The moment someone says they're an Anarchist I no longer take them seriously. They're obviously stupid, or at least in matters pertaining to politics/ economics and the world at large. I'm sure they may be talented at whatever field of study they pursue, but maybe they should just focus on that because their protests just fall on deaf ears, and for fair reason.

At 11/4/09 10:20 PM, Proteas wrote: I... I don't even know what to say.

There is a defensive set of enhancements in City of Heroes now geared specifically for PvP, and is an Uber-Rare item to get. It's selling for 1.38 BILLION in-game cash.

I've been playing this game for the better part of a year and a half now, and I think I've barely scratched 200 million just in game cash I've generated on my own. Do these people have just that little to do besides sit in front of their computer screen all day long and...I mean... do you know how many characters I could enhance with that kind of cash...? BLAGH!!!

*wraps head in duct tape*

If it's anything like WoW there are gold mills. A lot of these guys probably go to a third party and purchase in-game money for real money.

Also there's that exponential growth through specialisation thing. Don't know the math behind it, but I'm sure you'll understand what I'm getting at. Maybe Elfer can help us out here.

On another note I'm also becoming really depressed because I'm beginning to wonder why I didn't do Political Science as a major, as I seem to spend endless hours studying it and obsessing over it. All these years and money studying and I only find out now I want to change when I'm halfway through. I hate my life.

Coming to think of it, I hate specializing period. Master of nothing studies.

At 11/4/09 02:35 AM, fli wrote:

Cheeses shouldn't be a problem.
and I've learned that I can have less than a half measured cup of milk without any problems... just the appropriate amount to dunk in a cookie or two.

I don't think he can chuck this up to lactose intolerant.
If you eat an entire pizza... and then a big old thing of ice cream... then you would get stomach and digestive problems lactose tolerant or not.

That's wrong. My family does it all the time, and my housemates and I had the exact same course last night, I was the only one with the stomach ache. I've been diagnosed with it, after going to several GPs complaining about stomach problems. I was once shuttled away to hospital in a stretcher because I had cereal that morning. Yes, cereal. That was how I found out I was lactose intolerant, when my bowels almost exploded.

I've essentially forgotten the taste of milk 3 years after giving up on the stuff. I could switch over the lactose free stuff, but... it's just not the same.

How can you dismiss it before even trying it?

Lactose free milk, depending on the brand is fantastic. Most of the taste difference I'd say is largely imagined. It's a little bit sweeter than ordinary milk, something to do with the process by which they eliminate the lactase. So yes, Proteas I would strongly recommend you try it. I went on cereal binges after I discovered it.

And Stafffighter, I suppose Soy sauce is the exception. A very good exception. Amazing condiment, but soy milk is still disgusting.

The irony of your situation completely escapes you sadisticmonkey.
Woe is me, I've lived a hard life bla bla bla.

Your parents don't have to do shit to put you through university. So don't try to pull the wool over anybody's eyes with your whine.

And how are those HECS places supported, other than through Australia's egalitarian system the one that you so vehemently oppose and yet is cushioning you through your tertiary years. If irony and embarrassment had a son, they'd call it sadisticmonkey.

At 11/3/09 05:15 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/3/09 08:36 AM, tony4moroney wrote: Problem: I'm lactose intolerant.

So that's you, me, fli, and more (I think). Can we call it a club, yet?

Apparently I survived it though, so I decided to test fate again and try the same combination another time. I must be why Darwin's Theory remains one.

You're a much braver man than I, or at the very least, stronger in constitution than I. I'm just waiting for the day they make a soy juice that actually tastes like milk, instead of a vanilla milkshake. I miss my granola breakfast cereal, dammit. :-(

Soy is absolute garbage, but due to financial constraints I've been forced to substitute it for milk as often as I can.

I've also read that high consumption of soy products can lower your testosterone levels, but there isn't highly conclusive research on that, however much of the bodybuilding community avoid it like the plague read into it what you may, but I tend to be skeptical of it.

Now I hear you saying "Wait milk? What?"

Not sure about your local supermarket but there should be a lactose free milk range. If not, I'd search around for some it's more common than you'd think, I haven't tried powdered milk but you can order powdered lactose free milk from the internets. Not sure how long you've been deprived of milk for, but man, the moment I discovered it I was so excited I almost hopped and skipped like a schoolgirl.

Currently over cereal but you better believe I ate cereal everyday, oftentimes substituting or eating it immediately after a main when I discovered the miracle of lactose free milk.

At 11/2/09 04:49 PM, lapis wrote:

At 11/2/09 04:31 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I think the larger problem is when the money ends up in cyclical cycles

It's a real bummer when you realise that this money could have actually gone to the acyclical cycles in which it belongs.

Like?

The subject is really grey funnily enough I once again agree with gumonshoe. The problem is having the money end up in cyclical cycles.
Poxpower also raises a good point in his entirely eccentric manner - The trickle-effect theory assumes essentially that many of the affluent belong to the latter group, people who are wealthy but financially unstable.

The problem is a lot of wealthy people have gotten that way through investing their money, understanding it's value, and working for it. Yes, they'll have higher expenditures but a lot of that money is tied up in assets rather than being circulated throughout the economy, which is a HUGE variable that the trickle-down theory neglects.

There's also the problem of conflicting opinions on ethics. Group A believes they should be taxed more because it's 'fair', and they'd be helping out more. Group B believes that Group A shouldn't impose it's values on others, or perhaps that the same outcomes can be achieved through trickle-down theory.

Based on income inequality and living standards by comparison to OECD, Canada, Australia as proof, Trickle-Down theory has been disproven. Group A's theory of higher taxes is obviously more successful in redistributing quality of life more equally. However it doesn't disprove B's statement that it is 'wrong to impose values on others'.

Perhaps Trickle-Down could be amended, make it compulsory to expend a certain % of income on general goods and services, rather than increase taxes.

At 11/3/09 06:57 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: Anyone will twist the words of someone else and even their life for the sake of a name drop. Even in recent history (King, Reagan, Mother Theresa, etc) there are plenty of people who are used to justify points they may not have aligned themselves with.

Personally, intention of the founding fathers doesn't go very far. They lived in a different time period with different concerns. The government they had then had a very different job and was much more concerned about maintaining borders than keeping the peace. There wasn't such thing as a computer or a machine gun or even an atomic bomb. We weren't strong enough to be an imperial power, etc.

Any claim you'd make about what the founding fathers wanted, should have a pretty just argument to begin with without incorporating them. Still, I fully expect to see name dropping in any political arena.

Completely agreed on all accounts.

> Different time period, different concerns of Government. If discussing the ideology of the founding fathers it needs to be shown that the issue being discussed is even relevant to their ideologies, and proven that it isn't outdated.

> However name-dropping is inevitable because politics is, well, politics. The entire profession requires a strongly developed skill-set of manipulative, influential interpersonal skills. Linking their statements to famous historical figures is evidently an attempt to bring weight to their point, a perfect illustration of persuasion through pathos and ethos.

Something that is largely forgotten on this site oftentimes ;).

I contracted food poisoning on Friday from sharing drinks. After figuring I'd seen through the worst of it, I decided to treat myself to an entire pizza and a generous serving of ice cream. Problem: I'm lactose intolerant.

Apparently I survived it though, so I decided to test fate again and try the same combination another time. I must be why Darwin's Theory remains one.

At 11/3/09 06:40 AM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/2/09 11:12 PM, tony4moroney wrote: Proteas, observing a phenomenon occurring and then penning it in latin does not make it a credible point of refute. "Argumentum Ad Inculco" isn't a logical fallacy. The logical flaw, in this case is the assumption that a person's belief is through indoctrination.

To say that my idea isn't a logical fallacy and then say that the idea is sound is a contradiction. The whole point of calling somebody out on a logical fallacy is to show that they've made an error in the logic or the way they've structured their argument, making it an excellent refutation for bad arguments.

I'm amazed this topic hasn't gotten as many responses than it has views.

After I posted that, I realized it had a problem reading clearly so I apologize.
What I meant to say is; while your observation that "many atheists assume theists have come to their belief-system through indoctrination" may or may not be accurate (let's assume it is), penning your theory and publishing it as Argumentum Ad Inculco is a little disingenuous.

It in itself can't be described as a new form of 'logical fallacy', which is what it appears you're trying to pass it off as, but rather it could be a common misconception specific to the topic of interest. To illustrate my point analogously: "All brits have bad teeth" as a generalisation. You wouldn't then coin it as 'Argumentum Ad Bada Teethos' and declare it a new type of logical fallacy to call people out on. It's patently wrong.

The logical fallacy as I said, is the assumption itself. This is what you were referring to.

Proteas, observing a phenomenon occurring and then penning it in latin does not make it a credible point of refute. "Argumentum Ad Inculco" isn't a logical fallacy. The logical flaw, in this case is the assumption that a person's belief is through indoctrination.

If you consider the healthcare systems of most first world countries with universal healthcare to be relatively successful, than the coexistence of private healthcare and public funded healthcare for America has a strong case as from what I'm aware with few exceptions all first world Universal Healthcare countries also have private health insurance.

Additionally, the case for public funded healthcare on the balance of probabilities should strongly favour the proponents of it. If you look at it from the Stiglitz view, or the neoclassical economic view healthcare was a market failure ab initio. Free market economies dictate market efficiencies occur only if there is profit to be made, negative externalities are considered, and there are sufficient competitors. Based on the fact that Healthcare provincially, can be like telco providers i.e only run by a few, as well as the entire industry being an oligopoly, there was the case that it was immediately flawed. Furthermore when you discuss it from the point of 'negative externalities' there is a conflict of interest in providing healthcare and increasing profits. The Public stake in healthcare is comprehensive cover, whereas the Corporate stake in healthcare is to provide minimum healthcare read: profit maximisation.

This is proven by the inefficiency in healthcare expenditure per capita when you compare it from the U.S to other First World countries, and then again, compare the WHO measurement of overall quality of healthcare provided to demonstrate that for money, America spends more but receives less ROI.

I'm curious, why has Proteas lost his mod privileges?

Overwhelmingly increase deficit with the purchase of toxic assets and compromise long-term financial stability in order to superficially inflate the present economy?

Well yeah, I suppose the stimulus is working remarkably in that sense.

At 10/9/09 07:52 AM, Elfer wrote: "Hey guys, who haven't we given a peace prize to yet?"

"Obama! OBAMA!"

"Yeah, sure, whatever" *click* *click*

It's a shame they don't treat the peace prize with as much care and respect as they treat the other nobel prizes.

I agree with this. What an absolute joke the Nobel Peace Prize is.
Peculiarly as well, Obama has introduced Tax Tariffs on Chinese imported car tyres. Why taxes on those imports but not from other countries which provide the same product? A little lack of foresight there? And is it even necessary? Why would you agitate a relationship with your largest creditor, especially given the fragility of the current economic climate?

I tell you why: Obama is just another lobbyist cocksucker who panders to party interests.

Just for emphasis I'd like to reiterate what most others here have said:

Fundamental Math skills is important regardless of what job you want. It develops logical thinking, analytical and problem solving skills and additionally, should be something an educated person should be capable of doing.

Sure there might be absolutely zero math required in your future desired career but, assuming the industry slumps or you seek a career change, throwing all your eggs into the no math basket will prove to be an absolute disaster and that's probably a consideration of the college admins as well.

It pisses me off when there are people who are so incredibly allergic and incompetent at math that they have to paper-bag it everytime they see it.

Each passing generation is becoming more and more degenerate at the math and sciences it's quite tragic...

Ahh hello guys. I'm finally back after a year long hiatus. Wonder if anybody remembers me =)

Damn I was sitting there trying to make up a lame pun to respond to this thread but couldn't think of one.

On another note I think it's a 'coming of age' thing that a lot of these young kids grow up and start questioning society's general views and values. I went through it and I'm sure 99% of NG posters who have half a functioning brain have gone through it as well. You know, you sit there and rather than go "Oh hey it's Black History month" or "Oh hey it's another documentary on the evals of communism" you sit there and say, why is there a Black history month and is communism really evil? Much like how many young folk grow up and start questioning their own religious faith, it's just a part of growing up that you start questioning rather than just accepting.

Than why did you buy the stones if you're never going to use them? And why the obsession?

I mean I get cars, mechanical objects, supplements, electronics, tickets ecetera but knife sharpening rocks?

Obama nativity sets... fuuuuuuuuck.

At 11/10/08 05:41 PM, Dante-Son-Of-Sparda wrote: Tetralogy of Fallot (TOF) is a...

Your wikipedia skills are impressive.

To DirtySyko the solution is simple. Move out of the country. Apply for citizenship in a UHC country, that way you can get the surgery you need, though it might be a little difficult without any qualifications on your application form. Maybe go to Community College for a 6 month course or something in the meantime eh? How come you've never studied?

The One-Drop rule does not mean he is 'legally' Black. But yes visually and as society views him, he is a Black president. He himself has identified himself as being of African-American descent although I think this is incorrect as he grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii away from all the racial turmoil of mainland USA so I think it's quite inaccurate to describe him as being 'African-American' although technically that is what he is, not to mention he has no direct ancestry to African-Americans that were once slaves.

At 11/4/08 02:04 PM, Memorize wrote: YouTube and Google sometimes have 9/11 conspiracy videos as "featured videos" under "Education".

My understanding is that One of youtube's co-founders is a devout Scientologist which certainly explains why there's always a mysterious disappearance of anti-scientology videos there.

At 11/4/08 02:04 PM, Achilles2 wrote: Yes, because 3 minutes will decide the election.

Worry about more important factors instead of a YouTube video.

Not every single thread on the forum can be: "OMFG IRAQ WAR" or "THE ECONOMY SHE IS SINKING!!11!". And it's pretty silly of you to say that. Sure in this election I'm sure those youtube videos had no bearing on the outcome but in 2004 five hundred votes determined the election. Youtube is also becoming a media powerhouse, they've got a virtual monopoly on the online video market and as we shift more and more into receiving our information online it becomes more and more relevant where youtube stands in all this.

At 11/4/08 02:06 PM, Proteas wrote:

At 11/4/08 01:57 PM, CaiWengi wrote: Should youtube not be responsible and be fair about this?

Youtube's content is user generated, it's not subject to the equal time laws that apply to major news networks. It would be like Tom having to put up a "Heal and Love" section of cartoons to compensate for the all "Assassin" games.

That's a terrible analogy

At 11/6/08 12:39 AM, DirtySyko wrote:

At 11/5/08 11:38 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

Because it directly affects gay people whereas it doesn't affect the guy who feels he has the right to dictate how two human beings, who are not harming anybody and both consenting, live their lives.

Your arguments against me were terribly flawed.

And it directly affects that person because two gay people marrying is a direct violation of his religious beliefs. You let gay people off the hook for caring about nothing other than the right to marriage and yet have utter disdain for a person who has strong conviction in his religious beliefs? The economy is tanking, there's a war, there's millions starving to death while we eat ourselves to death and yet it is the priority of a gay person to see that they get to see through their marriage. That's not at all selfish is it.

At 11/6/08 12:47 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 11/5/08 08:15 AM, Ravariel wrote:
I was impressed by both speeches, actually. It finally seemed like the McCain I liked from 8 years ago came back out of hiding only when he lost... which is a shame.

Noticed the same thing.
Course, he's got no reason to pander to every idiot around anymore, so it's not surprising.

Yeah his speech writers are quite the poets aren't they.

........................................
........................

Prop8 was overturned. The people clearly know what I'm talking about dirtysyko =).

At 11/5/08 08:07 AM, bcdemon wrote: I'm all for assisted suicide, but I saw a story the other day out of Oregon about their program and the health insurance. A lady who had cancer was told by her health insurance provider that they would not pay for cancer treatments but they would pay for assisted suicide. And if what is written in this washington times report is true about I-1000, I wouldn't be voting for it.

You could easily amend these flaws (nice find btw)

A written request for death-inducing medication could be witnessed by a person with a financial interest in a patient's estate. Further, the proposed definition for "self-administer" would allow someone other than the patient - such as an heir to the patient's estate - to administer the lethal dose. I-1000 does not require any witnesses to the assisted suicide. This leaves no assurance that a patient took his own life and someone else did not take it for him.

- The dose can only be administered at a clinic under the witness of a doctor who does not have a financial stake in the suicidee's estate.

I-1000 also requires physicians to falsify death certificates in cases of assisted suicide. Physicians must state the underlying illness as the cause of death and are prohibited from naming "suicide," "assisted suicide," or "drug overdose" as the cause of death. Thus, if an eager heir decides to facilitate a patient's suicide, his tracks would be covered.

I don't understand why this is in place. Yeah ok the person doesn't want to be tallied in the "Suicide" column but you shouldn't falsify medical records. Medical records should state: "Euthanasia for irreversible testicular cancer" or something. Let it be known what the person was dying from, and that they underwent euthanasia. For accurate medical records at the very least.

I-1000 does not require family notification. Loving family members could be denied the opportunity to see and speak with loved ones who decide to prematurely end their lives.

Boohoo. If the person doesn't want to notify his family than he shouldn't have to, what is he a freak show or something? If he wants to end his life in privacy than let him have it. But as a safety measure the person should have to undergo therapy sessions before being administered the dose.

This irreparably changes the standard of care for the mentally ill. Patients suffering from depression and other common, treatable mental illnesses are put in life-threatening danger by I-1000. Patients who request assisted suicide would not undergo routine psychological assessment or treatment.

This is definitely fucking retarded. I always thought that if they were going to propose Euthanasia that they'd at least make a clause: "For exceptional circumstances only*. People with mental illnesses cannot seek I-1000". *Those circumstances being the person is in a constant state of unbearable physical pain or is suffering from a terminal illness.

According to this plan, if just one other state besides Oregon were to legalize physician-assisted suicide, it would start a domino effect and the country would soon follow.

*Yawn* where did I hear that before?

From a philosophical point of view it sounds like a good idea but it wouldn't work and it should never be implemented. Think about how dumb the average person is. Now imagine some scandal broke out where a teacher groped a student or teachers went on strike. Come next tax form Joe and Jane aren't going to tick the "Teacher's Salary" box and then the government is going to have to call an emergency bailout for education and write them a $700 Billion check.

At 11/5/08 11:16 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 11/5/08 10:46 PM, tony4moroney wrote:

I'll be damned if watching hours of that doesn't damage a kid's psychology because it certainly has messed with mine.

Well seeing as you have a messed up mind, maybe we shouldn't rely on your testimonies?
Haha.
But seriously, are you admitting that you treat women violently or something? What are you admitting to here? That you think women are real dolls with periods?

Or that you just feel guilty for watching so much porn?

LOL I knew you were going to say that once I read what you quoted.

Kind of. I'm saying that the way I view women and my sexual desires have become much more sadistic and I believe (with a great deal of confidence) that the primary and possibly only responsible cause for this is exposure to hardcore porn. In a way yes, I do view women a little more objectively and I view them similarly to how the stereotypical blue collar worker sees them. You know, a sexual object, and your only concern is using them for sexual gratification. This is a patently wrong worldview to have, or at least in my opinion and how our current society sees it and I wouldn't want my children to grow up with those images engraved into their minds.

At 11/5/08 11:36 PM, FatherTime89 wrote: It would need to be able to speak a human language and not be brain dead to give consent.

There are more pressing issues at hand than whether Joe the plumber wants to marry a GE human or sentient robot. Besides, if Joe married a sentient robot how would it affect you in anyway? What right do you have to infringe on their personal lives?

At 11/5/08 10:56 PM, DirtySyko wrote:

The common line I've heard from people who strongly oppose gay marriage, which is only a few I've spoken with in real life, say: "First we let gays get married, next people want to marry animals."

At that point I really wanted to express how two people have given consent to one another, whereas an animal doesn't have that ability, but I kept my mouth shut, because I figured if anybody is stupid enough to make a comment that asinine then they don't really deserve to be spoken with intelligently.

What if an animal could consent? Who are you to judge an animal and deem it inferior to a human? If an Jane was intelligent enough to fetch, play dead and sit on command and if Jane was intelligent enough to recognize when a threatening person was intruding onto his property to warn Bob than who are you to say that Jane isn't entitled to a union with Bob? She shows more loyalty to Bob than most couples do to each other so who are we to judge and say that it's wrong, just because she's of another species?

As far as what I said in the other thread: I think it's ludicrous for people to try and intervene in the lives of others if it doesn't cause direct harm to someone,

Exactly and why intervene in the life of Bob and Jane? They love each other and look after each other, why do you oppose their right to happiness? It's not as if their marriage would affect you in anyway.

and religious beliefs or not, I do not respect people who oppose gay marriage. There are bigger, more important issues to worry about, so if you spend your time living as a Fred Phelps jockey it may be high time to do a bit of self reflection.

And on a much more serious note what about gay people? You say you don't respect people who are opposed to gay marriage because there are bigger issues to worry about and yet you don't complain about gay people for whom this is is their primary or god forbid only issue they're concerned about when voting. Why the double standards?