Success in becoming a stoic sage; Aristotle understands that there are a number of external factors that play a role in forming that virtuous character and that the conditions for a "good life" free from the burden of adversity include both a state of mind and position in an external world; to deny your sexual needs, for instance, or in the absence of healthy living conditions.
In terms of ethics, certainly in a practical way, I often side with the Stoics more than with Aristotle or Plato for that matter. The reason for this is that Plato/Aristotle are elitist - the "good life" isn't open to everyone, regardless of their circumstances. Only a select few, who are blessed by the gods and are given favourable winds, only they can reach up to the ideal of the good life. Whereas Stoicism works regardless of circumstance - if you are a slave, or if you are the Emperor.
Also, Stoicism seems to teach more of what it actually takes to be successful at living life - even at acquiring the preferred indifferents (as the Stoics call them). Whereas Plato/Aristotle leaves you in a kind of rut if, say, you are living in Syria.
Also the moral psychology of the Platonists, with the tripartite soul may get the power of reason in determining actions wrongly. Reason is the weakest part of the soul, and must educate the other two parts to obey, because it is in their best interest to do so. The stoics say that this doesn't matter, since reason ultimately has the final say in assenting to impressions or not.
It just so happens that passive-aggressive people tend to find new ageism appealing and I tend to enjoy poking at passive-aggressive people.
What does any of that have to do with me, or to my response to you? If you're insinuating I have new age views, I'm sure you're aware that Christian mysticism (the subject I've been studying) had it's hay day in the 12-14th centuries in Europe, as did Jewish mysticism, whereas New Ageism is generally considered a vague conglomerate of Theosophy, Eastern religion, self-help, alt medicine, etc. So if you're (passively-aggressively) suggesting I have new age views, that must be another one of your jokes, right?
On the other hand where have I been passive-aggressive?
Noble DustFebruary 03, 2018 at 18:59#1494320 likes
In terms of ethics, certainly in a practical way, I often side with the Stoics more than with Aristotle or Plato for that matter. The reason for this is that Plato/Aristotle are elitist - the "good life" isn't open to everyone, regardless of their circumstances. Only a select few, who are blessed by the gods and are given favourable winds, only they can reach up to the ideal of the good life. Whereas Stoicism works regardless of circumstance - if you are a slave, or if you are the Emperor.
In a practical way? So, are you saying that Aurelius' ethics is better than Aristotle's? :( For me, it is probably a place between the two, but to place Aurelius anywhere near Aristotle' philosophical duress is just awkward.
I wanted to study the Classics and Ancient History and Languages, the idea of doing this still makes me feel fuzzy inside, but I chose to study Law and Political Science and to work in the field of Human Rights. Why? Because I have a duty to try - even if I am small and rather mediocre compared the many organisations and people around me - to make my environment, my community, the world a better place. Stoicism is inherently selfish; it would tell me to study the classics to improve myself, whereas I would prefer the Aristotlean motive that I can improve as I try to improve my environment. I stand in contrast to the external world and my understanding and identity is formed and ultimately improved by this contrast, including what I understand of virtue. I am driven by the will to happiness and the attainment of virtue, but I achieve this by performing my duty to the world. I am in control of improving myself and cultivating virtue, but I do this through society, through people, through interactions; it is like going to school all day and then going home to your own space and thinking about all of that and how it relates to you.
Your social environment is paramount to your virtuous agency, just as much as other conditions including the state of your mental health and your physical well being are also necessary. It is nonsense if thought otherwise.
For me, it is probably a place between the two, but to place Aurelius anywhere near Aristotle' philosophical duress is just awkward.
I did not say that Aurelius or any of the Stoics are anywhere near as rigorous as Plato/Aristotle. But when you're in trouble, reading a page of the Aurelius helps - reading a page of Plato/Aristotle seems useless.
Why? Because I have a duty to try - even if I am small and rather mediocre compared the many organisations and people around me - to make my environment, my community, the world a better place. Stoicism is inherently selfish; it would tell me to study the classics to improve myself, whereas I would prefer the Aristotlean motive that I can improve as I try to improve my environment.
This is actually a mistaken view. If anything, it is Stoicism which tells you that you are always at the service of your community and your society even if you are on a mountain in prayer for years on end. Even if you retire from society as it were, you're still at the service of society.
Seneca: On Peace Of Mind:You ask me what I think we had better make use of to help us to support this ennui. "The best thing," as Athenodorus says, "is to occupy oneself with business, with the management of affairs of state and the duties of a citizen: for as some pass the day in exercising themselves in the sun and in taking care of their bodily health, and athletes find it most useful to spend the greater part of their time in feeding up the muscles and strength to whose cultivation they have devoted their lives; so too for you who are training your mind to take part in the struggles of political life, it is far more honourable to be thus at work than to be idle. He whose object is to be of service to his countrymen and to all mortals, exercises himself and does good at the same time when he is engrossed in business and is working to the best of his ability both in the interests of the public and of private men. But," continues he, "because innocence is hardly safe among such furious ambitions and so many men who turn one aside from the right path, and it is always sure to meet with more hindrance than help, we ought to withdraw ourselves from the forum and from public life, and a great mind even in a private station can find room wherein to expand freely. Confinement in dens restrains the springs of lions and wild creatures, but this does not apply to human beings, who often effect the most important works in retirement. Let a man, however, withdraw himself only in such a fashion that wherever he spends his leisure his wish may still be to benefit individual men and mankind alike, both with his intellect, his voice, and his advice. The man that does good service to the state is not only he who brings forward candidates for public office, defends accused persons, and gives his vote on questions of peace and war, but he who encourages young men in well-doing, who supplies the present dearth of good teachers by instilling into their minds the principles of virtue, who seizes and holds back those who are rushing wildly in pursuit of riches and luxury, and, if he does nothing else, at least checks their course
So this whole "duty to try" is actually Stoicism. That's why it was so popular around Rome's elite.
Your social environment is paramount to your virtuous agency, just as much as other conditions including the state of your mental health and your physical well being are also necessary. It is nonsense if thought otherwise.
No, I disagree. Virtue is that which makes it possible for me (in most circumstances) to acquire the social environment that I need to expand my power of action. Look at Seneca - he was sickly from the very beginning, came from a poor background, and yet managed in many trying circumstances to remain virtuous. Health, wealth, social environment, etc. are not fully in my control, and thus they are indifferents. Improving my society is not in my power - I can try to do so, and keep trying for my whole life, and still fail. Ultimately it is the virtue that matters, not the outward success. It is virtue that allows me to be at peace with myself, the world and God.
Oh, you think she is manipulative now? Just you wait until she finishes watching that series I gave her - then she will get her diploma in manipulation, until now, she was just a poor student with potential >:O
It's boring when one's manipulation is resisted, yes.
No, its boring when one is forced to sift through deluded whinges of a so-and-so thinker who projects his inadequacies by purporting others to be manipulative.
Noble DustFebruary 03, 2018 at 22:13#1495170 likes
I did not say that Aurelius or any of the Stoics are anywhere near as rigorous as Plato/Aristotle. But when you're in trouble, reading a page of the Aurelius helps - reading a page of Plato/Aristotle seems useless
What do you mean 'when you're in trouble?' Like, you're having a bad day and your tired and need a boost of morale? I hardly call that an identification and formation of a moral system to live by. If you want to decompress, just write a diary of your favourite quotes. If you want to be virtuous, be productive.
Virtue is that which makes it possible for me (in most circumstances) to acquire the social environment that I need to expand my power of action.
It is a combination of the two, cyclic and you would not be who you are today if it were not for your social environment and experiences, for your intellectual duress due to genetics, that is nevertheless advanced by your will or motivation because of your social environment and experiences. You are a part of the 'we' and any denial of that is delusional. Any improvements to you is through that reality.
Anyway, im on my phone waiting for a bunch of young girls to take on an urban hike, so until tonight!
Deleted UserFebruary 04, 2018 at 00:58#1495800 likes
Does anyone want the stomach bug? PM, and I'll be glad to send the virus. :(
AkanthinosFebruary 04, 2018 at 06:14#1496370 likes
Reply to Akanthinos Noro for the win! Last time I still had resistance but my daughter and wife didn't, so I had the graveyard shift caring for them and felt queasy the whole time.
Reply to Lone Wolf You poor thang. If it makes you feel any better, I went on a hike today and got sunburnt. A weird little patch where I missed sunscreen. I forgot my hat too and my feet hurt. It took a really long time to have a shower because I did not want to move.
AkanthinosFebruary 04, 2018 at 09:30#1496830 likes
AkanthinosFebruary 04, 2018 at 09:51#1496890 likes
Using this surprise nightshift to read The Myth of Sisyphus. I can only feel shame and inadequacy toward the fact that I'm only now, at 33, reading Camus. How the hell can someone write so goddamn suavely of suicide and the absurdity of or relation to the world?
"At the heart of all beauty lies something inhuman, and these hills, the softness of the sky, the outline of these trees at this very minute lose the illusory meaning with which we had clothed them, henceforth more remote than a lost paradise. The primitive hostility of the world rises up to face us across millennia. For a second we cease to understand it because for centuries we have understood in it solely the images and designs that we had attributed to it beforehand, because henceforth we lack the poiwer to make use of that artifice. The world evades us because it becomes itself again."
Like, you know, when you start swearing and physically threatening me... >:O just joking, no.
I am always in trouble though >:O . See, it depends on what your profession is. Some people face chaos, uncertainty, difficulty, and novel situations a lot more frequently than others. Your philosophy and your views are, in a large part, shaped by this.
For example, I see a lot of people who are involved in the military, who are entrepreneurs, or who are athletes as having very similar personalities and philosophies of life. Why? Because to be successful in these endeavours, you must develop certain traits. It comes with the territory as the saying goes.
So trouble means facing uncertainty, not knowing what to do, having to take decisions without sufficient information, having to bear insults, toxic personalities, betrayal, loneliness etc.
To illustrate: look at this for ~2mins or so just to get the Jobs scene. You said the taxi driver incident I told before would have shaken you. Well, think about what you would have done in such a case. To be successful, Kevin had to have such a personality to bear those insults without reacting - because if he did, he would have lost the $54 million contract.
So the point is that if you are in a competitive environment, you are bound to develop a Stoic personality, otherwise you will not be successful. That's why athletes, businessmen, and military personnel end up developing similar Stoic personalities and philosophies of life. It is what it takes to succeed, and if you refuse to go down this path, you will fail. So in such cases, it is just impossible to be shaken by what the taxi driver says. You have a lot of other things to deal with, apart from being shaken.
Philosophies of life aren't "true" in the same sense that metaphysics or physics can be said to be true. It depends on the context. A nurse or counsellor, or someone like you working with struggling young girls, would not find Stoicism as most helpful - and hence you wouldn't find it as most true. Truth here really is pragmatic - an approximation of what works. That's because you are yourself not in a "war-like" environment, you can afford the luxury of getting rid of toxic people out of your life, etc. - entrepreneurs, military men, and the like cannot.
Like, you're having a bad day and your tired and need a boost of morale?
Not a day passes when I don't need motivation :P But in business you don't worry if your day was good, that's irrelevant. You just worry if you were productive or not.
I hardly call that an identification and formation of a moral system to live by. If you want to decompress, just write a diary of your favourite quotes. If you want to be virtuous, be productive.
Being productive presupposes being virtuous so that you have the motivation to be productive.
Anyway, im on my phone waiting for a bunch of young girls to take on an urban hike, so until tonight!
I had a thing like a Fitbit quite a few years ago, it was called the Jawbone, and all was well, until it repeatedly told me that my heart rate went up to 180bpm during sleep in the mornings >:O
I had a thing like a Fitbit quite a few years ago, it was called the Jawbone, and all was well, until it repeatedly told me that my heart rate went up to 180bpm during sleep in the mornings
Were you having some exciting dreams in the morning?
So trouble means facing uncertainty, not knowing what to do, having to take decisions without sufficient information, having to bear insults, toxic personalities, betrayal, loneliness etc.
I understand this but I no longer experience this because I know exactly what I want and where I want to be and such conviction is empowering. In the last twelve months, I grew in my current position to a state program manager. I am lucky because my job is perfectly aligned with my passion for human rights and for the rights of children, while at the same time I run my own tiny little NGO in Bethlehem and work closely with the women and children there and where I get the opportunity to make a small difference.
Entrepreneurship and being an athlete are both ambiguous and such uncertainty (unless you are right up there amongst a small cohort of competitors) should render one to consider other career avenues, particularly the latter considering age is a predominate factor in speed and strength. If you believe, however, that you can achieve whatever it is you set out to achieve and you have the logic or intelligence to construe that it is a realistic endeavour, the anxiety you experience from these risks is temporary (even I get those temporary moments) because you are smart enough to know that your idea will work or that you will win a title, but that there will always be ups and downs along the way. You just need to decompress during those down periods and the best thing for that is having a good friend you can trust.
I am out to purchase a new DLSR (on an extreme budget) and am tossing between the Canon EOS Rebel T6i, the Lumix GH3 or the Panasonic DMC-FX1000. I am doing a short course in May on documentary filmmaking and although the camera will not be used to actually make a documentary, I want the DLSR to have great video quality so I can practice making shorts with it.
I am leaning more towards the DMC-FX1000 because of the low-light shooting, excellent capacity for outdoor photography, HR 4K high definition video recording (and wifi) all within the constraints of an awesome price. The image stabiliser is also top notch.
Reply to TimeLine DMC-FZ1000 is a pretty camera. You should check but I think the f2.8 is only available at its widest angle, so low light photography would have a limitation. On the other hand, with 20 MP you can always crop to zoom and still have plenty to work with. ;)
Forget the Canon. Both Panasonics are good. The GH3 is slightly better for video and the FX1000 isn't actually a DSLR (it's a "bridge" camera) and is less flexible because you can't change the lens. On the other hand it's cheaper, your best choice for stills at the price (if you need to get zoomy) and more than good enough for the video you need.
Reply to BenkeiReply to Baden I was thinking that since the fixed lens is not interchangeable, I could treat it like I would a camcorder, particularly because of its 4k capacity and its sensor but I still nevertheless felt that it would limit my capacity because of this. Benkei is right that the quality in the GH3 is not as great particularly in low-light making it imperative to add to the costs with additional lighting (I think the range for the fz1000 sensor is one inch).
I understand this but I no longer experience this because I know exactly what I want and where I want to be and such conviction is empowering
I'm the type of person who has always known what they wanted, but I wouldn't say that's super empowering in and of itself. Though it is good - at least you're not confused about what you want. I never knew what it means to be confused about what you want.
you are smart enough to know that your idea will work or that you will win a title, but that there will always be ups and downs along the way.
Nobody, especially in athletics, can know in advance if they will win a title or not - it's simply impossible to predict. The only way is to be indifferent to the pain along the way. Mental invincibility is the most important aspect.
In the last twelve months, I grew in my current position from a coordinator to a specialist (which is a state program manager) and recently they asked me to apply for another internal analyst role to become national program manager (which I declined because it meant moving to another city). I am lucky because my job is perfectly aligned with my passion for human rights and for the rights of children, while at the same time I run my own tiny little NGO in Bethlehem and work closely with the women and children there and where I get the opportunity to make a small difference.
As I said, the philosophy you adopt depends on your way of life and what you do.
Reply to Agustino You have this thing about you where you make me form this weird kind of quizzical look, where with one eye smaller than the other I find myself staring out to space with a mild perplexity as I try to figure out what on earth is wrong with you.
Then I realise you were born without a personality.
Reply to Agustino Are you serious? I mean, even hard-core republicans think he is a douche, they just awkwardly support him because they have to. Follow better people, people who have a personality.
HR 4K high definition video recording (and wifi) all within the constraints of an awesome price. The image stabiliser is also top notch.
I'd say you probably don't need 4K for practising making shorts. Are your computer screens and TVs optimized for 4K? If not, even less reason. Here's a few options you could look into as well (budget friendly):
Reply to Baden Trump's only (and always) responsible when the stock market goes up, didn't you know? When it goes down it's only (and always) because of the Democrats/immigrants/regulations/liberal media.
I'd say you probably don't need 4K for practising making shorts. Are your computer screens and TVs optimized for 4K? If not, even less reason. Here's a few options you could look into as well (budget friendly):
Best for portability: Sony RX100 IV
Best for zoom: The FZ1000
Best for Video: The GH3
Best for image quality: Sony A6000
Best for portability and flexibility: Any micro four thirds system camera
Best all round: Olympus OM-D-Em 10 mii (I have this one)
Benkei's right - you don't need 4K and even if you get it, editing and rendering those files unless you have a very powerful computer is going to be very slow, so you'd be better sticking to Full HD unless you have a very specific reason not to. As for sound, the only one above with an external mic jack is the GH3. Bear that in mind if sound quality is key (sounds like it's not though from what you've said).
Benkei is right that the quality in the GH3 is not as great particularly in low-light making it imperative to add to the costs with additional lighting (I think the range for the fz1000 sensor is one inch).
The quality of the GH3 is higher actually because it has a larger sensor. +You can get a better lens for low light later, like the 20mm F1.7 Panasonic pancake.
Newsflash, Texas, real terrorists are much less likely to publicly boast about stuff they will do than dumb kids are to joke about stuff they won't.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 06, 2018 at 14:27#1505540 likes
Reply to Baden What he said was akin to yelling fire in a crowded public space. A free democracy doesn't mean you can say whatever you want at any time without censure. If you're small brained enough to make a threat like that where lots of people can see and aren't able to determine how serious such a threat is, then you ought to be ready to face the consequences.
Even though you're not American, you should also realize how sensitive the US is toward school shootings. Had that kid's threat been credible and nothing was done about it because, "muh rights yo, muh freedumbs", there'd be hell to pay.
Up to ten years in prison are the potential consequences. For making a joke. No. That's not OK.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 06, 2018 at 14:35#1505590 likes
Reply to Baden Why? How about you stop emotionally ejaculating and provide some meat to whatever bone you're trying to show off. At present, I see no argument from you, just feigned shock and awe.
You need a detailed explanation of why 10 years in prison might be a disproportionate punishment for writing a Facebook post that bothered some people?
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 06, 2018 at 14:45#1505620 likes
Reply to Baden No, I doubt it. But you still seem unwilling to articulate your defense, so whatever. I suppose you only brought the topic up so that people can agree with you. This is the shoutbox, after all, can't take anything in here too seriously...
Deleted UserFebruary 06, 2018 at 14:45#1505630 likes
I lean more towards @Buxtebuddha idea. Threatening to kill children isn't a matter to be taken lightly.
I'm not going to kill any children I promise. I am going to kill Buxtebuddha though and after I do, decapitate him and send his head to you by pony express. (L)
Anyway, to put it in terms that have a decent chance of being understood by you two, there is some space to work with between taking something seriously and a ten year prison sentence.
And, yes, it is the Shoutbox. If someone opens a discussion on the specific issue, I'll go into as much boring detail as you want on why I find this story disturbing.
Reply to Baden That's misleading. He wouldn't be charged or found guilty of making a joke. He'd be charged and found guilty of making a credible threat. The best you can argue is that the arresting officer doesn't have sufficient evidence that the threat was credible, which would be right. But, at least according to the attorney, once it went to trial that should be made clear, and so a ten year jail sentence really wouldn't be likely.
The real problems are the actual arrest, that he can be held for 5 months prior to a trial, and the unaffordable amount set as bail.
Deleted UserFebruary 06, 2018 at 15:04#1505660 likes
I'm not going to kill any children I promise. I am going to kill Buxtebuddha though and after I do, decapitate him and send his head to you by pony express
I don't recommend that... he's a bit too feisty to die easily.
Anyway, to put it in terms that have a decent chance of being understood by you two, there is some space to work with between taking something seriously and a ten year prison sentence.
Regardless of if it was a joke or not, it should have been treated as a threat, as it is common for fools to brag before performing some hideous deed. I think he ought to be evaluated to determine if he is a mere fool or a true threat before a prison sentence. But a threat is a threat, no different than if someone would say he or she wanted to kill or harm any person to their face.
You can disregard my approach to the argument, which is deliberately colorful in any case. What you cannot disregard is the fact that you can be jailed for ten years in America for writing an objectionable Facebook post.
What you cannot disregard is the fact that you can be jailed for ten years in America for writing an objectionable Facebook post.
Only if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the threat was genuine, the particular law in this case being:
Sec. 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to:
(1) cause a reaction of any type to his threat by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies; (2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
(3) prevent or interrupt the occupation or use of a building, room, place of assembly, place to which the public has access, place of employment or occupation, aircraft, automobile, or other form of conveyance, or other public place;
(4) cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service; (5) place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; or
(6) influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.
2 and 5 being the parts that seem most relevant here.
Your faith in America's justice system exceeds mine. And no offense to Texas but it's not somewhere I would ever want to be tried for anything.
All that aside. I don't believe any verbal or written threat, genuine or not, should result in a lengthy prison sentence. It doesn't even rise to the level of an attempt.
Seeing your edit now, including the details of the law, it's more encompassing and, in fact, significantly worse than I thought. Merely intending to scare people or prank the authorities can apparently get you convicted. Again, the punishment is highly disproportionate. Ten year prison sentences are handed out for crimes like rape, armed robbery and child sexual abuse. Are those on a par in your view with trying to scare people or cause a reaction "of any type" by the emergency services?
Only if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the threat was genuine,
Note too that genuinely threatening to do something doesn't make you a genuine threat. The law doesn't even require you be any actual threat at all only that you intend to commit an unspecified act of violence resulting in one of the consequences mentioned in the list. (It might be that you don't have the means to do what you threaten to do, for example.)
Reply to Michael Have you found an update on this? It was a 2013 arrest. Has he ever been indicted and is the case pending? I couldn't really find any current activity.
You need a detailed explanation of why 10 years in prison might be a disproportionate punishment for writing a Facebook post that bothered some people?
Death threats should be heavily punished. There is nothing wrong with that.
You realize I could actually pursue this, right? That I pretty much always could've. It doesn't matter we are in different countries. it doesn't matter you think it's a joke. You shouldn't fucking joke about killing someone. Ever. What is wrong with you that you would require this right?
Well, it better be, because I can very realistically get you charged with a indictable criminal offense. There is no need for joke death threats, and you should simply know better than make them.
AkanthinosFebruary 07, 2018 at 01:01#1507050 likes
Without a care for how much more ridiculous a world in which everyone who utters death threats receives a slap on the back of the hand...?
People get angry and say things they may or may not mean at the time. That doesn't give them the right to threaten anyone. However, the state shouldn't have the right either to impose draconian punishments on them because they upset someone. A fine, or in extreme cases (for example, repeated serious threats over a long period) a short prison sentence should be the limit on punishment.
Well, it better be, because I can very realistically get you charged with a indictable criminal offense. There is no need for joke death threats, and you should simply know better than make them.
It does matter very much, I'm not under the jurisdiction of the bad laws that apply in other countries. So, for example, I can criticize the Chinese communist party, or I can promote homosexuality, or I can make a rhetorical point on this philosophy forum without being liable for any punishment whatsoever. That's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
AkanthinosFebruary 07, 2018 at 01:30#1507230 likes
No, you're not. See above. Just as Chinese people aren't entitled to demand you be imprisoned for insulting the Communist party, you're not entitled to demand foreigners be punished for acts contrary to the laws of your country.
"Uttering threats
264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat
...
(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person."
Checked this out online. You can actually be imprisoned (for up to two years) in America for threatening to hurt someone's budgie.
AkanthinosFebruary 07, 2018 at 02:28#1507560 likes
No, you're not. Just as Chinese people aren't entitled to demand you be imprisoned for insulting the Communist party, you're not entitled to demand foreigners be punished for acts contrary the laws of your country.
The European Convention on Cybercrime (2001) would like to formally disagree with you.
I hope this gives you enough ammo to go away and complain to whoever will listen because I'm not interested in doing anything except debating the actual proportionateness of the law in question.
Reply to Baden You're harping on the wrong thing here. For all misdemeanors, you can be imprisoned for up to a year, which means theoretically someone could go off for a year for driving with a broken tail light. I think in the history of American jurisprudence that has actually happened zero times, so we can all talk about the great injustice on the books, but it's entirely theoretical. I guess I could imagine a case where a broken tail light would justify a year in jail, like it's your 100th violation and some guy crashed into you and was injured because you had no tail light to warn him you were about to suddenly stop. You could complain about a year in jail, but you did get like 100 warnings, so maybe you should have listened. And, by the same token, if I threatened to poison your falcon in order to win over your falconry fans, and I did this with great persistence, perhaps some jail time might be appropriate. Then again, I don't care about you or your annoying falcons.
The issue in the case of the Facebook guy is that it seems no offense occurred. Intent is an element of all crime, and it seems clear there was no intent to do harm. Had he said he was preparing to murder the children at Main Street Primary, then I'd agree we need to get him off the streets. I'd also imagine no one would send their kids to school until he was in custody, unless, of course, the parent didn't really like their kid. With specific statements, you might actually have some public disruption you would want to deter. And, should it be made clear during the trial that this guy really was going to do harm, then I can see justifying a stiff punishment. As it stands, it looks like an innocent person is being prosecuted. That's where I see the injustice, but not in the fact that a judge can provide a long sentence.
If you read the opinion cited by Michael, the court was simply saying that it can't determine if the law was being inappropriately applied because it has no way to know what the facts are until they are presented at trial. If the jury convicts the guy, the courts could throw out the conviction if it turns out their was insufficient evidence of intent.
And this gets to my last point, which is that your objective here is to ridicule America and its laws, as if my great nation is just a few shades away from lopping off hands and gouging out eyes like the friendly folks in Mecca. There is injustice, no doubt, and I was very disturbed about the Facebook guy's treatment, but, by and large, people aren't going to jail for threatening chickens.
AkanthinosFebruary 07, 2018 at 02:51#1507650 likes
I care very little for birds or fishes. But look even uncourteously in the general direction of my cat and you will end up with quite a lot fewer appendages than you started.
The problem is it's on the books and then you're at the mercy of the judge. All I'm saying is it shouldn't be on the books. Plus, yes, a little ridicule. Hope this doesn't mean you'll stop lawyering for me. You did a great job getting me out of that hamster assault case (not to mention getting me out of the hamster).
The big problem is that all the moralizing and claims of injustice won't defend you against actually being arrested (although being outside the U.S. might help). So even if it's a terrible and draconian legal system, you could still actually be punished for saying the things you're saying. As shown with the case of Justin Carter.
That's partly my point. That people can be arrested and jailed for long periods for making what look like threats online but are not actually actions that present any danger (they may be jokes, momentary instances of rage, or rhetorical devices etc.). So, do you agree with me or not that the laws in question are bad laws (because the punishments are too draconian) and that therefore they should be changed?
That's not the point at all. Besides, would you consider yourself to be breaking the law if you promoted homosexuality here (against the law in Uganda), or if you criticized the communist party here (potentially against the law in China)? I'm under no obligation to obey U.S. law and I'm not concerned if I break it.
Reply to Baden The site is obligated to operate under UK law. That might not mean you personally, but I presume at the very least it means that @jamalrob could be held legally accountable.
I'm under no obligation to obey U.S. law and I don't care if I break it.
This might not be true. According to the passive personality principle, if an American citizen is a victim of a U.S. crime committed by a foreigner on foreign soil then they can be charged. This is likely the principle that was used to charge Lauri Love, a UK citizen who hacked into US Government computers. Of course in practical terms this would depend on the accused's country agreeing to extradition, or in the case of Lauri Love, the accused's country deciding to prosecute on similar charges using its own laws.
That's not the point at all. Besides, would you consider yourself to be breaking the law if you promoted homosexuality here (against the law in Uganda), or if you criticized the communist party here (potentially against the law in China)? I'm under no obligation to obey U.S. law and I don't care if I break it.
I would say that all countries have a law against threats (probably), but unless you are a US citizen, I think you are safe from the US law - an international body of law would have to be followed in your case.
As for the severity of the law, I agree that for the most part it seems too severe in the US. An empty but serious-sounding threat, with no evidence of the person actually planning to, or taking steps to carrying the action out should have a light punishment - maybe a warning, maybe a few months in jail.
As amusing as all this is, I'm not interested in any laws I may have contravened in foreign countries by using a rhetorical device in a conversation here. The context makes the intention obvious. If that contravenes some law somewhere so much the worse for that law. There are bad laws in existence all over the world. I'm not going to walk on eggshells to avoid breaking them and I might even break them deliberately to make a point.
This might not be true. According to the passive personality principle, if an American citizen is a victim of a crime committed by a foreigner on foreign soil then they can be charged.
What if there is an agreement between victim and perpetrator that their exchange is governed by the jurisdiction of another country? As in the case of this website, where it is the UK's jurisdiction?
As for the severity of the law, I agree that for the most part it seems too severe in the US. An empty but serious-sounding threat, with no evidence of the person actually planning to, or taking steps to carrying the action out should have a light punishment - maybe a warning, maybe a few months in jail.
What if there is an agreement between victim and perpetrator that their exchange is governed by the jurisdiction of another country? As in the case of this website, where it is the UK's jurisdiction?
You don't get to decide for yourself who has jurisdiction over you. If you use threatening language against an American then the Department of Justice can likely charge you for it and seek extradition. If that threatening language is also a crime in your country of residence then you can be charged for it there, too. In the case where the site operates under UK law but neither party involved is a UK citizen or resident, I don't know. Maybe the site operator has a legal obligation to remove offending material?
You don't get to decide for yourself who has jurisdiction over you. If you use threatening language against an American then the Department of Justice can likely charge you for it and seek extradition. If that threatening language is also a crime in your country of residence then you can be charged for it there, too. In the case where the site operates under UK law but neither party involved is a UK citizen, I don't know.
I don't think that's true. People must agree to the Terms of Service to participate on this site, otherwise they're asked to leave. One of the conditions they agree on is that their exchanges here will be under the jurisdiction of the UK. So if they receive a threat via this site, it must be judged according to the jurisdiction of the UK, to which they have agreed to in participating here. If they receive the threat via means other than this site, then it is a different story.
Reply to Michael
There is no offending material. There are two posts quoted below which were used to make a rhetorical point, which is not only obvious in context but which also has been explained at length. If someone came on here and really threatened another poster, we would remove it because it would be in contravention of the site guidelines.
There is no offending material. There are two posts below which were used to make a rhetorical point, which is not only obvious in context but which also has been explained at length. If someone came on here and really threatened another poster, we would remove it because it would be in contravention of the site guidelines.
Whether or not the material is actually offending also isn't really the point. You say that Justin Carter's comments weren't actual threats, and yet he was still arrested and held for 5 months with a $500,000 bail.
The only relevant question is; could a charge be filed against you? Even if the case would be dismissed or you'd be found innocent, there could still be legal repercussions, and no talk of "but it's unjust" would make that go away.
But if it's a risk you're willing to take, and if @jamalrob isn't liable (and if it doesn't go against the Terms of Service or our guidelines), then go ahead.
I think sometimes we get so lost in talk of principles that we forget about how the world actually works, for better and for worse.
That people can be arrested and jailed for long periods for making what look like threats online but are not actually actions that present any danger (they may be jokes, momentary instances of rage, or rhetorical devices etc
Threats needn't actually just be verbal/written, they could also be reckless behaviour that potentially threatens the life of another. There is no excuse - i.e. jokes or instances of rage - and rhetorical devices are clearly unambiguous, so ultimately if someone threatens, if I say something like I am going to come there and hunt you down, that is reckless and constitutes as a threat without lawful excuse. The intent here is to arouse fear and such fear is a form of violence, even if it is intended to be psychological or emotional. Stalking and cyber-stalking are forms of bullying that could reasonably be unlawful behaviour intended to create fear in another person with the intention to cause serious mental harm.
Reply to Michael
We have our own standards for what is acceptable in terms of free speech and they are outlined in the guidelines and in the terms of service (as mentioned above) that we are bound by. Apart from that, we are not going to enforce censorship laws from other countries here whether it be the U.S., China, Russia or wherever. The end.
Reply to Baden This isn't about enforcing censorship laws. This is about whether or not you're willing to risk possible legal consequences. Could you end up like Justin Carter?
I appreciate your concern but there are none (although if I had known that my rhetorical strategy would cause this amount of diversion I wouldn't have bothered). Now, can you make your position on the Justin Carter issue clearer than "maybe"?
Reply to Baden I addressed that before. If the article is correct, then it's unlikely that he would have been found guilty. Given the context, the prosecution likely wouldn't be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent. So the law itself isn't the problem. The problem is that the police decided to arrest him, that his bail was set so high, and that he could be held for so long before a trial.
But as for someone genuinely intending to "cause a reaction of any type to his threats by an official or volunteer agency organized to deal with emergencies"? Presumably in the most egregious of cases, 10 years is suitable. If your threats lead to paramedics and firemen not doing their jobs out of fear of harm, lives could be at risk.
Remember it's up to 10 years. It's a maximum, not set.
Reply to Baden A fireman trying to enter a house which is on fire with people trapped inside but a neighbour swings a knife about and threatens to stab him in the face if he tries?
I'm only talking about written or verbal threats. I presume the case you mentioned would be covered under a different law. Maybe @Hanover can let us know.
Reply to Baden The law in question just says "A person commits an offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to any person or property with intent to..."
It's an interesting angle that I hadn't considered. I'd have to know whether there is another law that covered it though. If there is then this law wouldn't be necessary.
Reply to Baden Looking at the law more closely, there's this:
(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious bodily injury;
...
(c)?An offense under Subsection (a)(2) is a Class B misdemeanor, except that the offense is a Class A misdemeanor if the offense:
(1)?is committed against a member of the person's family or household or otherwise constitutes family violence; ?or
(2)?is committed against a public servant.
The punishment for Class B misdemeanors is up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,000. Class A is 1 year and a fine up to $4,000.
The 10 year figure comes from a third-degree felony, which is actually 2 - 10 years and a $10,000 fine. With the above law, a third-degree felony is "an offense under Subsection (a)(4), (a)(5), or (a)(6)", so:
(4)?cause impairment or interruption of public communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power supply or other public service;
(5)?place the public or a substantial group of the public in fear of serious bodily injury; ?or
(6)?influence the conduct or activities of a branch or agency of the federal government, the state, or a political subdivision of the state.
My objection is to the possibility that people could be arrested and jailed for long periods (a year or more) for making online statements that present no actual danger to anyone though they might scare or disturb someone. It's not clear from your post that you disagree with that. Do you?
Reply to Baden There's only been one attempted prosecution since 1855, and it was thrown out at court. The related 2009 Defamation Act has never been used, and apparently "fulfilled a constitutional obligation on the crime of blasphemy, but skilfully rendered the law completely unenforceable".
Every person who, in any street or public place within the limits of the metropolitan police district, shall be guilty of any of the following offences:
...
Every person who in any thoroughfare shall beat or shake any carpet, rug, or mat (except door mats before the hour of eight in the morning)
There's only been one attempted prosecution since 1855, and it was thrown out at court.
But it theoretically could result in a prosecution and that fact alone has a somewhat chilling effect on free speech. It's likely to get dumped in any case and that's the right approach to any bad law.
But it theoretically could result in a prosecution and that fact alone has a somewhat chilling effect on free speech. It's likely to get dumped in any case and that's the right approach for any bad law.
Not just a law, but part of the Constitution. Requires a referendum. Would the Irish approve?
I think the problem is that the law shouldn't be abused. For example, if a kid makes a "threat" online in a fit of rage, that certainly doesn't deserve years in prison. In my opinion, a warning and further education are sufficient.
Also, there are some people who take stuff that happens online way too seriously.
Also, there are some people who take stuff that happens online way too seriously.
There are those who will take the worst possible interpretation of any online comment and run with it. Presumably out of fear. That's an unhealthy attitude in my view and one that shouldn't be enshrined in law.
There are those who will take the worst possible interpretation of any online comment and run with it. Presumably out of fear. That's an unhealthy attitude in my view and one that shouldn't be enshrined in law.
How would you change the law (e.g. the Texas one), to account for such situations as Justin Carter's?
There are those who will take the worst possible interpretation of any online comment and run with it. Presumably out of fear. That's an unhealthy attitude in my view and one that shouldn't be enshrined in law.
Yes, that is true. When I was a kid, and I played multiplayer games online, receiving threats was quite frequent when you won against the other person. The first time someone threatened me like that, I was a bit worried for a day or two, but then I realised that they were probably just angry, and it's just really unlikely that they'd actually spend the time and the resources to hunt me down - it would have been irrational.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 07, 2018 at 13:09#1509110 likes
Reply to Baden It's in law enforcement's job description to take everything seriously. Failing to be serious risks both citizens' lives and the enforcement of the law.
In hindsight, sure, many situations end up being harmless, but this doesn't mean that there shouldn't be punishments for threatening behavior. Perhaps 10 years is high, but at the same time, Norway lets a mass child murdering psychopath live in what amounts to a hotel with access to luxuries - point being that society won't ever find perfect punishments to fit crimes. For Justin Carter, 10 years for his crime serves in large part as a deterrent. I doubt that he or anyone else like him would have or will spend 10 years in jail for their crime.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 07, 2018 at 13:12#1509120 likes
Yes, that is true. When I was a kid, and I played multiplayer games online, receiving threats was quite frequent when you won against the other person. The first time someone threatened me like that, I was a bit worried for a day or two, but then I realised that they were probably just angry, and it's just really unlikely that they'd actually spend the time and the resources to hunt me down - it would have been irrational.
Depending on the game, you can get banned from playing for a certain amount of time or even indeed "forever" based on threats like, "I'm going to come to your house and rape your family and then kill you all." In a microcosm, these people are punished by not being able to partake in the game. In a macrocosm, similar people in real life ought to be and seemingly are punished by not being able to partake in society (jail time). Both instances are correct and fitting, in my opinion, and neither are out of bounds or maddening or crazy like Baden seems so keen on painting the issue.
It's in law enforcement's job description to take everything seriously. Failing to be serious risks both citizens' lives and the enforcement of the law.
This is wrong. Taking the wrong thing seriously is as grave a mistake as not taking the right thing seriously. When law enforcement allocates resources to the pursuit of a certain case, then there are less resources for all the other cases out there, which may be more important. So by all means, law enforcement must not take everything seriously - imagine the chaos we'd be in if they actually did take everything seriously.
For Justin Carter, 10 years for his crime serves in large part as a deterrent. I doubt that he or anyone else like him would have or will spend 10 years in jail for their crime.
Yeah, but think about how the mind of someone who receives such punishment will be changed. He will not be reformed - rather he will probably think that he lives in a vengeful society, that has no right to existence and ought to be destroyed. So when he gets out of jail, you reckon he's going to be a friend to society? Of course not. So the punishment doesn't serve as a deterrent - quite the contrary.
Justin Carter was imprisoned for 5 months because he could not raise the $500,000 bail the Judge assessed for case. An anonymous person ended up posting the bond (10%). The Bail system in the US is unfair. Poor people who cannot raise bond have to rot in jail awaiting trial (last I read Carter's trial is set for 2/20/2018, the time lapse between his action and trial is nuts), while richer people pay up and go free. The upshot of the system is that poorer people who cannot afford to sit in jail awaiting a trial for prolonged periods or end up pleading guilty (even if they are innocent) as part of plea bargain which typically ends up being a fine.
In the US, there are typically more than 600,000 people in jail at any given time. About 70 percent of these people are being held pretrial, so they haven’t been convicted of a crime. Many of these people — the latest federal data suggests as many as nine in 10 people in jail for felonies in the 75 largest counties — are in jail because they couldn’t afford to pay bail.
I addressed that before. If the article is correct, then it's unlikely that he would have been found guilty. Given the context, the prosecution likely wouldn't be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was intent. So the law itself isn't the problem. The problem is that the police decided to arrest him, that his bail was set so high, and that he could be held for so long before a trial.
I agree that is the problem. You have a prosecutor vested with significant power, and it looks to be abused in this situation. I would assume that Carter's statements are not terribly unusual, yet you don't see similar charges throughout the country, which is why this instance made the news. To top it off, you then have a judge who set the bail crazy high, which seems like maybe there was some political alliance between the judge and the prosecutor because the judge should have been a check on that power. In setting bail, the real purpose is making sure the person will appear for trial. Why a kid with limited resources and no contacts anywhere else (meaning he had nowhere to flee) would need to have bail set so high seems more punitive than anything else. And that the kid might still be in jail had some anonymous person not bailed him out makes the matter worse.
A threat is only a threat if there's actual intent to do violence. An empty threat is no threat at all.
Depends on the jurisdiction. In the UK, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 states that "A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years."
It doesn't require that one intends to do violence, only that one intends to cause another to fear that one would.
intending that that other would fear it would be carried out,
If from context it's clear the intention to carry it out isn't there, people won't fear it. There needs to be some form of intent to do actual harm. Of course, there will be unclear cases and people can misinterpret things in particular situations. I don't think the things Baden said could be pursued under US law because the context makes clear there was no intent.
It's less of a legal interpretation than an actual language use interpretation. If a wall threatens to fall, it is a real danger. We don't say it about a straight, sturdy wall. So if I threaten you "I'm gonna stab you to death!" while stabbing with a flower, we all know what's going on.
OK, just for clarification, can you give an example of the type of egregious case that would, in your view, be deserving of ten years imprisonment?
Your concern is over judicial abuse, where if the judge is permitted to give up toten years, then it's likely he will. The attempted resolution of that problem on the federal level was to impose mandatory sentencing. A chart was created that looked at the crime and the person's prior criminal history and the judge was provided a fairly small amount of discretion in sentencing the person. Upward and downward departures from the sentencing guidelines required special findings by the judge and were appealable to a higher court. The net result was longer and less fair sentencing because the judge could not look to the dozens of other factors that might be relevant in the sentencing. The point being we have to trust the judgment of our judges. Legislating and directing their power makes their decisions robotic and less fair.
In the Carter situation, coming at the heels of a prior school shooting during what appears to be a moment of hysteria, will hopefully turn out fairly. You had a prosecutor in Texas who apparently wanted to make clear he wasn't going to have that sort of behavior in his town and a judge too scared to push back, declare the whole thing stupid, and let him sign his own bond.
I really don't see a problem with the process as long a cooler heads prevail, but I don't see anyway to entirely eliminate abuses of power.
Reply to Michael
I'd lower the maximum sentence for a start and make sure intent to carry out the action was required to be established for any jail time at all to be considered. But I accept your and Hanover's point concerning the other issues at play.
It's in law enforcement's job description to take everything seriously. Failing to be serious risks both citizens' lives and the enforcement of the law.
No, it's not their job to take everything seriously, it's their job to try to distinguish between what needs to be taken seriously and what doesn't so they can allocate their resources properly. Failing to do that could risk both citizens lives and the enforcement of the law, which is why not every complaint or report is followed up on. In practice that they should err on the side of caution especially in cases where a serious threat to life may be present I accept.
Perhaps 10 years is high, but at the same time, Norway lets a mass child murdering psychopath live in what amounts to a hotel with access to luxuries - point being that society won't ever find perfect punishments to fit crimes.
For Justin Carter, 10 years for his crime serves in large part as a deterrent. I doubt that he or anyone else like him would have or will spend 10 years in jail for their crime.
I'm not convinced by the deterrent angle as I don't believe the vast majority of the populace are aware of the severity of laws like this. You may be right on the second point but any jail time at all for someone like him would be an injustice in my view. He did nothing but make a bad joke.
AkanthinosFebruary 07, 2018 at 19:52#1509700 likes
A threat is only a threat if there's actual intent to do violence. An empty threat is no threat at all.
Not in Law. The intentional aspect of a threat in either Common Law settings requires the threat to have been made 'seriously'. 'Seriously' here means 'to cause fear or intimidation', not to have actually intended the actions.
Otherwise : "It is irrelevant whether the accused actually intended to carry out the threat"
-R v Noble (P.D.J.), 2010 MBCA 60 (CanLII)
Not in Law. The intentional aspect of a threat in either Common Law settings requires the threat to have been made 'seriously'. 'Seriously' here means 'to cause fear or intimidation', not to have actually intended the actions.
Otherwise : "It is irrelevant whether the accused actually intended to carry out the threat"
-R v Noble (P.D.J.), 2010 MBCA 60 (CanLII)
I was a bit short on my meaning here before. I agree with the above but as my example to Michael illustrated a threat is only a threat if a reasonable person believes there's intent. Context matters. Your insistence Baden could be sued is simply not credible based on the context in which he made the threats (which are empty threats).
Reply to Michael going by the reporting, I don't think so. Eating a beating heart. Lol. J/k afterwards. In a discussion with strangers about a computer game. I wouldn't take it even remotely serious.
Reply to Michael not the first time things go wrong. Am I to take interpret this you think it was correct what happened and a correct application of law?
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 07, 2018 at 22:06#1510210 likes
No, it's not their job to take everything seriously, it's their job to try to distinguish between what needs to be taken seriously and what doesn't so they can allocate their resources properly. Failing to do that could risk both citizens lives and the enforcement of the law, which is why not every complaint or report is followed up on. In practice that they should err on the side of caution especially in cases where a serious threat to life may be present I accept.
Unless stated otherwise, a threat to kill children, or really anyone, ought to always be taken seriously. You prefaced your joke earlier in this thread with information that helped me deduce that there was little to no chance that you'd come and kill me. The "joke" that Justin Carter made had no additional information, no disclaimer, no followup stating that he was only joking. For instance, if law enforcement suspects that someone is getting swatted and they don't do anything, and it turns out that the person being swatted wasn't actually being swatted and he was actually going to do the horrible thing, then blame rests partly at law enforcement's feet who chose to scoff and get back to their coffee.
If you think that there are perfect punishments, then please direct me to where you've got them all figured out. Otherwise, I'll continue to think, and argue if I must, that 10 years for threatening to kill children is appropriate in some circumstances, while a mass murderer playing Halo in a fancy dorm room isn't appropriate. To reiterate, my point is that your complaint is an attempt at making utterly arbitrary the judicial system as it pertains to Justin Carter and his crime merely because you disagree with the punishment's severity.
I'm not convinced by the deterrent angle as I don't believe the vast majority of the populace are aware of the severity of laws like this.
That Carter didn't serve his entire sentence is precisely the reason why his case was and is used as a deterrent. And contrary to your own ignorance, the case of Justin Carter got quite a lot of public exposure.
any jail time at all for someone like him would be an injustice in my view. He did nothing but make a bad joke.
People like him who joke about killing people shouldn't be taken lightly, by anyone. If Mr. Carter was so unaware of himself and what he says, that threatening to murder children wasn't something he noticed come out of his mouth, he's more likely to be the sort of person who wouldn't know that drinking and driving is calamitous, that smoking is bad for your health, so on and so forth. Pleading ignorance and and the, "I didn't mean it" card doesn't get someone out of being held responsible for what they did. I'm reminded of the bully in the movie, "A Christmas Story", where the picked on kid eventually lashes out after being bullied for weeks. The bully immediately shrivels up and does the same routine as Mr. Carter, yelping about how it was all just a big joke. Well, in the bully's case, he gets his head smashed in. In Carter's case, he sits in jail for a few months.
Reply to Benkei I'm saying that clearly it's a risky thing to do and with real consequences, so it's not the sort of thing one should even joke about (unless one is willing to put principles above practicalities). All the talk about what should happen (or not happen) and what's right (or wrong) isn't likely to be of much comfort if someone actually knocks on your door with an arrest warrant.
That Carter didn't serve his entire sentence is precisely the reason why his case was and is used as a deterrent. And contrary to your own ignorance, the case of Justin Carter got quite a lot of public exposure.
Is the moral of the story that one ought not joke about murder or is it that prosecutors ought not prosecute those joking about murder? I think future Justin Carters and future prosecutors will take pause should a similar event arise because neither came out as winners here. If that prosecutor represented my county, he'd have at least one fewer vote.
Justin Carter's trial is 2/20/18. We'll see what happens. www.change.org/p/dismiss-the-charges-against-my-son-justin-carter-being-prosecuted-for-a-facebook-comment/u/22342533
I'm not willing to risk jail just so that I can joke about killing people, and unlike Voltaire, I wouldn't die to defend someone's right to free speech.
Haven't watched "The Good Place". Might be worth checking out.
I have, it's pretty funny but sort of starts to get messy at the end of season one and pretty much all of season two. It was enjoyable nonetheless and I particularly liked the moral concept of whether a person can improve if they go to hell.
Also, I don't think it's a fair characterisation that what Baden was doing was just so he could joke about killing people.
He was protesting that guy's arrest by repeating the behaviour that got the guy arrested. I'm just pointing out that even if it's right to protest it, that kind of protest might be more trouble than it's worth. It just seemed to me that the thinking was "I shouldn't be arrested for this" with little thought to "I might actually get arrested for this".
'cause this isn't just a philosophical discussion on the limits of free speech, but potential criminality (or at least the sort of thing that can draw the attention of law enforcement, even if there's little chance of a successful indictment).
Don't take this the wrong way, but I honestly think that that's not a smart thing to do.
All investments, whether of time or money, have both opportunity costs and associated risks. Opportunity cost represents what else you could have done with the capital, and the associated risk is how much of the capital you stand to lose if things go badly.
So to decide whether to make an investment or not, you must look at possible gains. How much can you reasonably gain from investing the $100 that makes it worth risking to lose (all, or a part of) the $100? I wouldn't accept a rate of return of less than 4:1.
Because Ripple is the crypto that is not too rebellious & disruptive, and is likely to be perceived as a friend to bankers and the current financial establishment in comparison to alternatives.
Because Ripple is the crypto that is not too rebellious & disruptive, and is likely to be perceived as a friend to bankers and the current financial establishment in comparison to alternatives.
Yeah, well, dumbing down Ripple as a "crypto" is missing the point of Ripple. Ripple isn't trying to be like cash in the way bitcoin tries to. It's something very different.
Sorry, but I'm not fully up to speed with all the technology behind it.
You should go to their website and read up on what they're trying to do and you'll understand why it's much more likely to have staying power and how it can potentially replace SWIFT (which is ultimately the point of Ripple).
You should go to their website and read up on what they're trying to do and you'll understand why it's much more likely to have staying power and how it can potentially replace SWIFT (which is ultimately the point of Ripple).
Yeah, I have studied Ethereum, Ripple, BTC, and Litecoin in the meantime.
Reply to Benkei The interesting thing though was that your question was dishonest from the very beginning. You asked me a question, and naturally, I thought that you really didn't know, so I told you in easy to understand language that unlike the other crypto's, Ripple is positioned to benefit by facilitating and speeding up transactions through the current financial establishment, rather than trying to compete with the establishment in becoming another currency or payment method (as Bitcoin and other cryptos).
So that wasn't very nice of you. The next post clearly showed that you did, in fact, know the answer to the question, and not only that, you had one of my remarks from December in mind, so you asked the question to "catch me out" or something. Either way, not very nice. Passive aggressive if you ask me. These are the kind of silly games that I started completely hating, especially with people I work with. We're supposed to work together, not catch each other out, or prove that one knows more than the other, etc. And playing these games with people actually makes them worse! Believe me, I had some big troubles with an accountant recently, because I was playing stupid games like these and not being straight up honest.
Reply to Agustino of course I set out to catch you in this because you constantly do it. You have an opinion on everything without knowing half of most things. It's intellectually dishonest from you to pretend to know what you're talking about in many cases. You could take this as a lesson to stop doing that and read more to understand others than read to react to others.
of course I set out to catch you in this because you constantly do it. You have an opinion on everything without knowing half of most things. It's intellectually dishonest from you to pretend to know what you're talking about in many cases.
Reply to Benkei So, do you think a man has a right to be dishonest if he thinks another is dishonest in order to "catch them out"? :P When there's a fire, do you take a bucket of fire and throw it at the fire to extinguish it? :)
Yeah, exactly. Except that contrary to your unspoken suggestion, I don't think such behaviour is moral, regardless of what the end of it is. At least an undercover cop is given authority by his society to do this.
Yeah, exactly. Except that contrary to your unspoken suggestion, I don't think such behaviour is moral, regardless of what the end of it is. At least an undercover cop is given authority by his society to do this.
[s]But why male models?[/s] So like an undercover cop?
Reply to Agustino It's a Zoolander reference. The main character, who's an idiot, asks another character why male models are being brainwashed into being assassins, and after the lengthy explanation, he responds by asking again why they use male models.
And as a bit of trivia, it happened because the actor (Ben Stiller) forgot his lines and so just repeated his previous one. They kept it in because it was funny.
It's a Zoolander reference. The main character, who's an idiot, asks another character why male models are being brainwashed into being assassins, and after the lengthy explanation and another character comments, he responds again asking why they use male models.
Don't worry, I don't even know what Zoolander is >:O . You're talking to someone who hasn't watched a single movie for more than 1 year. Probably in my entire life I've seen less than 100 movies. Definitely not many. Not a movie watcher type.
I remember @Benkei recommended me a Hitler movie awhile ago, which I meant to watch, but still didn't get around to it...
I know the famous ones, you know... Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Citizen Kane, Spiderman, other Marvel movies, You Again!, Shawshank Redemption, Alien, Predator (and that whole genre), Terminator, Brave Heart, Fast and Furious - that kinda stuff.
I do have a TV, just don't open it on things other than news
Your TV opens? You sure it isn't a cardboard box and you just have a squatter living inside, shouting out insane nonsense? I can see how you might confuse that for The Sean Hannity Show.
Your TV opens? You sure it isn't a cardboard box and you just have a squatter living inside, shouting out insane nonsense? I can see how you might confuse that for The Sean Hannity Show.
>:O, yah, that Sean Hannity is on my computer, not on the TV. I don't get American programs on TV.
I remember that the UK is such a country that they ask you to own a TV license there to watch TV or any live streaming >:O - a clearly crooked and barbaric law. Those folks used to tell me "even if you watch on your computer, you must get the license" - and it's expensive too, not worth getting.
I remember that the UK is such a country that they ask you to own a TV license there to watch TV or any live streaming >:O - a clearly crooked and barbaric law.
As far as I know, the majority of English speaking people say "turn on" the TV. ;)
And in the South, we say "shut off the TV" and "shut off the lights," which could also be corrupted into "shut the lights." I would occasionally hear "shut on the lights" as well. Then there's "mash," which doesn't get as much use as it ought to, as in "mash the power button to turn off the TV."
Sometimes when I'm vigorously fucking Michael's girlfriend and mom, one of their asses (or arses, if you speak wrong) will inadvertently mash the channel button and we'll go from enjoying an episode of South Park to watching Benny Hill, the least funny Brit to ever live, but at least he moved around really fast and you could occasionally see a breast or three.
It's really good. It's about a philosophy professor who has existential numbness until he decides to murder a bad judge that influences a positive outcome for others and thinks he did a moral and ethical thing that gives his life meaning.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 10, 2018 at 16:15#1517540 likes
Reply to Hanover Recent scholarship has suggested that the early bread shortages weren't as severe as previously thought, meaning that the government leveraged pity to loan in industrial equipment during the 20's and 30's. Obviously some regions did suffer greatly, but depending on what year that meme is targeting, it's not quite as accurate.
One of my Facebook 'friends' posted a link to an article ridiculing a certain segment of the population for being impervious to facts and arguments which challenge their worldview, and after reading said article I very tactfully mentioned some of the flaws with it.
The response: "This is MY page, if you have a different opinion then post it on YOUR page! Or unfriend me if you have a problem with my views."
Yep. I wasn't even upset with the lady (my son's elementary school teacher :D ) putting me on blast like that.
I am trying to spend more time around here instead of social media, where the fine members--of all political and philosophical persuasions--chase after truth rather than 'likes'.
So it turns out that happiness might require a certain level of brain development, correlative to a certain degree of thought:
"“Being happy requires a fair amount of self-referential thinking, whereas being in pain or being unhappy doesn’t require that in the same way,” he suggested. “To be happy, you have to know that you’re happy. A lot of [our sons’] unhappiness initially isn’t really un-happiness but rather low-level feelings like ‘I’m hungry’ or ‘I’m wet.’ It’s not like ‘oh man, I would be really happy if I weren’t sitting in this wet diaper.’”
This concept of self-referential thinking, or the ability to reflect on how you’re feeling and your desires, is associated with a network of brain regions called the default mode network."
Reply to StreetlightX Interesting. I could be mistaken but that would seem to reverse or at least challenge the conventional view linking intelligence (thoughtfulness, self-consciousness) and unhappiness.
Probably she has no authority in real life, and so is striving to feel authoritative online...
I hadn't thought about it from that angle but it sounds somewhat plausible.
If you're around young children all day five days a week, trying (unsuccessfully) to keep them in line with simple commands rather than nuanced reasons, that may very well affect the way you interact with people outside of that context. May make one a little impatient, too.
Lots of respect for teachers. I almost lost it a few times when I taught high school kids and I think I'm pretty easygoing.
That's awesome. Working for myself would be my preferred option but I lack the necessary capital and/or the specific skills to go that route, and it's getting late in the game for me to acquire these things.
My practical solution has been to live as simply and as frugally as possible, and at the very least to work at jobs that I don't dread.
How does one successfully work for themselves anyways? I've always felt inclined that way, but I don't seem to possess the needed skills. It's possible that I'm just a spoiled brat as well. Or it's possible that being a self-sufficient artist in 2018 is basically impossible unless you want to sell your **** to the devil.
How does one successfully work for themselves anyways? I've always felt inclined that way, but I don't seem to possess the needed skills. It's possible that I'm just a spoiled brat as well. Or it's possible that being a self-sufficient artist in 2018 is basically impossible unless you want to sell your **** to the devil.
Start a business (though that's not really working for yourself without others), or learn some valuable skill such as web design, or web development, and then sell your services as an individual working by yourself. Preferably, start out with money saved for a few months to give yourself time to learn how to acquire projects, sell yourself, etc. - that's how I did it. Also, before you do that, you must learn the skill in your spare time, learning to sell afterwards is a job in and of itself. Also, know your monthly costs, so that you have an idea of how much you need to make.
No. I've actually had a decent job over the past few years--as far as pay goes anyhow--as the GM of a successful restaurant.
I decided to take a break from work about a month ago and am considering stepping away completely to do something else.
I know you're an entrepreneur, Agustino, any advice you can give on possible business opportunities that don't require too much money to get going, and that I can train myself (as a 'normal' person with average intelligence) to do within a year or so?
The tough thing seems to be that if you really want to do one thing well enough to make a living at it (e.g. writing, painting), then you can't realistically split your time between doing that and doing something else to pay the bills.
There are exceptions, though. Didn't Charles Bukowski work for the USPS? X-)
Yeah, I'm talking about just the design aspect of websites. Basically, you'd be making Photoshop files with how the page(s) look, including maybe elements like logos, user experience, user interface, etc. No coding.
It's like designing with a pencil, but you do it on computer.
Preferably, start out with money saved for a few months to give yourself time to learn how to acquire projects, sell yourself, etc. - that's how I did it.
Okay I'm in this very situation. I need specific details on how to learn your skill in the quickest and most affordable way possible.
Noble DustFebruary 12, 2018 at 09:41#1521190 likes
The tough thing seems to be that if you really want to do one thing well enough to make a living at it (e.g. writing, painting), then you can't realistically split your time between doing that and doing something else to pay the bills.
You're preaching to the choir. It's not impossible, but it's a crap-shoot, it seems.
I've made art too, but I have no idea how I'd make a living out of it or if I'd even want to. Rather remain an amateur in that field and make money at something else I enjoy doing.
I know you're an entrepreneur, Agustino, any advice you can give on possible business opportunities that don't require too much money to get going, and that I can train myself (as a 'normal' person with average intelligence) to do within a year or so?
It's difficult to advise others on what business to start, cause it really depends on your skills, your personality, and your interests. What kind of life do you want it to afford you? I wanted something that I could pretty much do by myself in the beginning, but that I could scale later on if I wanted to and involve more people. It also depends on what kind of work you want - do you want to interact with people a lot face-to-face? Do you want to be in front of a computer a lot?
Also, your skills are relevant. You should ideally structure things around skills that you already have if possible. Basically, a business must sell something. What's the easiest thing that you can make or provide and sell given your skills?
All businesses end up being experimentation in the end. You form a hypothesis, and still need to test it every time. And the market sometimes takes you in a different, but similar direction to where you initially intended to go. For me I started in web development but have been moving more towards online marketing over time - I'm even looking to pass the development aspects onto other people atm.
Noble DustFebruary 12, 2018 at 09:45#1521230 likes
Ah, so you're suggesting I could be a visual artist for money. I'm not visually talented; I can understand the aesthetics of visual art, but I don't have the physical hand for it. I can't even form a strong line. I have horrendous handwriting.
Ah, so you're suggesting I could be a visual artist for money. I'm not visually talented; I can understand the aesthetics of visual art, but I don't have the physical hand for it. I can't even form a strong line. I have horrendous handwriting.
Yeah, that's why Photoshop draws straight lines for you, regardless of how wobbly your hands are :P
Noble DustFebruary 12, 2018 at 09:46#1521250 likes
I've made art too, but I have no idea how I'd make a living out of it or if I'd even want to. Rather remain an amateur in that field and make money at something else I enjoy doing.
To each their own. My life's work is my music, and yes, that's a ridiculous thing to say.
Noble DustFebruary 12, 2018 at 09:47#1521260 likes
In that particular case, photoshop drawing a straight line despite my inability to do so would be an example of me dishonestly presenting content that I didn't actually have the skills to produce; the software produced it for me.
It can still be your life's work and your priority while you do something else to make money, but if it's the only thing you do and you want to make money from it, you're at the mercy of the whims of the market.
In that particular case, photoshop drawing a straight line despite my inability to do would be an example of me dishonestly presenting content that I didn't actually have the skills to produce; the software produced it for me.
Nobody designs websites by hand (except maybe a wireframe). Photoshop has the advantage that a developer (the person who codes the website) has the design to scale in pixels, and he can save images at the right size from it, has the right color codes, sizes, etc. for fonts and so on. Basically makes coding the website a breeze, and the coder just codes, he doesn't have to think about user experience, user interface, how to get the point of the business across, etc.
That's fair. In that case, my best foot forward would be to present my work, and see if the market bites. I've somewhat failed, and somewhat succeeded at doing that, so far.
But yes, obviously I currently earn my bread and cigarettes by other means.
And the obvious issue is that, in order for anything at all to be one's life's work, it needs to be the work that takes up the most of your time (life). And when I'm working 37 hours a week at a job that isn't my life's work, then my life's work begins to pale in comparison to my..."other" life's work...
Noble DustFebruary 12, 2018 at 09:59#1521320 likes
Woah, we just jumped from "dishonest art", to the basics of web code. Not the same.
I was just saying that, within the context of art (is web design art??), I detest artistic dishonesty: I detest when someone without skill uses a technology or trope in order to present themselves as having a skill that they don't actually have. Trust me, my dude, I work in the fucking music industry. I've seen it too many times. >:O
I was just saying that, within the context of art (is web design art??), I detest artistic dishonesty: I detest when someone without skill uses a technology or trope in order to present themselves as having a skill that they don't actually have.
It's not the same thing as what you saw in the music industry. The skill comes from knowing what to create, what colors to use, etc. not from actually drawing the bits and pieces. Sure, Photoshop can draw a rectangle with sizes so and so and corner radii of so and so for you - but you must conceive what it must draw in the first place. That's the real hard aspect of it.
Noble DustFebruary 12, 2018 at 10:04#1521340 likes
Yeah, sure. I'm not sure what you're arguing. My guess is that we're talking at cross-purposes.
An artistic expression has more to do with mystical experience, free will, paradox, and religious experience (just grabbing phrases that can parse on a philosophy forum) than it does with business plans, photoshop algorithms, or whatever.
I have very modest financial goals, I consider myself second to none when it comes to communicating with customers and dealing with people more generally (even though I'm a natural introvert), I enjoy big picture thinking much more than focusing on small details (although I realize how important these are), etc.
I'm not averse to learning web design or something like that if it can be done in a reasonable time and I could later shift towards the service/sales side of things. I imagine it would help to know a little about the services you're trying to sell to others.
Thank you for the advice! I've been brainstorming and this is great info.
I've been thinking a lot about getting involved in property management or some other mundane service in which I can use the 'people' skills I've developed to make a modest living.
I have very modest financial goals, I consider myself second to none when it comes to communicating with customers and dealing with people more generally (even though I'm a natural introvert), I enjoy big picture thinking much more than focusing on small details (although I realize how important these are), etc.
Those are all great talents to have :)
I too am a natural introvert, and I actually don't like dealing with people, at least not for extended periods of time. I have always been a natural leader though, and often I find that I am an extremely polarising person, since people either love me, or they hate me, but there's little middle ground.
With regards to the big picture - I found out that without the details you can't really make a big picture. I mean, how can you make a big picture when you don't understand the technical possibilities of your industry? You can only do this by resorting to analogies, and saying XYZ also did it this way, etc.
I'm not averse to learning web design or something like that if it can be done in a reasonable time and I could later shift towards the service/sales side of things. I imagine it would help to know a little about the services you're trying to sell to others.
Yes, it definitely helps. Some areas are related - for example, you can't learn to develop websites without learning something about the designing of websites, copywriting, online marketing, etc. If you have a good grasp of all the areas involved, then the next step is obviously to organise the entire activity, meaning you don't offer just development services, but you integrate them in something more complete that provides greater value overall. If you have the sales and the peoples skill, and some relevant technical knowledge, then it's definitely doable.
I'm not averse to learning web design or something like that if it can be done in a reasonable time and I could later shift towards the service/sales side of things. I imagine it would help to know a little about the services you're trying to sell to others.
The thing with these IT and internet related services is that you don't need a lot of approvals and certifications to practice them. Stuff like being an accountant, being an engineer, opening a restaurant, etc. (depending on your country) require a lot of prior approvals and certifications.
I've been thinking a lot about getting involved in property management or some other mundane service in which I can use the 'people' skills I've developed to make a modest living.
Yes, I think that, depending on your area, that would be something doable. Though you need to figure out what your selling points are - why people would prefer doing business with you over others. I've never worked in property management, but I imagine, that just like many accounting/lawyer, etc. services, people are looking for a model where the property is taken care of, tenants are always in, and they don't have any headaches. But in reality fees are (probably) very high and the landlords still need to do all sorts of things for the property even though they have hired a company to manage it for them.
That would be my initial guess anyway, the guess of someone who doesn't know much about the property business except from the tenant's side. With regards to the real estate business, I recently read this:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/teen-tycoon-britains-youngest-millionaire-11346804
He had quite an interesting business model, and could easily scale it. You can see how he has a clear offer: no commissions, a fixed price regardless of how much the property sells for, aggressively expanding offers at multiple price points (a subtle form a price discrimination, where a business attempts to garner a larger portion of the area under the demand curve as revenues - two weeks ago he had only 2 offers, been expanded to 3 now - here for offers: https://doorsteps.co.uk/pricing.php ). The offers are, for many, clearly better than paying a 6% fee to sell their property.
So if you'd do something similar in property management, you'd need to focus on the offer, and then on the marketing. The offer / business model is the hook, the marketing is actually using the hook to capture fish. In other words, the offer is the idea, the marketing is the execution.
Well, I decided to give up on college. Not my cup of tea or the gods didn't will it to be.
I wish I were depressed so that I could wallow in bed or ruminate and kill time over the issue; but, it seems like I don't feel all that depressed for one reason or another.
What to do?
Work? Well, I'm on disability and I never cared for money.
Seems like I don't have anything else to give up on except on life itself; but, I'm not in the mood to contemplate such things.
Oh, how I miss my depression.
BuxtebuddhaFebruary 12, 2018 at 16:15#1521800 likes
Reply to Posty McPostface You seem pretty depressed to me, bro. Is that what puts you on disability income?
Reply to René Descartes Indeed, monsieur René for the enigma that is me hath been working hard, but I will try and find the time to bringeth joy to this desolation! In the meantime, @Baden could you please stop swanning around in your leopard printed g-strings and flip-flops or spending several hours in front of the mirror flexing your magenta coloured chest and help me out here?
I am an evil genius. There are few bad things that ever happened that I didn't have a hand in, either as the director of the evil or at least having a consulting role, often being a key puppeteer. It's all set out in my Linkedin account (https://youtu.be/X9bOsdHckhg), and I stay pretty busy with calls for work. Every time a raindrop falls on your pretty little head and causes you the slightest annoyance, credit me.
Reply to BadenThe unfortunate part is that she died some years ago, but the fortunate part is that we can now marry. I was thinking of a winter wedding, when it's really cold and everything is dead. You know in the darkest part of the winter, when it feels like it will only get colder and will never improve? Then.
Trump added some new questions to the citizenship test which should be a bit easier on the average Joe. They're all about him and all have the same answer, "The biggest ever".
@Hanover@Ciceronianus the White I was watching the confession tapes on Netflix. I was flabbergasted with the first two episodes. Confessions elicited through a complex act by Canadian police with a method prohibited in the US, an alibi for the men convicted, evidence pointing to other suspects and basically bad policing. What shocked me, one exhausted his appeals as I suspected this would get fixed at an appeal. Are you familiar with the case? Did the documentary misrepresent the facts?
Well, clearly I was unable to elicit an interesting response, despite all that effort. Do you realise how often the word magenta is used? Rarely. Ask @Bitter Crank. He has never used it and he is a word man.
What's wrong with a boy named Sue and a girl named Horse? I once met a horse named Girl actually, so it can happen the other way too.
You play chess apparently, how can any continuity of humour be poss if you do not think ahead and set the stage. Do I have to do everything around here?
Ask Bitter Crank. He has never used it and he is a word man.
Unfortunately for TimeLine, it's hard to get matching lipstick, eye shadow, nail polish and tattoos in magenta. I've gotten many men; none of them wore magenta anything. Loathsome color.
You play chess apparently, how can any continuity of humour be poss if you do not think ahead and set the stage. Do I have to do everything around here?
Oh? Do you remember that time when you cowered from playing chess, even though you were bluffing and showing off so much before? X-)
Oh? Do you remember that time when you cowered from playing chess, even though you were bluffing and showing off so much before? X-)
How dare you talk about Hanover like that. Besides, how could anyone cower down to a hamster, despite such paradoxical rodent cuteness. You can't nibble cookies and wriggle your ears out of facts, mouseboy.
Besides, how could anyone cower down to a hamster, despite such paradoxical rodent cuteness. It's the nibbling of cookies and wriggle your ears out of facts, mouseboy.
Last night I read an article about one of my brothers being flushed down the toilet in an airport : /
Oh pebbles. Or peebles. Whatever it may be,
You are small, fluffy, and dear to me.
While you went for a swim down poop creek,
And drowned, silence, gone are those little squeaks,
Or shrieks. Disturbing, yes, but we will never forget
you. The airline shall pay the debt!
My dog Fifi slammed into Nibbles' cage, got him loose, got him by the neck, and pranced proudly down the stairs while the kids yelled, "Fifi got Nibbles! Fifi got Nibbles!"
From the book I'm working on, called Introduction To Hamster Emoji:
Page 1 of Introduction To Hamster Emoji:ö = [sub]tiny[/sub] hamster
Ö = LAAAAARGE hamster
:Ö: = hamster rolling on the floor
;Ö; = party animal hamster!
\Ö/ = dancing hamster!
Without wanting to say that Marion is great or anything, he is an intellectual giant in the Francophone world. You may hate him (I do), but you only flaunt your lack of philosophical education, here.
Reply to Akanthinos I care less about how someone is regarded than what they actually say. You should too. If he says ludicrous and frankly idiotic things, like in the video, then he's an intellectual not worth his salt.
AkanthinosFebruary 15, 2018 at 00:58#1530300 likes
Not the issue, here. Jean-Luc Marion is a douche, yes, he's also one of the biggest philosopher of the last 20 years in France. "The next big name of phenomenology", according to McGill's University phenomenology specialist...
AkanthinosFebruary 15, 2018 at 01:10#1530330 likes
And he is constantly saying horrific things like he does in this video. I once laughed at him loudly in a class because he had told us he didn't believe it truly possible for an atheist to understand aristotelian logic.
Not the issue, here. Jean-Luc Marion is a douche, yes, he's also one of the biggest philosopher of the last 20 years in France. "The next big name of phenomenology", according to McGill's University phenomenology specialist...
Then what is the issue? It seems to me that the issue is that you've got the wrong end of the stick, have misinterpreted something I've said, and we're now talking past each other. I haven't denied his reputation. If the next big thing happens to be this shmuck, then so be it. All the more reason to stray from the flock. My point was that it's striking that a joker like this has the air of an intellectual, and is apparently regarded as such, despite saying such stupid things.
And he is constantly saying horrific things like he does in this video. I once laughed at him loudly in a class because he had told us he didn't believe it truly possible for an atheist to understand aristotelian logic.
Right, and that's what I find astonishing. (And I think I'd react in the same way).
Another animal story, gather round, remove your clothes, and listen closely:
My son had two birds: Chickenhawk and no name. No name was descriptive, in that he had no name. His name wasn't No Name, but he had no name. To be clear, he wasn't like dead purple diminutive Prince, who was briefly an unpronouncable symbol, but he had no name.
So no name was fucking around, salting his beak (not a euphamism for coitus, but truly beak salting), and tweeting (not on twitter, but actually tweeting).
My son then turned on the ceiling fan (cue dramatic music).
Think Icarus, but instead of melting, multiple thwackings. He was fine but for the perpendicular jutting wing. Prolonged recovery followed by Chickenhawk's relentless head pecking (not a euphamism), led to purple rain on the side of the cage.
And his throbbing member grew cold in her dying clasp as she recited the lyrics of Dancing Queen. Sorry, misplaced sentence. Please ignore.
No name was about to be no life to be sure, so it went to the vet for euthanasia. The cost was too high, so the sociopath in charge of its merciful death poisoned it slowly with the fumes of floor cleaner. And so it passed, not with a whimper, but with the cries of a porn star at the moment of satiation.
And then I threw Michael's brother from his bunk to mine, injuring my sister's active wrist.
This story of mine. Good. So Good. It comes with its own review even. I have a way with words like someone who talks good.
I once pointed a real, high calibre pistol at my cat, and then took a photo of it just before the gun accidentally fired, causing my cat to instantaneously explode into a thousand pieces - a mixture of blood, guts, fur, and body parts - sent flying out in all directions at tremendous speed.
Reply to Sapientia Marion is a genius. If we take his brain and put on one side of a weight balance, and then take the top 5 PF atheists and put their brains on the other side, we all know in which way the balance will lean >:)
And he is constantly saying horrific things like he does in this video. I once laughed at him loudly in a class because he had told us he didn't believe it truly possible for an atheist to understand aristotelian logic.
If I have to explain this to you, that's not a good thing. The video is made for people who agree with it; a 20 second hit piece with a split second hip hop track at the end. If you don't understand the vibe of the video...I don't know what else to tell you.
René DescartesFebruary 15, 2018 at 09:42#1531990 likes
Marion is a genius. If we take his brain and put on one side of a weight balance, and then take the top 5 PF atheists and put their brains on the other side, we all know in which way the balance will lean
Now I want to know who you think the top 5 PF atheists are. And the top 5 posters overall.
Noble DustFebruary 15, 2018 at 09:47#1532030 likes
I no longer feel the need to conclude that God doesn't exist. All I need to conclude is that, if there is any immense, powerful, intelligence such as might be called a God, it is absolutely nothing like what is described by the Abrahamic religions, and all the positive claims made by those religions are pure nonsense.
I say, partially in jest, when discussing philosophy, that there are days of the week that I'm atheist and others when I'm theist,deist, pantheist, panentheist or polytheist. It's only partly jest, because I do sometimes find God to be a useful myth or metaphor (using myth in the positive, non-pejorative sense advocated by Alan Watts) that helps in coming to terms with a universe that is, in the final analysis, fundamentally incomprehensible.
There may be a God but, per the OP argument, if there is one, it's a nice, helpful one - not the one described in the Bible, Tanakh or Koran.
But maybe we can ask the man himself. @andrewk: do you consider yourself an atheist?
unenlightenedFebruary 15, 2018 at 11:38#1532500 likes
Does anyone happen to have a back-up of the old pf? I'd like to find an old thread of mine from June 2011 entitled 'Magic...!' Even just the op would be something... I saved a copy of supposedly all my own pearls, but that one was missing (insert magical explanation here). Your reward will be this stunning joke that I found trawling through the endless ban announcements:
Pf has a vacancy for a Philosophical Zombie to assist with thought experiments. No experience necessary.
StreetlightFebruary 15, 2018 at 11:48#1532540 likes
*yawn*, atheism is such a boring position to be defined by. As if the question of the divine was important or significant enough to warrant being defined by. I'm an aunicornist as well, but no one seems to want to talk about my strident aunicornism :(
This is much harder because the "Follow" feed that I had at PF had all my favorite posters that I could read daily but my top 5 posters overall in alphabetical order:
Banno
Benkei
Hanover
Michael
unenlightened
unenlightenedFebruary 15, 2018 at 12:35#1532640 likes
Reply to Michael Many thanks. Not all there, but enough to remind me what was going on.
The Justin Carter trial is set for 2/20/18. He's the guy we were talking about earlier who made sarcastic comments about shooting up a school and he's now being tried for terroristic threats. The timing could not be worse for him in light of the Florida shootings.
The timing could not be worse for him in light of the Florida shootings.
I don't see that it could have been much better though.
In all, guns have been fired on school property in the US at least 18 times so far this year, according to incidents tracked by Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control group. In eight of these cases, a gun was fired on school property, but no one was injured. Another two incidents were gun suicides, claiming the lives of one student and one adult on school property.
This is much harder because the "Follow" feed that I had at PF had all my favorite posters that I could read daily but my top 5 posters overall in alphabetical order:
Thanks, but I don't deserve to be on that list. I hardly contribute philosophically anymore these days. ;)
Thanks, but I don't deserve to be on that list. I hardly contribute philosophically anymore these days.
So? Neither does Aristotle or Socrates but they are still two dudes I would call my favorite Philosophers.
See that is the thing about My favorite ___________, is that I don't need permission for them to be considered mine. ;)
Freaky huh? 8-)
Blue socks with light brown cuffed pants and dark brown shoes. Discuss.
What color is your belt?
Personally? I like the monochromatic theme unless you are wearing a blue shirt then it might pass the muster but why not brown socks? Are you still dressing in the dark?
The belt is brown, but the sock thing has always been an issue with me. I purchase all the same blue socks, so that when one goes missing, the other need not become an orphan. Having been raised an orphan, and having actually lived in 37 homes before the age of 4 months, three of which were arguably with Michael's father, I don't like anything to do with orphans. I like brown pants because they remind me of Baden's baked bean teeth that dance all jiggly in his gums. My underwear is a luxurious magenta silk that caresses me each time Timeline and I do our Rockette high kick routine.
. I purchase all the same blue socks, so that when one goes missing, the other need not become an orphan.
Appeal to emotion denied.
Purchase some nice brown socks (the kind that do not get knobby) and rest easy that you can still put all the socks in one load but will need to separate them out into pairs once they are clean.
Gramps solved the orphan issue by using a safety pin to pin his socks together before washing them.
AkanthinosFebruary 15, 2018 at 21:42#1533740 likes
There is something rather feminine about the name Rene. Rather homosezuale
'René' might not be the most virile masculine french name, still, no francophone would say that it is "homosexual-sounding", unlike, let's say, 'Guy'. And 'René' is kinda noble, it means "Reborn".
Marion is a genius. If we take his brain and put on one side of a weight balance, and then take the top 5 PF atheists and put their brains on the other side, we all know in which way the balance will lean
It's kinda funny you say this. You realize Marion is, in his own way, stuck deeper in POMO and French Theory than just anyone who isn't a POMO author or a French Theorist, right? This is a student of Derrida, someone who inscribes his research in the continuity of Husserl's and Heidegger's. This is your hero?
Or perhaps just fell on his name, figured he was a Catholic and just assumed he was an aristotelico-thomist?
AkanthinosFebruary 15, 2018 at 21:53#1533760 likes
'René' might not be the most virile masculine french name, still, no francophone would say that it is "homosexual-sounding", unlike, let's say, 'Guy'. And 'René' is kinda noble, it means "Reborn".
I agree, Guy is a very feminine name. I am going to call my next girl cat Dennis.
So I was scrolling through my Instagram and one of my model friends posts a picture of herself in the stairs with the caption "there's no elevator to success, you have to take the stairs". And I'm thinking "I love you and all but you got that whole modelling gig tossed in your lap because you're good looking".
Reply to Benkei Don't underestimate the difference make up and styling can make. My GF's friend is a model and I've seen her on a lazy day, and it's a big change.
Noble DustFebruary 16, 2018 at 09:57#1535580 likes
I like how the shoutbox is a kind of place where hyper-intellectuals can spout off all of their suppressed emotional baggage. Someone should start a philosophical movement based on the sorts of things espoused here.
René DescartesFebruary 16, 2018 at 09:58#1535600 likes
Why is everyone talking about my name as though I am some girl or something (Moldovan accent). I am René Descartes and I've never heard of either Guy or René being a feminine name.
Probably why my modeling career is in the doldrums. :(
This reminded me of the testimonial you gave at the old PF for the role it played in turning your life around -- away from a shallow existence revolving around playing sports and chasing after beautiful women and towards the philosophical stud that you are today.
Wouldn't mind seeing that one again with the before and after pics. I could use the inspiration.
It's kinda funny you say this. You realize Marion is, in his own way, stuck deeper in POMO and French Theory than just anyone who isn't a POMO author or a French Theorist, right? This is a student of Derrida, someone who inscribes his research in the continuity of Husserl's and Heidegger's. This is your hero?
Yep. I don't know about Derrida, but Heidegger for sure. Please note that Heidegger is not exactly POMO. I've read part of his God Without Being, an interesting read.
Or perhaps just fell on his name, figured he was a Catholic and just assumed he was an aristotelico-thomist?
Now, to set you straight:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/51700#Post_51700
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/20389#Post_20389
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/137477#Post_137477
Marion is mentioned by me in all these older posts. In fact, I may even have posted that video before on PF.
Well, that is true. Trump is smart, whether you like it or not. You cannot achieve what Trump achieved in his life by chance. Some people scoff, and they say failed businessman, etc. etc. Nonsense! If he was a failed businessman he'd be a poor man today.
I have been in intermittent email contact with XandertheGrey. He is interested in building technologies that can be adapted to build inexpensive homes. We've talked some about houses that were sold by Sears Roebuck, once the Amazon of mail order catalogs in the US, in the early 1900s. You ordered the houses from the catalog and pre-cut pieces were shipped by rail to the nearest freight terminal. You picked it up and built the house on your own land. I assume you also built your own foundation.. Mail order catalogs had a huge impact on rural America, in some ways comparable to the internet. Access to musical instruments made country music and the blues possible.
While thinking about this, it struck me that Xander would love "The Whole Earth Catalog." Has anyone other than Bitter Crank heard of it. The first one came out in the late 1960s and the last one was published in 1994. The catalog's motto was "Access to tools" and that's what it was about, as long as you took a very broad definition of what tool is. Everything from farming, building houses, medicine, the philosophy and politics of self-reliance, community building. It was a wonderful, exciting publication. I bought used copies for my children on EBAY and Amazon. It's probably coincidence, but two of my three children manage farms now. It isn't published any more, but it is available as a PDF on line for $5 each. I sent one to Xander. Here's a link:
http://www.wholeearth.com/index.php
There are things in the world that are pure, unalloyed good. This is one of them.
Do you think having $14M + available to him improved his chances of success or not?
I don't see how having access to capital improves your chances of success. If you don't know how to manage capital, and you have access to a lot of it, you'll squander it and fail. Things don't work out simply by throwing money at them - perhaps this isn't something we often hear in today's world, but it's true. If you don't know what you're doing, all the money in the world can't save you. And the more money you have, the bigger the temptation to take dumb actions is because you think you have sufficient, regardless of what happens.
There is one regard in which I think having some more substantial savings or access to larger piles of capital helps. It helps with one's confidence - you know that if this doesn't work, you won't starve, so you are faced with less fear. But that depends - because there is also the opposite possibility, that access to capital will make you overconfident, and you won't take the dangers in front of you seriously.
So no, overall, I doubt that access to capital alone improved his chances of success.
Reply to Agustino That is not financial sound, the better capitalized a person is the more likely they will be successful because they can suffer downturns better, take advantages of situations others simple can't than those less well capitalized. Think of it like playing poker.
Cannabis can have a more potent impact on those with pre-existing mental health issues that could increase the risk of making this condition more severe
Do not be worried, TimeLine is the biggest pot smoker in the whole of Kazakhstan, everyone heard about her! :P
That is not financial sound, the better capitalized a person is the more likely they will be successful because they can suffer downturns better, take advantages of situations other simple can't than those less well capitalized. Think of it like playing poker.
But that implies that the person who has access to capital knows how to use it right? For sure, someone who knows how to use capital is aided by greater access to capital, I never attempted to deny that. I'm just saying that the person who doesn't know how to use capital will not be helped by access to capital.
It enables you to purchase the right advice even if you are clueless.
Not really - people usually try to screw you and get paid without doing good work - and that seems to be true especially if they know you can afford to pay them. It takes skill to motivate them to do good work, and get a good price for it. Otherwise you will pay x2-3 times as much as you need to pay and get crap quality work done too.
I spent an hour or two reading/skimming Peterson's 12 Rules of Life, and I can't fathom how anyone could possibly find it useful. It's mainly filled with banal biblical exegeses liberally applied to human society and how individuals should conduct themselves. There are also dashes of jejune understandings of evolution and biology misapplied in order to endorse natural hierarchy and provide fodder for misogynistic hit-and-runs.
René DescartesFebruary 16, 2018 at 20:04#1537720 likes
Remind me how many times Trump has declared bankruptcy.
0 times. Trump has never been personally bankrupt. Some of his LLCs did file for bankruptcy, though that's often normal practice for some entrepreneurs, and not necessarily the sign of failure (don't know how it is in the case of Trump). Though regardless of how good you are, some businesses will always fail.
I spent an hour or two reading/skimming Peterson's 12 Rules of Life, and I can't fathom how anyone could possibly find it useful. It's mainly filled with banal biblical exegeses liberally applied to human society and how individuals should conduct themselves. There are also dashes of jejune understandings of evolution and biology misapplied in order to endorse natural hierarchy and provide fodder for misogynistic hit-and-runs.
Nonsense. You didn't read it properly.
Take rule 6 for example: 6 Set your house in order before you criticise the world
Many people are depressed and nihilistic about the world and they blame this and that, without first setting their own house in order, and trying to be the best person they can be. This is extremely helpful, to remind you that before you criticise others and blame others, you must first try your best. Great to motivate you.
Rule 4 Compare yourself with who you were yesterday, not with who someone else is today
Another great rule. Don't compare yourself with others, because then you will become depressed and lose your motivation. Compare yourself with your past self.
Also rule 8 - tell the truth or at least don't lie
Super important. Peterson explains clearly just how dangerous to yourself lying is - that when you lie, you pathologise your structures of perception and no longer perceive the world as it is, clearly. Therefore, you're not longer able to guide yourself towards your goals.
Personally, I can say that Peterson helped me in my business as well as generally in life. I certainly learned stuff from listening to him.
Ah yes, "Tell The Truth". Such profound and original advice! A real modern day Buddha. If you are over the age of 14 and require someone to tell you this, among other obvious things, you may be a moron. Rule 6 is actually nonsense. There are real problems and issues in the world that should be criticized and addressed, irrespective of an individual's person flaws. To suggest otherwise just leads to political quietism. This is just a bulwark for Peterson's cranky conservatism. Speaking of which, did you watch PZ Myers video criticizing Peterson's understanding of biology and evolution?
Speaking of which, did you watch PZ Myers video criticizing Peterson's understanding of biology and evolution?
Not yet. I was finishing some last bits of work (because I'm a workaholic), will do soon. (but probably reply tomorrow, cause it's late and I'm tired now).
Ah yes, "Tell The Truth". Such profound and original advice! A real modern day Buddha.
It's not original advice, but the way he expresses it and explains it is original. Usually people say "don't lie because it's not nice". Peterson doesn't say that - for him, it doesn't matter whether it's nice or not, he explains how it is harmful to the one who lies. Many times, we are tempted to lie because we think we can get ahead by lying, but Peterson explains how this isn't actually the case, and how lying actually causes us to fall behind, and never reach our full potentials. He explains clearly how lying negatively twists your structures of perception.
AkanthinosFebruary 16, 2018 at 21:10#1538050 likes
This is so good, this warrants reposting in clearer format. Peterson is not just an objectionable intellectual, he is a poor intellectual. He makes ridiculous and easily disprovable claims about the evolution of our neurological systems. Lobsters and humans last common ancestor was not 350 million years ago ; it was 700 million years ago. Our neurological systems are not similar because they 'run' on serotonin, serotonin is found in 99.9% animal and we have various uses for it. The list just goes on and on and on...
'Silly' is totally inadequate. It's a contrarian's denial of reality exposed. If you don't have access to capital, you can't do jack shit, except shovel it sufficiently to accumulate some. The self made man's biography begins, I became pregnant with myself, and having given birth, suckled and educated myself, until...
Reply to unenlightened I wasn't providing a commentary on the extent to which one can make things happen purely by their own efforts, and I do allow that access to capital can be acheived by merit through salesmanship or having created a product or service in high demand. My only comment was that competition for capital can be fierce and it is because it's needed to make businesses operate.
Oh god, I watched about 3/4s of the Paglia/Peterson discussion a while back and just had to stop. It was such a rambly mess of a talk, and the whole discussion about not being able to hit women, and how - I'm recalling from fuzzy memory - how women were quite happy in their capacity as caregivers and homestayers and it was much better for them before they moved into traditional men's roles was so barbaric that I think that's about when I turned it off.
I thought it was quite good and not a "rambly mess". They both seemed to be having a pretty good time of it, anyway.
Nassim Taleb has a new book coming out, but I'm debating whether or not I should buy it. From Fooled By Random onward (excluding his aphorism work) his books have demonstrating increasingly unique ideas, but are also increasing self-aggrandizing and snobbish. Anti-Fragile was incredibly interesting, but stylistically was a total displeasure to read.
Reply to jorndoe Really interesting, although the light saber part is not the most important part. They give photons mass! That seems like that would change our understanding of the nature of matter and energy in a fundamental way.
The best commercial ever made. Almost enough to get me to drink Pepsi....nah. I think it's from the 60s. Maybe 70s. Which means the kid in this is in his 50s. God, I'm old.
It's not silly, but it is different than the way you propose. It's known as bootstrapping in business circles. It is no wonder that my business philosophy matches my personality, how else could it be? I might as well add that in Eastern Europe many businesses are bootstrapped - it's not as common to encounter raising capital, and the whole VC type of activity you find in the UK/US (though private investors sometimes do exist).
Part of building a successful business is often having the ability to raise capital.
I actually disagree with this. I think one should never, pretty much, raise capital (there are exceptions - if you start the likes of SpaceX, then you probably will need to raise capital). My ideal is as follows: your first business is something pragmatic - whatever works to make your initial capital, the fastest way possible, with as small an initial investment as possible (preferably, only sweat equity). So it doesn't matter if it's "not a great idea", "not world-changing", etc. - the only criteria at this point is profit margin.
So if you're just starting out and you have little capital, basically, don't start a real estate investment business, the next breakthrough car manufacturer, etc. These are not opportunities for you. You are not at that level yet. Start with the low-hanging fruits and gradually progress.
Elon Musk started with online city guides, Richard Branson with student magazines, etc.
'Silly' is totally inadequate. It's a contrarian's denial of reality exposed. If you don't have access to capital, you can't do jack shit, except shovel it sufficiently to accumulate some. The self made man's biography begins, I became pregnant with myself, and having given birth, suckled and educated myself, until...
I listened to the videos. Obviously, I have no doubt that PZM knows his evolutionary biology better than Peterson and so he is correct about the age (700 million years ago), etc. But he (and seemingly you) do misunderstand Peterson's point. Peterson's point isn't about how the world actually is, but rather how one should act in the world. In fact, he makes this distinction in his first book - the difference between the world as a set of things, and the world as a forum for action. His work is focused on the world as a forum for action. And in those regards he is correct.
The lobsters are irrelevant in the end, just one example aimed to make understanding the idea that hierarchies aren't simply man-made, but also exist in nature. He's not saying that lobster hierarchy is like human hierarchy.
PZM also strawmans like there's no tomorrow - for example:
Peterson: "There is this idea that hierarchical structures are a sociological construct of the Western Patriarchy, and that is so untrue, that it is unbelievable"
PZM: " (1) But the hierarchies of Western culture are sociological constructs [...] (2) the specifics of a solution is not fixed or predetermined unless Peterson thinks all hierarchies are identical [...] it turns out he does think that"
(1) is an empty assertion, with no proof to back it up. Peterson actually agrees that hierarchies are also sociological constructs, but they also have a biological component.
(2) Peterson never said all hierarchies are identical. Never.
PZM also doesn't understand that according to Peterson, dominance hierarchies are based on COMPETENCE, not power.
his books have demonstrating increasingly unique ideas, but are also increasing self-aggrandizing and snobbish. Anti-Fragile was incredibly interesting, but stylistically was a total displeasure to read.
I actually like his style. He is one of my favorite contemporary authors. He and Peter Thiel have definitely shaped my outlook on business. I have pre-ordered Skin in the Game.
StreetlightFebruary 17, 2018 at 10:43#1540130 likes
Reply to Maw If you like Taleb, you might be interested in Elie Ayache's The Blank Swan, which builds off Taleb's work and infuses it with a good dose of continental philosophy in an attempt to build a philosophy of probability. It's public reviews aren't great, but I think many of them are those who picked up the book expecting a Taleb-level of writing, but encountered some actual, real life philosophy instead. It's not an easy read, but it's definitely interesting.
StreetlightFebruary 17, 2018 at 11:14#1540210 likes
There's a great anecdote in Freud's essay on negation, where he tells the story of one of his patients who, in relating a dream, adamantly insists that whoever he is dreaming about, it is not his mother. To which Freud basically says: the question is settled - it was definitely his mother. To the train of public mouthpieces proclaiming Trump's intelligence, one must say - the question is settled...
There's a great anecdote in Freud's essay on negation, where he tells the story of one of his patients who, in relating a dream, adamantly insists that whoever he is dreaming about, it is not his mother. To which Freud basically says: the question is settled - it was definitely his mother. To the train of public mouthpieces proclaiming Trump's intelligence, one must say - the question is settled...
A beautiful analogy (from a stylistic perspective), but unfortunately that tells us nothing about its truth. Again, do you believe a dumb person can become President of the United States? Do you believe a dumb person can build a real estate empire?
That is why Trump has beaten everyone who fought against him. They all think he is dumb. Therefore they lose.
Bootstrapping describes a method of raising capital without exchanging equity, but it doesn't describe a way of business creation without capital. Quoting Agustino
I think one should never, pretty much, raise capital (there are exceptions - if you start the likes of SpaceX, then you probably will need to raise capital).
Well it does all depend on the business, and every capital raising idea need not result in the long term loss of control of the business, or whatever it is you're trying to avoid. Some investors could potentially add expertise and not just capital, so an exchange of equity might make sense. It just really depends on the business. And our terms here are fairly vague, so I'm not sure why securing unsecured credit (like a credit card) shouldn't be considered to be raising capital.
Bootstrapping describes a method of raising capital without exchanging equity, but it doesn't describe a way of business creation without capital.
If you want to call it that sure, though I don't see "earning money" through selling a product/service to be equivalent to raising capital. I mean, if earning money is equivalent to raising capital, then pretty much everything you do in a business is raising capital, but I think that is blurring distinctions and extending the concept too much.
Also, all the forms of "creative-financing" - I don't personally consider those as raising capital. Ex. if I'm starting a real estate development project, and I plan to "raise capital" (finance it) as I build by selling apartments off-plan, I wouldn't consider that to be the same as raising capital, which I associate more with going to investors or banks directly, presenting them with a project, and getting (at least part of) the money required prior to commencing construction. I would include seller-financing and all other similar options in this category too.
My point is that you can start a business with little capital - meaning stuff you can easily amass yourself, such as $500-10,000. The further point is that this is preferable (in my opinion) to chasing opportunities that are out of your league given your immediate financial resources. Though again, there are many who will disagree with me on this. In the end, it's largely a matter of taste.
Well it does all depend on the business, and every capital raising idea need not result in the long term loss of control of the business, or whatever it is you're trying to avoid. Some investors could potentially add expertise and not just capital, so an exchange of equity might make sense. It just really depends on the business. And our terms here are fairly vague, so I'm not sure why securing unsecured credit (like a credit card) shouldn't be considered to be raising capital.
One example aimed to make understanding the idea that hierarchies aren't simply man-made, but also exist in nature.
Um, ok Agustino, whatever you say. Peterson goes on a short rant on Lobster-Human parallels, and states more or less in the interview that the hierarchy in lobsters is similar to that of humans, without explicitly saying something so ludicrously stupid. He even says in the video, "it is part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with socio-cultural construction, which it doesn't."
He even says in the video, "it is part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with socio-cultural construction, which it doesn't."
Sure - it is not socio-culturally constructed since it also has a biological component.
He is asked to clarify his statements about lobsters, and he says:
"I am saying it is inevitable there will be continuity in the way animals and human beings organise their societies"
Which is true. If PZ Myers think that's false, well, then he's wrong. Anthropology - ie even people like René Girard - demonstrate that there is continuity between animal societies and human societies.
Agustino, when you quickly dance around your statements, you'll inevitably trip. You previously claimed that, "Peterson actually agrees that hierarchies are also sociological constructs, but they also have a biological component." But clearly this is not what Peterson believes given his statement in the video, where he denies any socio-cultural considerations ("absolutely nothing to do with"). It is not "also" biological, as you claim. It is only biological, and this fact lays the foundation for his world view. What does it mean, then, for there to be continuity between "animal societies" and "human societies"? There is no homogeneous animal hierarchy across species. There is no homogeneous hierarchy across human cultures. And, pace PZ Myers, Peterson's idea of continuity is flat out wrong. I know you idolize this guy, Agustino, but remember what Nietzsche says about statues.
But clearly this is not what Peterson believes given his statement in the video, where he denies any socio-cultural considerations ("absolutely nothing to do with").
It is only biological, and this fact lays the foundation for his world view.
No. It is biologically constructed (this is its origin), but obviously sociological factors also have a role in how it plays out in its concrete details.
What does it mean, then, for there to be continuity between "animal societies" and "human societies"?
Well, it's a very general idea, we have to be careful how we flesh out the details. Continuity exists in terms of how status is distributed in these societies, how cooperative behaviour takes place, etc. And continuity doesn't mean identity - there are similarities, not identities between the two. There are things in human society and human culture that animals don't have too - for example religion.
There's a great anecdote in Freud's essay on negation, where he tells the story of one of his patients who, in relating a dream, adamantly insists that whoever he is dreaming about, it is not his mother. To which Freud basically says: the question is settled - it was definitely his mother. To the train of public mouthpieces proclaiming Trump's intelligence, one must say - the question is settled...
This is just perfection. Pure, unadulterated perfection :D
Noble DustFebruary 18, 2018 at 08:23#1543160 likes
Just improvised 40 minutes of ambient guitar stuff over the course of 1 and 1/2 hours; time to listen back and mix it and see if it's any good.
Reply to Noble Dust Hey, I was going to ask you actually. I realised today when I was singing in the kitchen and the music stopped but my hands were to gooey to press play again, that when I sing without music I find my voice is unable to select the right key and sounds weak and somewhat flat. Is that a matter of practice or is that, hmmm probably stick to baking?
Noble DustFebruary 18, 2018 at 08:51#1543190 likes
Probably more like baking long enough to where you don't have to measure anything, although I guess that's more of a cooking thing. But having perfect pitch wouldn't be too unlike baking by memory (I don't have perfect pitch).
René DescartesFebruary 18, 2018 at 08:52#1543200 likes
I don't think it would be impossible to sing it perfectly, it would probably just be an accident, and no one would know it happened. Synthesizers can generate pure tones; it's physically possible; pitch correction software makes Katy Perry sing perfect A's as well.
René DescartesFebruary 18, 2018 at 09:03#1543260 likes
I wrote a semi-autobiographical magical realism high fiction sci-fi novel about my real life drug and paranoia induced mystical experiences, the real-life consequences of which also have some corroboration from other people given some of the events.
René DescartesFebruary 18, 2018 at 09:23#1543340 likes
Probably more like baking long enough to where you don't have to measure anything, although I guess that's more of a cooking thing. But having perfect pitch wouldn't be too unlike baking by memory (I don't have perfect pitch).
Practice, I guess. I have been told I have relative pitch; so I am really good at identifying pitch and melody correctly just as much as I am able to tell something is wrong with my voice without music, but being able to re-create it is a different story.
Noble DustFebruary 18, 2018 at 09:24#1543360 likes
Well, it wouldn't be an accident, because you are trying to sing an A. It would just be a rarity or a chance.
And for Katy Perry, the perfect A's are probably what ruins her music. It's good to have imperfection sometimes.
For some reason this post, and a lot of stuff on the forum, reminds me of this:
I see Plush changed the emojis. This is a problem because the previous laughing icon becomes >:O
How does that make any sense?! People will read old posts and get the wrong idea... I already had to change an emoji to prevent misunderstanding in a thread.
There's a great anecdote in Freud's essay on negation, where he tells the story of one of his patients who, in relating a dream, adamantly insists that whoever he is dreaming about, it is not his mother. To which Freud basically says: the question is settled - it was definitely his mother. To the train of public mouthpieces proclaiming Trump's intelligence, one must say - the question is settled...
This is easily applicable to Trump's continued fulmination about "No Collusion!"
Exterminator @Baden had a hard time controlling me before, and back then I had access to less resources. Ever since the gods from Plush provided me with new emoji weapons, I will be unstoppable :smirk:
Noble DustFebruary 19, 2018 at 09:19#1546200 likes
when I sing without music I find my voice is unable to select the right key and sounds weak and somewhat flat. Is that a matter of practice
This is a very common experience, and I don't think it's a sign of a serious lack of musical ability. In my experience, so long as you're able to sing the tune accurately with the music--and I think most people can do this--singing without it is a matter of practice, e.g., listening very closely, breaking it down and singing it step by step. I've had the frustrating experience of being unable to sing a tune when it's not playing, and it annoyed me so much that I practiced it intensely for a few minutes and finally managed it.
Reply to jamalrob I can be really good with music, especially if I love the song, but without I start serenading awkwardly. I actually think it would improve that way (and my confidence) so next time I'm home alone, ill blast out some practice. :ok:
Ehmmm... I can't. Once, when I was an even tinier hamster, in school, we each had to sing a song in front of the class (with the song also playing in the background). And when I started singing, all the other hamsters went under their desks being like: :lol: :rofl: :rofl: :lol: :sweat:
René DescartesFebruary 19, 2018 at 10:31#1546450 likes
The amount of time singing without the song in the background has dramatically increased since the birth of Vesper. I'm actually considering taking up singing lessons to improve. :chin:
Noble DustFebruary 19, 2018 at 11:13#1546670 likes
I have a number of mousetraps set so I can stop that long-tailed chinchilla.
Have you ever held a Chinchilla? Holding one of their kits (babies) are so light and their fur so soft you can hardly feel that you are holding or touching anything, simply amazing creatures. Unlike mice, Chinchillas are born ready to take on the world. They are born with their eyes open, their ears open, ready to run and be independent of Mom.
Oh and we used to breed Chinchillas for pets so may I kindly suggest you reconsider using mousetraps.
Deleted UserFebruary 19, 2018 at 12:58#1546890 likes
ArguingWAristotleTiffFebruary 19, 2018 at 13:00#1546900 likes
My eldest Indian has been bitten by the travel bug and unlike myself he wants to see places outside of the USA. He and his girlfriend are traveling to Boom, Belgium for the Tomorrowland 2018. Any tips about travel they should know about? Are the Hostels safe for a couple to stay in? What are the countries around Belgium that are the safest?
ArguingWAristotleTiffFebruary 19, 2018 at 13:01#1546910 likes
Thank you, I will kick it's butt.
How about you? Are you working on this Monday holiday?
ArguingWAristotleTiffFebruary 19, 2018 at 13:02#1546920 likes
@jamalrob
She is still here.....any chance?
Deleted UserFebruary 19, 2018 at 13:04#1546930 likes
Reply to ArguingWAristotleTiff Yep. :grimace: Have to work most holidays, except I got Christmas Day off... then recently was sick so got a few days off then.
Also, not much gun ownership. So there's that. Less risk of getting shot in an argument!
Although he is the best shot out of the three males here at the ranch, he is also the kid that refuses to kill a spider. Not only does he refuse to kill spiders but I have to catch the Crickets in the house and put them outside, only to go down to the Feed store to buy Crickets for the Gecko's he has as pets.
Round and Round, what comes around goes around....
Deleted UserFebruary 19, 2018 at 13:22#1546980 likes
New Atheism lost its vitality years ago, after Hitchens died, Harris started spouting Islamophobic garbage, and Dawkin's defending pedophilia. Atheism, tout court, is still intellectually alive and well, contrary to what Willy Craig, whose own dwindling spotlight was built through interlocution with the New Atheists, suggests
Johnblegen96February 19, 2018 at 18:46#1547920 likes
Reply to Maw You think Harris is Islamophobic but Hitchens is not? Consistency is not your strength, is it?
No, Hitchens certainly demonstrated Islamophobia, but it didn't have as strong an impact into the decline of New Atheism, as Harris' Islamophobia did, or Hitchen's own untimely death, which was my point.
Oh and we used to breed Chinchillas for pets so may I kindly suggest you reconsider using mousetraps.
I love little furry things. Plush is the key to happiness.
My dog is not well, by the way. I adopted him when he was quite old, so I am pretty sad right now. :cry: I might need some Cinchilla gifs to keep me going.
Atheism, tout court, is still intellectually alive and well, contrary to what Willy Craig, whose own dwindling spotlight was built through interlocution with the New Atheists, suggests
No doubt that there are atheist intellectuals out there, but there aren't that many anymore. Most atheists in the public spotlight seem to have really weak arguments. Craig, who in my opinion is nowhere near close to being at the top amongst theists in terms of arguments, easily beats most of his opponents.
This is especially true when the atheists are scientists: like Lawrence Krauss for example, who is just a terrible joke philosophically. He really is an embarrassment.
Johnblegen96February 19, 2018 at 19:34#1548130 likes
Reply to Agustino You can not be Christianphobic, because that consists mostly of white people. You have to read between the lines. Maw is basically calling them racists and only white people can be racists.
You can not be Christianphobic, because that consists mostly of white people. You have to read between the lines. Maw is basically calling them racists and only white people can be racists.
That makes no sense. Most Christians are not white... especially amongst the new generations.
New Atheism lost its vitality years ago, after Hitchens died, Harris started spouting Islamophobic garbage, and Dawkin's defending pedophilia.
This is a very uncharitable reading of their positions. While Dawkins' comparison of pedophilia to religious indoctrination probably falls flat for most, it's not an endorsement of pedophilia.
I love little furry things. Plush is the key to happiness.
If you ever have the chance to own a small pet, get a Chinny, they have such character it is amazing. Scooby our first Chinny used to take anything shinny into his cage. My keys, my bracelets, beads, Christmas ornaments, anything shinny. They are quiet enough to have taken been taken into a 5 Star resort here in Scottsdale after a house fire. :smirk:
My dog is not well, by the way. I adopted him when he was quite old, so I am pretty sad right now. :cry: I might need some Cinchilla gifs to keep me going.
My heart goes out to you but I thank you for adopting an older dog and giving him the love he deserved. :heart: My Mom always says that when the animal stops drinking water for 2 days, it means that they are choosing to go. People think that when we get dehydrated that it is painful and we are aware of it and that is just not true. When a living being begins the dehydration process to cease living, they enter into a euphoric state and are not really aware. For me? When I have to make the hardest choice in life in playing "God" I ask myself if I am keeping them alive for me or for them and the quality of life is a big factor.
Of the dogs that have aged naturally and I had to make the decision to let them go, I began the process at home. Benadryl is a natural relaxant or maybe you have something more like Tramadol prescribed for your baby but I give them the meds, double the dose and allow them to relax at home, in a place they know, with their fellow pack mates around and they slowly let the meds take affect. I wrap them up in a blanket and sit in the back with them as we go to the vet and all but one was as peaceful as could be and the vet said they were so dehydrated he had a hard time finding a vein. Place a shirt or something you have worn around his neck because the scent is the last sense for a dog to lose and know that you are giving him the grace to be free of pain and be whole again in the after life. :hearts:
{{{{{TimeLine}}}}}
If you could pm me your home or work address I have something I would like to send you~
Reply to Benkei Why? I get being non-religious, but why be anti-religious? Religious people do make good neighbors at least. They pretend to care, they don't play their music too loud, and they tell you they'll pray for you when your life fucks up. I like that someone is praying for me. It's like someone saying they'll have a drink for me when they get to go on vacation and I don't. It's a nice thoughtful meaningless gesture.
This is a very uncharitable reading of their positions. While Dawkins' comparison of pedophilia to religious indoctrination probably falls flat for most, it's not an endorsement of pedophilia.
For those unaware, the God Damned Greatest Cookie Award goes to the Girl Scouts Samoas. Not only is it delicious, it camouflages with my table like a ninja.
ProbablyTrueFebruary 20, 2018 at 01:44#1549280 likes
He certainly isn't defending pedophilia, though. He called his own abuse "reprehensible". Maybe people think the implication of what he is saying is that because it didn't do him great harm, mild pedophilia isn't very harmful. However, I don't think that's what he is saying.
2) Yes, there are some Banlieue in French cities which are not good, have crime and extreme poverty, just like there are really poor and dangerous districts in every other city in the world, including (and this may amaze you) the U.S.A. That being said, there are also average and very rich and safe Banlieue, such as Versailles, in France. Just as in the USA there are rich and safe suburbs.
Sure, I guess that's why, when they moved the archives of the French Marine Museum from the 3rd to some buttfuck-nowhere Banlieue, they installed a barbed-wire fence around it. :halo:
AkanthinosFebruary 20, 2018 at 06:47#1550160 likes
I mean, I'd still prefer a flat in the 13e than just about anything anywhere in the U.S, but they'd both be pretty low in my list, relatively to everything else.
Reply to René Descartes :rofl: I was just pulling your leg. I know you're French. But I must admit I thought banlieue was specifically related to the unsafe suburbs. That movie was why. I'm not so good with the French language unfortunately.
Reply to Hanover It's the institutionalisation of belief I have an issue with. Popes, muftis and imams; the whole lot should perish in a big conflagration and leave people to figure out for themselves what to believe and how.
I also hate sheep. Those should turn into human kebabs as well.
Noble DustFebruary 20, 2018 at 07:23#1550290 likes
the whole lot should perish in a big conflagration
The only way to eliminate human sheep is to exterminate them. I assume that's not what you're after? Of course, if the tables were turned and you were making jokes about wanting trans or black people to be turned into kebabs, you would be banned. :rofl: :vomit: :vomit: :vomit:
René DescartesFebruary 20, 2018 at 07:29#1550310 likes
The only way to eliminate human sheep is to exterminate them. I assume that's not what you're after?
Quite obviously I wasn't serious. And if you had really been paying attention to my posts over time, you'd know I'm against almost all types of violence in almost every situation. I do believe the world would be much better without religion (e.g. the institutionalisation of belief) as there is no one path to personal enlightenment.
Also *shock horror* for finding contradictions in things you actually recognise as jokes. It's called irony. Look it up.
Noble DustFebruary 20, 2018 at 08:33#1550480 likes
Reply to Noble Dust I already killed the Islamists in my previous joke - you're way too late. You're on your own with the trans right activists though. Also, my joke was mildly witty for confusing congregation with conflagration. If you can beat that, I'm sure you can do a little trans right activists bashing. But then... I don't make the rules here so I think your complaint is with the moderators instead.
Yes and no. In large quantities certainly. Up to 500 gr of red meat a week does not produce a significant correlation between red meat and colon/rectal cancer. Part of the bad effects can also be mitigated by eating enough fibers.
Yes and no. In large quantities certainly. Up to 500 gr of red meat a week does not produce a significant correlation between red meat and colon/rectal cancer. Part of the bad effects can also be mitigated by eating enough fibers.
Just eat whatever you want and get routine colonoscopies and they can remove the pre-cancerous polyps before they are harmful. You can then sauté the polyps in butter for a tasty meaty popcorn like treat.
Reply to Michael As I said, tough crowd. I just googled #translol and those came up. I thought they were funny. This one too:
How many trans women does it take to change a lightbulb?
Just one, but she has to live in the dark for two years to make sure she is ready and has to get letters from two electricians explaining that she knows the dangers of electricity and would benefit from light.
My heart goes out to you but I thank you for adopting an older dog and giving him the love he deserved. :heart: My Mom always says that when the animal stops drinking water for 2 days, it means that they are choosing to go.
He is having problems with his kidneys and despite him drinking excessively, it is not looking too good. When I went overseas for a while, he refused to eat and my friends got so worried that I had to pay hundreds for the vet bills when I got back, at which point he was playful and eating again because I was around. Their dogs also jumped on him, apparently, and that injured his hip and he could not properly use his back legs for a while. I think what your mum says is kind of true, and it is really clear that he is attached to me.
I have been making sure I feed him really consciously and checking every ingredient to see if I can reverse the failure, but really, it seems like a waiting game at this point because he is definately not himself.
Reply to Noble Dust I love the German language. I hate to see it mangled. Gesund means "healthy". Heit means "ness." Healthness. It seems odd to me to turn an adjective into a noun instead of vise versa. In English, health becomes healthy. Do we ever do it the other say around?
I think what your mum says is kind of true, and it is really clear that he is attached to me.
I hate it when she is right about stuff like this. I mean I appreciate her knowledge and want her to tell me what is going to happen but I still hate it when she is right. If that makes any sense?
I hate it when she is right about stuff like this. I mean I appreciate her knowledge and would not want her to tell me what is going to happen but I still hate it when she is right. If that makes any sense?
I think her honesty is experience validated only through experience, which I guess is the nature of wisdom and in a way it is easing you into accepting reality in a much more heartfelt manner. It saves you from the shock of an uninformed experience but it still hurts. I wish I had that...
Yes and no. In large quantities certainly. Up to 500 gr of red meat a week does not produce a significant correlation between red meat and colon/rectal cancer. Part of the bad effects can also be mitigated by eating enough fibers.
Yes and no. In large quantities certainly. Up to 500 gr of red meat a week does not produce a significant correlation between red meat and colon/rectal cancer. Part of the bad effects can also be mitigated by eating enough fibers.
That's old science. Fiber doesn't lower the risk of colon cancer. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fiber-and-colon-cancer/
Reply to Hanover I'm not an expert but the study I read is from 2015 and refers specifically to fibres having a positive effect against the carcinogenic effects from heterocyclic amines. Those amines result from pyrolysis of meat while grilling at high temperatures or cooking over open fires. That seems a bit too specific to be the result of mere epidemiological research considering the various compounds in meat that are carcinogenic. Its also not very old.
No chicken contains added hormones. http://www.businessinsider.com/no-hormones-chicken-poultry-usda-fda-2016-3
Hmmmm, I'm not in the US, but I read the same thing is true of the EU. I must have taken my information from my crackpot alternative medicine family doctor :rofl:
I'm not an expert but the study I read is from 2015 and refers specifically to fibres having a positive effect against the carcinogenic effects from heterocyclic amines. Those amines result from pyrolysis of meat while grilling at high temperatures or cooking over open fires. That seems a bit too specific to be the result of mere epidemiological research considering the various compounds in meat that are carcinogenic. Its also not very old.
The thing with red meat is that the science is not very clear. Maybe moderate consumption of red meat isn't harmful, or maybe it is. I've read studies leaning both ways, so I will lean on the safe side, and not consume it at all.
Reply to BenkeiMedilingaconfusia is the logical fallacy of spouting medical gibberish to end a conversation. What I'm saying is that you can quit eating your oatmeal and start eating meat again. Why must liberals fight happiness at every turn?
Rachel Kuo rocks! I am writing a report about the horrible sexual slavery that lure young women with false incentives only to be trafficked into the sex industry.
Medilingaconfusia is the logical fallacy of spouting medical gibberish to end a conversation. What I'm saying is that you can quit eating your oatmeal and start eating meat again. Why must liberals fight happiness at every turn?
Why do conservatives think meat is happy and oatmeal isn't?
lure young women with false incentives only to be trafficked into the sex industry.
Hmm, so what do you think if someone "lures" a young woman to have sex with them in exchange for getting them started on, say, a modelling career or whatever? Legally, it's clearly the man's fault, but morally the woman is also to blame if she accepts to have sex for promotion, no?
Pressuring someone to have sex at work. I don't know what laws it breaks, but I imagine there must be some laws about that in some countries. I'm not a Hanover. You shouldn't ask such questions of me.
So I guess that means you'd like to get cooked, lil' hamster?
Come to think of it, I've eaten a lot of things, from insects to cat to sharks, but never a hamster. :grimace:
I'm not interested in bashing anyone, I'm just interested in the "rules" that designate who can and can't be bashed. My intuition is that it's all bullshit.
Noble DustFebruary 22, 2018 at 05:20#1555470 likes
That's what's cool about language, I guess. We say it in a way that isn't said by others; and vise versa. What does that say about "meaning" in general?
Actually, I'm not sure you'd want to talk to her. She's the type of Hanover who keeps talking on and on and on and discusses irrelevant issues dragging what was supposed to be a short meeting for ages :confused:
Colbert has been a pretentious, unfunny ass ever since he left Comedy Central.
Colbert lost a lot of magic coming out of the Colbert Report, but I'd argue it is almost entirely because he is now much less pretentious and arrogant than before.
That's what's cool about language, I guess. We say it in a way that isn't said by others; and vise versa. What does that say about "meaning" in general?
Yeah, well, I'm not very conversant in semiotics or hermaneutics or whatever the hell it is. Please feel free to spell things any way you want.
My wireless mouse doesn't transmit very well and it chugs the icon around annoyingly. If God wanted mouses to be wireless, he wouldn't have done the things to mouses that made them have wires.
Preemptive response: If Mr. and Mrs. Child came over to my house, would I say the Childs are coming over or that the Children were coming over?
Reply to Hanover Republicans are the most charitable, do most voluntary work and give most blood -- but note that this is often dismissed with the following statement: 'that is because they are religious'.
Progressives betray their inconsistencies if you compare their criticisms towards Christianity and Islam. 'Hitchens and Harris are islamophobic! Whereas most Muslims in the world supporting Shariah Law is just a different culture that can not be morally judged' How Leftists hop around this, is a mental gymnastic often bemused with mockery, see Bill Maher.
AkanthinosFebruary 24, 2018 at 00:16#1559920 likes
Progressives betray their inconsistencies if you compare their criticisms towards Christianity and Islam. 'Hitchens and Harris are islamophobic! Whereas most Muslims in the world supporting Shariah Law is just a different culture that can not be morally judged' How Leftists hop around this, is a mental gymnastic often bemused with mockery, see Bill Maher.
It's easy to laugh when your entire worldview is a caricature.
Progressives betray their inconsistencies if you compare their criticisms towards Christianity and Islam. 'Hitchens and Harris are islamophobic! Whereas most Muslims in the world supporting Shariah Law is just a different culture that can not be morally judged' How Leftists hop around this, is a mental gymnastic often bemused with mockery, see Bill Maher.
Sharia law is a system of that's been around for more than a thousand years. It covers all aspects of civil and criminal law and is based on Islam. I certainly wouldn't want to live under it's authority, but it's not my place to tell others how to run their countries. The news makes a big deal about all the aspects of Sharia that we westerners would consider barbaric, but that makes up very little of how life is actually lived in countries where it applies. To me, the most important thing is that Sharia provides the rule of law. It's a formal, organized, documented system which is administrated more or less fairly. The same can be said of the systems of law in the US and other western or Christian countries.
I wouldn't say Hitchens and Harris are Islamophobic, I'd say they're either 1) smug, self-important, and pompous, or 2) dead.
Theocracy isn't my idea of the best type of government. I'm a firm believer in separation of church and state. That being said, just saying something is a theocracy doesn't mean it can't be a legitimate form of government.
A redundancy, by the way. Shariah just means law, so you're saying "law law."
I'll check on that after I get some money out of the ATM machine. I hope I can remember my PIN number. I have it written here somewhere in a document in PDF format.
There was more will than you think. I still have something else in mind for you... overcoming this need to think the exact opposite as everyone else just to annoy them.
There was more will than you think. I still have something else in mind for you... overcoming this need to think the exact opposite as everyone else just to annoy them.
Reply to Agustino I started watching that one a few weeks ago, but I haven't seen the whole thing. They didn't even touch upon politics in what I've seen so far, which, from what I recall, was mostly psychology with a little bit of religion.
I'm sure this serves as a counterexample in one of our discussions somewhere. We just need more like him: business people who show signs of having a social conscience and a willingness to act upon it.
Reply to Sapientia The thing is, Warren Buffett got rich running one of the world's first hedge funds, back when it was completely unregulated. Now that he is on top, he gets an advantage from higher regulation, since it's harder for others (smaller) to compete with him. The regulation makes it harder for everyone, but he has the resources to withstand it, the smaller people don't. So Warren Buffett is really doing what is best for him - the really rich want to remain really rich (and that just means in control over important resources), so higher taxation helps them by creating barriers to entry for others.
Reply to Sapientia In other words, if things were regulated, WB would never have been rich himself. Now he's saying, let's let only me be rich, the others don't need to be.
Reply to Agustino Well, when it comes down to it, neither you nor I know what his motives are, or what their nature is, whether they be altruistic or self-interested. But at least the goal is right in relation to what was being addressed, which was "multinational corporations" and "the rich", not small businesses. [U]If[/u] there'd be a detrimental impact on small businesses, then that too would need to be considered. But that's a secondary concern which should not obstruct or pose an insurmountable obstacle to the main goal.
Reply to Sapientia Okay yes, I agree with that. But multinational companies thrive because the smaller businesses are prevented from competing with them, either due to lack of resources, heavy taxation, etc.
In other words, if things were regulated, WB would never have been rich himself.
Nonsense. The purpose of regulating commerce is to reduce fraud, not to prevent people from getting rich. Remember, the United States IS a capitalist country. The American Telephone and Telegraph Company (the Bell System existed up until 1978) made people rich even though it was a highly regulated company.
Granted, in unregulated environments more money can be made quicker, but it can also be lost faster.
Reply to Agustino Yes, I agree. That's a problem too, and one which ought to be tackled. That's why I'll be voting for Labour in the next general election. They won't be as reluctant as the Tories. Theresa May is all talk and no action.
Also, that's a problem in the United States which would have been better dealt with under Hilary Clinton's proposals.
From what Trump’s proposed with his tax reform in his official campaign vision, most of these measures would benefit large corporations and not small businesses, where income is taxed as individual income and not corporate income. Only big corporations and fewer than 8 percent of small companies would save on taxes.
Reply to Sapientia :rofl: :rofl: Yeah, Corbyn and Putin are like horse and horseman according to these people - he sold British secrets to the communists :lol:
Reply to Agustino My hope is that they'll keep shooting themselves in the foot so that Comrade Corbyn can take both the moral high ground and the government.
Comrade Corbyn can take both the moral high ground and the government.
The issue is that the Conservatives control the government and the voting infrastructure, so they will skew things in their favour. That's why Labour and Lib Dems don't usually have much of a chance nowadays.
The issue is that the Conservatives control the government and the voting infrastructure, so they will skew things in their favour. That's why Labour and Lib Dems don't usually have much of a chance nowadays.
You must not have been keeping up with the news as of late. The two main parties are either neck-and-neck in the polls or Labour has a slight lead. May's level of popularity has plummeted from preelection levels like a lead balloon, whilst Corbyn's has skyrocketed. May lost her majority and is widely acknowledged to be in an incredibly weak position by just about everyone, at least behind closed doors, and the Tories are stuck with her, given that there's no plausible alternative, and in any case, they're too scared to risk challenging her because doing so might trigger another general election which they are not confident of winning. Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, has made history by securing Labour’s highest increase in the vote since 1945, and exceeded the levels won by Tony Blair when Labour last won a majority at a general election. He has exceeded all expectations, quashed the rebellion within the parliamentary party, and, under his leadership, Labour has become a government in waiting.
And to compare Labour's position to that of the Lib Dems is laughable. :sweat:
Reply to Sapientia Yes, but don't get me started about the polls and how people who are in power control the voting process to pretty much render useless minor differences in popularity to ensure that their party remains in power.
Ugh. Seems like an alright bloke, but as for his [i]views[/I]... :down:
In other news...
I order a takeaway. Delivery driver turns up outside the double-doors to my apartment building. Bangs on the doors. Says they're locked.
He just has to push the door on his left.
And it's not the first time that this has happened.
People are stupid. I will have to start putting a delivery instruction about it in the comment box.
Deleted UserFebruary 25, 2018 at 23:23#1567570 likes
For what benefit does it bring for one to toil all day? It remains a meaningless grasping for the wind; for nothing one has upon birth, and nothing one will have upon death. Constantly, we strive day in and day out, but for what? To feed the stomach which shall soon once again require feeding? There is no meaning to this circle.
I removed some. I don't have high hopes for the discussion. It's a highly contentious topic at the best of times and it hasn't got off to a very good start.
Noble DustFebruary 26, 2018 at 08:53#1569000 likes
Reply to Agustino Ever notice how social media exposes historically how some people do the same thing over and over again, year after year repeating the same thing, saying the same comment, making the same facial expression, taking the same kind of photo, thinking the same way. Such is a person who never learns.
I think my first chess game ever went swimmingly; sure I didn't do anything at all, but it was enlightening. I look forward to our next match, once I actually know the first thing about chess. I like learning with zero understanding; it seems more philosophical. :rofl:
Reply to Michael :grin: He's... well mannered... and... oddly entertaining.
StreetlightFebruary 26, 2018 at 17:12#1570380 likes
So, Vietnam is ever so slightly stunning.
ArguingWAristotleTiffFebruary 26, 2018 at 21:18#1570960 likes
You know those little rectangles of thread that they sew the price onto clothes with? Why can't they make the product they sew the price onto as strong as the thread that sewed on the tag?
Deleted UserFebruary 26, 2018 at 22:04#1571160 likes
I need chocolate, but if I eat, it'll come right back out.
So, I think I read recently that Trump once claimed to have saved someone's life. I just googled "did trump save someone's life" to confirm, and the 6th article on the first page is "Your poop could save someone's life".
unenlightenedFebruary 27, 2018 at 20:45#1574180 likes
I would have gone in there and tied a knot in his gun barrel. Probably. I would expect any of you to do the same. Except the girls; girls would just get too excited.
Reply to unenlightened I can catch bullets with my bare teeth. Also, the air pressure generated by my shadow boxing has been known to knock out people 20 feet away.
Reply to Hanover Sorry to hear about that.
I have a 12yo terrier and she is starting to show signs of slowing down. It will break the missus's heart when she goes.
Thanks for the kind words. She was a minature pinscher. Losing pets is the tough part of having pets.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 01, 2018 at 12:59#1580220 likes
@Hanover
I am so sorry to hear about the loss of your furry family member. For your son, what a hard way to find a loved one that has likely been with him his whole life. The loss of a best friend is just not what anyone expects when it happens. I wish for you comfort, a little time, before another little pink tongue licks your ear and will come home with you to start another chapter of love in your life~
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 01, 2018 at 13:08#1580270 likes
Can you guess the name of this song without any help from the Internet?
I hear mariachi static on my radio
And the tubes, they glow in the dark
And I'm there with you and it's a not-a
And I'm here in echo park....
I'm going to try my old standby: Is it "I want to fuck you like an animal"?
:rofl: noooo! Hanover
I will be disappointed if no one in this forum gets it!
Especially you @Benkei! Think back to a holiday you took out of the Netherlands.
It will definitely be a 'tilt of the hand' to see who knows good music and good food!
Comeeeeee on........ @Sir2u might you have heard it?
Reply to Hanover Sorry to hear... it's always sad when animals you've had for a long time die. I remember from my first dog as well. I heard that for most dogs though, 15 is already quite old. 15-18 is the max they tend to live.
I used to do battle-rhyme chats. (Yes, that was a thing before cheap data). This was probably one of my best:
I get medieval on your ass with blow-torch and plyers;
cut your throat with mono-filament wires;
liquefy your insides like the Ebola virus;
and scatter the parts like Seth did Osiris.
Reply to Michael Don't worry. It was -17 celsius where I live a couple of days and the cats go out for long stints as well. A lot of birds and mice are moving sluggish at the moment so I suspect he's out hunting and needlessly killing innocent fauna in a cute, playful manner.
Whenever I meet someone important for a discussion or something, my hands always go sweaty. Or even when I'm on a phone call with an important customer, lawyer, accountant, etc.. I have a very sensitive anxiety response on a biological level, so I can get easily anxious. Mentally, over time, I've learned to control it very well, so nowadays it basically has no effect on my actions. I don't shy away from talking on the phone, meeting, shaking hands, etc. and I appear quite assertive in my interactions. So apart from sweaty hands, people would have no way of knowing I feel anxious :rofl: .
Anyway, I'm not so much interested in controlling whether I feel anxiety or not around such events - I'm interested in how I can control physical symptoms, like hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating) on the hands. Anyone have this problem, or know of a strategy to deal with it? (apart from just wiping your hands on your clothes before shaking hands, etc. :rofl: , which I already do).
(I would add that I only seem to have this problem in professional settings, I've never experienced this when holding hands with my ex-girlfriend in the past, etc. I tend to experience no anxiety around friends and the like)
Reply to MichaelReply to Benkei Yeah, I agree with Benkei. When I was a kid my cat would always run away, especially in the summer, and sometimes show up again even after a few days! She did not run away during winter though, she didn't like going outside when it was cold.
ArguingWAristotleTiffMarch 02, 2018 at 13:17#1582820 likes
@Agustino
Please don't take Hanover's advice for sweaty hands. I would much rather shake a sweaty hand than a fish. You have to watch out taking Hanover's advice. I once took his advice on how to keep my Mother In Law at bay and look where she is at............>>>>>>>>>>>>>> living in a van down by the river
@Benkei => Laudably, would not contemplate joking about a cat in danger. @Baden => Was about to make a joke but stopped out of consideration for @Michael's feelings. @Sapientia => Goes all in.
Of such diverse personalities is our wonderful community composed. Let us rejoice.
The funny thing about this website is that when you edit your post to remove it, it still remains saved when you check "mentions," which means I was able to read your post referencing rodents and vaginas, but out of respect, I will of course not bring up that which you kindly self-censored.
The funny thing about this website is that when you edit your post to remove it, it still remains saved when you check "mentions," which means I was able to read your post referencing rodents and vaginas, but out of respect, I will of course not bring up that which you kindly self-censored.
Indeed. And your post about cream buns, chocolate sauce, and that nice man you met at a disco.
Congratulations to you sir for obtaining the "Spelling Police Nazi of the Day Award".
I am honored that you spend so much time reading my posts just to find a mistake. How long did it take you to find this mistake? Do you really have nothing better to do than this kind of childishness? To take the time to make this post must mean that little else of value to do in your life. I cannot imagine that I am so important that I deserve such special treatment.
Maybe I should point out the others you missed to make your poor lonely life easier. Or would it be better if I just highlighted them for you in the future. (missing question mark here)
How come you do not point out so many other peoples mistakes in such a spectacular form? I understand that it is your job to check the posts of others to be sure that they are following the rules and maintaining the quality and standards of the forum. But it is kind of ridiculous of you to permit postings in threads where at least one person fails to use any form of capitalization or punctuation and several others have severe problems using English and not make any mention of these facts to them.
Now I am going to say this one more time so pay attention.
"Get the fuck out of my face"
If you, as an administrator, have anything to say to me do it through the proper channels. If not shut up.
I understand that it is your job to check the posts of others to be sure that they are following the rules and maintaining the quality and standards of the forum.
Actually no, Sappy was fired. So it's not his job anymore.
Reply to Buxtebuddha In my haste I did not reread the post. It should have read "should".
One of the effects of dyslexia, that I have battled with for a long time and have learned to overcome most of the time by rereading things several times over.
Comments (61561)
>:O It's free! On here silly:
https://www.viki.com/videos/81006v-the-great-queen-seon-deok-episode-1
Or maybe also here:
https://www.dramafever.com/drama/56/1/Queen_Seon_Duk/
In terms of ethics, certainly in a practical way, I often side with the Stoics more than with Aristotle or Plato for that matter. The reason for this is that Plato/Aristotle are elitist - the "good life" isn't open to everyone, regardless of their circumstances. Only a select few, who are blessed by the gods and are given favourable winds, only they can reach up to the ideal of the good life. Whereas Stoicism works regardless of circumstance - if you are a slave, or if you are the Emperor.
Also, Stoicism seems to teach more of what it actually takes to be successful at living life - even at acquiring the preferred indifferents (as the Stoics call them). Whereas Plato/Aristotle leaves you in a kind of rut if, say, you are living in Syria.
Also the moral psychology of the Platonists, with the tripartite soul may get the power of reason in determining actions wrongly. Reason is the weakest part of the soul, and must educate the other two parts to obey, because it is in their best interest to do so. The stoics say that this doesn't matter, since reason ultimately has the final say in assenting to impressions or not.
Quoting TimeLine
Why?
Why would I find calling me snappy and vicious a joke? And it's clearly not a joke.
Quoting TimeLine
What does any of that have to do with me, or to my response to you? If you're insinuating I have new age views, I'm sure you're aware that Christian mysticism (the subject I've been studying) had it's hay day in the 12-14th centuries in Europe, as did Jewish mysticism, whereas New Ageism is generally considered a vague conglomerate of Theosophy, Eastern religion, self-help, alt medicine, etc. So if you're (passively-aggressively) suggesting I have new age views, that must be another one of your jokes, right?
On the other hand where have I been passive-aggressive?
Developing a spiritual practice, to start.
Does this entail reading Dick religiously? ;) O:)
*glances at bookshelf* Whaa?? :-#
I'm right, in other words.
In a practical way? So, are you saying that Aurelius' ethics is better than Aristotle's? :( For me, it is probably a place between the two, but to place Aurelius anywhere near Aristotle' philosophical duress is just awkward.
I wanted to study the Classics and Ancient History and Languages, the idea of doing this still makes me feel fuzzy inside, but I chose to study Law and Political Science and to work in the field of Human Rights. Why? Because I have a duty to try - even if I am small and rather mediocre compared the many organisations and people around me - to make my environment, my community, the world a better place. Stoicism is inherently selfish; it would tell me to study the classics to improve myself, whereas I would prefer the Aristotlean motive that I can improve as I try to improve my environment. I stand in contrast to the external world and my understanding and identity is formed and ultimately improved by this contrast, including what I understand of virtue. I am driven by the will to happiness and the attainment of virtue, but I achieve this by performing my duty to the world. I am in control of improving myself and cultivating virtue, but I do this through society, through people, through interactions; it is like going to school all day and then going home to your own space and thinking about all of that and how it relates to you.
Your social environment is paramount to your virtuous agency, just as much as other conditions including the state of your mental health and your physical well being are also necessary. It is nonsense if thought otherwise.
It's boring when one's manipulation is resisted, yes.
Why are you capitalizing all these? >:O
I did not say that Aurelius or any of the Stoics are anywhere near as rigorous as Plato/Aristotle. But when you're in trouble, reading a page of the Aurelius helps - reading a page of Plato/Aristotle seems useless.
Quoting TimeLine
Yeah, as in actually helping you in practical situations in life. Plato/Aristotle may be helpful in a meta way, but not directly, in a practical one.
Quoting TimeLine
Yes, it seems to me to solve problems better, and help deal with emotions, including provide motivation much better than Aristotle.
Quoting TimeLine
This is actually a mistaken view. If anything, it is Stoicism which tells you that you are always at the service of your community and your society even if you are on a mountain in prayer for years on end. Even if you retire from society as it were, you're still at the service of society.
So this whole "duty to try" is actually Stoicism. That's why it was so popular around Rome's elite.
Quoting TimeLine
No, I disagree. Virtue is that which makes it possible for me (in most circumstances) to acquire the social environment that I need to expand my power of action. Look at Seneca - he was sickly from the very beginning, came from a poor background, and yet managed in many trying circumstances to remain virtuous. Health, wealth, social environment, etc. are not fully in my control, and thus they are indifferents. Improving my society is not in my power - I can try to do so, and keep trying for my whole life, and still fail. Ultimately it is the virtue that matters, not the outward success. It is virtue that allows me to be at peace with myself, the world and God.
Quoting Noble Dust
Oh, you think she is manipulative now? Just you wait until she finishes watching that series I gave her - then she will get her diploma in manipulation, until now, she was just a poor student with potential >:O
No, its boring when one is forced to sift through deluded whinges of a so-and-so thinker who projects his inadequacies by purporting others to be manipulative.
>:O
What do you mean 'when you're in trouble?' Like, you're having a bad day and your tired and need a boost of morale? I hardly call that an identification and formation of a moral system to live by. If you want to decompress, just write a diary of your favourite quotes. If you want to be virtuous, be productive.
Quoting Agustino
It is a combination of the two, cyclic and you would not be who you are today if it were not for your social environment and experiences, for your intellectual duress due to genetics, that is nevertheless advanced by your will or motivation because of your social environment and experiences. You are a part of the 'we' and any denial of that is delusional. Any improvements to you is through that reality.
Anyway, im on my phone waiting for a bunch of young girls to take on an urban hike, so until tonight!
23 km in 4.6 hours is pretty good! (Y)
"At the heart of all beauty lies something inhuman, and these hills, the softness of the sky, the outline of these trees at this very minute lose the illusory meaning with which we had clothed them, henceforth more remote than a lost paradise. The primitive hostility of the world rises up to face us across millennia. For a second we cease to understand it because for centuries we have understood in it solely the images and designs that we had attributed to it beforehand, because henceforth we lack the poiwer to make use of that artifice. The world evades us because it becomes itself again."
Like, you know, when you start swearing and physically threatening me... >:O just joking, no.
I am always in trouble though >:O . See, it depends on what your profession is. Some people face chaos, uncertainty, difficulty, and novel situations a lot more frequently than others. Your philosophy and your views are, in a large part, shaped by this.
For example, I see a lot of people who are involved in the military, who are entrepreneurs, or who are athletes as having very similar personalities and philosophies of life. Why? Because to be successful in these endeavours, you must develop certain traits. It comes with the territory as the saying goes.
So trouble means facing uncertainty, not knowing what to do, having to take decisions without sufficient information, having to bear insults, toxic personalities, betrayal, loneliness etc.
To illustrate: look at this for ~2mins or so just to get the Jobs scene. You said the taxi driver incident I told before would have shaken you. Well, think about what you would have done in such a case. To be successful, Kevin had to have such a personality to bear those insults without reacting - because if he did, he would have lost the $54 million contract.
So the point is that if you are in a competitive environment, you are bound to develop a Stoic personality, otherwise you will not be successful. That's why athletes, businessmen, and military personnel end up developing similar Stoic personalities and philosophies of life. It is what it takes to succeed, and if you refuse to go down this path, you will fail. So in such cases, it is just impossible to be shaken by what the taxi driver says. You have a lot of other things to deal with, apart from being shaken.
Philosophies of life aren't "true" in the same sense that metaphysics or physics can be said to be true. It depends on the context. A nurse or counsellor, or someone like you working with struggling young girls, would not find Stoicism as most helpful - and hence you wouldn't find it as most true. Truth here really is pragmatic - an approximation of what works. That's because you are yourself not in a "war-like" environment, you can afford the luxury of getting rid of toxic people out of your life, etc. - entrepreneurs, military men, and the like cannot.
Quoting TimeLine
Not a day passes when I don't need motivation :P But in business you don't worry if your day was good, that's irrelevant. You just worry if you were productive or not.
Quoting TimeLine
Being productive presupposes being virtuous so that you have the motivation to be productive.
Quoting TimeLine
I had a thing like a Fitbit quite a few years ago, it was called the Jawbone, and all was well, until it repeatedly told me that my heart rate went up to 180bpm during sleep in the mornings >:O
I think Philosophy helps us reconcile who we want to be with who we already are.
NH 25 years.
Hope Brady has new tricks this yr. The deflation of the ball was a pip.
It's going to be a long week!
(It's 4:30 am Monday) lololol
The answer should be all or none.
Lol.
The thing about looting and bankrupting a country is that you don't get to start a new one the next day.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/05/treasury-set-to-borrow-nearly-a-trillion-in-2018-and-more-beyond.html
Were you having some exciting dreams in the morning?
Quoting Agustino
I understand this but I no longer experience this because I know exactly what I want and where I want to be and such conviction is empowering. In the last twelve months, I grew in my current position to a state program manager. I am lucky because my job is perfectly aligned with my passion for human rights and for the rights of children, while at the same time I run my own tiny little NGO in Bethlehem and work closely with the women and children there and where I get the opportunity to make a small difference.
Entrepreneurship and being an athlete are both ambiguous and such uncertainty (unless you are right up there amongst a small cohort of competitors) should render one to consider other career avenues, particularly the latter considering age is a predominate factor in speed and strength. If you believe, however, that you can achieve whatever it is you set out to achieve and you have the logic or intelligence to construe that it is a realistic endeavour, the anxiety you experience from these risks is temporary (even I get those temporary moments) because you are smart enough to know that your idea will work or that you will win a title, but that there will always be ups and downs along the way. You just need to decompress during those down periods and the best thing for that is having a good friend you can trust.
As in, a real one, not Alexander the Great.
Quoting Agustino
I don't know what the fuck you're on about, but you better watch how you speak to me buddy.
I am out to purchase a new DLSR (on an extreme budget) and am tossing between the Canon EOS Rebel T6i, the Lumix GH3 or the Panasonic DMC-FX1000. I am doing a short course in May on documentary filmmaking and although the camera will not be used to actually make a documentary, I want the DLSR to have great video quality so I can practice making shorts with it.
I am leaning more towards the DMC-FX1000 because of the low-light shooting, excellent capacity for outdoor photography, HR 4K high definition video recording (and wifi) all within the constraints of an awesome price. The image stabiliser is also top notch.
Any other yay's or nay's?
Forget the Canon. Both Panasonics are good. The GH3 is slightly better for video and the FX1000 isn't actually a DSLR (it's a "bridge" camera) and is less flexible because you can't change the lens. On the other hand it's cheaper, your best choice for stills at the price (if you need to get zoomy) and more than good enough for the video you need.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-gh3/20
Do you have any other recommendations?
That's just, I don't know, what?
Why, do you want some too? :D
Quoting TimeLine
I'm the type of person who has always known what they wanted, but I wouldn't say that's super empowering in and of itself. Though it is good - at least you're not confused about what you want. I never knew what it means to be confused about what you want.
Quoting TimeLine
Nobody, especially in athletics, can know in advance if they will win a title or not - it's simply impossible to predict. The only way is to be indifferent to the pain along the way. Mental invincibility is the most important aspect.
Quoting TimeLine
As I said, the philosophy you adopt depends on your way of life and what you do.
Here's the Blue Yeti! Does he meet your expectations? :D
Then I realise you were born without a personality.
Quoting TimeLine
I mean, Who needs a personality? :P
Sure. Is Erich serious?
I'd say you probably don't need 4K for practising making shorts. Are your computer screens and TVs optimized for 4K? If not, even less reason. Here's a few options you could look into as well (budget friendly):
Nikon d3400
Canon EOS M100
Enjoy your camera while children starve.
I will. Enjoy your guns while children die.
Here's to democratising talking about economics:
For around 500USD:
Best for portability: Sony RX100 IV
Best for zoom: The FZ1000
Best for Video: The GH3
Best for image quality: Sony A6000
Best for portability and flexibility: Any micro four thirds system camera
Best all round: Olympus OM-D-Em 10 mii (I have this one)
Benkei's right - you don't need 4K and even if you get it, editing and rendering those files unless you have a very powerful computer is going to be very slow, so you'd be better sticking to Full HD unless you have a very specific reason not to. As for sound, the only one above with an external mic jack is the GH3. Bear that in mind if sound quality is key (sounds like it's not though from what you've said).
The quality of the GH3 is higher actually because it has a larger sensor. +You can get a better lens for low light later, like the 20mm F1.7 Panasonic pancake.
http://www.imaging-resource.com/lenses/panasonic/20mm-f1.7-asph-lumix-g/review/
Sorry, but wtf?
The whole thing apart from him being released eventually.
Yes, fortunately I'm living under a military dictatorship at present and not in the "freest" democracy in the world, so I reckon I'm safe.
Even though you're not American, you should also realize how sensitive the US is toward school shootings. Had that kid's threat been credible and nothing was done about it because, "muh rights yo, muh freedumbs", there'd be hell to pay.
Up to ten years in prison are the potential consequences. For making a joke. No. That's not OK.
You need a detailed explanation of why 10 years in prison might be a disproportionate punishment for writing a Facebook post that bothered some people?
I'm not going to kill any children I promise. I am going to kill Buxtebuddha though and after I do, decapitate him and send his head to you by pony express. (L)
Anyway, to put it in terms that have a decent chance of being understood by you two, there is some space to work with between taking something seriously and a ten year prison sentence.
And, yes, it is the Shoutbox. If someone opens a discussion on the specific issue, I'll go into as much boring detail as you want on why I find this story disturbing.
The real problems are the actual arrest, that he can be held for 5 months prior to a trial, and the unaffordable amount set as bail.
I don't recommend that... he's a bit too feisty to die easily.
Quoting Baden
Regardless of if it was a joke or not, it should have been treated as a threat, as it is common for fools to brag before performing some hideous deed. I think he ought to be evaluated to determine if he is a mere fool or a true threat before a prison sentence. But a threat is a threat, no different than if someone would say he or she wanted to kill or harm any person to their face.
You can disregard my approach to the argument, which is deliberately colorful in any case. What you cannot disregard is the fact that you can be jailed for ten years in America for writing an objectionable Facebook post.
I don't disagree with any of that.
Only if it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the threat was genuine, the particular law in this case being:
2 and 5 being the parts that seem most relevant here.
Your faith in America's justice system exceeds mine. And no offense to Texas but it's not somewhere I would ever want to be tried for anything.
All that aside. I don't believe any verbal or written threat, genuine or not, should result in a lengthy prison sentence. It doesn't even rise to the level of an attempt.
Seeing your edit now, including the details of the law, it's more encompassing and, in fact, significantly worse than I thought. Merely intending to scare people or prank the authorities can apparently get you convicted. Again, the punishment is highly disproportionate. Ten year prison sentences are handed out for crimes like rape, armed robbery and child sexual abuse. Are those on a par in your view with trying to scare people or cause a reaction "of any type" by the emergency services?
Note too that genuinely threatening to do something doesn't make you a genuine threat. The law doesn't even require you be any actual threat at all only that you intend to commit an unspecified act of violence resulting in one of the consequences mentioned in the list. (It might be that you don't have the means to do what you threaten to do, for example.)
So, you'd have learned how to win some of these arguments??
No, because I always win these arguments, and so I clearly have the aptitude.
OK, you win. I am right. Nice to be in agreement.
Other than my Herculean biceps, I have no guns.
Also checked the TDCJ offender search. Only two Justin Carters, neither of which are this guy.
Death threats should be heavily punished. There is nothing wrong with that.
Shut up or I'll kill you.
(EDIT: Disclaimer: I won't really. I'm just trying to make a point. (L) )
Thanks. Got 'em.
Well, you just contravened to CCC Art. 264(1) "Uttering threats"
Uttering threats
264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat
(a) to cause death or bodily harm to any person;
(b) to burn, destroy or damage real or personal property; or
(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person.
Marginal note:Punishment
(2) Every one who commits an offence under paragraph (1)(a) is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.
I know. That's the point.
You realize I could actually pursue this, right? That I pretty much always could've. It doesn't matter we are in different countries. it doesn't matter you think it's a joke. You shouldn't fucking joke about killing someone. Ever. What is wrong with you that you would require this right?
And it's not a joke. I'm demonstrating how ridiculous the law is.
Without a care for how much more ridiculous a world in which everyone who utters death threats receives a slap on the back of the hand...?
Quoting Baden
Well, it better be, because I can very realistically get you charged with a indictable criminal offense. There is no need for joke death threats, and you should simply know better than make them.
Funny, apart from some angry clients at work, your's is the only deaththreat I've received in, well, years...
People get angry and say things they may or may not mean at the time. That doesn't give them the right to threaten anyone. However, the state shouldn't have the right either to impose draconian punishments on them because they upset someone. A fine, or in extreme cases (for example, repeated serious threats over a long period) a short prison sentence should be the limit on punishment.
Quoting Akanthinos
Quoting Akanthinos
I'm sorry I scared you. I had no idea you might think I would really hunt you down and kill you. Do you need a hug?
It does matter very much, I'm not under the jurisdiction of the bad laws that apply in other countries. So, for example, I can criticize the Chinese communist party, or I can promote homosexuality, or I can make a rhetorical point on this philosophy forum without being liable for any punishment whatsoever. That's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.
No, I need vindication. The Law states I'm entitled to it.
No, you're not. See above. Just as Chinese people aren't entitled to demand you be imprisoned for insulting the Communist party, you're not entitled to demand foreigners be punished for acts contrary to the laws of your country.
[i]Space Videos
youtube[/i]
What's going on? :D
264.1 (1) Every one commits an offence who, in any manner, knowingly utters, conveys or causes any person to receive a threat
...
(c) to kill, poison or injure an animal or bird that is the property of any person."
Checked this out online. You can actually be imprisoned (for up to two years) in America for threatening to hurt someone's budgie.
The European Convention on Cybercrime (2001) would like to formally disagree with you.
Shut up or I'll rip your budgie's eyes out and use them to decorate the cake I made out of your goldfish.
The issue in the case of the Facebook guy is that it seems no offense occurred. Intent is an element of all crime, and it seems clear there was no intent to do harm. Had he said he was preparing to murder the children at Main Street Primary, then I'd agree we need to get him off the streets. I'd also imagine no one would send their kids to school until he was in custody, unless, of course, the parent didn't really like their kid. With specific statements, you might actually have some public disruption you would want to deter. And, should it be made clear during the trial that this guy really was going to do harm, then I can see justifying a stiff punishment. As it stands, it looks like an innocent person is being prosecuted. That's where I see the injustice, but not in the fact that a judge can provide a long sentence.
If you read the opinion cited by Michael, the court was simply saying that it can't determine if the law was being inappropriately applied because it has no way to know what the facts are until they are presented at trial. If the jury convicts the guy, the courts could throw out the conviction if it turns out their was insufficient evidence of intent.
And this gets to my last point, which is that your objective here is to ridicule America and its laws, as if my great nation is just a few shades away from lopping off hands and gouging out eyes like the friendly folks in Mecca. There is injustice, no doubt, and I was very disturbed about the Facebook guy's treatment, but, by and large, people aren't going to jail for threatening chickens.
I care very little for birds or fishes. But look even uncourteously in the general direction of my cat and you will end up with quite a lot fewer appendages than you started.
The problem is it's on the books and then you're at the mercy of the judge. All I'm saying is it shouldn't be on the books. Plus, yes, a little ridicule. Hope this doesn't mean you'll stop lawyering for me. You did a great job getting me out of that hamster assault case (not to mention getting me out of the hamster).
Fair enough. :)
The Mens Rea of Uttering Threat is "knowingly uttering threat", not having the intent of committing the act publicized.
The big problem is that all the moralizing and claims of injustice won't defend you against actually being arrested (although being outside the U.S. might help). So even if it's a terrible and draconian legal system, you could still actually be punished for saying the things you're saying. As shown with the case of Justin Carter.
That's partly my point. That people can be arrested and jailed for long periods for making what look like threats online but are not actually actions that present any danger (they may be jokes, momentary instances of rage, or rhetorical devices etc.). So, do you agree with me or not that the laws in question are bad laws (because the punishments are too draconian) and that therefore they should be changed?
That's not the point at all. Besides, would you consider yourself to be breaking the law if you promoted homosexuality here (against the law in Uganda), or if you criticized the communist party here (potentially against the law in China)? I'm under no obligation to obey U.S. law and I'm not concerned if I break it.
This might not be true. According to the passive personality principle, if an American citizen is a victim of a U.S. crime committed by a foreigner on foreign soil then they can be charged. This is likely the principle that was used to charge Lauri Love, a UK citizen who hacked into US Government computers. Of course in practical terms this would depend on the accused's country agreeing to extradition, or in the case of Lauri Love, the accused's country deciding to prosecute on similar charges using its own laws.
I would say that all countries have a law against threats (probably), but unless you are a US citizen, I think you are safe from the US law - an international body of law would have to be followed in your case.
As for the severity of the law, I agree that for the most part it seems too severe in the US. An empty but serious-sounding threat, with no evidence of the person actually planning to, or taking steps to carrying the action out should have a light punishment - maybe a warning, maybe a few months in jail.
I think it's more complicated than that, cause Baden is in Thailand, but he's not a Thai citizen.
Julian Assange faced extradition from Britain to Sweden, and in turn potentially to the U.S., despite being Australian (and now also Ecuadoran).
What if there is an agreement between victim and perpetrator that their exchange is governed by the jurisdiction of another country? As in the case of this website, where it is the UK's jurisdiction?
(Y)
You don't get to decide for yourself who has jurisdiction over you. If you use threatening language against an American then the Department of Justice can likely charge you for it and seek extradition. If that threatening language is also a crime in your country of residence then you can be charged for it there, too. In the case where the site operates under UK law but neither party involved is a UK citizen or resident, I don't know. Maybe the site operator has a legal obligation to remove offending material?
I don't think that's true. People must agree to the Terms of Service to participate on this site, otherwise they're asked to leave. One of the conditions they agree on is that their exchanges here will be under the jurisdiction of the UK. So if they receive a threat via this site, it must be judged according to the jurisdiction of the UK, to which they have agreed to in participating here. If they receive the threat via means other than this site, then it is a different story.
There is no offending material. There are two posts quoted below which were used to make a rhetorical point, which is not only obvious in context but which also has been explained at length. If someone came on here and really threatened another poster, we would remove it because it would be in contravention of the site guidelines.
Quoting Baden
Quoting Baden
Whether or not the material is actually offending also isn't really the point. You say that Justin Carter's comments weren't actual threats, and yet he was still arrested and held for 5 months with a $500,000 bail.
The only relevant question is; could a charge be filed against you? Even if the case would be dismissed or you'd be found innocent, there could still be legal repercussions, and no talk of "but it's unjust" would make that go away.
But if it's a risk you're willing to take, and if @jamalrob isn't liable (and if it doesn't go against the Terms of Service or our guidelines), then go ahead.
I think sometimes we get so lost in talk of principles that we forget about how the world actually works, for better and for worse.
Threats needn't actually just be verbal/written, they could also be reckless behaviour that potentially threatens the life of another. There is no excuse - i.e. jokes or instances of rage - and rhetorical devices are clearly unambiguous, so ultimately if someone threatens, if I say something like I am going to come there and hunt you down, that is reckless and constitutes as a threat without lawful excuse. The intent here is to arouse fear and such fear is a form of violence, even if it is intended to be psychological or emotional. Stalking and cyber-stalking are forms of bullying that could reasonably be unlawful behaviour intended to create fear in another person with the intention to cause serious mental harm.
We have our own standards for what is acceptable in terms of free speech and they are outlined in the guidelines and in the terms of service (as mentioned above) that we are bound by. Apart from that, we are not going to enforce censorship laws from other countries here whether it be the U.S., China, Russia or wherever. The end.
I appreciate your concern but there are none (although if I had known that my rhetorical strategy would cause this amount of diversion I wouldn't have bothered). Now, can you make your position on the Justin Carter issue clearer than "maybe"?
Remember it's up to 10 years. It's a maximum, not set.
OK, just for clarification, can you give an example of the type of egregious case that would, in your view, be deserving of ten years imprisonment?
I'm only talking about written or verbal threats. I presume the case you mentioned would be covered under a different law. Maybe @Hanover can let us know.
It's an interesting angle that I hadn't considered. I'd have to know whether there is another law that covered it though. If there is then this law wouldn't be necessary.
The punishment for Class B misdemeanors is up to 180 days in jail and a fine of up to $2,000. Class A is 1 year and a fine up to $4,000.
The 10 year figure comes from a third-degree felony, which is actually 2 - 10 years and a $10,000 fine. With the above law, a third-degree felony is "an offense under Subsection (a)(4), (a)(5), or (a)(6)", so:
(6) looks particularly vague and open.
My objection is to the possibility that people could be arrested and jailed for long periods (a year or more) for making online statements that present no actual danger to anyone though they might scare or disturb someone. It's not clear from your post that you disagree with that. Do you?
Here's another example of a bad anti-free-speech law - from my own country this time. If anyone wants to break it, feel free.
And talking of absurd laws, the Metropolitan Police Act 1839:
Although it's only a £200 fine.
But it theoretically could result in a prosecution and that fact alone has a somewhat chilling effect on free speech. It's likely to get dumped in any case and that's the right approach to any bad law.
Not just a law, but part of the Constitution. Requires a referendum. Would the Irish approve?
Yes, the upshot was we agreed that we shouldn't moderate on that basis. And rightly so.
But I am bound by those laws and as long as I am in Thailand I will respect them.
Yes, it will require a referendum to overturn.
All good news. Our constitution is in urgent need of an update.
Oh, alright.
Quoting TimeLine
So, I guess I should inform my lawyer to file a claim? >:O
[hide=""]joking :P [/hide]
Also, there are some people who take stuff that happens online way too seriously.
There are those who will take the worst possible interpretation of any online comment and run with it. Presumably out of fear. That's an unhealthy attitude in my view and one that shouldn't be enshrined in law.
How would you change the law (e.g. the Texas one), to account for such situations as Justin Carter's?
Yes, that is true. When I was a kid, and I played multiplayer games online, receiving threats was quite frequent when you won against the other person. The first time someone threatened me like that, I was a bit worried for a day or two, but then I realised that they were probably just angry, and it's just really unlikely that they'd actually spend the time and the resources to hunt me down - it would have been irrational.
In hindsight, sure, many situations end up being harmless, but this doesn't mean that there shouldn't be punishments for threatening behavior. Perhaps 10 years is high, but at the same time, Norway lets a mass child murdering psychopath live in what amounts to a hotel with access to luxuries - point being that society won't ever find perfect punishments to fit crimes. For Justin Carter, 10 years for his crime serves in large part as a deterrent. I doubt that he or anyone else like him would have or will spend 10 years in jail for their crime.
Depending on the game, you can get banned from playing for a certain amount of time or even indeed "forever" based on threats like, "I'm going to come to your house and rape your family and then kill you all." In a microcosm, these people are punished by not being able to partake in the game. In a macrocosm, similar people in real life ought to be and seemingly are punished by not being able to partake in society (jail time). Both instances are correct and fitting, in my opinion, and neither are out of bounds or maddening or crazy like Baden seems so keen on painting the issue.
This is wrong. Taking the wrong thing seriously is as grave a mistake as not taking the right thing seriously. When law enforcement allocates resources to the pursuit of a certain case, then there are less resources for all the other cases out there, which may be more important. So by all means, law enforcement must not take everything seriously - imagine the chaos we'd be in if they actually did take everything seriously.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
Yeah, but think about how the mind of someone who receives such punishment will be changed. He will not be reformed - rather he will probably think that he lives in a vengeful society, that has no right to existence and ought to be destroyed. So when he gets out of jail, you reckon he's going to be a friend to society? Of course not. So the punishment doesn't serve as a deterrent - quite the contrary.
A threat is only a threat if there's actual intent to do violence. An empty threat is no threat at all.
Vox
I agree that is the problem. You have a prosecutor vested with significant power, and it looks to be abused in this situation. I would assume that Carter's statements are not terribly unusual, yet you don't see similar charges throughout the country, which is why this instance made the news. To top it off, you then have a judge who set the bail crazy high, which seems like maybe there was some political alliance between the judge and the prosecutor because the judge should have been a check on that power. In setting bail, the real purpose is making sure the person will appear for trial. Why a kid with limited resources and no contacts anywhere else (meaning he had nowhere to flee) would need to have bail set so high seems more punitive than anything else. And that the kid might still be in jail had some anonymous person not bailed him out makes the matter worse.
Depends on the jurisdiction. In the UK, the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 states that "A person who without lawful excuse makes to another a threat, intending that that other would fear it would be carried out, to kill that other or a third person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years."
It doesn't require that one intends to do violence, only that one intends to cause another to fear that one would.
Quoting Michael
If from context it's clear the intention to carry it out isn't there, people won't fear it. There needs to be some form of intent to do actual harm. Of course, there will be unclear cases and people can misinterpret things in particular situations. I don't think the things Baden said could be pursued under US law because the context makes clear there was no intent.
It's less of a legal interpretation than an actual language use interpretation. If a wall threatens to fall, it is a real danger. We don't say it about a straight, sturdy wall. So if I threaten you "I'm gonna stab you to death!" while stabbing with a flower, we all know what's going on.
Your concern is over judicial abuse, where if the judge is permitted to give up toten years, then it's likely he will. The attempted resolution of that problem on the federal level was to impose mandatory sentencing. A chart was created that looked at the crime and the person's prior criminal history and the judge was provided a fairly small amount of discretion in sentencing the person. Upward and downward departures from the sentencing guidelines required special findings by the judge and were appealable to a higher court. The net result was longer and less fair sentencing because the judge could not look to the dozens of other factors that might be relevant in the sentencing. The point being we have to trust the judgment of our judges. Legislating and directing their power makes their decisions robotic and less fair.
In the Carter situation, coming at the heels of a prior school shooting during what appears to be a moment of hysteria, will hopefully turn out fairly. You had a prosecutor in Texas who apparently wanted to make clear he wasn't going to have that sort of behavior in his town and a judge too scared to push back, declare the whole thing stupid, and let him sign his own bond.
I really don't see a problem with the process as long a cooler heads prevail, but I don't see anyway to entirely eliminate abuses of power.
I'd lower the maximum sentence for a start and make sure intent to carry out the action was required to be established for any jail time at all to be considered. But I accept your and Hanover's point concerning the other issues at play.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
No, it's not their job to take everything seriously, it's their job to try to distinguish between what needs to be taken seriously and what doesn't so they can allocate their resources properly. Failing to do that could risk both citizens lives and the enforcement of the law, which is why not every complaint or report is followed up on. In practice that they should err on the side of caution especially in cases where a serious threat to life may be present I accept.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
I've explained to several posters already that I don't disagree with this.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
That's a good example of the Nirvana fallacy.
Quoting Buxtebuddha
I'm not convinced by the deterrent angle as I don't believe the vast majority of the populace are aware of the severity of laws like this. You may be right on the second point but any jail time at all for someone like him would be an injustice in my view. He did nothing but make a bad joke.
Not in Law. The intentional aspect of a threat in either Common Law settings requires the threat to have been made 'seriously'. 'Seriously' here means 'to cause fear or intimidation', not to have actually intended the actions.
Otherwise : "It is irrelevant whether the accused actually intended to carry out the threat"
-R v Noble (P.D.J.), 2010 MBCA 60 (CanLII)
I was a bit short on my meaning here before. I agree with the above but as my example to Michael illustrated a threat is only a threat if a reasonable person believes there's intent. Context matters. Your insistence Baden could be sued is simply not credible based on the context in which he made the threats (which are empty threats).
Were Justin Carter's threats credible?
Unless stated otherwise, a threat to kill children, or really anyone, ought to always be taken seriously. You prefaced your joke earlier in this thread with information that helped me deduce that there was little to no chance that you'd come and kill me. The "joke" that Justin Carter made had no additional information, no disclaimer, no followup stating that he was only joking. For instance, if law enforcement suspects that someone is getting swatted and they don't do anything, and it turns out that the person being swatted wasn't actually being swatted and he was actually going to do the horrible thing, then blame rests partly at law enforcement's feet who chose to scoff and get back to their coffee.
Quoting Baden
Quoting Baden
If you think that there are perfect punishments, then please direct me to where you've got them all figured out. Otherwise, I'll continue to think, and argue if I must, that 10 years for threatening to kill children is appropriate in some circumstances, while a mass murderer playing Halo in a fancy dorm room isn't appropriate. To reiterate, my point is that your complaint is an attempt at making utterly arbitrary the judicial system as it pertains to Justin Carter and his crime merely because you disagree with the punishment's severity.
Quoting Baden
That Carter didn't serve his entire sentence is precisely the reason why his case was and is used as a deterrent. And contrary to your own ignorance, the case of Justin Carter got quite a lot of public exposure.
Quoting Baden
People like him who joke about killing people shouldn't be taken lightly, by anyone. If Mr. Carter was so unaware of himself and what he says, that threatening to murder children wasn't something he noticed come out of his mouth, he's more likely to be the sort of person who wouldn't know that drinking and driving is calamitous, that smoking is bad for your health, so on and so forth. Pleading ignorance and and the, "I didn't mean it" card doesn't get someone out of being held responsible for what they did. I'm reminded of the bully in the movie, "A Christmas Story", where the picked on kid eventually lashes out after being bullied for weeks. The bully immediately shrivels up and does the same routine as Mr. Carter, yelping about how it was all just a big joke. Well, in the bully's case, he gets his head smashed in. In Carter's case, he sits in jail for a few months.
Is the moral of the story that one ought not joke about murder or is it that prosecutors ought not prosecute those joking about murder? I think future Justin Carters and future prosecutors will take pause should a similar event arise because neither came out as winners here. If that prosecutor represented my county, he'd have at least one fewer vote.
Meet the Philosophers Who Give ‘The Good Place’ Its Scholarly Bona Fides
[i]Chris Quintana
The Chronicle of Higher Education
Feb 2018[/i]
He didn't even get sentenced. He was just held in jail before the trial because he couldn't afford bail.
I'm not willing to risk jail just so that I can joke about killing people, and unlike Voltaire, I wouldn't die to defend someone's right to free speech.
Also, I don't think it's a fair characterisation that what Baden was doing was just so he could joke about killing people.
I have, it's pretty funny but sort of starts to get messy at the end of season one and pretty much all of season two. It was enjoyable nonetheless and I particularly liked the moral concept of whether a person can improve if they go to hell.
Have you watched Irrational Man?
I'm willing to risk £100 buying cryptocurrencies on the off-chance that I could make a profit.
Quoting Benkei
He was protesting that guy's arrest by repeating the behaviour that got the guy arrested. I'm just pointing out that even if it's right to protest it, that kind of protest might be more trouble than it's worth. It just seemed to me that the thinking was "I shouldn't be arrested for this" with little thought to "I might actually get arrested for this".
>:O make a profit of what? +$100? I wouldn't even move a finger for that, much less wait days for it.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I honestly think that that's not a smart thing to do.
All investments, whether of time or money, have both opportunity costs and associated risks. Opportunity cost represents what else you could have done with the capital, and the associated risk is how much of the capital you stand to lose if things go badly.
So to decide whether to make an investment or not, you must look at possible gains. How much can you reasonably gain from investing the $100 that makes it worth risking to lose (all, or a part of) the $100? I wouldn't accept a rate of return of less than 4:1.
Alright, then £400 is my target (or is it £500?).
So you reckon BTC can go from $15,000 (roughly when you bought) to $60,000?
And why is that?
Because Ripple is the crypto that is not too rebellious & disruptive, and is likely to be perceived as a friend to bankers and the current financial establishment in comparison to alternatives.
Yeah, well, dumbing down Ripple as a "crypto" is missing the point of Ripple. Ripple isn't trying to be like cash in the way bitcoin tries to. It's something very different.
In December you said: Quoting Agustino
You should go to their website and read up on what they're trying to do and you'll understand why it's much more likely to have staying power and how it can potentially replace SWIFT (which is ultimately the point of Ripple).
Yeah, I have studied Ethereum, Ripple, BTC, and Litecoin in the meantime.
https://www.bitsonline.com/japanese-korean-ripple-pilot/
This is what convinced me.
Yes, Ripple is pretty awesome.
So that wasn't very nice of you. The next post clearly showed that you did, in fact, know the answer to the question, and not only that, you had one of my remarks from December in mind, so you asked the question to "catch me out" or something. Either way, not very nice. Passive aggressive if you ask me. These are the kind of silly games that I started completely hating, especially with people I work with. We're supposed to work together, not catch each other out, or prove that one knows more than the other, etc. And playing these games with people actually makes them worse! Believe me, I had some big troubles with an accountant recently, because I was playing stupid games like these and not being straight up honest.
So that's why I said:
Quoting Agustino
Right?
Well, you actually failed... So... *shrug*
So like an undercover cop?
Yeah, exactly. Except that contrary to your unspoken suggestion, I don't think such behaviour is moral, regardless of what the end of it is. At least an undercover cop is given authority by his society to do this.
[s]But why male models?[/s] So like an undercover cop?
Hm? I already answered your question... :s
That edit does not help your cause >:O - it's even more incomprehensible than before.
Don't worry, I don't even know what Zoolander is >:O . You're talking to someone who hasn't watched a single movie for more than 1 year. Probably in my entire life I've seen less than 100 movies. Definitely not many. Not a movie watcher type.
I remember @Benkei recommended me a Hitler movie awhile ago, which I meant to watch, but still didn't get around to it...
And did you expect me to know that? >:O
Oh, good! >:O I do have a TV, just don't open it on things other than news :P
Your TV opens? You sure it isn't a cardboard box and you just have a squatter living inside, shouting out insane nonsense? I can see how you might confuse that for The Sean Hannity Show.
>:O, yah, that Sean Hannity is on my computer, not on the TV. I don't get American programs on TV.
I remember that the UK is such a country that they ask you to own a TV license there to watch TV or any live streaming >:O - a clearly crooked and barbaric law. Those folks used to tell me "even if you watch on your computer, you must get the license" - and it's expensive too, not worth getting.
Gotta fund the BBC somehow.
Haven't. The Woody Allen film from 2015?
Oh? Why are you reciting Hanover's answer? >:O
And in the South, we say "shut off the TV" and "shut off the lights," which could also be corrupted into "shut the lights." I would occasionally hear "shut on the lights" as well. Then there's "mash," which doesn't get as much use as it ought to, as in "mash the power button to turn off the TV."
Sometimes when I'm vigorously fucking Michael's girlfriend and mom, one of their asses (or arses, if you speak wrong) will inadvertently mash the channel button and we'll go from enjoying an episode of South Park to watching Benny Hill, the least funny Brit to ever live, but at least he moved around really fast and you could occasionally see a breast or three.
Language, please. Think about the children.
It's really good. It's about a philosophy professor who has existential numbness until he decides to murder a bad judge that influences a positive outcome for others and thinks he did a moral and ethical thing that gives his life meaning.
Still funny, though.
Pink Musk Cupcakes for breast cancer fundraiser tomorrow at work :P
chocolate cupcakes
florally iced fantasies
patty cakery
The response: "This is MY page, if you have a different opinion then post it on YOUR page! Or unfriend me if you have a problem with my views."
:s
>:O
I am trying to spend more time around here instead of social media, where the fine members--of all political and philosophical persuasions--chase after truth rather than 'likes'.
Quoting Erik
Probably she has no authority in real life, and so is striving to feel authoritative online...
Hi Benk. Good to see you here, too.
So it turns out that happiness might require a certain level of brain development, correlative to a certain degree of thought:
"“Being happy requires a fair amount of self-referential thinking, whereas being in pain or being unhappy doesn’t require that in the same way,” he suggested. “To be happy, you have to know that you’re happy. A lot of [our sons’] unhappiness initially isn’t really un-happiness but rather low-level feelings like ‘I’m hungry’ or ‘I’m wet.’ It’s not like ‘oh man, I would be really happy if I weren’t sitting in this wet diaper.’”
This concept of self-referential thinking, or the ability to reflect on how you’re feeling and your desires, is associated with a network of brain regions called the default mode network."
So happiness ain't all that.
I hadn't thought about it from that angle but it sounds somewhat plausible.
If you're around young children all day five days a week, trying (unsuccessfully) to keep them in line with simple commands rather than nuanced reasons, that may very well affect the way you interact with people outside of that context. May make one a little impatient, too.
Lots of respect for teachers. I almost lost it a few times when I taught high school kids and I think I'm pretty easygoing.
Yes, tough job trying to maintain patience. I taught for a while but I found I much prefer working for myself and by myself.
That's awesome. Working for myself would be my preferred option but I lack the necessary capital and/or the specific skills to go that route, and it's getting late in the game for me to acquire these things.
My practical solution has been to live as simply and as frugally as possible, and at the very least to work at jobs that I don't dread.
How does one successfully work for themselves anyways? I've always felt inclined that way, but I don't seem to possess the needed skills. It's possible that I'm just a spoiled brat as well. Or it's possible that being a self-sufficient artist in 2018 is basically impossible unless you want to sell your **** to the devil.
Start a business (though that's not really working for yourself without others), or learn some valuable skill such as web design, or web development, and then sell your services as an individual working by yourself. Preferably, start out with money saved for a few months to give yourself time to learn how to acquire projects, sell yourself, etc. - that's how I did it. Also, before you do that, you must learn the skill in your spare time, learning to sell afterwards is a job in and of itself. Also, know your monthly costs, so that you have an idea of how much you need to make.
No. I've actually had a decent job over the past few years--as far as pay goes anyhow--as the GM of a successful restaurant.
I decided to take a break from work about a month ago and am considering stepping away completely to do something else.
I know you're an entrepreneur, Agustino, any advice you can give on possible business opportunities that don't require too much money to get going, and that I can train myself (as a 'normal' person with average intelligence) to do within a year or so?
:D
As you know, I want to work for myself as an artist. The rules aren't the same.
Yeah, web design and graphic design - you're an artist there.
Eh?
The tough thing seems to be that if you really want to do one thing well enough to make a living at it (e.g. writing, painting), then you can't realistically split your time between doing that and doing something else to pay the bills.
There are exceptions, though. Didn't Charles Bukowski work for the USPS? X-)
Yeah, I'm talking about just the design aspect of websites. Basically, you'd be making Photoshop files with how the page(s) look, including maybe elements like logos, user experience, user interface, etc. No coding.
It's like designing with a pencil, but you do it on computer.
Okay I'm in this very situation. I need specific details on how to learn your skill in the quickest and most affordable way possible.
You're preaching to the choir. It's not impossible, but it's a crap-shoot, it seems.
Quoting Erik
Not sure, but love Bukowski. Philip Glass was a taxi driver well into middle-age, I'm pretty sure.
Yeah, Agustino's your man. I'm just a dilettante.
I've made art too, but I have no idea how I'd make a living out of it or if I'd even want to. Rather remain an amateur in that field and make money at something else I enjoy doing.
Oh, that's cool, I see.
Quoting Erik
It's difficult to advise others on what business to start, cause it really depends on your skills, your personality, and your interests. What kind of life do you want it to afford you? I wanted something that I could pretty much do by myself in the beginning, but that I could scale later on if I wanted to and involve more people. It also depends on what kind of work you want - do you want to interact with people a lot face-to-face? Do you want to be in front of a computer a lot?
Also, your skills are relevant. You should ideally structure things around skills that you already have if possible. Basically, a business must sell something. What's the easiest thing that you can make or provide and sell given your skills?
All businesses end up being experimentation in the end. You form a hypothesis, and still need to test it every time. And the market sometimes takes you in a different, but similar direction to where you initially intended to go. For me I started in web development but have been moving more towards online marketing over time - I'm even looking to pass the development aspects onto other people atm.
Ah, so you're suggesting I could be a visual artist for money. I'm not visually talented; I can understand the aesthetics of visual art, but I don't have the physical hand for it. I can't even form a strong line. I have horrendous handwriting.
Yeah, that's why Photoshop draws straight lines for you, regardless of how wobbly your hands are :P
To each their own. My life's work is my music, and yes, that's a ridiculous thing to say.
I detest artistic dishonesty. :P
Why do you consider it dishonesty? :P
In that particular case, photoshop drawing a straight line despite my inability to do so would be an example of me dishonestly presenting content that I didn't actually have the skills to produce; the software produced it for me.
It can still be your life's work and your priority while you do something else to make money, but if it's the only thing you do and you want to make money from it, you're at the mercy of the whims of the market.
Nobody designs websites by hand (except maybe a wireframe). Photoshop has the advantage that a developer (the person who codes the website) has the design to scale in pixels, and he can save images at the right size from it, has the right color codes, sizes, etc. for fonts and so on. Basically makes coding the website a breeze, and the coder just codes, he doesn't have to think about user experience, user interface, how to get the point of the business across, etc.
https://designshack.net/articles/inspiration/web-design-trends-2018/
That's fair. In that case, my best foot forward would be to present my work, and see if the market bites. I've somewhat failed, and somewhat succeeded at doing that, so far.
But yes, obviously I currently earn my bread and cigarettes by other means.
And the obvious issue is that, in order for anything at all to be one's life's work, it needs to be the work that takes up the most of your time (life). And when I'm working 37 hours a week at a job that isn't my life's work, then my life's work begins to pale in comparison to my..."other" life's work...
Woah, we just jumped from "dishonest art", to the basics of web code. Not the same.
I was just saying that, within the context of art (is web design art??), I detest artistic dishonesty: I detest when someone without skill uses a technology or trope in order to present themselves as having a skill that they don't actually have. Trust me, my dude, I work in the fucking music industry. I've seen it too many times. >:O
It's not the same thing as what you saw in the music industry. The skill comes from knowing what to create, what colors to use, etc. not from actually drawing the bits and pieces. Sure, Photoshop can draw a rectangle with sizes so and so and corner radii of so and so for you - but you must conceive what it must draw in the first place. That's the real hard aspect of it.
Yeah, sure. I'm not sure what you're arguing. My guess is that we're talking at cross-purposes.
An artistic expression has more to do with mystical experience, free will, paradox, and religious experience (just grabbing phrases that can parse on a philosophy forum) than it does with business plans, photoshop algorithms, or whatever.
I have very modest financial goals, I consider myself second to none when it comes to communicating with customers and dealing with people more generally (even though I'm a natural introvert), I enjoy big picture thinking much more than focusing on small details (although I realize how important these are), etc.
I'm not averse to learning web design or something like that if it can be done in a reasonable time and I could later shift towards the service/sales side of things. I imagine it would help to know a little about the services you're trying to sell to others.
Thank you for the advice! I've been brainstorming and this is great info.
I've been thinking a lot about getting involved in property management or some other mundane service in which I can use the 'people' skills I've developed to make a modest living.
Those are all great talents to have :)
I too am a natural introvert, and I actually don't like dealing with people, at least not for extended periods of time. I have always been a natural leader though, and often I find that I am an extremely polarising person, since people either love me, or they hate me, but there's little middle ground.
With regards to the big picture - I found out that without the details you can't really make a big picture. I mean, how can you make a big picture when you don't understand the technical possibilities of your industry? You can only do this by resorting to analogies, and saying XYZ also did it this way, etc.
Quoting Erik
Yes, it definitely helps. Some areas are related - for example, you can't learn to develop websites without learning something about the designing of websites, copywriting, online marketing, etc. If you have a good grasp of all the areas involved, then the next step is obviously to organise the entire activity, meaning you don't offer just development services, but you integrate them in something more complete that provides greater value overall. If you have the sales and the peoples skill, and some relevant technical knowledge, then it's definitely doable.
Quoting Erik
The thing with these IT and internet related services is that you don't need a lot of approvals and certifications to practice them. Stuff like being an accountant, being an engineer, opening a restaurant, etc. (depending on your country) require a lot of prior approvals and certifications.
Quoting Erik
Yes, I think that, depending on your area, that would be something doable. Though you need to figure out what your selling points are - why people would prefer doing business with you over others. I've never worked in property management, but I imagine, that just like many accounting/lawyer, etc. services, people are looking for a model where the property is taken care of, tenants are always in, and they don't have any headaches. But in reality fees are (probably) very high and the landlords still need to do all sorts of things for the property even though they have hired a company to manage it for them.
That would be my initial guess anyway, the guess of someone who doesn't know much about the property business except from the tenant's side. With regards to the real estate business, I recently read this:
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/teen-tycoon-britains-youngest-millionaire-11346804
He had quite an interesting business model, and could easily scale it. You can see how he has a clear offer: no commissions, a fixed price regardless of how much the property sells for, aggressively expanding offers at multiple price points (a subtle form a price discrimination, where a business attempts to garner a larger portion of the area under the demand curve as revenues - two weeks ago he had only 2 offers, been expanded to 3 now - here for offers: https://doorsteps.co.uk/pricing.php ). The offers are, for many, clearly better than paying a 6% fee to sell their property.
So if you'd do something similar in property management, you'd need to focus on the offer, and then on the marketing. The offer / business model is the hook, the marketing is actually using the hook to capture fish. In other words, the offer is the idea, the marketing is the execution.
I wish I were depressed so that I could wallow in bed or ruminate and kill time over the issue; but, it seems like I don't feel all that depressed for one reason or another.
What to do?
Work? Well, I'm on disability and I never cared for money.
Seems like I don't have anything else to give up on except on life itself; but, I'm not in the mood to contemplate such things.
Oh, how I miss my depression.
Nah, being a skitz put me on disability. The depression isn't terrible these days.
Can I give you some of mine? I feel like the weight of the world is on my shoulders...
Lol, why not.
I cannot Thank you enough ~
Your welcome. Now, I can wallow some more.
https://eight2late.wordpress.com/2014/03/20/the-essence-of-entrepreneurship/
Wow, this is like the no man's land of the philosophy forum.
That's just weird. I am TimeLine?
I am an evil genius. There are few bad things that ever happened that I didn't have a hand in, either as the director of the evil or at least having a consulting role, often being a key puppeteer. It's all set out in my Linkedin account (https://youtu.be/X9bOsdHckhg), and I stay pretty busy with calls for work. Every time a raindrop falls on your pretty little head and causes you the slightest annoyance, credit me.
You are about as bad as this guy my dear little naive child of the damned.
Then why do you have a picture of Hannah Arendt?
(Y)
I will read this and get back to you...
Wait a minute. Are you saying that you are a hamster?
Yeah? What took you so long?
I knew a girl named Horse and a boy named Sue. These things happen, I guess.
What's wrong with a boy named Sue and a girl named Horse? I once met a horse named Girl actually, so it can happen the other way too.
I'm in hiding.
But with your help Edward and I will be free soon. Free as birds. (I'm firing Hanover).
From Uncle Sam?
The IRS. I'm getting too big.
Hmmm, so I see that you are an American citizen then? :P
Not until Hanover's mum finally agrees to tie the knot.
Me first.
Trump added some new questions to the citizenship test which should be a bit easier on the average Joe. They're all about him and all have the same answer, "The biggest ever".
Bigger than which cannot be conceived!
STUDY: Watching Only Fox News Makes You Less Informed Than Watching No News At All.
Congratulations on correctly spelling a less-frequently used word that sounds a lot like its antonym that one can't escape hearing.
Well, clearly I was unable to elicit an interesting response, despite all that effort. Do you realise how often the word magenta is used? Rarely. Ask @Bitter Crank. He has never used it and he is a word man.
Useless.
Oh, that "magenta"...you mean the anagram for "get a man". Sorry, I'm not playing your game, gal. O:)
You play chess apparently, how can any continuity of humour be poss if you do not think ahead and set the stage. Do I have to do everything around here?
Damn amateurs.
Backgammon for life!
Unfortunately for TimeLine, it's hard to get matching lipstick, eye shadow, nail polish and tattoos in magenta. I've gotten many men; none of them wore magenta anything. Loathsome color.
Oh? Do you remember that time when you cowered from playing chess, even though you were bluffing and showing off so much before? X-)
How dare you talk about Hanover like that. Besides, how could anyone cower down to a hamster, despite such paradoxical rodent cuteness. You can't nibble cookies and wriggle your ears out of facts, mouseboy.
Last night I read an article about one of my brothers being flushed down the toilet in an airport : /
Oh, haha, yeah we were talking about that at work today too, emotional support animals in airports.
It's not funny... : /
Sorry. How about eulogy?
Oh pebbles. Or peebles. Whatever it may be,
You are small, fluffy, and dear to me.
While you went for a swim down poop creek,
And drowned, silence, gone are those little squeaks,
Or shrieks. Disturbing, yes, but we will never forget
you. The airline shall pay the debt!
I was baptised. Does that make me a Christian?
No. You need the baptism of the heart, not the church ritual to be a Christian.
Arrested Development, anyone?
Which joker? :P
Ohh, that one! He is an authentic intellectual actually - one of the best Catholic philosophers of modern times ;)
Setting a low bar there.
True gerbil story.
No true Scotsman bullshit.
That's skiing hamster.
I thought about that too actually!
Having met Jean-Luc Marion, I can attest that yes, he is just as arrogant and rude as he appears to be.
Without wanting to say that Marion is great or anything, he is an intellectual giant in the Francophone world. You may hate him (I do), but you only flaunt your lack of philosophical education, here.
Not the issue, here. Jean-Luc Marion is a douche, yes, he's also one of the biggest philosopher of the last 20 years in France. "The next big name of phenomenology", according to McGill's University phenomenology specialist...
Then what is the issue? It seems to me that the issue is that you've got the wrong end of the stick, have misinterpreted something I've said, and we're now talking past each other. I haven't denied his reputation. If the next big thing happens to be this shmuck, then so be it. All the more reason to stray from the flock. My point was that it's striking that a joker like this has the air of an intellectual, and is apparently regarded as such, despite saying such stupid things.
Quoting Akanthinos
Right, and that's what I find astonishing. (And I think I'd react in the same way).
My son had two birds: Chickenhawk and no name. No name was descriptive, in that he had no name. His name wasn't No Name, but he had no name. To be clear, he wasn't like dead purple diminutive Prince, who was briefly an unpronouncable symbol, but he had no name.
So no name was fucking around, salting his beak (not a euphamism for coitus, but truly beak salting), and tweeting (not on twitter, but actually tweeting).
My son then turned on the ceiling fan (cue dramatic music).
Think Icarus, but instead of melting, multiple thwackings. He was fine but for the perpendicular jutting wing. Prolonged recovery followed by Chickenhawk's relentless head pecking (not a euphamism), led to purple rain on the side of the cage.
And his throbbing member grew cold in her dying clasp as she recited the lyrics of Dancing Queen. Sorry, misplaced sentence. Please ignore.
No name was about to be no life to be sure, so it went to the vet for euthanasia. The cost was too high, so the sociopath in charge of its merciful death poisoned it slowly with the fumes of floor cleaner. And so it passed, not with a whimper, but with the cries of a porn star at the moment of satiation.
And then I threw Michael's brother from his bunk to mine, injuring my sister's active wrist.
This story of mine. Good. So Good. It comes with its own review even. I have a way with words like someone who talks good.
Peter Singer is the man.
There is something rather feminine about the name Rene. Rather homosezuale <-- with an Italian accent
Quoting Akanthinos
Well, he is right.
A video which clearly defines it's own opinion. Nonsense.
It was funny :P - what is nonsense?
Funny how? Nonsense in that it confirmed it's own bias.
Because the blonde girl responded in a totally unexpected way.
Quoting Noble Dust
What do you mean?
Blaire White?
Quoting Agustino
If I have to explain this to you, that's not a good thing. The video is made for people who agree with it; a 20 second hit piece with a split second hip hop track at the end. If you don't understand the vibe of the video...I don't know what else to tell you.
Now I want to know who you think the top 5 PF atheists are. And the top 5 posters overall.
Why does "what they are" even matter?
An imposter. I'm pretty sure the real René Descartes wouldn't waste his time on here.
Hey, you never know. I see him as a TPF kinda fellow before the inheritance.
Top 5 posters.
1. Agustino.
2. Agustino.
3. Agustino.
4. Agustino.
5. Agustino.
Capisci? >:)
Quoting Michael
Top 5 PF Atheists
1. andrewk
2. StreetlightX
3. Maw
4. apokrisis
5. jorndoe
I'd say the same about andrewk
Why do you think so? As far as I remember, he's quite consistent in his anti-theist positions, no?
Anyway, my favorite poster here is Mariner, too bad he doesn't post often anymore.
This?
But maybe we can ask the man himself. @andrewk: do you consider yourself an atheist?
Donc pourquoi tu croix que le français de Michael est mieux que le tien?
That's not surprising.
Well, the mouth has to praise me, that's why I give it food no? >:O
C'est incroyable :P
Pourquoi pas Sacré Cœur? >:O
3-1 or so probably.
Let's find out: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2911/tpf-survey/p1
Pf has a vacancy for a Philosophical Zombie to assist with thought experiments. No experience necessary.
Here.
It can give you the first 5 pages.
This made me laugh. Congratulations! Now for sleepy-time. :-d
Mayor Of Simpleton
180 Proof
Postmodern Beatnik
Apathy Kills
Paul
Quoting Michael
This is much harder because the "Follow" feed that I had at PF had all my favorite posters that I could read daily but my top 5 posters overall in alphabetical order:
Banno
Benkei
Hanover
Michael
unenlightened
I don't follow.
I don't see that it could have been much better though.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/feb/14/school-shootings-in-america-2018-how-many-so-far?CMP=fb_gu
Thanks, but I don't deserve to be on that list. I hardly contribute philosophically anymore these days. ;)
@TimeLine's my mother?
Where did you find it? On Trump's desk?
Ba-dum-ch.
So? Neither does Aristotle or Socrates but they are still two dudes I would call my favorite Philosophers.
See that is the thing about My favorite ___________, is that I don't need permission for them to be considered mine. ;)
Freaky huh? 8-)
What color is your belt?
Personally? I like the monochromatic theme unless you are wearing a blue shirt then it might pass the muster but why not brown socks? Are you still dressing in the dark?
The belt is brown, but the sock thing has always been an issue with me. I purchase all the same blue socks, so that when one goes missing, the other need not become an orphan. Having been raised an orphan, and having actually lived in 37 homes before the age of 4 months, three of which were arguably with Michael's father, I don't like anything to do with orphans. I like brown pants because they remind me of Baden's baked bean teeth that dance all jiggly in his gums. My underwear is a luxurious magenta silk that caresses me each time Timeline and I do our Rockette high kick routine.
I did actually eat baked beans today. That's not your real leg.
Proof. As if proof were needed.
Appeal to emotion denied.
Purchase some nice brown socks (the kind that do not get knobby) and rest easy that you can still put all the socks in one load but will need to separate them out into pairs once they are clean.
Gramps solved the orphan issue by using a safety pin to pin his socks together before washing them.
'René' might not be the most virile masculine french name, still, no francophone would say that it is "homosexual-sounding", unlike, let's say, 'Guy'. And 'René' is kinda noble, it means "Reborn".
Quoting Agustino
It's kinda funny you say this. You realize Marion is, in his own way, stuck deeper in POMO and French Theory than just anyone who isn't a POMO author or a French Theorist, right? This is a student of Derrida, someone who inscribes his research in the continuity of Husserl's and Heidegger's. This is your hero?
Or perhaps just fell on his name, figured he was a Catholic and just assumed he was an aristotelico-thomist?
That would be puissiez. The tense is subjonctif présent.
Careful, now. If that were true, I may just swab you with a bit of plutonium and watch you waste away slowly and in agony.
And stop google translating!
I agree, Guy is a very feminine name. I am going to call my next girl cat Dennis.
Not sure if it is possible being your mum but hey, I'm all for a time travel story.
Also staying in shape can take effort.
Probably why my modeling career is in the doldrums. :(
I agree it's hard work to be good at it but the "luck" factor is the deciding factor for most success. In this case, lucky genes!
Ummm... please put the weed down? (Y)
Quoting TimeLine
I did not, moi, je suis francophone.
Hmmm did you do some forgery? I tried searching for that photo online, and the only place I've found it was uploaded here.
Yeah...
What yeah?
Yeah... I forged it.
Kind of a utilitarian thing. It's complicated. :-x
"Noble Dust exhibited classic Shoutboxian tendencies during his 3rd period."
Oh, it's just life as usual, dear. It's the Shoutboxian way. Human nature won't change.
Or it's a place where emotionally baggaged people can take a break from pretending to be hyper-intellectuals.
Well, that's me, though. I'm probably in the minority.
It's not that hard.
farewell rene
Probably thinking of Renée Zellweger.
This reminded me of the testimonial you gave at the old PF for the role it played in turning your life around -- away from a shallow existence revolving around playing sports and chasing after beautiful women and towards the philosophical stud that you are today.
Wouldn't mind seeing that one again with the before and after pics. I could use the inspiration.
X-)
I'm an open book. Feel free. (Y)
Hahaha thank you! One of the most memorable posts in my 15+ years over there.
Thank God big decisions aren't made by a national referendum...
... Oh, wait.
Yep. I don't know about Derrida, but Heidegger for sure. Please note that Heidegger is not exactly POMO. I've read part of his God Without Being, an interesting read.
Quoting Akanthinos
Yeah, perhaps I was a retard :-} ... some people.
Now, to set you straight:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/51700#Post_51700
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/20389#Post_20389
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/137477#Post_137477
Marion is mentioned by me in all these older posts. In fact, I may even have posted that video before on PF.
Why?
Well, that is true. Trump is smart, whether you like it or not. You cannot achieve what Trump achieved in his life by chance. Some people scoff, and they say failed businessman, etc. etc. Nonsense! If he was a failed businessman he'd be a poor man today.
Yeah, but if you're a failed businessman, you will lose it.
I don't understand, what do you mean?
Well right, so he took the money and invested it in building a business. So if he was a failed businessman, he would have lost that money, clearly.
While thinking about this, it struck me that Xander would love "The Whole Earth Catalog." Has anyone other than Bitter Crank heard of it. The first one came out in the late 1960s and the last one was published in 1994. The catalog's motto was "Access to tools" and that's what it was about, as long as you took a very broad definition of what tool is. Everything from farming, building houses, medicine, the philosophy and politics of self-reliance, community building. It was a wonderful, exciting publication. I bought used copies for my children on EBAY and Amazon. It's probably coincidence, but two of my three children manage farms now. It isn't published any more, but it is available as a PDF on line for $5 each. I sent one to Xander. Here's a link:
http://www.wholeearth.com/index.php
There are things in the world that are pure, unalloyed good. This is one of them.
I don't see how having access to capital improves your chances of success. If you don't know how to manage capital, and you have access to a lot of it, you'll squander it and fail. Things don't work out simply by throwing money at them - perhaps this isn't something we often hear in today's world, but it's true. If you don't know what you're doing, all the money in the world can't save you. And the more money you have, the bigger the temptation to take dumb actions is because you think you have sufficient, regardless of what happens.
There is one regard in which I think having some more substantial savings or access to larger piles of capital helps. It helps with one's confidence - you know that if this doesn't work, you won't starve, so you are faced with less fear. But that depends - because there is also the opposite possibility, that access to capital will make you overconfident, and you won't take the dangers in front of you seriously.
So no, overall, I doubt that access to capital alone improved his chances of success.
Quoting TimeLine
Quoting TimeLine
Do not be worried, TimeLine is the biggest pot smoker in the whole of Kazakhstan, everyone heard about her! :P
But that implies that the person who has access to capital knows how to use it right? For sure, someone who knows how to use capital is aided by greater access to capital, I never attempted to deny that. I'm just saying that the person who doesn't know how to use capital will not be helped by access to capital.
Your sense of humour is as sophisticated as a plastic fork.
Great success! (Y)
@Sapientia, the next video that will contribute to your further conservative indoctrination has arrived!
Not really - people usually try to screw you and get paid without doing good work - and that seems to be true especially if they know you can afford to pay them. It takes skill to motivate them to do good work, and get a good price for it. Otherwise you will pay x2-3 times as much as you need to pay and get crap quality work done too.
0 times. Trump has never been personally bankrupt. Some of his LLCs did file for bankruptcy, though that's often normal practice for some entrepreneurs, and not necessarily the sign of failure (don't know how it is in the case of Trump). Though regardless of how good you are, some businesses will always fail.
Nonsense. You didn't read it properly.
Take rule 6 for example: 6 Set your house in order before you criticise the world
Many people are depressed and nihilistic about the world and they blame this and that, without first setting their own house in order, and trying to be the best person they can be. This is extremely helpful, to remind you that before you criticise others and blame others, you must first try your best. Great to motivate you.
Rule 4 Compare yourself with who you were yesterday, not with who someone else is today
Another great rule. Don't compare yourself with others, because then you will become depressed and lose your motivation. Compare yourself with your past self.
Also rule 8 - tell the truth or at least don't lie
Super important. Peterson explains clearly just how dangerous to yourself lying is - that when you lie, you pathologise your structures of perception and no longer perceive the world as it is, clearly. Therefore, you're not longer able to guide yourself towards your goals.
Personally, I can say that Peterson helped me in my business as well as generally in life. I certainly learned stuff from listening to him.
Not yet. I was finishing some last bits of work (because I'm a workaholic), will do soon. (but probably reply tomorrow, cause it's late and I'm tired now).
Quoting Maw
It's not original advice, but the way he expresses it and explains it is original. Usually people say "don't lie because it's not nice". Peterson doesn't say that - for him, it doesn't matter whether it's nice or not, he explains how it is harmful to the one who lies. Many times, we are tempted to lie because we think we can get ahead by lying, but Peterson explains how this isn't actually the case, and how lying actually causes us to fall behind, and never reach our full potentials. He explains clearly how lying negatively twists your structures of perception.
This is so good, this warrants reposting in clearer format. Peterson is not just an objectionable intellectual, he is a poor intellectual. He makes ridiculous and easily disprovable claims about the evolution of our neurological systems. Lobsters and humans last common ancestor was not 350 million years ago ; it was 700 million years ago. Our neurological systems are not similar because they 'run' on serotonin, serotonin is found in 99.9% animal and we have various uses for it. The list just goes on and on and on...
This is silly. Part of building a successful business is often having the ability to raise capital.
Quoting Hanover
'Silly' is totally inadequate. It's a contrarian's denial of reality exposed. If you don't have access to capital, you can't do jack shit, except shovel it sufficiently to accumulate some. The self made man's biography begins, I became pregnant with myself, and having given birth, suckled and educated myself, until...
[i]Jennifer Chu
MIT News Office
Feb 2018[/i]
Observation of three-photon bound states in a quantum nonlinear medium
[i]Qi-Yu Liang, Aditya V Venkatramani, Sergio H Cantu, Travis L Nicholson, Michael J Gullans, Alexey V Gorshkov, Jeff D Thompson, Cheng Chin, Mikhail D Lukin, Vladan Vuletic
Nov 2017[/i]
Maybe light-sabers aren't pure fiction after all.
I thought it was quite good and not a "rambly mess". They both seemed to be having a pretty good time of it, anyway.
It's not silly, but it is different than the way you propose. It's known as bootstrapping in business circles. It is no wonder that my business philosophy matches my personality, how else could it be? I might as well add that in Eastern Europe many businesses are bootstrapped - it's not as common to encounter raising capital, and the whole VC type of activity you find in the UK/US (though private investors sometimes do exist).
Quoting Hanover
I actually disagree with this. I think one should never, pretty much, raise capital (there are exceptions - if you start the likes of SpaceX, then you probably will need to raise capital). My ideal is as follows: your first business is something pragmatic - whatever works to make your initial capital, the fastest way possible, with as small an initial investment as possible (preferably, only sweat equity). So it doesn't matter if it's "not a great idea", "not world-changing", etc. - the only criteria at this point is profit margin.
So if you're just starting out and you have little capital, basically, don't start a real estate investment business, the next breakthrough car manufacturer, etc. These are not opportunities for you. You are not at that level yet. Start with the low-hanging fruits and gradually progress.
Elon Musk started with online city guides, Richard Branson with student magazines, etc.
Quoting unenlightened
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrepreneurship#Bootstrapping
I listened to the videos. Obviously, I have no doubt that PZM knows his evolutionary biology better than Peterson and so he is correct about the age (700 million years ago), etc. But he (and seemingly you) do misunderstand Peterson's point. Peterson's point isn't about how the world actually is, but rather how one should act in the world. In fact, he makes this distinction in his first book - the difference between the world as a set of things, and the world as a forum for action. His work is focused on the world as a forum for action. And in those regards he is correct.
The lobsters are irrelevant in the end, just one example aimed to make understanding the idea that hierarchies aren't simply man-made, but also exist in nature. He's not saying that lobster hierarchy is like human hierarchy.
PZM also strawmans like there's no tomorrow - for example:
(1) is an empty assertion, with no proof to back it up. Peterson actually agrees that hierarchies are also sociological constructs, but they also have a biological component.
(2) Peterson never said all hierarchies are identical. Never.
PZM also doesn't understand that according to Peterson, dominance hierarchies are based on COMPETENCE, not power.
I actually like his style. He is one of my favorite contemporary authors. He and Peter Thiel have definitely shaped my outlook on business. I have pre-ordered Skin in the Game.
Here's Taleb also praising Trump's intelligence.
A beautiful analogy (from a stylistic perspective), but unfortunately that tells us nothing about its truth. Again, do you believe a dumb person can become President of the United States? Do you believe a dumb person can build a real estate empire?
That is why Trump has beaten everyone who fought against him. They all think he is dumb. Therefore they lose.
Bootstrapping describes a method of raising capital without exchanging equity, but it doesn't describe a way of business creation without capital. Quoting Agustino
Well it does all depend on the business, and every capital raising idea need not result in the long term loss of control of the business, or whatever it is you're trying to avoid. Some investors could potentially add expertise and not just capital, so an exchange of equity might make sense. It just really depends on the business. And our terms here are fairly vague, so I'm not sure why securing unsecured credit (like a credit card) shouldn't be considered to be raising capital.
If you want to call it that sure, though I don't see "earning money" through selling a product/service to be equivalent to raising capital. I mean, if earning money is equivalent to raising capital, then pretty much everything you do in a business is raising capital, but I think that is blurring distinctions and extending the concept too much.
Also, all the forms of "creative-financing" - I don't personally consider those as raising capital. Ex. if I'm starting a real estate development project, and I plan to "raise capital" (finance it) as I build by selling apartments off-plan, I wouldn't consider that to be the same as raising capital, which I associate more with going to investors or banks directly, presenting them with a project, and getting (at least part of) the money required prior to commencing construction. I would include seller-financing and all other similar options in this category too.
My point is that you can start a business with little capital - meaning stuff you can easily amass yourself, such as $500-10,000. The further point is that this is preferable (in my opinion) to chasing opportunities that are out of your league given your immediate financial resources. Though again, there are many who will disagree with me on this. In the end, it's largely a matter of taste.
Quoting Hanover
Sure, I don't disagree with that.
[i]Bryan Walsh
MIT Technology Review
Feb 2018[/i]
:o
Quoting Agustino
Quoting Agustino
Um, ok Agustino, whatever you say. Peterson goes on a short rant on Lobster-Human parallels, and states more or less in the interview that the hierarchy in lobsters is similar to that of humans, without explicitly saying something so ludicrously stupid. He even says in the video, "it is part of my attempt to demonstrate that the idea of hierarchy has absolutely nothing to do with socio-cultural construction, which it doesn't."
Looks interesting I'll check it out (Y)
It's not whatever I say, it's just the facts of the matter. He did not make several of the statements PZM claims he did.
Quoting Maw
Sure - it is not socio-culturally constructed since it also has a biological component.
He is asked to clarify his statements about lobsters, and he says:
"I am saying it is inevitable there will be continuity in the way animals and human beings organise their societies"
Which is true. If PZ Myers think that's false, well, then he's wrong. Anthropology - ie even people like René Girard - demonstrate that there is continuity between animal societies and human societies.
Strawman.
Quoting Maw
Quoting Maw
No. It is biologically constructed (this is its origin), but obviously sociological factors also have a role in how it plays out in its concrete details.
Quoting Maw
Well, it's a very general idea, we have to be careful how we flesh out the details. Continuity exists in terms of how status is distributed in these societies, how cooperative behaviour takes place, etc. And continuity doesn't mean identity - there are similarities, not identities between the two. There are things in human society and human culture that animals don't have too - for example religion.
Quoting Maw
Not true. There was a time when I was very much against Peterson, until I understood him better. This illustrates my progression, backwards.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/147827#Post_147827
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/80580#Post_80580
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/104773#Post_104773
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/118644#Post_118644
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/142773#Post_142773
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/119147#Post_119147
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/142701#Post_142701
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/118055#Post_118055
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/119222#Post_119222
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/142701#Post_142701
This is just perfection. Pure, unadulterated perfection :D
Probably more like baking long enough to where you don't have to measure anything, although I guess that's more of a cooking thing. But having perfect pitch wouldn't be too unlike baking by memory (I don't have perfect pitch).
It just means someone can say "sing an A" and you can do it.
It's an A to the human ear.
I don't think it would be impossible to sing it perfectly, it would probably just be an accident, and no one would know it happened. Synthesizers can generate pure tones; it's physically possible; pitch correction software makes Katy Perry sing perfect A's as well.
Yes, agreed, although I think Max Martin is something of a genius.
I'm a genius.
I wrote a semi-autobiographical magical realism high fiction sci-fi novel about my real life drug and paranoia induced mystical experiences, the real-life consequences of which also have some corroboration from other people given some of the events.
Practice, I guess. I have been told I have relative pitch; so I am really good at identifying pitch and melody correctly just as much as I am able to tell something is wrong with my voice without music, but being able to re-create it is a different story.
When an fiction writer blurs the lines between the events of their real life, and a fictional story, within a novel.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=philip+k+dick+valis
That's definitely learnable. I'm not totally sure though because I don't teach and I started learning music when I was six.
Is Your Name Rene Descartes?
I'm a complex man.
They're about the same I reckon.
For some reason this post, and a lot of stuff on the forum, reminds me of this:
No it doesn't.
How does that make any sense?! People will read old posts and get the wrong idea... I already had to change an emoji to prevent misunderstanding in a thread.
Actually, you almost caught me for a second there. I was going to argue with you about the arrogance of your statement.
This is easily applicable to Trump's continued fulmination about "No Collusion!"
There's a name for that - Roman a Clef.
:groan: :eyes:
Interesting. Is semi-autobiographical not an actual term then? Where'd I get that; did I make it up? Like most of the rest of what I say?
Careful what you watch man, seems like you're using the internet to look at the wrong stuff there :naughty:
:chin:
:rofl:
I might consider you as my best friend, but keep it to yourself please.
I had a bad dose of that shit a few years ago and it scared the shit out of me. :blush:
No no no no NO no No nO NOOOOOO! That is my favourite emoticon, please do not destroy it by using it over and over again. Or this one. :roll:
As in literally, like eating bad guacamole? Or several bars of Fibre One while in Hawaii and losing two kilos the next day?
I have a number of mousetraps set so I can stop that long-tailed chinchilla.
How does it get destroyed by use? :eyes:
Guilt by association.
Bless who?
Quoting René Descartes
I already have:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/620/agustino2
Bless me, dammit!
I tried to squish him once, but it didn't work.
Gazuntite!
Yah, I am protected by a shell called cuteness :fire: :strong: :grimace:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PlushForums/status/961966631793635328[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/PlushForums/status/959429833876033536[/tweet]
EDIT: Oh, I thought it said that anyone can view the poll results without voting.
Too many irrelevant emojis
Yo, can I be a mod? I need access to those results. Thnx. :pray: :100:
That one also doesn't work tho
:fear: :groan: :broken: :vomit:
This is a very common experience, and I don't think it's a sign of a serious lack of musical ability. In my experience, so long as you're able to sing the tune accurately with the music--and I think most people can do this--singing without it is a matter of practice, e.g., listening very closely, breaking it down and singing it step by step. I've had the frustrating experience of being unable to sing a tune when it's not playing, and it annoyed me so much that I practiced it intensely for a few minutes and finally managed it.
Ehmmm... I can't. Once, when I was an even tinier hamster, in school, we each had to sing a song in front of the class (with the song also playing in the background). And when I started singing, all the other hamsters went under their desks being like: :lol: :rofl: :rofl: :lol: :sweat:
What, you mean vespers?
Or do you mean the amount of people who passive-aggressively sing/rap along to their headphones in the subway/public places nowadays?
I won't tell a soul. :wink:
Upper respiratory which seems hard to get when it's nothing but sunshine.
Have you ever held a Chinchilla? Holding one of their kits (babies) are so light and their fur so soft you can hardly feel that you are holding or touching anything, simply amazing creatures. Unlike mice, Chinchillas are born ready to take on the world. They are born with their eyes open, their ears open, ready to run and be independent of Mom.
Oh and we used to breed Chinchillas for pets so may I kindly suggest you reconsider using mousetraps.
Thank you, I will kick it's butt.
How about you? Are you working on this Monday holiday?
She is still here.....any chance?
You can assume that most areas in Western Europe are safer than the US. Notable exceptions are French banlieus and Belgium's Molenbeek.
Also, not much gun ownership. So there's that. Less risk of getting shot in an argument!
Sorry, no. I waited and waited, but you failed to act in a timely manner.
Grrr to having to work holidays! I hope the day goes quick for you!
I will pass on those two cites to avoid.
Quoting Benkei
Although he is the best shot out of the three males here at the ranch, he is also the kid that refuses to kill a spider. Not only does he refuse to kill spiders but I have to catch the Crickets in the house and put them outside, only to go down to the Feed store to buy Crickets for the Gecko's he has as pets.
Round and Round, what comes around goes around....
Weeping....here I thought you were going to be the ONE who restores my faith in humanity...
New Atheism is a disease.
New Atheism lost its vitality years ago, after Hitchens died, Harris started spouting Islamophobic garbage, and Dawkin's defending pedophilia. Atheism, tout court, is still intellectually alive and well, contrary to what Willy Craig, whose own dwindling spotlight was built through interlocution with the New Atheists, suggests
No, Hitchens certainly demonstrated Islamophobia, but it didn't have as strong an impact into the decline of New Atheism, as Harris' Islamophobia did, or Hitchen's own untimely death, which was my point.
I love little furry things. Plush is the key to happiness.
My dog is not well, by the way. I adopted him when he was quite old, so I am pretty sad right now. :cry: I might need some Cinchilla gifs to keep me going.
Quoting Maw
No doubt that there are atheist intellectuals out there, but there aren't that many anymore. Most atheists in the public spotlight seem to have really weak arguments. Craig, who in my opinion is nowhere near close to being at the top amongst theists in terms of arguments, easily beats most of his opponents.
This is especially true when the atheists are scientists: like Lawrence Krauss for example, who is just a terrible joke philosophically. He really is an embarrassment.
That makes no sense. Most Christians are not white... especially amongst the new generations.
http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/christians/christian/racial-and-ethnic-composition/
Get informed!
I already know that :P
This is a very uncharitable reading of their positions. While Dawkins' comparison of pedophilia to religious indoctrination probably falls flat for most, it's not an endorsement of pedophilia.
Notice that this isn't a denial of the charge.
If you ever have the chance to own a small pet, get a Chinny, they have such character it is amazing. Scooby our first Chinny used to take anything shinny into his cage. My keys, my bracelets, beads, Christmas ornaments, anything shinny. They are quiet enough to have taken been taken into a 5 Star resort here in Scottsdale after a house fire. :smirk:
Quoting TimeLine
My heart goes out to you but I thank you for adopting an older dog and giving him the love he deserved. :heart: My Mom always says that when the animal stops drinking water for 2 days, it means that they are choosing to go. People think that when we get dehydrated that it is painful and we are aware of it and that is just not true. When a living being begins the dehydration process to cease living, they enter into a euphoric state and are not really aware. For me? When I have to make the hardest choice in life in playing "God" I ask myself if I am keeping them alive for me or for them and the quality of life is a big factor.
Of the dogs that have aged naturally and I had to make the decision to let them go, I began the process at home. Benadryl is a natural relaxant or maybe you have something more like Tramadol prescribed for your baby but I give them the meds, double the dose and allow them to relax at home, in a place they know, with their fellow pack mates around and they slowly let the meds take affect. I wrap them up in a blanket and sit in the back with them as we go to the vet and all but one was as peaceful as could be and the vet said they were so dehydrated he had a hard time finding a vein. Place a shirt or something you have worn around his neck because the scent is the last sense for a dog to lose and know that you are giving him the grace to be free of pain and be whole again in the after life. :hearts:
{{{{{TimeLine}}}}}
If you could pm me your home or work address I have something I would like to send you~
No, I mean his comments about 'mild pedophile'.
Quoting Thorongil
I guess you never learned about sarcasm punctuation.
He certainly isn't defending pedophilia, though. He called his own abuse "reprehensible". Maybe people think the implication of what he is saying is that because it didn't do him great harm, mild pedophilia isn't very harmful. However, I don't think that's what he is saying.
Yes.
With fever, shakes, difficult breathing and fuck did my head hurt. :cry:
Sure, I guess that's why, when they moved the archives of the French Marine Museum from the 3rd to some buttfuck-nowhere Banlieue, they installed a barbed-wire fence around it. :halo:
I also hate sheep. Those should turn into human kebabs as well.
Quoting Benkei
The only way to eliminate human sheep is to exterminate them. I assume that's not what you're after? Of course, if the tables were turned and you were making jokes about wanting trans or black people to be turned into kebabs, you would be banned. :rofl: :vomit: :vomit: :vomit:
Gesundheit.
I just used google. It's the shoutbox. Besides, I'm trying to alert @Benkei to his hypocrisies. Shhhhh!
Quite obviously I wasn't serious. And if you had really been paying attention to my posts over time, you'd know I'm against almost all types of violence in almost every situation. I do believe the world would be much better without religion (e.g. the institutionalisation of belief) as there is no one path to personal enlightenment.
Also *shock horror* for finding contradictions in things you actually recognise as jokes. It's called irony. Look it up.
So if I'm against Islamism, or trans rights activists for instance, I'm free to joke that they should be turned into kebabs, right?
Having an orchiectomy really takes balls.
Meat or veggie?
Ovine, bovine or falafel all good. Poultry at a pinch.
That's the real deal!
I dislike:
Quoting Baden
Red meat - causes colon cancer :lol:
Quoting Baden
That one is good, except the one that contains hormones. But those kebab places usually sell halal meat, so it's somewhat purer.
Tagalongs are my favorite Girl Scout Cookies
Yes and no. In large quantities certainly. Up to 500 gr of red meat a week does not produce a significant correlation between red meat and colon/rectal cancer. Part of the bad effects can also be mitigated by eating enough fibers.
:clap:
Just eat whatever you want and get routine colonoscopies and they can remove the pre-cancerous polyps before they are harmful. You can then sauté the polyps in butter for a tasty meaty popcorn like treat.
That's because they're not real jokes.
How many trans women does it take to change a lightbulb?
Just one, but she has to live in the dark for two years to make sure she is ready and has to get letters from two electricians explaining that she knows the dangers of electricity and would benefit from light.
Not unusual.
I'm a 10.
He is having problems with his kidneys and despite him drinking excessively, it is not looking too good. When I went overseas for a while, he refused to eat and my friends got so worried that I had to pay hundreds for the vet bills when I got back, at which point he was playful and eating again because I was around. Their dogs also jumped on him, apparently, and that injured his hip and he could not properly use his back legs for a while. I think what your mum says is kind of true, and it is really clear that he is attached to me.
I have been making sure I feed him really consciously and checking every ingredient to see if I can reverse the failure, but really, it seems like a waiting game at this point because he is definately not himself.
:lol:
I hate it when she is right about stuff like this. I mean I appreciate her knowledge and want her to tell me what is going to happen but I still hate it when she is right. If that makes any sense?
I think her honesty is experience validated only through experience, which I guess is the nature of wisdom and in a way it is easing you into accepting reality in a much more heartfelt manner. It saves you from the shock of an uninformed experience but it still hurts. I wish I had that...
Still not gonna eat them :P
That's old science. Fiber doesn't lower the risk of colon cancer. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fiber-and-colon-cancer/
No chicken contains added hormones. http://www.businessinsider.com/no-hormones-chicken-poultry-usda-fda-2016-3
All beef has hormones (obviously), but the answer is far from clear that hormone fed beef has any negative health effects on people.
Hmmm, she happened to be old and expensive Hanover! I want cheap Hanover cause I'm greedy...
Hmmmm, I'm not in the US, but I read the same thing is true of the EU. I must have taken my information from my crackpot alternative medicine family doctor :rofl:
The thing with red meat is that the science is not very clear. Maybe moderate consumption of red meat isn't harmful, or maybe it is. I've read studies leaning both ways, so I will lean on the safe side, and not consume it at all.
Why do conservatives think meat is happy and oatmeal isn't?
Hmm, so what do you think if someone "lures" a young woman to have sex with them in exchange for getting them started on, say, a modelling career or whatever? Legally, it's clearly the man's fault, but morally the woman is also to blame if she accepts to have sex for promotion, no?
What law does it break?
Pressuring someone to have sex at work. I don't know what laws it breaks, but I imagine there must be some laws about that in some countries. I'm not a Hanover. You shouldn't ask such questions of me.
Your example was offering someone a job (e.g. as a model) in exchange for sex, so it's not a case of pressuring someone at work.
The Obamas have joined the world's royalty!
Because we never learned to enjoy our gruel on the gulag.
Oatmeal is happier than meat because it can be made into cookies!
Just the flesh of your friends in the concentration camp.
What are you talking about? Don't you still have grits on the menu?
OMG!!! :rofl:
Not even close to a bone.
Pun intended?
And extended.
If only that could be said of Malia's new beau. :sad:
:rofl: :vomit:
:rofl: I wonder who did that haircut on him... Hopefully he did not pay like £1,000 for that :lol:
Meat is not happiness.
Is all this volcanic and seismic activity because the earth spins faster/ slower in 6 year cycles, and it's spinning faster at the moment?
That little miss is both awesome and incredibly resolute for such a young gal.
She will make a great propagandist later on.
So I guess that means you'd like to get cooked, lil' hamster?
Come to think of it, I've eaten a lot of things, from insects to cat to sharks, but never a hamster. :grimace:
Hamster enchilada? :snicker:
https://youtu.be/lh93pguL00A
Don't judge!
I'm a vegetarian and a conservative. It's interesting to me that the liberal, Baden, appears to be an unapologetic carnivore.
It's almost as if stereotypes aren't real.
I wouldn't even call myself a liberal not to mention the liberal. But, yes, I don't apologize for things I habitually and voluntarily do.
Shh. Someone might suffer a truthiness overload. :fire:
Then maybe you aren't a liberal.
God I hate that word "truthiness", but sure. I'm just here to mediate and play devils advocate, mostly, within politics.
:100:
I don't think it's a word. I think Russell Brand made it up. :monkey:
(Sorry, Steven Colbert.)
It just sounds like "juiciness". The association makes truth gross. Btw, I'm glad to see :100: making it's fresh-cut rounds.
:sparkle:
I'm not interested in bashing anyone, I'm just interested in the "rules" that designate who can and can't be bashed. My intuition is that it's all bullshit.
That's what's cool about language, I guess. We say it in a way that isn't said by others; and vise versa. What does that say about "meaning" in general?
Actually, I'm not sure you'd want to talk to her. She's the type of Hanover who keeps talking on and on and on and discusses irrelevant issues dragging what was supposed to be a short meeting for ages :confused:
Steven Colbert - one of my favorites!
Who is clever in his line then?
That is exactly why he is funny - I don't usually agree with him, but he's hilarious!
Colbert lost a lot of magic coming out of the Colbert Report, but I'd argue it is almost entirely because he is now much less pretentious and arrogant than before.
Yeah, well, I'm not very conversant in semiotics or hermaneutics or whatever the hell it is. Please feel free to spell things any way you want.
I don't have to answer you.
Preemptive response: If Mr. and Mrs. Child came over to my house, would I say the Childs are coming over or that the Children were coming over?
Progressives betray their inconsistencies if you compare their criticisms towards Christianity and Islam. 'Hitchens and Harris are islamophobic! Whereas most Muslims in the world supporting Shariah Law is just a different culture that can not be morally judged' How Leftists hop around this, is a mental gymnastic often bemused with mockery, see Bill Maher.
It's easy to laugh when your entire worldview is a caricature.
Sharia law is a system of that's been around for more than a thousand years. It covers all aspects of civil and criminal law and is based on Islam. I certainly wouldn't want to live under it's authority, but it's not my place to tell others how to run their countries. The news makes a big deal about all the aspects of Sharia that we westerners would consider barbaric, but that makes up very little of how life is actually lived in countries where it applies. To me, the most important thing is that Sharia provides the rule of law. It's a formal, organized, documented system which is administrated more or less fairly. The same can be said of the systems of law in the US and other western or Christian countries.
I wouldn't say Hitchens and Harris are Islamophobic, I'd say they're either 1) smug, self-important, and pompous, or 2) dead.
And I don't have to tell you that you don't have to tell me that you don't have to answer me. Just don't answer like I didn't.
Sharia is essentially theocracy, though.
:rofl: :rofl:
Theocracy isn't my idea of the best type of government. I'm a firm believer in separation of church and state. That being said, just saying something is a theocracy doesn't mean it can't be a legitimate form of government.
A redundancy, by the way. Shariah just means law, so you're saying "law law."
I'll check on that after I get some money out of the ATM machine. I hope I can remember my PIN number. I have it written here somewhere in a document in PDF format.
No - though you may have left your browser window zoomed. What browser do you use?
How about third-wave feminazism? :naughty:
No. Maybe your eyes got smaller. :eyes:
Watch, Pandora's Promise:
I can win this debate in three words:
Agu. Grow up.
TimeLine. Only when you give up being a feminazi. :blush: :naughty:
Only if you change your name to Ferret Face.
Then why do you want me to change my name to Mr. Ferret Face? :rofl:
There was more will than you think. I still have something else in mind for you... overcoming this need to think the exact opposite as everyone else just to annoy them.
I have a message for you:
[hide="Message"]
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43183737
I'm sure this serves as a counterexample in one of our discussions somewhere. We just need more like him: business people who show signs of having a social conscience and a willingness to act upon it.
Nonsense. The purpose of regulating commerce is to reduce fraud, not to prevent people from getting rich. Remember, the United States IS a capitalist country. The American Telephone and Telegraph Company (the Bell System existed up until 1978) made people rich even though it was a highly regulated company.
Granted, in unregulated environments more money can be made quicker, but it can also be lost faster.
So WB would have been rich himself, even if the financial markets & hedge funds were a lot more regulated at the time he first got into this business?
Also, that's a problem in the United States which would have been better dealt with under Hilary Clinton's proposals.
Clinton vs. Trump: Who's Better For Your Small Business? - Forbes.com
@Agustino, once again, the evidence suggests that you backed the wrong horse in this respect (and others).
Good, the Tories are the most corrupt party in the UK :lol:
"Surely the real scandal is the outright lies and disinformation that your fellow Tories are spreading". Spot on, Andrew Neil! :up:
"You leave that to your Tory colleagues". Great last word. :sweat:
:fire: Tories :fire:
Little things like that annoy me. Make it go away! :grimace:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/CasieBlockstein/status/967791481015668736[/tweet]
The issue is that the Conservatives control the government and the voting infrastructure, so they will skew things in their favour. That's why Labour and Lib Dems don't usually have much of a chance nowadays.
Quoting Sapientia
Was it the set of orders received from the Communist party? :brow:
You must not have been keeping up with the news as of late. The two main parties are either neck-and-neck in the polls or Labour has a slight lead. May's level of popularity has plummeted from preelection levels like a lead balloon, whilst Corbyn's has skyrocketed. May lost her majority and is widely acknowledged to be in an incredibly weak position by just about everyone, at least behind closed doors, and the Tories are stuck with her, given that there's no plausible alternative, and in any case, they're too scared to risk challenging her because doing so might trigger another general election which they are not confident of winning. Jeremy Corbyn, on the other hand, has made history by securing Labour’s highest increase in the vote since 1945, and exceeded the levels won by Tony Blair when Labour last won a majority at a general election. He has exceeded all expectations, quashed the rebellion within the parliamentary party, and, under his leadership, Labour has become a government in waiting.
And to compare Labour's position to that of the Lib Dems is laughable. :sweat:
Ugh. Seems like an alright bloke, but as for his [i]views[/I]... :down:
In other news...
I order a takeaway. Delivery driver turns up outside the double-doors to my apartment building. Bangs on the doors. Says they're locked.
He just has to push the door on his left.
And it's not the first time that this has happened.
People are stupid. I will have to start putting a delivery instruction about it in the comment box.
Are you feeling sad? Grab a Snickers, they always make me happier.
That's just your brain releasing chemicals as a result of the sugar.
Yeah I know, but it still feels good.
I have some beer glasses, the message on them is so true.
Beer does not solve your problems,
but neither does milk.
Chocolate and beer both take the edge off sadness for a while. Treat the symptoms, worry about the cause tomorrow.
Yeah, but your cynicism is also just your brain releasing chemicals (probably as a result of a lack of sugar)... :snicker:
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/vatican-training-more-exorcists-reports-121355608.html
OK so no trusts yahoo either, here is where it came from.
http://www.newsweek.com/vatican-training-more-exorcists-reports-demonic-possession-soaring-819139?
Be happy brothers for we are saved. And sisters too. I do not want to be branded a sexist.
One had a guy running around a soccer field dressed like a Shakespeare character.
"You get so dramatic when you are hungry, have a Snickers"
Yup. Canada ain't that isolated :razz:
Been there and done that. Nice place. I have a couple of kids somewhere around there.
But no, actually in a good mood today. :joke:
Quoting Mayor of Simpleton
I removed some. I don't have high hopes for the discussion. It's a highly contentious topic at the best of times and it hasn't got off to a very good start.
I thought the same thing. Are we crazy?
:brow:
Three witnesses corroborating!
Wanna play chess?
Sure, but it must be a quick game since I'm at work.
https://lichess.org/ozinDK4y
What would happen if, as someone who knows nothing about chess, I joined a game with you? And just randomly made moves?
First move made :sweat:
https://www.elitedaily.com/news/politics/trumps-new-press-guy-said-white-house-chief-staff-cock-blocked/2030650
:lol:
I think my first chess game ever went swimmingly; sure I didn't do anything at all, but it was enlightening. I look forward to our next match, once I actually know the first thing about chess. I like learning with zero understanding; it seems more philosophical. :rofl:
It is very realistic too - life often is a "sink or swim" situation.
Told you so.
Did someone say chocolate?
Yeah, I think it was whathisname, you that dog that no one wants. :wink:
So, I think I read recently that Trump once claimed to have saved someone's life. I just googled "did trump save someone's life" to confirm, and the 6th article on the first page is "Your poop could save someone's life".
Retract that quickly, before someone calls you a sexist. :worry:
I can do that with a fart.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/BrookesTimes/status/962306677944016896?s=20[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/BrookesTimes/status/957240219723583488?s=20[/tweet]
I have a 12yo terrier and she is starting to show signs of slowing down. It will break the missus's heart when she goes.
Awwwwww... : ( I'm sorry for your loss!! What breed were they? : (
I am so sorry to hear about the loss of your furry family member. For your son, what a hard way to find a loved one that has likely been with him his whole life. The loss of a best friend is just not what anyone expects when it happens. I wish for you comfort, a little time, before another little pink tongue licks your ear and will come home with you to start another chapter of love in your life~
I hear mariachi static on my radio
And the tubes, they glow in the dark
And I'm there with you and it's a not-a
And I'm here in echo park....
No, this is not your theme song Beneki. :lol:
:rofl: noooo! Hanover
I will be disappointed if no one in this forum gets it!
Especially you @Benkei! Think back to a holiday you took out of the Netherlands.
It will definitely be a 'tilt of the hand' to see who knows good music and good food!
Comeeeeee on........
@Sir2u might you have heard it?
It was a latino name.
Tough one, in'it :brow:
Chess?
Chose hoes.
So bro tho. Gross blo flows? Yo?
Woah.
No. Tho bros do go, tho. 'tro.
I get medieval on your ass with blow-torch and plyers;
cut your throat with mono-filament wires;
liquefy your insides like the Ebola virus;
and scatter the parts like Seth did Osiris.
It hasn't necessarily frozen to death. It might be out snowboarding.
Whenever I meet someone important for a discussion or something, my hands always go sweaty. Or even when I'm on a phone call with an important customer, lawyer, accountant, etc.. I have a very sensitive anxiety response on a biological level, so I can get easily anxious. Mentally, over time, I've learned to control it very well, so nowadays it basically has no effect on my actions. I don't shy away from talking on the phone, meeting, shaking hands, etc. and I appear quite assertive in my interactions. So apart from sweaty hands, people would have no way of knowing I feel anxious :rofl: .
Anyway, I'm not so much interested in controlling whether I feel anxiety or not around such events - I'm interested in how I can control physical symptoms, like hyperhidrosis (excessive sweating) on the hands. Anyone have this problem, or know of a strategy to deal with it? (apart from just wiping your hands on your clothes before shaking hands, etc. :rofl: , which I already do).
(I would add that I only seem to have this problem in professional settings, I've never experienced this when holding hands with my ex-girlfriend in the past, etc. I tend to experience no anxiety around friends and the like)
Hmmm... it's not very good for the testie satchel to stay humid :lol:
I know it's easier said than done but try not to worry....
Please don't take Hanover's advice for sweaty hands. I would much rather shake a sweaty hand than a fish. You have to watch out taking Hanover's advice. I once took his advice on how to keep my Mother In Law at bay and look where she is at............>>>>>>>>>>>>>> living in a van down by the river
@Baden => Was about to make a joke but stopped out of consideration for @Michael's feelings.
@Sapientia => Goes all in.
Of such diverse personalities is our wonderful community composed. Let us rejoice.
Hope the cat is OK @Michael. :pray:
Never heard of 'em.
Quoting Agustino
Mine's the same in summer. It's just it was so cold and snowy and icy last night. Can't be good for him.
The funny thing about this website is that when you edit your post to remove it, it still remains saved when you check "mentions," which means I was able to read your post referencing rodents and vaginas, but out of respect, I will of course not bring up that which you kindly self-censored.
Indeed. And your post about cream buns, chocolate sauce, and that nice man you met at a disco.
I am given to understand that a handful of corn flour is good for that.
'Cos @ArguingWAristotleTiff doesn't like it when I say bad words. :halo:
Quoting Sir2u
Quoting Sir2u
:smirk:
Congratulations to you sir for obtaining the "Spelling Police Nazi of the Day Award".
I am honored that you spend so much time reading my posts just to find a mistake. How long did it take you to find this mistake? Do you really have nothing better to do than this kind of childishness? To take the time to make this post must mean that little else of value to do in your life. I cannot imagine that I am so important that I deserve such special treatment.
Maybe I should point out the others you missed to make your poor lonely life easier. Or would it be better if I just highlighted them for you in the future. (missing question mark here)
How come you do not point out so many other peoples mistakes in such a spectacular form? I understand that it is your job to check the posts of others to be sure that they are following the rules and maintaining the quality and standards of the forum. But it is kind of ridiculous of you to permit postings in threads where at least one person fails to use any form of capitalization or punctuation and several others have severe problems using English and not make any mention of these facts to them.
Now I am going to say this one more time so pay attention.
"Get the fuck out of my face"
If you, as an administrator, have anything to say to me do it through the proper channels. If not shut up.
Actually no, Sappy was fired. So it's not his job anymore.
Thanks. Best news I have had today. :up:
But it is only 7:30. Keeping my fingers crossed.
One of the effects of dyslexia, that I have battled with for a long time and have learned to overcome most of the time by rereading things several times over.
Really? Isn't it super-crowded, full of smoke, and nobody knows anyone else type of place?
NYC is a detestable sinkhole, but not really because it's super crowded or full of smog. Or at least, not mostly.