale that happens in Europe is unimaginable in US. Ever. People are far too scared to get shot.
|
> ok here's the problem; you define it as wrong based on the consequences; unreliable info. Does that mean, in a world where torture produced reliable information, it would be right?
Wouldn't say exactly right, but justifiable in certain circumstances. It's like killing in self-defense isn't something that's exactly good. It's just justifiable.
I'd say the difference is that one shouldn't strive towards actions that are merely justifiable. For instance, helping people is good. Intentionally placing yourself in the right position to help somebody carry something is a fine thing to do. On the other hand intentionally placing yourself in the right position to kill in self-defense wouldn't be.
> How about this; I am coming to your house with the intention of torturing you and your family. I have plans, tools and petrol. Is there anything inherently 'wrong' in my intentions, the thoughts in my head?
Thoughts by themselves have no moral value. Though thoughts of that sort certainly indicate you need medication.
> or do they only become 'wrong' when some suffering is initiated?
When the attempt to commit the action is initiated.
> and as <PERSON> below; your definition of wrong is subject to circumstances. If torturing someone was placed against the backdrop of 'torture him or I'll kill 100,000 people", it suddenly becomes 'right', right?
so how can it be wrong "no matter the circumstances"?
It's a good point. Like I say above, it doesn't become good, just justifiable. In this case you'd get dragged to court and have to prove that the threat was real, and that what you did wasn't worse than what you were threatened with (if I understand correctly how duress works in court)
|
Obviously they could hear you, and being able to hear you while you're inside with the windows closed may have worried them even more. I totally understand how embarrassing it is to have the cops show up over an argument, but in defense of your neighbors, they probably just wanted to ease their minds that no one was being physically hurt.
|
You act like you wouldn't be burdening your landlord in any way, but you actually would, because they now have to find a new tenant with absolutely no forewarning. Since many landlords like to do interviews and background checks, or at least meet their tenants before renting to them, you could potentially deprive them of rental income for a while.
|
At the same time the other half of Europe - The Balkans, Hungary, the Byzantines, Poland(?) and I do not know about the European part of Russia, relied a lot on horse archers (typically of cuman,magyar, bulgarian or turkic origin), both more heavily armoured with lamellars and maille, and lighter armoured. By the late XIII-th century some western influence was seen in their equipment (i.e. kettle hats), but they also employed heavy cavalry and infantries...And whithout doubt the mongols also had their influence too...
My knowledge is knot enough to compare the eastern European with their japanese counterparts, though.
|
North of Italy, europe was sparsely populated by small barbarian tribes. Most of them domesticated horses (though, these horses were still almost pony sized, and used more for transport and to pull carts rather than to be rode). They smelted ore, made handmade potery, wore cloaks and tartans held together with brooches, fought local wars or looted mediterrean polises, farmed and bred cattle. Many of them worshipped solar deities (the Sun-god associated with thunder, warfare and horses, later morphed into <PERSON>, Svarog etc), their cultures were patriarchal, clannish and semi-democratic (the position of chief was usually elected not hereditary). Both men and women wore their hair long, men grew moustaches and sometimes beards. Both sexes wore a lot of jewelery (usually copper or bronze). Depending of how far north were talking, the main form of housing was either a palisade walled hut or a pit-house. The main form of weaponry was a spear and a javelin, as well as a round or elipsoid wooden shield and a sword. Axes were rarer, and used mostly as a tool rather than as a weapon: armor, if used at all, was usually made of leather or thick cloth.
Most of Europe cared very little for what was happening in the mediterrean and the middle east, save for the trading posts near the Black Sea, where the barbarians could trade with the civilised East, and the question who conquered whom at least affected their bartering prices.
|
> I understand why a white person who suffered hardship in their life would feel alienated by hearing someone throw around the term "white privilege" - the term asserts there is a privilege in being white.
This is exactly why the term is accurate though. There *is* privileged in being white. Unpacking what exactly that means is complicated. Even if we did choose a different term to mean the same thing, it would be both less accurate, and subject to the same kind criticism that "white privileged" receives. The concept itself will be smeared no matter what because the underlying issue is that people overlook the nuance and attack a straw man of the idea.
|
I've always seen white privilege as a way of reframing the conversation considering the disadvantages faced by people of other races. It's just not a terribly useful one.
White people are already aware of some of the disadvantages that blacks face, but framing the issue in terms of privileges whites do have instead of disadvantages they don't is a perspective that would ideally provide an easier outlet for whites to be sympathetic. For example, a certain white person might not have the faintest idea what it's like to be afraid of the police and can't relate as well when they're told by black people about how stressful it can be. However, they might be able to look at the safety that they do feel around the police and more easily empathize with blacks who don't have that feeling if the conversation is framed around the idea of privileges rather than disadvantages.
In theory, white privilege applies to anyone with white skin, but in practice the net of "white privilege" accusations inevitably ensnares many white people who very may well have those privileges, but for whom those privileges are insignificant in the face of overwhelming disadvantages they face.
Like, the majority of white people might have the comfort of knowing their name can't be made fun of as easily, but it's going to be particularly offensive when some are told to check their privilege when they also happen to be on food stamps, uneducated, and about to be evicted from their home.
Do whites, in general possess certain advantages that blacks don't? Absolutely. But it's just a reframing of the issues surrounding racism which most are already familiar with in an effort to help them better understand the plight of people of color. It's also a spectacularly ineffective concept since it usually results in people just getting offended by either not understanding the concept, or by the person who accused the other of having "white privilege" not articulating what they meant well enough.
Racism is absolutely real and it's difficult to argue that racial issues don't persist today, even if it has gotten better since the advent of civil rights. White privilege is just the other side of that coin, but it seems as if it's almost never useful and even detrimental to bring up.
|
Well it sort of went that way too, but in less time. The first time when it got physical and I got stuff thrown at me and physically not allowed to leave the flat I had to restrain her for long enough for her to promise to let me leave. After that we were done. I got similar messages from my friends too, but somehow you tend to ignore them...
You got away from it eventually, so congrats on that at least.
|
18 years and also without girlfriend experience. I haven't had any chances however, which might be due to me not realizing that being social is probably a good idea.
Oh well. I take solace in the fact that it is statistically probable for me to get a girlfriend at some point. I'm gonna guess the same goes for you so don't feel too bad about it.
|
> the landlord hasn't given us any official notice for it, this was told to us by our property manager and he has no idea when
He cannot evict you without cause. If you pay your rent, follow the conditions of your lease, and obey the law, then he can't evict you.
He can **ask** you to leave early, but he can't force you.
At the end of your lease, he can refuse to renew and you must leave.
BTW, who signs a five-month lease?
|
This is wrong.
First, Workers' Comp is indeed no fault. However, <PERSON>'s brother will not lose the ability to sue the woman.
What will happen is that Workers' Comp will have a *lien* against his recovery from the woman.
In other words, if he collects $50,000 in lost wages and medical bills from Workers' Comp, and then successfully sues the women for $250,000, Workers' Comp will take the first $50,000 from that recovery, in order to be paid back.
|
> Are those people released because they are in danger in prison, or because they were "victimless" crimes, usually? Out of curiosity
They are released because there isn't enough room for them.
>I think that being able to house someone separately should not be a factor in whether or not they should be arrested and punished, personally.
It's a simple matter of space. People in danger of or a danger to other inmates must be put in solitary confinement. A new law being created would require a bunch of new spaces in solitary confinement. You cannot put someone in solitary confinement when there aren't enough spaces, regardless of any injustice. If I have 100 child molesters, and 10 spots in solitary confinement, then I'll have to either let them go without imprisonment(possibly house arrest or something else), or put them in with the general population. If I put them in the general population, they'll get murdered. So it's either give 90 people a death sentence or give 90 people a lesser sentence. You need to choose the lesser of two evils if there's not enough space.
>If this were the case we would never convict child molestors, they're barely even safe in solitary confinement.
We have prepared space for child molesters, and are convicted at a much lower rate than the 4th amendment being violated.
And what do you mean "they're barely even safe in solitary confinement"? They're perfectly safe in solitary confinement. That's what solitary confinement is.
|
Edit: Sorry for not being clear.
* I would like to restrict my argument to individuals carrying weapons.
* I would like to restrict my argument to individuals knowingly being arrested by the police and not mistaking them for intruders.
* I will not restrict my argument to individuals being arrested for legitimate crimes by honest police. Whether an arrest is legitimate or not shouldn't be decided at the time of the arrest. You don't get to make that choice. It's to be determined later in a court of law.
Next to driving drunk and diving with killer whales resisting arrest is one of the stupidest things anyone can ever do. Nothing good comes of it. Consider [this week's minority carrying a gun who resisted arrest for no good reason]. What the fuck did he think was going to happen? If you reach for your gun the cops are going to shoot you. It's that simple.
And rightfully so. Police spend their days running towards danger. It makes sense that they should error on the side of caution. If there's any reason to suspect their lives are in danger, I believe necessary force is justified. Sometimes it's suicide by cop, other times it's just ignorance but either way nothing of value is lost.
I don't have an appreciation for the lives of people who choose to carry weapons and resist the police. Why should I care about them?
_
> *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*
|
Well then, since we can assume you meant to post this in
r/relationships I can give you a little advice. Don't ever purchase cloth for a woman, because you'll NEVER bring home the right color. They don't have purple. They have a million shades of it. Or at least 50. You were doomed from the start. The bitches are never satisfied. Always nagging nagging. Just like my mother. I'm sorry. What was the question?
|
STOP worrying about his ability to earn money. That's his problem. You've already stated that he seems to come from money. This guy is a first-class creep, and everybody around him probably already knows it. Bring down the full weight of the law and the military on him, and maybe there's a slight chance that he'll turn over a new leaf. Doubt it though. Your friend will need the help of every form of authority she can get to force this guy to do the right thing. So stop worrying about him, and drag him before the authorities.
|
Can you give some examples of ones you'd like to look at? The one that first comes to mind is Kemetic Orthodoxy, which is a reconstructed version of Ancient Egyptian Religious beliefs founded by <PERSON> (who also happens to be a Vodou priestess.) She began the religion & created a religious community through forums, email, and later used chat & other forms of social networking to share spiritual knowledge & experiences. There is a fair amount written about it.
* <PERSON>, <PERSON>. "The Role of the Internet." The Bloomsbury Companion to New Religious Movements (2014): 285.
* <PERSON>, <PERSON> The Ancient Egyptian Prayerbook. Lulu. com, 2009.
(This is her book)
* <PERSON>, <PERSON>, and <PERSON>. "The house of Netjer: a new religious community online." Religion Online: Finding Faith on the Internet (2004): 107-121.
* <PERSON>, <PERSON> "Profane Egyptologists: The Revival and Reconstruction of Ancient Egyptian Religion." PhD diss., UCL (University College London), 2012. (this is an anthropology dissertation but I'm pretty sure he is turning it into a book. You might email him to see if he'd be willing to share a copy of the dissertation if your university doesn't have access.)
* <PERSON>, <PERSON>, <PERSON>, and <PERSON>. "Recreating Ancient Egyptian Culture in Second Life." In Digital Game and Intelligent Toy Enhanced Learning (DIGITEL), 2010
* <PERSON>, <PERSON> "The mediation of religious experience in cyberspace." Religion and Cyberspace (2005): 15-37.
<PERSON> is a pretty well known public figure too so you might even be able to email her (or send her a FB message) and ask some questions directly. Her [Vodou FB profile is public](https://www.facebook.com/chitatann).
|
You seem to be having a misunderstanding as to what being homosexual actually means. To be homosexual is to be attracted to the same sex as yourself (either romantically, sexually or both.) Who you are attracted to is not something you can choose.
It does not, however, defined by who you choose to have sex with. A homosexual person may have sex with someone of the opposite gender. (Often because they are in denial about, or trying to mask their homosexuality,) or they may have never had sex at all. But if they're exclusively attracted to the same sex as themselves, then they are homosexual. Likewise, there may be rare circumstances where a heterosexual person might have had sex with someone of the same gender. Or, more commonly, they have not had sex. But they're still heterosexual. This is not something that their own sexual history affects.
|
If you make it optional, sure...but if you make it an alternative sentence? Problem.
1) Cruel and unusual. The death risk is highly elevated. All things aside, I'd rather go to jail (and see that as more predictable and fair for a crimila).
2) The crime issue. You're giving these people deadly weapons and teaching them the right way to use it. The repeat offender rate is pitifully high in this country, and your idea is crazy without provably lowering that.
3) The discipline issue. Others' lives depend on these people. Do you let others know this person is a criminal? If so, what do you expect to come of it? Do you *hide* the fact? That will lead to some pretty big rifts and dangers.
It's one thing to put them safely behind friendly lines, watched, doing non-essentials.. it's another putting them in a front-line position or in a critical location...
|
Not legal advice...
Have you ever owned a bird before? They can be a huge responsibility. They tend to be very social animals, and need stimulation, just like cats and dogs. Most birds shit every 10-20 minutes, as you're probably discovering. They often do not give a fuck about quiet hours, and will happily chirp/squawk when they please (can really piss of the neighbors if you live in an apartment). Most importantly, these birds in particular can easily live 10-15 years. Long term commitment.
If you're a bird person, you know these things already. If not, I just want you to be aware that the present some unique challenges that other, more common pets do not have.
-Former bird owner, never again bird owner
|
My girlfriend has a close friend and she can not cook, anyway me and my girlfriend ran into her in a coffeshop after we had been together for around 6 months or so. I had seen her from time to time and changed a few pleasantries.
She invited us over to dinner with her and her boyfriend during the weekend. My girlfriend quickly found an excuse as we already had some plans but that was only going to take a few hours so i thought it would be fun and said "i think we can find the time, shall we be over at 6?" Her friend quickly said yes, while my girlfriend said that we probably wouldnt have the time.
So my girlfriend informed me that this girl can not cook to save her life. I brushed it off and didnt take it seriously at all.
So we get there for dinner and my girlfriend tried to make me change my mind all the time, even when we parked outside. Well we go in and talk a little sit down at the table, she had made lasagna.. the cheese on top hadnt even melted and it was like 1/2 an inch thick. What was worse it the pasta plates were still uncocked so they were still crunchy, there was almost no meat or bechamel sauce, like a few drops between the pasta plates...
It was like eating uncooked pasta with cheese, i can not fathom how they havent starved to death yet. It's a meal you would pay people on jackass to eat so you can see the horror of it.
|
Never mind these guys, most of them have never asked a girl out and usually they just imagine it in their head and think this is how awesome i am going to act if i get rejected.
Some people out there are just crazy, hell most people out there are crazy, if a guy is following you after you walk away, its a clear sign of rejection.
And if you need a ring to be left alone, i can understand. My girl is gorgeous and she gets hit on almost every time she goes out, funnily she thinks the invites to a party and such are friendly, but then i point it out to her and we laugh at the people who try to pick her up.
|
Hahaha, I enjoyed that. Missed the mark a little... I would love to tell you how but it would be a little self-indulgent.
> Claiming that I can't draw generalizations about how people act based on long term experience with them is absurd
It's not really absurd, but I take your point. I also think throughout the course of this discussion you have been quite genuine and I respect that. The problem is, people often form negative generalisations; that's what bigotry is.
To take a different approach: You have given us anecdotes, how are we supposed to respond except for anecdotes? What does an answer to this bigotry look like to you? You have provided us one very good reason all of these people would be mean to you - you are shitty to them. That is really enough, unless you have further evidence of how attractive people are horrible, to explain the differences you have experienced.
The other glaring problem is that your generalisation is so encompassing, (hence why it is bigotry). Instead of recognising that certain people exploit the positives of being good looking, you simplify a mechanism to condemn a whole demographic. It's so unsophisticated, it doesn't need whatever reasoning away you think it does, in exactly the same way racism doesn't need reasoning away in terms of what black people do: attractive people are affected by being attractive, but so are people affected by being a part of their race.
> since attractiveness and personality have to be developed by a series of conscious decisions
This is rubbish. No one decides to be attractive, and even if they did, it wouldn't have any affect on the argument. Personality is more debatable, but still how this has any impact on your argument I am unsure.
It's funny, you criticised me for condemning you at the start, but you still haven't realised your apparent bigotry, so I guess I was right to tell you.
|
The more extreme consequences you've outlined in response to a DD charge don't happen where I am. If we are going to discuss only the ideology I think we need to be clear on that^(1).
The other aspect that I think is worth discussing is your attitude to punishment. Under what circumstances (if any) do you consider it reasonable to impose punishments?
Finally, if not prison, then what? If you are responsible for housing a violent recidivist criminal, where are you going to put them and what are you going to do with them? Putting the cat amongst the pigeons isn't going to work.
I think it is ok to have reservations with an ideology, but if you don't have a better alternative then what can you do but go with the best option available to you?
---
1) It is fair to describe the American legal and penal systems as broken beyond virtually all utility. Judging all other legal and penal systems by what is arguably the single worst system in any first world nation isn't a reasonable comparison.
|
> intelligent creatures
I've never understood this argument for not eating other animals. What does intelligence have to do with a living thing's right to live? We humans (some of us) just decided that the more a living thing is like us, the more right it has to exist? The larger it is the more right it has to exist? The furrier it is? The cuter it is? These reasons seem either arbitrary or superficial at best. I've never heard of anyone advocating for the millions of cockroaches being exterminated every month. Oh right, they're icky. Kill 'em all!
|
> Do you, by the way, agree with my overall point?
I can't. I still don't *understand* it. That's why I keep "tilting at windmills" - I'm trying to find some way to break through to the core of what you're trying to say. It does not make sense to me to say that someone who concedes the possibility that god/s might exist is claiming to have knowledge about god/s. That seems inherently self-contradictory to me and paradoxical. It's like you're proving that 1 = 2 by dividing by zero. So... I can't agree with your argument because it seems like nonsense to me. I also can't disagree with it because you don't need to disagree with nonsense: it's wrong all by itself.
|
I think your comments regarding voice actors, the graphic designers, etc, being punished aren't looking at the reality of the hiring process.
Voice Actors aren't going to be hired based purely on the success or lack thereof of they games they act for, they're going to be hired based on the performance they put in. That's what matters to their future success, not the Sales numbers which are never going to be made public.
Same thing with the graphic designers. If Orc #5 looks damn good, this guy can put it in his binder and show it to his next employer and get hired. Or he'll probably be kept on for the next game in the series.
It's the top level folks who are getting judged on this success. The guys who made the decision to make it Pay2Win, not the lower tier folks that will get punished. If it's a well established brand, it's not going away with one iteration. Zelda has had some games underperform in its time and it's still around. The same can be said for most franchises with decade or longer histories. While SoW has a shorter franchise, it's Execs will be able to read the writing on the wall if the boycott is successful and return to a non-Micro transaction model for it's next iteration.
|
For those who don't know, [Marvel today announced plans for a new <PERSON> comic book starring a female Thor.](http://marvel.com/news/comics/2014/7/15/22875/marvel_proudly_presents_thor)
To the surprise of exactly nobody, this made some people upset. There are complains of political correctness or making changes to try and pander to a new audience and people up and down the comments section of that article are saying how they're going to cancel their <PERSON> subscriptions.
I don't really see the problem. First of all, a close reading of the article implies that it isn't actually <PERSON> himself, but another individual who has taken up the mantle of <PERSON> (not entirely unlike <PERSON>). Second, even if this new female <PERSON> does become a mainstay of the comics, what's the big deal? Is a woman <PERSON> incapable of performing the feats of strength that a male <PERSON> is? I think not. Would a woman <PERSON> be too emotional? Not if she's written well. Yes, it will be "different," but different isn't always bad, and if this new <PERSON> is written by *good* writers who know how to properly structure a plot then I don't see why it matters if <PERSON> is a man or a woman.
One of the most common arguments I see with matters like this (it's quite similar, IMO, to when they cast <PERSON> as <PERSON> in the <PERSON> film) is that they should just make an original character instead of re-inventing an old character. First of all, it does seem like, in this situation, it *is* a new character (or perhaps an old character Marvel recently acquired). Second of all, while it is possible to create a new character there is no way that character could possibly have the name brand recognition as one of the already-established big three names in Marvel comics. And when you're trying to reinvent your universe to seem less "male-oriented" and therefore be more marketable to women and girls, making it so that at least one of the big three names is female seems like a very rational choice (heck, DC's big three has included a woman for *decades*).
So yeah. CMV.
_____
> *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***[read through our rules](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules)***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***[downvotes don't change views](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/guidelines#wiki_upvoting.2Fdownvoting)****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***[popular topics wiki](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/populartopics)*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***[message us](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/changemyview)***. *Happy CMVing!*
|
Also, what exactly is the OP suggesting? That such games be outlawed because a certain percentage of people lack the self-control and self-discipline to enjoy them responsibly?
To what degree do we need to regulate every bit of media we're subjected to because some people are unable to responsibly use it? Where does that end? A game should be penalized of vilified because it has a successful business model?
|
You're ahead of the game if you still have your job tomorrow.
Going over your boss' head is a career-limiting move. Going over *that* person's head to HR is volunteering to be fired.
The upshot is that if you do go over someone's head, it had better be worth it. Your ass was covered and you did your duty for your underling when you expressed your concerns to 2nd-level guy. After that, the decision to send a person home is on his head.
|
no prob man. i still want to see a picture but i understand reddit is supposed to be anonymous! but good luck on tinder man and don't worry about all the haters. reddit has a lot of jealous people unfortunately or they think anyone that says they are in good shape or good with women must be lying. i'm just a kid and i can see that.
|
I was actually joking about turning her gay. You didn't so don't worry about it.
I am in a relationship with a girl now after a LTR with a guy. He had nothing at all to do with it. He also wanted me back, but I am very happy in my relationship. I wouldn't date a guy again. I'm glad to hear you are friends with her. It shows you truly do care for her that you're happy if she's happy.
|
Yeah I'm working full time in retail and hate it. I always feel like I have to justify it by mentioning that I'm starting EMT school soon so at least they'll know I'm spending a bunch of money to get paid the same in another field that's requires a little bit more education.
|
Of all the animals that are killed almost all of the billions of animals killed each year are for food. Yeah sure some people like to hunt just to kill but I'm sure the ratio for hunters for food and just to kill are almost identical to any other animal. And no I'm not trying to justify it, just pointing it out.
|
I know a girl selling face cream that "will preserve my face forever. I will look exactly the same the day I die". uh huh. I don't understand the success though. Don't people understand that this marketing strategy is really selling out your friends?
"sick of being ripped off by corporations? Buy my shiny garbage and get ripped off by your *friend* instead!"
|
my mom claims to have had this problem but I don't believe her. she's not actually qualified for the job she has now.
I have the opposite problem as you though. I can't get any job I actually want because im crazy under-qualified. Everyone wants a ton of experience for an entry level job. which makes no sense.
|
> where at least one person needs to be actually doing something, which means they have to know what they're doing
You seem to be assuming that someone cannot physically do something while not understanding what they are doing. That does not fit with my understanding of some very drunk people.
|
If you read his comment again, he did not make any judgement at all about <PERSON> having a sense of humor. He just said it is <PERSON> and what he was laughing at.
I always find it fascinating when one person makes a completely descriptive, non-normative statement about something and another person then decide that that the first person was making a judgement.
|
The way this was supposed to have worked is that your mother should have filed a notice of foreign birth at the nearest US consulate. Obviously she didn't do that. Now, the question is: Were you born in a hospital in Mexico? Do you know if she reported your birth to Mexican authorities? The Mexican civil registry is actually not bad and you should be able to get the birth record there if you were born in a hospital. All that being said, there is really no way you are going to get through this without an immigration lawyer.
|
I highly doubt they will pursue something like this. They have no way of knowing who you are or where you live. The name on the credit card doesn't tell them much. They would have to subpoena the card issuer to get your address and then serve notice there. I wouldn't worry about it.
|
Yes, it is okay to try to be nice to people of different background. Unfortunately if some of the ethnic backgrounds are statistically more prone to some dangerous behaviours (like Latinos and drug use, Muslims and extreme murderous rage or Blacks and murder statistics) then for a leader of a state it is necessary to try to not let them in as immigrants withouts some preliminarychecks (and deport them if illegally arrived already.) this has nothing to do with "racism" - where you hate people for their skin color or different religuous customs. No, people who are afraid of Muslim (or Mexican) immigrants are not bad people. We are simply worried - how will they be defended from some extremist suddenly attacking random people (as they tend to do since decades in Israel for instance.) <PERSON> simply allowed this worry to be voiced. And his team may find a faesible plan to defend the non-agressive majority. It is not by chance that lots of (legally immigrated) minority people and gays and women voted or work for President <PERSON> in spite of otherwise being Liberals.
|
You are seriiously believe that free market can handle externalities in an efficient way, which doesn't cause more societal costs than regulation. You have to develop it a bit more and give some examples.
I mean the "death" of the Rhein, air pollution in major cities... etc would have beenn by the market with the same or less societal costs (death, sickness etc.) Than with regulation?
|
You're presupposing that artists should want to have maximal money for their work and that art should be a transaction where people compensate the artist.
I have been an artist my whole life and have spent a LOT of time on it. However, I intentionally and specifically avoided going into it as a profession because I did not want my art to be impacted by monetary pressures. I didn't want a boss telling me what art needed me to be made. I didn't want my grocery bill making me create art I wasn't inspired to create. I didn't want a client telling me how my art needs to be. I didn't want to have to appeal to or answer to the people who would be paying to experience my art. I didn't want to have to worry that the art I created would be seen as valueless by all (before we even get into whether, after seeing value, they choose to compensate me). I didn't want to have to worry about if my art was controversial. I didn't want to limit myself to ideas that others would appreciate.
I wanted the leverage to create the art that I wanted at the times I was inspired to and have that art purposed in the ways that I was happy with. There isn't really any practical way for that to happen except to intentionally avoid (or at least majorly downplay) compensation. When I'm not doing it for money, I don't feel any pressure to do things that will be more appreciated or work when I'm not motivated on my art. When I'm not doing it for money, I have a lot of leverage with the people who I am letting use or appreciate my art. By taking money out of the equation, I gain more control over my art.
It bothers me when (understandably) frustrated artists tell me that I should charge for my work and that I'm undervaluing myself because if I were to do so it would severely deteriorate my artistic freedom whether I was working in corporate, selling to individuals or on some state artist stipend because it'd make me reliant on answering to audiences rather than creating the art I want to create. I am being the artist I want to be specifically by creating my art for free or, at least, much closer to at cost. I have a CS degree and work as a software engineer. I still practice and create art all the time and I'm more happy with this arrangement than I think I could ever be as somebody who sought to be properly valued as an artist.
I do think that people often don't realize the value of art or how much effort went into art. This isn't necessarily unique to art. As a software engineer, I see the same under-appreciation for my work and creativity. Heck, the fact that a person could complain at the stock or quality of goods at a grocery store is an almost laughable underappreciation for the insane amount of labor that goes into every product. As a society so much is available to us that we often have no idea how much appreciation the amazing stuff we have access to warrants.
|
I have a mistrust of my brain because I know my brain is an incredibly imperfect tool for determining what is true. You apparently never learned this lesson and instead believe that your perceptions are flawless. This is a delusion, not a greater truth. It's false. It's not true. It's wrong. It's the brink of insanity.
You do not get to decide what is true. Reality does not work that way. What's in your head is not reality. Your brain only perceives. Reality is what isn't in your head.
This isn't a matter of living life differently. This is a matter of dealing with reality as it is or fooling yourself with comfortable bullshit. We cannot both be right, and my perspective is actually supported by examining the world that exists **outside** of my head.
You say you care profoundly and deeply about what is true, and then you say everything is true. That's incredibly dishonest. If I were to tell you that I'm actually a spirit interacting ethereally with the internet to post this comment, how would you determine if that is true? Would you even care, or just accept it? Do you verify *anything*?
|
Why is it incumbent upon women to "man the fuck up"? Why can't the place of employment and the actions of it's employees be judged on their own merits and found lacking? It's easy for those in power to say "man the fuck up," but that doesn't mean that those in power shouldn't be striving to have a more inclusive workplace.
|
Yes, but the employers don't pay a living wage to the waiters and car park attendants. Because they are expected to get tips, these jobs can and are legally paid far less than minimum wage. If you did away with this system, prices on the menu/car park would go up commensurate with the employer paying a higher wage to the employee. On average, you would still be paying the same out of pocket.
|
But there's a reason that so many poor parents raise so many children that grow up to be poor, and so many wealthy parents raise children that go on to be wealthy. And while it may be possible to fix the problem without bridging the gap in economic opportunities between the poor and rich, the correlation there is too great to dismiss.
|
Sure, but statistically you're far more likely to use that firearm to kill yourself, or in a crime of passion, than you are to use it to successfully defend yourself against an attacker. And if you have a gun to defend yourself because guns are legal, it's that much more likely that the person attacking you will also have a gun anyway.
|
I feel it's kind of natural for her to resent him. It's not wise or really his fault at all, but she did have to go through this all alone. The ones saying ''girl logic'' are scum. She didn't want to bring him into this and make him miserable, but she still has the right to be angry IMO.
|
The bus driver says: ''Ugh, that's the ugliest baby I've ever seen!'' The woman walks to the rear of the bus and sits down, fuming. She says to a man next to her: ''The driver just insulted me!'' The man says: ''You go up there and tell him off. Go on, I'll hold your monkey for you.''
|
Your girlfriend's parents committed a felony. They stole her identity and are trying to dump $4k in tax obligations on her so that they can keep their $10k in winnings tax-free.
She can either decide to pay $4k of her own money to cover the tax burden her parents fraudulently laid on her, or she can report her parents for identity theft and have them arrested and most likely sentenced to time behind bars.
It's not going to be pretty, but unless she's able to sacrifice $4k paying income tax on money she never received, she is going to have to throw her parents under the bus.
She should also review her credit report, because her parents seem to think their daughter's identity is fair-game to use for their own fraudulent needs. I wouldn't be surprised to see some credit cards in her name that she wasn't aware of.
If you do find fraudulent credit in her report, be aware that her parents will probably be going to actual prison for several years after you report it.
If you choose not to report it, your girlfriend will never be able to get a reasonable line of credit or buy a house because her parents will have ruined her credit. Her future depends on her ratting her parents out and letting them face the music for the crimes they've committed.
|
On August 3, the landlord can and should file an Unlawful Detainer complaint against you. Your right to possess/occupy the property terminates on July 31 and you will be a holdover as of 8/1.
In your lease, you'll probably find a clause that allows the prevailing party in an unlawful detainer action to recover filing costs and fees. The filing fee in most California counties for a basic UD case is around $220. You'll have no grounds to avoid owing that. Even if you move out on August 5, the landlord can simply refuse to dismiss the UD until the hearing date, which should happen by August 21 or so, so it's still within the deposit return deadline. With a judgment in-hand for costs, attorney fees (figure ~$450 to $600 depending on what the judge things is "reasonable") and 5 days at $80/day, the landlord can *probably* keep that from your deposit and/or sue you in small claims if the deposit won't cover it.
If I were a landlord, know I sure as hell would take this as far as it could go, just to make sure there was a UD judgment against you that would show up in a background check. I don't *advise* clients to do this, though. I explain the options and let them decide how miserable they want to make someone who does what you're talking about.
Furthermore, many landlords -- especially in tight rental markets -- do court records checks of prospective tenants. My landlord will not rent to anyone who has been a defendant in a UD case, whether they won or lost.
You're better off moving your stuff into storage and staying at the Sleazy-8 Motel for a few days.
|
My point was that it is either tautology or a problem with definitions.
Tautology: if we had the ability to remove homosexuality from people, then we'd be able to remove homosexuality from people.
Definition: we can't cure something that isn't a problem. OP said homosexuality is not a problem.
|
The data is what proves it's real. The consensus is what tells the public that scientists agree on what the data says.
The consensus is important because there are groups who would spread misinformation that there is a scientific controversy when none exists. A consensus is actually an excellent way to determine that there is not a controversy.
|
I had never heard of him until this week.
His IMDB page is filled with things I've never heard of or seen. I had to go all the way back to "Who's the Boss" and "Charles in Charge" to find things I've seen him in.
Surely I'm not the only one?
|
<PERSON> became Der Fuehrer of Germany in 1933.
This was actually a trivia question we had the other week at a trivia night I go to. I answered 1934. I was marked wrong. I tried to explain that <PERSON> became Reichskanzler in 1933 but didn't become Fuehrer und Reichskanzler until 1934 upon the death of <PERSON>.
The other one is that <PERSON> became Der Fuehrer upon <PERSON>'s death. In fact, <PERSON> was the only Fuehrer of Germany. Upon <PERSON>'s death the position of Fuehrer und Reichskanzler was split back into the two positions of Reichspraesident and Reichskanzler which went to two people, one being <PERSON> and the other being <PERSON>.
|
Let me make sure I understand this:
1. You signed a lease requiring 60 days written notice to move out.
2. You did not give 60 days written notice.
If that's correct, your only real recourse here is asking really, really nicely. They're perfectly in the right to hold you to your lease, and they're not required to remind you of your responsibilities.
You might be able to help them fill the apartment sooner; if filled, you wouldn't likely owe the two months.
|
It's whatever the lease agreement says. In fact, if in the lease agreement you agreed to pay $15 per month, and there's no language in the lease talking about what happens if you no longer want the parking space, you're still on the hook for $15/month unless the landlord nicely decides to not charge you.
|
Maybe that's because your elected president takes decisions that affect the whole world?
<PERSON> has said he'll make my country pay for a fucking wall he'll build. And yet, I can't decide whether he's elected or not.
So here's an idea: Stop forcing other countries into your decisions (like the TPP), and I'll shut the fuck up about your rotten politics.
|
I admit, every *psychologist* I've seen was useless. But my therapist (MSW) was amazing (she did mostly cognitive behavioral therapy, with a Jungian bent, and hugely empathetic), and my 2 psychiatrists were sharp as fucking knives. One was Vienna trained, NOTHING got by her. (I was referred to the shrink by my therapist, who thought I might benefit from anti-depressants (I didn't, but mother-of-god, her insights were amazing).
I also had a lot of lame therapists along the way, before finding the one I fit with. One stone-faced bitch sat there like <PERSON> reincarnated and expected me to talk at her for 50 minutes with zero feedback. I could have talked to a wall and saved myself the $85/hr.
So it's definitely a crap shoot. If you aren't connecting, move on and try someone else (god knows there are plenty out there).
>I am curious to know what a psychologist can do if they cannot change the way a person thinks about things. Would a psychologist be completely useless when they cannot change the way a person thinks?
People who truly want help will find a way to get it, even if it takes a few tries. If that psychologist (or therapist, whatever), can't break through to them, perhaps another one can. And if a person is so depressed that they don't even want help, maybe they need to be institutionalized for a bit, or, just let them wallow, as long as they aren't a danger to themselves or others. But most people eventually get sick and tired of being sick and tired.
I feel like you are looking at this is absolutes: If one psychologist was was useless and ineffectual, they all must be. In reality, there are as many types of psychologists as there are people. Everyone brings their own personality and experience to the the table, some will mesh with their clients, some won't.
JMO/E, hope that helps.
(edit: meant to address your other points: No, changing the way you *think* about something won't eliminate evil from the world, be it racism, or sexism, or the guy who cut you off in traffic. But you don't need to be a rag doll, twisting in the wind, reacting instead of acting mindfully, every time someone is unpleasant. There are ways to work for real change, but how are you going to change the world, when you don't even have control over yourself, your own emotions? That's like those people going to holistic cancer therapy, thinking thy can *will* themselves to health, but still can't seem to quit smoking.)
If someone can ruin your day with a careless remark, maybe you need to work on yourself. If nothing else, it will be better for your blood pressure. (that's general 'you', not OP 'you')
|
Based on the post currently on the front page of r/relationships where a man tells his girlfriend that if she doesn't agree to integrate "domestic discipline" into their relationship he refuses to marry her.
Learningdd.com has the following information on this concept: http://beginningdd.com/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2013/02/BeginnerPacketFinalCopy1.pdf
I seriously believe this is just an effort to justify abusive partners hitting their significant others. The website claims that this is a gender neutral and abuse-free lifestyle and in fact it is usually the woman that suggests it (I find this claim hard to believe). Spanking and light BDSM play in a relationship where both partners are getting sexual pleasure from it is one thing but saying you can spank or "punish" your wife for not doing something simply to hurt her is disgusting. However this lifestyle seems to have a good amount of followers based on some web research. So please, CMV.
|
This is the problem. The stereotypical "nice guy" often taints the potential attractiveness of a guy who is actually a nice guy. They are portrayed in movies and literature as being pushovers and immasculate. What a girl is really saying when she says she wants a "nice guy" is that she wants someone who listens/is understanding like you are being to her. In other words she wants a partner who can also be her "best friend" because he understands her.
I tend to have similar experiences to you as I'm the type of person who goes out of his way often for friends. I value all of them immensely as people and cannot justify acting any differently than a "nice guy" would towards them. That said on the few occasions that a girl has asked "why can't I find a guy like you." I tend to ask them out then and there (I actually asked out my first girlfriend this way). If they refuse I often just say "that's why" and continue on with our friendship as normal (yep I'm a little different that way). My reason for doing this is to disassociate myself from the "nice guy" stereotype by being capable of being assertive. I think the major problem with this stereotype though is that many actually find it difficult to emphasise their own personality and thus get trapped in the "nice guy" stereotype.
|
They don't. You have to go above and beyond with your bad driving to be charged with a crime punishable by jail time at all. For instance, most people guilty of vehicular manslaughter don't go to jail. However, if a driver is doing something especially illegal (like: driving drunk, or making an illegal u-turn into oncoming traffic) and that results in a major injury or fatality, then the punishment would, and should, be more severe.
The man described in this story would certainly go to jail, or more likely prison. But people saying he would be locked up for decades are either misinformed or exaggerating.
|
The mother cannot unilaterally give the child up for adoption. Once a child is born, both parents have parental rights and responsibilities, and in order for an adoption to take place, both parents have to agree to give up their rights (or have those rights terminated by a court).
If the mother wants to give the child up for adoption but the father does not, then no adoption can take place. The mother can agree to let the father have full custody, but she's still responsible for child support, just as he would be if he allowed her to have full custody.
The father's rights are obviously hard to enforce in situations where he isn't informed of the child's existence. This is one of the reasons why children may end up in the foster care system: it takes time to terminate <PERSON> parental rights.
|
You don't have to pretend, just stay neutral (for a couple reasons). Despite what some people are saying here, standing up for him will just alienate you in the workplace and there's no guarantee you'll be "rewarded" for your loyalty. It might just make your work environment suck. The second thing is, and it is happening right now at my work, is that there is a "mole" who reports back to our boss about shit that we say and do (this includes when we go out drinking Fridays). You don't know if one of your co-workers is this guy/girl, so why risk it? Especially if you like your boss. There's a reasonable middle ground between standing up for him and just following the group.
|
It does generate more donations (which is good for all parties involved). The way corporate sees it is:
1. Good lower management will work hard to meet these quotas, which is good for us. If they don't meet the quotas (even colossally so) we don't really give a shit, we just want them to *think* we give a shit so *they* give a shit *^and ^to ^legitimize ^#2.*
2. Like our good friend TurgidMeatWand below, we here at corporate are always looking for things to pad our "*Big Book of How To Fire Ben The Asshat*" and "*Little Book of How To Not Bonus Benny*." Additional entries into the "*Compendium on Why District 242 Under-performing is Totally Not My Fault*" are always appreciated as well.
|
That would be true if I was really that consistent with it, but youre trying to overgeneralize and set up a strawman. The way we think about scientific ideas is a lot different from how we think about people, or groups of people.
This has nothing to do with my view though, as described above.
|
Letting people drink in their cars would almost certainly lead to an increase in drunk driving, and the negative consequences that come with that. Yes, we can arrest the people for drunk driving still, but we won't catch them all in time to prevent accidents/deaths.
I believe you when you say you could responsibly drink a beer and drive, but what about the people who dont? It's playing with fire.
|
Woohoo I was there three years back!
I live in [Detroit, Michigan](https://youtu.be/Yqx9dvr-lD8). Basically, it's a city on the comeback, largely thanks to a ton of new investments. The city was bankrupt just a few years ago. It used to be the most dangerous city in America on a few occasions. But now it's on the upswing.
Detroit has four professional sports teams, three casinos, thriving business sectors, and it's just been a wonderful place to live, imo.
|
Illinois routinely takes drivers' licenses for traffic violations. Basically, the state uses your drivers' license as collateral to ensure you show up to court or pay the fine.
In the meantime, you are permitted to drive legally with a copy of the ticket. You'll get it back when the case is closed.
|
That's... not really true. At my workplace (fairly large software company), you need to be *generally available* between the hours of 10 and 4, but no one's going to yell at you if you take your lunch at 11 or 1 instead of right at noon, nor do they expect you to clock in or out or appraise everyone about where you are at all times. If someone comes by because they need you for something and you aren't there, they'll either email you or come back.
|
I mean... you went in, asked for a retainer, agreed to have a retainer made, had them take measurements for a retainer, left knowing you were going to get a retainer, and then a while later you don't want the retainer and you're mad that they're charging you for... what you asked for?
|
Nobody owes you fair. Life isn't fair. Bad people get away with bad things, people get hurt, people die. That is just how the world is. Just because you don't want to believe that's how it is, doesn't mean it isn't that way.
Life can be painful. I would certainly know having been almost pushed to the brink of wanting to kill myself. But life can certainly be amazing as Well. I have friends and family who would all suffer emotionally if I were to die. The same way I would suffer if they just died. Not just laying down to die is a part of being a social species that we humans are.
I have found this analogy quite handy. As a child, you don't build a sandcastle on the beach expecting it to always be there. You build it because you enjoy that time you use to build it. A thing isn't beautiful because it lasts.
|
You very well might have less shootings and less gun related crimes and less gun suicides. Because people don't have guns.
But do you think the people that have been forced to commit these crimes are suddenly going to be in better situations? Like banning guns is going to give everyone more money so they don't feel like they have to rob a store to survive?
No. Of course not.
You cannot ban a baseball bat, or a knife, or a pipe. All of which can be used to go into a home or store and threaten whoever is at the counter for their money. All of these can be used to go in someone's house and kill them.
So instead of gun violence you have every other kind of violence. You look at the whole picture and violence tends to go UP when guns are banned.
Just look at the riots they had in the past few years in England. How are you supposed to defend yourself or your business from a rioting crowd with your hands and a legal means of self defense?
|
Agreed, I can't stress this enough. Though I'm sure that nobody here would say anything to the contrary, <PERSON> doesn't need any other advice than this.
<PERSON>, I don't mean to sound rude, but obviously your brother either doesn't care enough about you to not push you onto the tracks or he is just really stupid and doesn't think things through. It doesn't matter which it is. You need to decide if you're comfortable with him having an incredible negative effect on your life or not. If you're not okay with it (and a perfectly rational person would not be) then you should definitely report this crime to clear yourself instead of taking the blame for a crime that you did not do.
Know this: Anyone that would do this to you would obviously not even consider helping you if the positions were reversed, remember that.
|
Why did you friend die? People don't just die in their sleep for no reason. And not that it's super reassuring but you can also just drop dead while you're awake. For both, if you're young and relatively healthy, then it's extremely unlikely that either will happen to you anytime soon.
As well, it's probably not a great idea to smoke weed when you're having this sort of paranoia already because it's almost guaranteed to make it worse. Try to distract yourself as much as possible with a movie - preferably one that starts of interesting and then gets boring. Maybe you'll find yourself falling asleep despite your paranoia.
|
While that dream sounds amazing, it's honestly bullshit. Yes, it is possible to make it successful, but it's also possible for me to possibly hook up with <PERSON>. That doesn't mean that it's in any way feasible to suppose that it will actually happen.
If you are a white straight male, then you might be right. But, if you're a woman, you're statistically going to get paid 75 cents to the dollar that a man makes. If you're an African American or Latino, you're much less likely to be hired, and if you're gay, then you can legally be fired for being gay. Then there's also the glass-ceiling that several minorities have to deal with.
Then we could look at the state that our economy is in, and the chance of anyone being able to do anything right now.
The reason that we pay taxes is to help those who are less fortunate than us, and to help those who are unable to help themselves in the current state that the government is set up. To say that you don't want to pay taxes honestly implies that you don't want to help people who need the help, and assume that they deserve to be in the position that they are in, which is honestly not as often the case as many people make it out to be.
|
I do understand what you're saying, but I think that there are too many relatively diverse sources that support <PERSON>' existence to outright deny his existence. There's the Jew <PERSON> and the Roman <PERSON>, for instance, who almost certainly never knew each other, much less conspired with a fledgeling group of strange zealots to support their fantasy.
Again, I get what you're saying, but there's evidence of <PERSON>' existence from a few different an unrelated sources. Whether he was right or divine is totally debatable, but his historical existence is pretty well supported.
|
It probably won't discourage them from playing, but it sure discourages them from joining the discussions.
I mean, it's one thing if someone is showing off their $200 guitar as being awesome and it's not, then downvote and move on, they'll figure out. But when it comes to discussion about everything else--technique, lessons, etc.--if this is what's really going on over there, then you could have a kid with hands like <PERSON>, but he's shunned because all he can afford is a $200 piece of crap that he can still make sing. Meanwhile, <PERSON> could be taken seriously because has a collection of expensive beauties, even though (unbeknownst to the internet) he can barely crank out a *Stairway to Heaven* on them. It ain't right.
Point being: If someone is showing off their lame guitar, then downvote. If someone wants to talk shop (about something not related to guitar quality/brand), then keep a level playing field. You can't judge someone based just on their guitar.
|
Would it give you a sense of peace for yourself if you set a period of time--X months, whatever--just take this as it comes for now and do a status check in X months? If your relationship has advanced in a way that is good for you, as well as for her, then you're all good. If not, you can reconsider things at that time.
Just enjoy building your relationship with no pressure. You can wonder about everything in X months.
|
I am not a lawyer, I have my license for professional counselor. If you haven't done so already, please get your own counselor. They can support you through this difficult time in getting help for your mom. They are also very familiar with how to get your mom help and what the local community supports are. If your mom is a danger to herself or others currently then please pursue hospitalization. Bipolar 1 is a very difficult mental illness on par with schizophrenia with how damaging it can be for someone's life. Disability takes a long time to be approved, is likely to be denied the first time. It helps to have a lawyer.
Rather than focusing on disability, I think your goal needs to be for you mother to be stabilized on medication and possibly attend a partial hospitalization day program. If she was improperly fired as a teacher, perhaps the teachers union can help. Also check with your local united way or county health services. Good luck, hang in there.
|
If something like this went to collections how do you dispute it? I have a $300 bill that I am refusing to pay. Never got a letter about collections or anything and this was over a year ago. Just want to make sure it doesn't come back to bite me in the ass. I refused to pay it because I didn't think I should have been billed. Talked to my parents and they agreed. It was not about the money, it was about the doctor being deceptive and choosing labcorp to do my bloodwork because they give her incentives, while she knew my insurance only accepted quest. I didn't realize at the time (my fault) but I asked the doctor if my insurance accepted this and she said yes. So I refused to pay the bill.
|
I went to the gym for two hours and sweat my ass off. It felt good then but had a shit sleep. Now I'm waiting in the waiting room. I wish nurses, when they call, could provide some insight like "it's ok it's nothing big" or, "you should bring someone with you". Something. Anything. The waiting is brutal.
|
I landed what I thought was an awesome job, at a fortune 500 company. Nice salary, good benefits, etc.
First day, the senior dev onboarding tells me over lunch, "Listen, this place is a fucking meat grinder. I don't know what bag of gold they sold you in your interview, but it's a shark tank in here so watch your back. Anything you do, cover your ass. Have three excuses or three people to blame if anything goes wrong. People around here will use you like a fucking doormat if you're not careful. You'll get tossed under the bus and it will be driving for blocks before you realize what happened. So just a few words of wisdom, cover your ass AT ALL TIMES."
And then went back to eating his lunch like nothing even happened.
|
I've never heard anybody say that we like the cold, just that we're not phased by it. That being said, I do love some of the things that we gets as a byproduct of the cold i.e. pond hockey, skiing, random snowmen everywhere, and christmas time would just seem weird with no snow
|
> However, despite how much I might still want to be friends with this hypothetical girl, being just friends can end up being painful.
That can definitely be true, and I would totally understand that, but I also think that there can be a difference between realizing that you're crazy about one of your close friends and thinking "hey, this could be worth a shot, I think we'd be pretty good together, let me see if she agrees." I would definitely get in the former case if you couldn't handle being friends with the girl, but I would think the latter wouldn't be too big of a deal, or hopefully even the former after a matter of time (after you've moved on and found yourself into someone else or something). But coming from a position of "sometimes it's too hard to be friends with someone you have strong feelings for" makes a lot more sense than "oh, they don't want to date me, so I don't really feel like being friends anymore" - I can definitely understand that.
|
Absolutely. One example that comes to mind is the relationship Seminoles with runaways and former slaves. Many slaves in southern states such as Georgia and Alabama would runaway into Spanish Florida, where slavery was illegal, to attain their freedom. Though they were sometimes considered slaves amongst Seminole communities they enjoyed a much more equal lifestyle and they often gained their absolute freedom. Runaway slaves often served as interpreters for natives and the white population. The best example of this is the Black Seminole <PERSON> who served as interpreter for the Seminole Chief <PERSON> and held much influence over the chief. Obviously these relationships caused tensions between white slave holders and Indians on the border. Plantation owners would venture into Spanish Florida and attempt to steal blacks incorporated amongst the Seminoles whether they proved they were fugitive runaways or not. Seminoles did not take kindly to the white intrusions of their land in which they would often end violently. Many Seminoles raided white plantations along the border in retaliation. These tensions culminated into the First Seminole War. Indian raids continued into American lands and Spain clearly had no control of its colony so in 1818 the U.S. and <PERSON> took action and invaded Spanish Florida (<PERSON>'s second time invading Spanish Florida, this time it was sanctioned =p). <PERSON> actually captured two former British officers, <PERSON> and <PERSON>, who had been trading the natives and their black allies with weapons. <PERSON> promptly court martialed them and had them both executed. <PERSON> then left one of his colonel's in the Spanish capital of Florida Pensacola and basically enforced marshal law in a foreign country from 1818 to 1819. The First Seminole War clearly showed that Spain could not control the territory and led to the Adam-Onis treaty which officially ceded Florida to the U.S.
However the tensions between whites and Seminoles got worse. In 1830 The Indian Removal Act was passed which basically stated that all Indian tribes had to be moved out West into Indian territory. A few Seminole chiefs agreed to terms to move out West but the majority refused. The U.S gov assumed the few chiefs who signed spoke for the whole tribe and all Seminoles and their black allies had to be out of the territory in four years. The main reasons the Seminoles refused was that they knew once they were traveling to the new area white slave hunters would kidnap the black Seminoles amongst them. Tensions boiled over into the Second Seminole War which lasted seven years and was a conflict which had half of the U.S. army involved. At the center of the conflict were the former slaves and runaways who fought along side the Seminoles and were involved in interpreting between the two parities during negotiations. Clearly the Seminoles and slaves had a very interesting relationship in which runaway slaves were greatly integrated into their society.
|
I understand that but one reason that the American government's representation system works, is because to some extent the majority of Americans, Republican or Democrat believe in certain values and ideals, capitalism, democracy, representation, freedoms, natural rights, etc. But not all countries share the same values. Some countries have wildly different values compared to others and these values inevitably will conflict with one another. This worldwide government has to take some sort of position on which value it will represent and by expressing one value it may repress another. A worldwide country disenfranchises people worldwide by expressing certain values that may only align with few or no nations at all. Its not fair to the rest of the world if Chinese and Indian values represent the other 5/7 of the world population but its not fair to China or India that Iceland and other smaller countries should have equal representation as China or India, with 1 billion pop. each. Now I imagine you'd copy the US system here as you've expressed with two forms of representation like the House and Senate but even then these representative bodies would be wildly unequal and have wildly different views from everybody worldwide. Imagine the worldwide "Senate" where the Vatican City with less than a thousand people would be represented equally compared to China with over a billion people. Imagine the "House of Representatives" with the Vatican city getting no input at all compared to China. But Chinese values and Vatican values do not align and are not even similar. A worldwide government will inevitably disenfranchise people. The reason the American system works in America is because the least populated state Wyoming has about half a million people and California has about forty million people. California's population is only 8000% of Wyoming's population whereas China is about 100000000% of the Vatican City's population. The difference between cultures, values, and populations would be too big to equally represent everyone worldwide people's ideas and values would not be reflected within the government and even if their local governments attempted to represent their values they could only reflect the values that don't conflict with the larger government and other local government's values. If all of a local populations values conflict with worldwide values then there values cannot be represented.
|
I asked my daughter to walk to the store and get some ginger for dinner (she was about 14 and the store was two blocks away). I also asked her to hurry. She didn't pay attention to the street lights "hurrying" to the store and crossed against the light. She was hit while running across the intersection by a car.
Everyone was fine, thank our lucky stars. People do drive 40-50 mph often on that road but she got whacked by a little grandmother just leaving the home of her daughter and new (also first) grand baby... To say the least grandma was distraught. But she'd also only barely been doing the speed limit (30). My daughter thought it the funniest thing (shock I assume) until I came sprinting down the street after wondering what all the lights were for. A badly bruised hip and a court appearance was all the damage and my daughter is more careful now... But oh god that 15 seconds of pure fear...
|
Depression and suicidal ideation are a result of a chemical imbalance in your brain. You can't just "snap out of it" or force it to go away, but you can treat it. Medications are able to alter the chemicals in your brain to restore a proper balance and, given enough time, the brain can actually alter itself to start producing this correct balance on its own.
I struggled with depression and suicidal thoughts for over ten years and I refused to try medications. In hindsight, I wish I had talked to somebody earlier... I didn't actually seek out help until it was almost too late. And even then, I didn't want to try meds, but once I learned more I was able to understand why they work.
It sounds like you've tried them before, but I'd really encourage you to keep trying. As medical science advanced, new treatments and therapies come available. You can also try talking to different therapists who may have different insights or perspectives that may help you. You can feel better.
Feel free to message me if you want to talk more.
|
>But realizing he cared enough about my desire to take that next step and seeing he didn't want to make me uncomfortable by pushing into territory that I wasn't ready to jump into yet was a huge turn on.
Can i ask, if your sex is, well, sex, or more like an interview?
|
>Well ive been insinuating that i have pics of her.
For what purpose? Blackmail? To force her to get back together with you? What the fuck is wrong with you? Who does that?
CUT OFF ALL CONTACT! Period! Stop talking to her, her parents, and anyone else you may be harassing. Quit being a fucking psycho. No more contact, at all, period, ever. Ok? After you've managed that you might think about talking with someone professionally.
If you get a summons in the mail, or arrested, you'll need a local lawyer to help you at that point. But you might get lucky, if you just stop harassing your ex this very instant.
|
It is almost as if <PERSON> is trying to figure out a way to show that ~~his~~ her racially insensitive friend still thinks there should be punishment for the shooter. Alas, ~~his~~ her friend comes up short of true progressiveness by insinuating a rough form of street justice from african americans might be prefered.
|
> I have no idea what this means or why this would change your view.
>
Because I consider sex during ovluation to be more indicative of attraction than obligation.
>EDIT: Also, given that you haven't responded to my response to the other thing you said would change your view, I'm going to risk a rule 3 violation here and suggest that, as it stands, you are not coming off as someone who is actually looking to have their view changed.
It is just Reddit's message system being annoying.
|
>I don't think you understand how defeaters work in philosophy.
I don't think you have explained why atheists need to make the claim that God's existence is impossible (in which case the possibility of demons may count as a defeater) rather than the claim that we have sufficient reason to believe God does not exist (in which case the possibility of demons is not a defeater unless you think it should be taken seriously).
>But Christians have always held that there is a divine purpose through pain. That God uses it for his glory. This is not something inconsistent with Christianity. Christians have been saying, since the first century, that pain is part of God's divine plan though we may not see the result.
Proponents of the atheist argument don't tend to deny that that is a possibility, as far as I have seen. What they tend to deny is that that possibility is one we should entertain (either because it seems ad hoc, and/or because it begs the question in favour of a good God, rather than an evil or unknowable one).
>Why shouldn't it?
Because the theory of plate tectonics explains earthquakes well enough, unless you think we need a further explanation for things that cause suffering - which probably begs the question.
>I'm sorry, but that's simply not an assertion you can make. You are presupposing philosophical naturalism and then marveling that you've concluded that the universe is not governed by the supernatural. Of course! Because you've presupposed the truth of your own position.
Neither aliens nor the Matrix nor dreams are supernatural concepts. They are all natural phenomena which could explain things about our world, yet which we feel entitled to dismiss as explanations even though we cannot prove with absolute certainty that aliens don't cause earthquakes/that we're not living in the Matrix/that we're not dreaming.
|
>My statement about science is to illustrate that the base axioms of science are well founded and it seems to me that the base axioms of religion are not, i.e. there is no evidence for any God humans choose to worship.
But you have already defined the parameters for the evidence based on your trust in empiricism, which is based on circular logic as much as anything else. I wish I'd see more people who address the *real* question of why everything is built on "circular logic".
>I'm mostly interested to know how it is Christians go about aligning themselves with the Truth.
I can't speak for a group of people, only for myself. What I am talking about is an orientation to Light, which can be started with the old Eleusinian phrase "Know thyself". Hesychast practitioners get to know themselves so they can shed themselves.
>I'm suggesting that what you believe to be true and what is true could be mutually exclusive.
Do you really think I have not thought about that? A proper answer to this question could require volumes of books. Or just one experience.
>What's more, the Truth could be terrifying and disastrous for those who believe as you do and as far as anyone can tell, you've got no good reason to think that it isn't. How do you resolve this?
I have only come to my faith after studying many others, which includes talking to people of those various faiths. So I *do* have good reason to be what I am even if you may not know what those reasons are, and honestly, like I said it could take at least a book to cover, so I'm not going to attempt that here - especially if it would be vain, which is most likely the case. I have no reason to think that what I believe would disastrous for me, I'm curious as to how you think that would work.
|
This is not legal advice, cause I will never ever advise anyone its ok, legally or otherwise to use deadly force. All life is precious. Also, I am an young professional minority liberal, public interest liberal attorney, who thinks hand guns are evil:
If a crazy bum comes at you with a tire iron and starts smashing your car, there may be no better "well within your rights" time to use a weapon.
|
Also, you are never obligated to answer questions police ask you without an attorney present. If police ask you questions, you should answer politely, respectfully "I don't consent to interviews" or "I don't consent to interviews without my attorney present".
If they ever want to search you or your home or your car, you should always say "I don't consent to searches". Don't ever physically stop them from searching, but you must make your position clear with words. They will trick you into thinking their request to search is a command, and that you can't say no, even though you can.
If you're interacting with police, there are two types of interactions that could be happening, and you need to be able to know the difference. The police don't want you to know the difference.
One is a consensual encounter, which is when police talk to you, and you can freely leave at any time and be on your way. If you're in a consensual encounter, the police will never make it clear to you that you can leave. If they still want you to stay so they can get more info from you, they'll try to make you think you can't go.
The other is a <PERSON> stop (named after a Supreme Court case involving a guy named <PERSON>), aka temporary detention. This is where the police have temporarily "detained" you, which just means you temporarily cannot leave.
In both instances, you can and should always refuse to answer their questions (including and especially if you're ever arrested).
Police can't just do a <PERSON> stop whenever they want. They have to have "reasonable suspicion" (RS) of you having committed a crime to stop you. If they don't have RS, then any crime they try to accuse you of afterward could get thrown out of court.
The way to tell if you're in a <PERSON> stop is to ask "am I being detained or am I free to go?" Be nice when you ask. The *only* search police can do when they only have RS is a weapons search of your body, for their own safety, and that's it.
They can't do anything else without your permission. If you give your permission, then they can search anything you allow, like your car, your pockets, your house, anything. So don't give permission. You must be very, very clear in saying "I don't consent to searches".
During a Terry stop, you are not obligated to do a breathalyzer test, or a roadside sobriety test (if you were driving), or even look into their flashlight for them to do their eye pupil test. You could refuse that and even put on sunglasses if you wanted. Those are all voluntary searches that you are not obligated to do. Police will make you think you must do them.
During a <PERSON> stop, police are trying to establish "probable cause" (PC), which is a higher standard than RS, and means they don't need more info to charge you with a crime. Once police have PC, they can search a place without your permission and/or arrest you.
Your defense lawyer will argue in court whether the police had PC to arrest you, or search your car, etc. When driving, the only breathalyzer you're obligated to do is **after** they've arrested you, and **only** if you were driving a car.
So if you're driving, the roadside test, the eye test, the roadside breathalyzer are **all** optional, and the police do it during a Terry stop to collect enough evidence to arrest you. In your instance, the breathalyzer was optional. Your voluntary statement alone gave them enough evidence to charge you.
If you just had said "I don't answer questions without my lawyer, I don't consent to searches, and I don't do breathalyzers. Am I free to go? Or are you detaining me?" you'd be in the best position legally. It's hard to say that without looking like a dick, so try and be as polite as you can.
If they had said, "I'm going to need you to do this breathalyzer before you can go," you could say, "I don't do breathalyzers. If you want to arrest me, fine (show your wrists), otherwise I'm going to leave now. Are you detaining me?"
Learn more at [Flex Your Rights](https://www.flexyourrights.org/).
|
I understand. My suggestion is more that our lives continue to exist outside the scope of time (ie my book analogy). *This is enough to reassure people who simply fear non-existence*, which is the only reason I brought it up in the first place.
But as for a continued consciousness (eg a "second life") after death... I gotta say, that's a difficult one to argue for, given what we know about our minds & thoughts and how they are linked to our physical brains (which cease to exist after death).
My only argument for such an afterlife would involve this idea presented by <PERSON>: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html It suggests we are essentially living in a game of the Sims. And if we are living in a simulation... it's certainly possible we will be "resurrected" in a future game/simulation as well. Just like I can have characters in my game of the Sims which I can bring back into future games. Though I concede this is a weak argument for a potential afterlife.
|
Something can be both a result of natural consequences *and* a problem. Society is great because we have laws & institutions that work towards correcting bad things that naturally arise. Depending on how cynical you are, you might argue that murder, theft, war etc., are all natural to humans. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to minimise these harms.
And yeah, I agree that different talents should be rewarded differently - someone who is hugely motivated and intelligent, with skills that are useful to society, should earn more than someone who has less to offer (in economic terms). But only to a certain extent.
There's enough wealth floating around the United States that there is *no good reason* why anyone should live in abject poverty. There is *no reason* why any child should go to school hungry - yet many do. What's wrong with trying to balance this out a little bit more? We have people who have more money than they'll ever need, and other people who can't afford to feed their families. Why not try to correct this?
Similarly, there's nothing wrong with a bit of inequality. Some economists believe a bit of inequality is actually *good* for a country. But it's gotten out of hand. The numbers are staggering; inequality has been growing dramatically over the past few decades. The top 20% in the US own over 84% of the wealth; the bottom 40% own 0.3%^[1](http://www.nber.org/papers/w18559). The <PERSON> family - *one single family* - own more than 42% of American families^[2](http://walmart1percent.org/why-the-waltons/). Isn't this a bit excessive? Are the <PERSON> so valuable that they're worth more than nearly half the country, combined?
|
As far as I know, this has been a changing area of law. The original standard, to the extent there was one, tried to separate violence that was incidental to the game from violence that wasn't.
So, in hockey, checking a guy hard isn't assault, but cracking him over the head with your stick could be.
Also, stuff that happens after the play is more likely to be assault vs. stuff that happens during the play, and courts are more and more willing to rule that wildly excessive violence is and of itself assault.
A lot of this is going to come down to your local area and any recent case history, so you should best talk to a local personal injury lawyer.
However, even if this guy assaults you during the game, what are the chances that he has any money for you to get out of him should you sue anyway?
And besides, the best practical advice is, why would you knowingly play basketball with this asshole? That you know he does this and you keep playing anyway would tend to give him an argument that you knew this violence was incidental to your pick up game.
|
This isn't so much a debatable position as an irrefutable observation of the justice system. One of the central questions of fairly administering justice is balancing the risk of punishing the innocent vs not punishing the guilty. We have "innocent until proven guilty" and "beyond a reasonable doubt" because, as a society, we've (ostensibly) decided that it's better to let some guilty people go then incarcerate some innocent people.
That compromise feels especially terrible when it comes to crimes like murder and rape, but I think most members of society feel the stance we've currently chosen is better than the alternative. If people are getting thrown under the bus it's in service to a larger goal of trying to fairly administer justice in general. Unfortunately, there's no way to avoid that compromise in a system that isn't omniscient.
|
So is there any truth at all to the "because we ['merica] outspent them". That's what I was told in school, our textbook cited the <PERSON> administrations huge defense budget, and specifically, the Star Wars program. It said the Soviet Union kept trying to keep up with American spending and thus bankrupted itself. Nothing was said about oil prices or a stagflated economy. Looking back on that it seems like a lot of patriotism and bullshit.
|
Haha, he was a rush job if there was ever one. And once power was handed over to him and his government completely he began to have his political opposition killed/imprisoned/exiled and consolidated his power to absolute levels. He's doing the same thing the Ba'athists did in <PERSON>'s regime, but the US keeps him in power because he's someone that will play ball. Hell, this fuckin guy was given a crash course in politics by <PERSON>, if that tells you anything about his capabilities or lack there of.
|
They can keep charging him for the time it's out, but they may need to take it out of service for unexpected repairs. The company *may* seek loss of revenue over this if the delay is long enough. If the car is returned in satisfactory condition and they just need to do regular maintenance, that shouldn't be charged.
|
Do not say anything unless they have officially informed you that they are leaving. Quitting one job for another is always a complicated thing, and timing can be important so you don't burn any bridges. It's very likely that each of your coworkers has a plan for when and how to give their notice, and telling the owner sooner than that will probably mess that up for them. The owner may be upset that your coworkers are looking for new jobs without telling them they're leaving (even though they don't need to), or may even fire and replace them before they've found other work.
|
The question is: Is a conscious state a physical state? Are consciousness and activity in the brain different? If so, then at what point do they separate?
If you're holding that they are not the same, then on what evidence do you propose that consciousness and physical brain activity depart one another? We have evidence of conscious states in the brain – in brain activity. In order to prove that a conscious state is not a material state then do you not have to appeal to something outside of the brain, and therefore outside of the observable, quantifiable evidence? Why is this superior?
|
Not because of any inherent goodness in capitalism. Think about healthcare; if profit is the motivation then decisions regarding patient care are made, not in the best interest of the patient, but on what will extract the most profit. I’ve worked at a hospital like that. Would you want your doctor basing his decisions on what is best for you or what will make him the most money?
|
Or the obvious scenario: Hey this guy wants to talk and has offered me a drink. I want to talk to him too, but I don't want to give him the wrong idea, so I will buy my own drink. If it keeps going well, I might let him buy me a drink, or even buy him one. Rinse repeat until over.
This innocence bullshit is more annoying than anything else. You know exactly what he expects, and you do it anyway. "Accepting a drink and deciding I don't want to sleep with him is not leading him on." Is that a joke? At least be honest with yourself.
I know you can't, but for the sake of future guys you are going to lead on, please try.
|
You are wrong, about pretty much everything. You agreed to join and private club with those roles. You have to follow them, or you can lose all membership rights. That is how a contract works. They cannot force you to stay, but they can cancel your membership for breaking your end of the agreement.
Your hypothetical is legal too. If they don't let you touch their genitals, you can kick them out of the club.
|
This is a good point. If you remove the basic foundation from any ethical system it becomes nonsensical. For example, if you begin to question whether all humans have value and deserve autonomy then all humanist or pluralistic ideologies rapidly collapse.
You assert a loss of faith could cause someone's morality to collapse, but really any major paradigmatic change can throw someone's morality out of whack; I've met plenty of recent converts who thought their faith in God entitled them to lecture everyone they met, and plenty of fresh atheists who assume they now have the leisure to mock anyone who doesn't share their (current) beliefs.
If you mean that all theistic justification is ultimately divine voluntarism (it's good because god says so and that's it! If he told us to murder babies, it would be moral to do so!) then I disagree. I certainly do agree you get a very weak argument from being bossed around by man in the sky, but all theological arguments aren't made this way. If your arguments for morality are based on humanity's supposed relation to God (God loves everyone, you ought to as well, it's hard to love someone and cheat on/murder them).
tl;dr All ideological systems have a core, Christianity and other theistic religions are just really explicit about what theirs is.
|
Regardless of how old they are, my point is they are an accepted part of our current legal system. If we're going to have them at all they should apply to all crimes.
I'm certainly intrigued by the argument they have lost their necessity thanks to modern scientific investigative methods, but the purpose of a statue of limitations in modern society is not only practical - compassion plays a major role. Besides, huge amounts of information regarding the Holocaust were lost (destroyed intentionally or not by the biggest war in history) so I think that cancels out the advantage provided by contemporary methods of investigation.
|
> If existence depends on consciousness and reification is objectively significant then it is not a normative statement.
Yes it is, because calling it the pinnacle is not a statement of significance but of purpose or value.
> That's not simply a site, it's the Summa Theologica, the seminal work by <PERSON> who is the doctor of the Catholic faith, and considerd one of the church's greatest theologians. The vast majority of theology in the Christian faith derives in some manner from <PERSON>' work.
Yes, <PERSON> does have a very large following, but this is not enough evidence to support his position significantly.
> But you don't have to rely on theology, God's immutability is also spelled out plainly in the Bible - Malachi 3:6, Psalm 102:25-27, <PERSON> 1:17, Hebrews 13:8...
Yes, but you do have to take that immutability quite extremely literally for it to imply no intelligence, though I would say that omniscience and intelligence are intrinsically in opposition.
> If God changed then our faith would be potentially arbitrary. How can you define God if a) he must be known only through faith and b) he changes? Such a thing would be totally arbitrary, abstract and ultimately unknowable. A bit like the god of Islam actually.
Partially unknowable, but neither abstract nor arbitrary.
> Well the author of the first letter of <PERSON> seems to be. Love is a central characteristic of fruitfulness.
No, he does not. Reading it that literally is downright inane, as it would be inconsistent with almost the entirety of theology as well as Christendom.
> Certain that predictability has nothing to do with agency.
To an absolute reductionist you cannot separate them. Most people don't understand that agency is still deterministic so they define it based on causal beginnings, but those most likely don't exist.
> If existence required consciousness then there would necessarily be an "evaluation" of inputs in the processes that lead up to consciousness emerging. I would say that constitutes agency, unless you can provide a better definition of the word than you have.
Sorry, I was defining intelligence there rather than agency. Something conscious must necessarily be intelligent, yes. Agency implies intelligence combined with some level of influence.
> If both nature and consciousness that reifies it constitute the most ontologically fundamental dynamic of reality (which I have asked you, for the time being, to presume)
That presumption is so immensely implausible that I wonder what the point of this argument could possibly be, but I'll go along nonetheless.
> and consciousness is necessarily intelligent, then it follows that the most fundamental dynamic is intelligent.
No, that does not follow. A statement about the whole does not necessarily apply to its constituent parts.
> It also follows that, given that all existence depends upon it, all power derives from this dynamic
Yes to this part.
> and it thus has the greatest power.
No, because the specific course of the proposed dynamic might not impact the outcome, meaning that though power is derived from the dynamic, the dynamic itself is not the place of causal divergence.
> I appreciate your time and intelligent, thoughtful responses. It certainly helps me refine how I communicate what I believe to be true, which I hope ends up having some value to you.
It does indeed have value, which I appreciate
|
> So then, are you saying that before <PERSON>, God wasn't triune?
If you can seriously ask that question, you know nothing about Trinitarian theology. God is eternally triune, but it is the incarnation that *reveals* God's trinitarian character. Since Jews don't believe in the incarnation, there is no basis on which they would believe in the Trinity.
> Attacking the character of the source without attacking the arguments the source presents.
The only sources that matter are the primary sources and secondary sources that deeply engage them. You can quote all the random sources on pagan gods being grouped into groups of three that you want to quote, but unless you show me evidence from the Christian primary sources that the Christians were copying from the pagans and produced something that was substantially similar, it doesn't count for anything. How about you cut out the <PERSON>-style brain-dead quote-mining and argue from the primary sources?
I've read the primary sources, and there's no indication of pagan copying going on--something almost every other scholar agrees with. If you a real counterargument, I'd be glad to hear it, but I don't expect I'll be seeing one.
|
These situations are not equivalent though - the human equivalent of buying a dog from a breeder would be if you bought a baby which had been selectively bred for many generations so it looked remarkably different from other humans, and may also be at risk for health problems.
Like ''I want a Hapsburg please.''
|
> Now that that particular phrase has been so badly abused and corrupted, it is probably no longer useful in that form, but the original message behind it can still be conveyed in other forms - for example, if there is a debate about whether males and females should be given equal time off work after the birth of a baby, one could say something like ''Since you are male, you are only looking at this from the perspective of a parent wanting time to spend with their new baby, but you are not considering that the female parent needs time to physically recover from the whole pregnancy and birth process''.
The point of equal, mandatory parental leave is to make pregnancy a non-factor in hiring decisions. Besides, physical recovery from pregnancy depends highly on the individual and can be covered by medical leave rather than trying to install a blanket privilege for all females.
|
Well, the journal editors are the ones who decide whether the paper is appropriate for the journal and then decide whether to send it out to peer review or not. (Not all submissions are sent out for peer review — the editors make the first decision as to whether it is right for the journal or not.) Since this is done on a journal-by-journal basis, with different editors at each, there is going to be inconsistency here (some may be more open-minded than others), but if you are an independent scholar it is going to take a lot of effort to get your work taken seriously. I know some who have pulled it off, but it is still fairly unusual. And the ones I know who have pulled it off had advanced degrees in the subject, and presented at conferences, and knew the right people, etc. — that is the "work" they had to do make sure they wouldn't be ignored just because of their lack of an affiliation (along with the fact that their work is of high quality).
(This is true in the sciences as well; studies have been done showing that even identical articles get treated differently depending on the listed affiliations of the authors. It is perhaps worth remembering that even that intrepid young patent clerk, <PERSON>, only had his work admitted to journals because he managed to attract the favor and patronage of an established scientist of unimpeachable reputation, <PERSON>, and that otherwise he probably would have been ignored as well.)
|
Hmm… I still don't think that is good evidence. For one, it is only about college policy which I expect only administrators and politically-involved students to care about.
But even disregarding that, according to NCES, in 2012, [only 33% of the US population had a bachelor's degree](http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cac.asp). This does not include vocational degrees (which would be classified under [OECD ISCED 5B](http://stats.oecd.org/glossary/detail.asp?ID=5441)). I don't have good data on vocational schooling.
Also, since we're talking about college itself, we'd have to also include people who dropped out which I'll estimate as [41%](https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=40) (which generously includes everyone who got a degree in more than 4 years).
33% * 100% / 59% = 56% of the total population were enrolled in a baccalaureate program if I understood my sources right.
There seems to be some data on vocational degrees [here](http://nces.ed.gov/pubs/web/95024-2.asp) (NCES), but I'm starting to get confused about how the US system works (vocational courses are partly given in high school?), so I'll refrain from trying to guess at what the numbers might be.
---
My point still stands however that I expect the people you have talked to be biased in some way (I know that I tend to know and discuss more with highly-educated people if nothing else). So I question the confidence of, at the very least, my own sampling to get an idea of what *most* people may think.
|
I think it feels more like /r/DebateAnAtheist. As noted, it's part of the culture here to ask questions to open up debates, but I also think that sometimes the asker seeks to get specific responses from theists which they can then easily refute, but I think that is a bit annoying.
|
Okay, you make a lot of good points. I think I would still say that anti-theist applies, but anti-religious does too. I think that the act of holding a belief in a god or gods is harmful, and I also think that the organisations and actions that holding that belief result in are harmful as well. Would you say that makes sense?
|
Isn't extra time only granted to disabled students?
Because of equal opportunity employment, those with disabilities do get leeway even in employment situations, but I have more of a problem with you equating standardized testing to employment. Standardized testing is not a simulation of employment, and neither one should be a model for the other.
|
I think my argument says the opposite of what you're saying it does, as impulsive behavior would be illegal.
That seems rather unfair. Maybe the scan scans for how the behavior was made, whether impulsively or through actual consideration. After all, you can overcome impulsiveness.
However, if that should stay legal to make impulsive behaviors, I'm not too sure what the point would be for laws that make consent during intoxication or age durations null.
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.