The sad, or happy I guess depending on your table, thing is that this game can descend into entendre entirely too quickly. Something as simple as, "He unsheathes his longsword," can send the wrong group, or the right group depending on your table, down the unrecoverable road to perversion. Heaven forbid somebody brandishes a shortsword; their masculinity will be called into question for eternity.
It's hard to talk about rods, wands, and staves without eliciting some snickering.
Soldack Keldonson wrote:
Believing that social organization conduces to human thriving doesn't mean believing that every law is good. Take Princess Leia, for example. Her goal is to eliminate a system of political and social organization which is oppressive and destructive and replace it with one which is not. There's nothing inherently contradictory about being a lawful good rebel.
Lets stay on topic here the story isn't about semi-auto weapons. Its about a person defending themselves and then being made out to look like an insane blood thirsty murder.
The limits of your right to inflict harm on someone, even someone trying to hurt you, is a topic worthy of philosophical inquiry. I find that many gun rights advocates fall prey to false dilemma thinking here, i.e., have trouble understanding the idea that doing something "bad" doesn't wholly abrogate your morally considerability. Thinking in black and white is certainly easier on the poor, overwhelmed human brain than contemplating the complexities of this issue, but I don't accept that once you try to commit a trangression against me all moral bets are off and nearly anything I do to you is justifiable.
As someone smart once said about pronunciation, you must often choose between sounding like an ignorant toad or sounding like a supercilious toad.
1:"We visited several chateaux."
English I find is in many ways much less economical than other languages. It seems to me that this pattern is most common in gnomic utterances (e.g., 'The good die young,' 'the rich get richer,' 'the poor you have always with you.').
I see your point, though Latin adjectives are often used as substantives."Boni laborant" is understood to mean "The good (men/people) work(s)."
Not sure why some words are customarily partially declined and others aren't. At this point "data," the nominative/accusative plural of the 2nd declension neuter "datum," isn't going away. "Datums" is not entering the English language.
Federal courts have, however, consistently rejected an individual right(s) interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Gun enthusiasts don't like to talk about this, despite their claims of fervent belief in our system and in the rule of law. Not surprisingly, most "gun people" feel that the Constitution happens to mean precisely what they want it to mean.
I wondered about that also, but I think it is safe to assume that he wasn't thinking clearly at that point. It's conceivable that he planned to kill himself but didn't (couldn't) go through with it. I imagine that you can't really say whether you are willing to blow your brains out until you are at the point of doing it.
Jerry Wright 307 wrote:
Wish is an event in my game. It's not cheap. It costs you time, money, and other stuff you might not know about before you cast it. Such is the nature of great magical power. You don't just flick your wrist and forget it like it's a cantrip.
I don't endorse 4, and I think it is more useful to say that philosophy can be lived naively (unreflectively) or (self-)consciously. Most people don't, for example, spend a great deal of time or brainpower articulating for themselves their ideas about the problem of conduct (how should I live, what should I do, how should others live, what should others do or not do), and yet of course we are all forming opinions about it all the time and momently pursuing modes of life informed by those opinions.
A Man In Black wrote:
It's good to remember that what we call science was long known as natural philosophy. The terms we use in talking about the enterprise and those who prosecute it became widespread in the 19th century.
Kain Darkwind wrote:
Yeah, but this
he's presented himself as the most reasonable and even tempered guy on the religious side of things.
is like saying,"I don't know why such civil pro-lifers are being received so uglily at this NARAL event." The climate on these boards is decidedly anti-religious (I won't try to adduce any reasons for this, though I have some ideas).
My first thought is a good-natured gearhead, maybe a dwarf. I don't see anything strange about being good and being mechanically inclined, and having good fine motor skills. You need a methodical, logical approach and organized mind for such things. Maybe you have developed some stealth as well as an adaptation to bullying (you don't like fighting much so you learned early to avoid being mistreated for being nerdy by slinking away or melting into shadows). Not every LG is a crusader, but you use your skills to help people whenever you can. Perhaps you help those unjustly imprisoned to escape by defeating shackles, cell locks, etc. when you can.
Probably what I remember SJ Gould for most was his dogged attempts to combat the idea that humans are the best/most powerful/most important thing in the universe.
Although any designation of most salient features must reflect the interests of the observer, I challenge anyone with professional training in evolutionary theory to defend the extending tip of the right tail as more definitive or more portentous than the persistence in one place, and constant growth in height, of the bacterial mode. The recorded history of life began with bacteria 3.5 billion years ago, continued as a tale of prokaryotic unicells alone for probably more than a billion years, and has never experienced a shift in the modal position of complexity. We do not live in what older books called "the age of man" (1 species), or "the age of mammals" (4000 species among more than a million for the animal kingdom alone), or even in "the age of arthropods" (a proper designation if we restrict our focus to the Metazoa, but surely not appropriate if we include all life on earth). We live, if we must designate an exemplar at all, in a persisting "age of bacteria"-the organisms that were in the beginning , are now, and probably ever shall be (until the sun runs out of fuel) the dominant creatures on earth by any standard evolutionary criterion of biochemical diversity, range of habitats, resistance to extinction, and perhaps, if the "deep hot biosphere" of bacteria within subsurface rocks matches the upper estimates for spread and abundance, even in biomass. I will only remind colleagues of Woese's "three-domain" model for life's full genealogy, a previously surprising but now fully accepted, and genetically documented, scheme displaying the phylogenetic triviality of all multicellular existence (a different issue, I fully admit, from ecological importance). Life's tree is, effectively, a bacterial bush. Two of the three domains belong to prokaryotes alone, while the three kingdoms of multicellular eukaryotes (plants, animals, and fungi) appear as three twigs at the terminus of the third domain.
Robert Hawkshaw wrote:
The last few years, I guess roughly since the world blew up in 2008, I've read the same story over and over again: I'm out of law school with a zillion dollars worth of debt and no hope of being able to pay it back; this was a ruinous decision.
Kelsey MacAilbert wrote:
I think you would start with something like the BS in Evolutionary Anthropology I did at Rutgers .
You're talking about some pretty specialized areas of interest at the undergraduate level, and you also have to consider that not all courses in a catalog are offered regularly. You don't want to pick a school counting on being able to take a few specific classes, only to find out that they aren't been given during your time there. Of course lower-level courses are offered more frequently because there is more demand for them, but upper-level courses can go through long periods of unavailability. You have to be flexible and take what is available that meets your requirements.
If you're doing a 4 year degree in the US, usually the first 2 years are mostly general ed requirements. After that you probably have to take more general, lower-level courses in your field. In the end, it's likely you won't get to take loads of 300 or 400 level (advanced) courses that are somewhat more specialized. What I am saying is at most schools you don't get to customize and specialize too much until you get to graduate school.
Again, we would have to define 'respect'. As I understand it, many native American cultures 'respected' animals and yet they ate them.
Would respect mean that we are obligated to prevent infanticide, coercive copulation, and warfare among what used to be called higher primates? The first two are natural aspects of certain primates' (including gorillas' and orangutans') social and reproductive lives.
Andrew Turner wrote:
I never really get used to the strangeness of the idea that one extant human (sensu lato) species is the exception, not the norm for the last 7 million years or however long ago it was that the human lineage diverged from the chimp lineage. I had this weird flash before: "Specializing in Neandertal, early Homo, and Australopithecine medicine."
Kirth Gersen wrote:
You can bet that, were there other extant human species (of our genus or of closely related genera) still walking the planet, most of us would consider them subhuman.
There are seven principles which Unitarian Universalist congregations affirm and promote:
The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
That sounds nice but it kind of leaves open that gigantic philosophical question of personhood. I don't really want to talk about fetuses. Is a bonobo a person? What about artificial intelligence or aliens? Thoughts about who is or isn't a person and why?
Jean-Paul Sartre, Intrnet Troll wrote:
They're not on the Bad Country list like China.
Celestial Healer wrote:
I like him, too. I've also discovered a (living) Finnish composer called Einojuhani Rautavaara. Cantus Arcticus has become one of my favorite pieces.
I've struggled a lot with a cluster of related conditions (depression, anxiety, social anxiety, obsessive thinking) and I have a lot of experience with various modalities, lots of shrinks, and with IOP, so please let me know if I can help by sharing my knowledge. Maybe the toughest thing about emotional/cognitive/behavioral issues is that by their nature they often disincline you from talking about them and seeking the treatment you need for them.
Tough to know just what the issues are without knowing the person or knowing more about the person. I would certainly talk to a psychiatrist and psychologist if I had such problems (I have perhaps had similar problems), since it could be a struggle with an organic illness like OCD. If that is what it should probably be attacked from several different angles (behavioral, as others suggested, as well as possibly pharmacological). I have an organic problem with obsessive thinking which I can manage with some success or allow to dominate (give it room to flourish, so to speak), depending on the choices I make.
(Brain) organization during development in utero, and hormonal activation are separate, though related, phenomena. Simon LeVay's research on hypothalamic structure could be a starting point. He found that the size of certain areas (INAH3) of the anterior hypothalamus may correlate with sexual orientation.
Lord Snow wrote:
Bonobos, considered our closest living cousins among extant primates, are frequently cited in this regard. I don't know if any bonobos are known to be preferentially homosexual, but they have been publicized as the sexy ape, as many engage in sex liberally (and creatively) with conspecifics of both sexes. Also because of the important role sex plays in bonobo group life.
You don't have to be. I'm sorry if someone else mentioned this, or if it is so obvious as to be trivial, but sex is very often situational. If people are together, especially in stressful situations (which is to say, all the time, for us), they have sex. In every way that people can have sex-consensual, coercive, m-m, f-f, f-m. For various reasons,gay people produce offspring, not infrequently.
If atheism is a religion, then you are broadening the definition of religion so much that it doesn't really mean anything anymore.
How about Unitarian Universalism? We call ourselves a religion and are widely recognized as such. Many of us meet in a building we call a church, despite having no creed. Though our movement has its roots in non-Trinitarian Christianity (we come from a business merger of two Christian movements about 50 years ago and trace our roots to Michael Servetus in the 16th century), many of us identify as agnostics or atheists.
Apparently you can see it if you take the guided tour. Speaking of the Met, I recommend the Cloisters also. Really wonderful spot, even if you don't care much for art or history, especially during the warm months when they have their gardens going and you can enjoy the views outside. Unfortunately not too convenient if time is tight because it's way out of the way in the northern boonies of Manhattan.
I would say Strand is a must-visit for you, and while you are in the NYU nabe take a stroll past the arch in Washington Square Park and check out the famous chess hustlers, and also check out Union Square. The Marshall Chess Club is also in that area, kind of the Yankee Stadium of chess. Even if you don't play it's pretty cool as a geek to tread the floors Bobby Fischer and so many other luminaries have trodden. Depending on how lost you get in Strand, you can do this whole tour in a few hours. If I were coming for the first and maybe only time, I'm sure I would visit the Met Museum and the Morgan Library. The nice thing about NYC museums is that there are a bunch on the upper East side not too far from one another (Museum Mile). Another nice idea for a day out is checking out the financial district (the famous bull, stock exchange, House of Morgan, etc. I have always wanted to see the gold in the Fed vault but never gotten around to it) and South St Seaport and taking a ride back and forth on the Staten Island ferry, especially at night.
Wondering if any groups use one, loose or strict, and what standards you use. We all know stuff happens and people have more important things than RPGing going on, and we don't want to exclude good players who are friends, but at some point you just become a drag on everyone if you miss too many sessions. If you miss more than, like, once every couple of months (let's say more than 10-15% of sessions), I think you are becoming a problem, especially in a long-term campaign. Thoughts?
We #2s are a minority, and we are interested in human truth. I wouldn't use the term "social utility," but as Alain de Botton says in his fine book Religion for Atheists we believe that we have secularized poorly, meaning that we struggle to take the deep human truth and wisdom found in religious practice and develop secular practices and institutions informed by them. Most people are either believers or people who want to dump religion wholesale.
I'm afraid it's very front-loaded vis-a-vis exposition. You introduce (presumably) our hero, but then we detour to this (I'm not trying to put you down here) textbook about his life and personal history. Generally it is much more effective (draws the reader in more) to start in the middle of things (medias res), often with action or with something that reveals the hero through his actions, and then work in the exposition more gradually and incidentally as you proceed.