RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Proverbs 26:11.And the following verse to you, sir.
Well played, poodle.
I've actually had the exact opposite experience. I know many more woman who get stuck on something and entrench themselves deeper than men, who don't tend to emotionally invest themselves as much. My mom, sisters, and some friends are perfect examples... as opposed to some of my guy friends who will tend to keep counter examples in mind.
I propose that men and women alike are equally inclined to be emotional or dispassionate, rigid or flexible. The virtually infinite list of double standards that culture imposes upon us incline us to see identical behaviors differently depending on the sex of the person. It's harmful to both sexes. Rigid, narrowly-defined, often impossible to meet, almost always contradictory social prescriptions are terrible for everybody. But women almost universally get the worst of it.
I propose that men and women alike are equally inclined to be emotional or dispassionate, rigid or flexible. The virtually infinite list of double standards that culture imposes upon us incline us to see identical behaviors differently depending on the sex of the person. It's harmful to both sexes. Rigid, narrowly-defined, often impossible to meet, almost always contradictory social prescriptions are terrible for everybody. But women almost universally get the worst of it.
+1
My life would have been simpler and made more sense if someone would have explained this to me in high school instead of me having to wade through all the gender bias crap.
I propose that men and women alike are equally inclined to be emotional or dispassionate, rigid or flexible. The virtually infinite list of double standards that culture imposes upon us incline us to see identical behaviors differently depending on the sex of the person. It's harmful to both sexes. Rigid, narrowly-defined, often impossible to meet, almost always contradictory social prescriptions are terrible for everybody. But women almost universally get the worst of it.+1
My life would have been simpler and made more sense if someone would have explained this to me in high school instead of me having to wade through all the gender bias crap.
Mine too. We talked a little bit about how traditional gender roles unfairly limited women, but never ventured far into just how pervasive and dysfunctional the whole dynamic is for everybody. I imagine it's for much the same reason US history classes almost always find a way to stop with the Civil Rights movement, and often treat that rather shallowly.
Well played, poodle.
You as well.
But hey, I found you a dog verse!
Yes. Yes, you did. Including one of my favorite pass times as well. Vomit is teh yummy!
Dogs are dangerous…
No more so than man.
…and why people should avoid this thread.
I disagree.
For, if ye may love those loving you, what reward have ye? do not also the tax-gatherers the same? and if ye may salute your brethren only, what do ye abundant? do not also the tax-gatherers so? --Matthew 5:46-47
How can you hope to gain understanding if you only debate with those whom agree with you?
|
|
I propose that men and women alike are equally inclined to be emotional or dispassionate, rigid or flexible. The virtually infinite list of double standards that culture imposes upon us incline us to see identical behaviors differently depending on the sex of the person. It's harmful to both sexes. Rigid, narrowly-defined, often impossible to meet, almost always contradictory social prescriptions are terrible for everybody. But women almost universally get the worst of it.
I've actually had the exact opposite experience. I know many more woman who get stuck on something and entrench themselves deeper than men, who don't tend to emotionally invest themselves as much. My mom, sisters, and some friends are perfect examples... as opposed to some of my guy friends who will tend to keep counter examples in mind.
Absolutely, it's something I try to avoid doing and would hope somebody would point it out. Still, I have to call things as I see them. I ended up with a selection of very narrow minded women, others will end up with narrow minded men and make your first statement true enough. The product, however, is hardly homogenous.
Happy Eid ul-Fitr today or tomorrow (I am not sure which).
Happy Eid ul-Fitr today or tomorrow (I am not sure which).
Tomorrow as far as I know, but I'm sure the people that celebrate it appreciate the gesture.
I thought this quote interesting...
“No one asks you to throw Mozart out of the window. Keep Mozart. Cherish him. Keep Moses too, and Buddha and Lao Tzu and Christ. Keep them in your heart. But make room for the others, the coming ones, the ones who are already scratching on the window-panes.” --Henry Miller
I thought this quote interesting...
“No one asks you to throw Mozart out of the window. Keep Mozart. Cherish him. Keep Moses too, and Buddha and Lao Tzu and Christ. Keep them in your heart. But make room for the others, the coming ones, the ones who are already scratching on the window-panes.” --Henry Miller
*sigh* The Defenestration of Mozart is a lost art. Back in the day we could throw him twenty, thirty feet. We used to put a little ring on the ground and you tried to get him in that. There was this kid down the street, he could put Mozart in a ring full of spikes from four stories up with a strong crosswind.
I hate the fact that kids today grow up without ever hurling the mortal remains of a world-famous composer out of a building. We're teaching them that the dead are not playthings. I don't know where I'd be today if I never got the chance to bowl with Tom Paine's skull and had sword battles using Jefferson Davis's femur. Sure every now and then an angry spirit disemboweled a few kids and hung their entrails from trees, but that just made us tougher.
Would it make you feel any better if we tossed you out the window?
“No one asks you to throw Mozart out of the window. Keep Mozart. Cherish him.
No, he's quite well-cherished enough, thanks. I was in Vienna last month -- I'm so sick of Mozart I could puke. It's not enough to put his statue all over the city -- they have to make liquor bottles and chocolates that are shaped like him.
“No one asks you to throw Mozart out of the window. Keep Mozart. Cherish him.No, he's quite well-cherished enough, thanks. I was in Vienna last month -- I'm so sick of Mozart I could puke. It's not enough to put his statue all over the city -- they have to make liquor bottles and chocolates that are shaped like him.
<Insert joke about Mozart and oral acts>
Would it make you feel any better if we tossed you out the window?
Maaaaaybe. :)
No, he's quite well-cherished enough, thanks.
It occurs to me you are simply not in the cherishing mood. :P
Given the altyernative meaning of the verb 'to toss', could we not talk about tossing Mozart (or Samnell) out of a window? My brain bleach supply is running low lately.
Pssst! Tosser.
Was mine too out of left field? I can explain if anyone is interested... >:)
I had hit reply before I saw yours.
It occurs to me you are simply not in the cherishing mood. :P
It's because my leg is feeling so lonely.
It occurs to me you are simply not in the cherishing mood. :P
It's because my leg is feeling so lonely.
Doppleganger! Kill it! Kill it!Your post isn't feeling lonely. It has a twin!It occurs to me you are simply not in the cherishing mood. :PIt's because my leg is feeling so lonely.
Everybody knows that when someone is cloned, one of them is inevitably evil and will have an irresistible urge to kill the other. There's no reason for us to get our hands dirty. We're nerds here and let's act like it.
Tell me something only the real Kirth Gerson would know!
OK: it's "-sen." Only the real me knows that!
If all life is sacred, is cloned life sacred or an abomination?
If all life is sacred, is cloned life sacred or an abomination?
YES!
If all life is sacred, is cloned life sacred or an abomination?YES!
Then what is to be done about it?
Then what is to be done about it?If all life is sacred, is cloned life sacred or an abomination?YES!
Poor marketing, worse movies and massive nerd rage!
|
|
There are going to be some issues with people who are created via cloning technology, one of the problems is going to be a struggle with authenticity as an individual. "Am I a copy?" one might ask, a very valid question in their case.
From an individual perspective, it's not likely that their humanity will be in doubt. They're given the full faculties and abilities of their source genetics, barring some accident, and therefore would have those standard capabilities.
The question this raises: With technology of genetic engineering advancing, what would make someone *not* be human?
Bereaved Australians are insufficiently miserable and must be made more joyless and desolated, says Archbishop.
The guidelines for Catholic funerals, sent by Archbishop of Melbourne Denis Hart, also declare that a funeral should not be a "celebration" of the deceased's life.
Because that would be...wrong?
The new guidelines say a Catholic funeral should never be "a celebration of the life".
Apparently. Well what would one do, then? I mean I've been to funerals and they're not all strippers and blow as it is.
The main focus of a funeral should be "commending the deceased person to God".
Oh. I guess that's more important than having healthy grieving and achieving closure in the manner of one's choice. Who knew my mother's twin brother was doing it wrong when he picked a few secular songs out for his? Anybody else have a dead family member fined for improper celebration?
There are going to be some issues with people who are created via cloning technology, one of the problems is going to be a struggle with authenticity as an individual. "Am I a copy?" one might ask, a very valid question in their case.
Yeah, like if I get a fake knee, I should probably be all angsty that I'm no longer human. "Am I just a robot now?" I'd ask, and it would be a very valid question.
Or not.
Now, if they somehow figure out how to artificially alter my DNA so that I grow giant insect wings and have compound eyes and three hearts... then maybe "human?" is a valid question. But that's a question of changing the DNA intentionally, vs. simply copying it.
Now, if they somehow figure out how to artificially alter my DNA so that I grow giant insect wings and have compound eyes and three hearts... then maybe "human?" is a valid question. But that's a question of changing the DNA intentionally, vs. simply copying it.
It's really silly. So far as I can tell, all the fretting over human cloning is a bunch of superstition. Mass produced humans? It's called sex. Duplicates of existing people? Identical twins. We already have all the legal structure and such that we would require to handle it.
In fact, it seems to me that identical twins should be more a cause for concern than cloning. Your clone might be your identical twin, but you are of different ages and likely grow up in rather different environments. It's consequently that much more likely to be totally different from you than your normal identical twin would be...and having known a few I'm confident in saying that regular old identicals are still plenty divergent from one another. They're a far cry from mere copies.
|
|
There are going to be some issues with people who are created via cloning technology, one of the problems is going to be a struggle with authenticity as an individual. "Am I a copy?" one might ask, a very valid question in their case.Yeah, like if I get a fake knee, I should probably be all angsty that I'm no longer human. "Am I just a robot now?" I'd ask, and it would be a very valid question.
I think I'd ask "Am I obsolete?" if I were you and had a younger clone. Just kidding.
You do bring up yet another question: When does something not human become human, or can it at all?
I think I'd ask "Am I obsolete?" if I were you and had a younger clone. Just kidding.
I hope you're kidding. I have a younger brother, and he in no way rendered me obsolete. An even younger brother who looked even more like me (i.e., a clone) still wouldn't make me any more obsolete.
|
|
I think I'd ask "Am I obsolete?" if I were you and had a younger clone. Just kidding.I hope you're kidding. I have a younger brother, and he in no way rendered me obsolete. An even younger brother who looked even more like me (i.e., a clone) still wouldn't make me any more obsolete.
Bingo, it's just a joke. :P
|
I think I'd ask "Am I obsolete?" if I were you and had a younger clone. Just kidding.I hope you're kidding. I have a younger brother, and he in no way rendered me obsolete. An even younger brother who looked even more like me (i.e., a clone) still wouldn't make me any more obsolete.
He's not "Kirth 2.0"?
Regarding your other question, Stud, everyone answers it differently. I'm told the Indonesian name for orang-utans is something like "forest people" -- more strikingly, some of the West African peoples apparently didn't conceive of chimpanzees as being other than a different tribe of (often hostile) people. Given that not only have researchers taught chimps to speak using sign language, but at least one chimp (Washoe) has taught it to her offspring... and at least one bonobo (Kanzi) can beat Pac-Man and also make stone tools (in addition to communicating fluently using pictographs)... well, the dividing line is a big blur, not a line.
|
|
Regarding your other question, Stud, everyone answers it differently. I'm told the Indonesian name for orang-utans is something like "forest people" -- more strikingly, some of the West African peoples apparently didn't conceive of chimpanzees as being other than a different tribe of (often hostile) people. Given that not only have researchers taught chimps to speak using sign language, but at least one chimp (Washoe) has taught it to her offspring... and at least one bonobo (Kanzi) can beat Pac-Man and also make stone tools (in addition to communicating fluently using pictographs)... well, the dividing line is a big blur, not a line.
So, hypothetically, what would make it clear?
So, hypothetically, what would make it clear?
An alternate universe? Because, seriously, in reality it's not clear. It's muddy. Any intellectual construct clarifying it would therefore be nothing more than a falsehood.
We need to just expand our tolerance for ambiguity.
|
|
So, hypothetically, what would make it clear?An alternate universe? Because, seriously, in reality it's not clear. It's muddy. Any intellectual construct clarifying it would therefore be nothing more than a falsehood.
We need to just expand our tolerance for ambiguity.
Okay, I guess I won't ask about hypothetical situations anymore then. :(
Regarding your other question, Stud, everyone answers it differently. I'm told the Indonesian name for orang-utans is something like "forest people" -- more strikingly, some of the West African peoples apparently didn't conceive of chimpanzees as being other than a different tribe of (often hostile) people. Given that not only have researchers taught chimps to speak using sign language, but at least one chimp (Washoe) has taught it to her offspring... and at least one bonobo (Kanzi) can beat Pac-Man and also make stone tools (in addition to communicating fluently using pictographs)... well, the dividing line is a big blur, not a line.
It says to me that the dividing line isn't really species-based. It's not obvious that membership in H. sapiens sapiens is all that important, morally speaking. A chimp is not a human, but it might be a person in the same sense that a Vulcan or a Klingon would be a person if they existed.