shirgall

Ever been to an Occupy rally?

One 18th Century thought that has merit is Freedom of Religion.

If you want Stef to chat with you, come up with an interesting question and call into the show.

We need to unite against our common enemy, the Judean People's Front!

No, in an of itself it is a reflection of modern media. What is critically important is the "coming of age" moment when the toy guns are put away and the required knowledge, skills, and attitude of safety and responsibility are taken on. Toy guns can be reintroduced once this coming of age moment is passed, but only if the maturity level is there. When this goes wrong is when a child is given a BB gun and no instruction and they just start shooting everything like they saw on TV. Women are taught by the media that all guns are bad, as it is a totem of oppression of some sort, instead of empowerment. This mother appears to have drunk the koolaid. I blame movies like A Christmas Story for demonstrating an incorrect method and then underscoring it with an immediate bad result. ObligatoryBackground: Used to teach Boy and Girl Scouts how to get their Rifle and Shotgun merit badges in a 75-150 participant camp.

Yeah, the definition of "respect" is a knotty one. That's why my approach would be first to find common cause in some other aspect of the posting before trying to deconstruct words like "respect" and even "equal treatment". The poster's immediate resort to "asshole" would have made me not even start a conversation unless it was a family member or close friend anyway... I appreciate you engaging with me, though. I think we are pretty much loudly agreeing anyway.

There is a (at least Western) cultural meme that "primal" means "rough". However, I think what underlies satisfaction is a mindfulness of cause, effect, and long-term results and empathy (and a little curiosity) on what is going on with one's partner's same process. In the heterosexual system, one does not exactly know what is going on with one's partner (and, frankly, it is not helped in that partners vary a great deal in what they like).

Because being lonely sucks.

When I was growing up, I cared only about a bully's ability to carry out threats, and the immediate reaction of the group around us. Whether or not I could deal with the bully, my actions were being judged by a large peer group. I cared about what that group thought of me, not the mouth-breathers than antagonized me.

In the computer industry an instruction that has no effect other than to take up space is called a "NOOP" meaning "No Operation". In the quoted phrase we call it a BSNA, a "Bullshit Non-Apology". It has no effect. Just get rid of NOOPs in your prose, it will make your writing clearer. I think your message of "Your first response was abrasive and made you appear to want to start a fight" cold have been simply stated, without the nuanced attempt of doing the same thing that OP did. For example, do you think OP would have had a better conversation if he had said, "All people are different from one another, so I would like to know more about the context in which you want some people to treat other people with no respect to those differences. For example, when you mentioned "wages" I assumed to meant employers should not take gender into account when hiring people at a certain wage, but can consider relevant factors such as experience and potential future value to the company..." ? Having been down the road of youtube comments, facebook threads, usenet flame wars and the like, the more anonymous and irrelevant the poster is, the less likely you will ever learn any useful context or gain any ground in changing people's minds if you engage them. However, when you really know someone, you can short-cut past a lot of "common definitions" exploration and go right to the heart of a matter. We have no context ourselves to figure out just how well OP and the others knew one another. Therefore, we can only make popcorn and kibitz. OP needs to tell us what worked and what didn't and we can shoot from the hip, which is what the Internet is all about.

Not a bad effort at all... https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=21&v=SX3C3GnvKVI Resilience Empathy Patience Sacrifice Politeness Humor Self-Awareness Forgiveness Hope Confidence https://www.theschooloflife.com/assets/Uploads/Ten-Virtues-For-The-Modern-Age.pdf

I'm no expert in this area, but is there not an orthogonal distinction between r/K and the other division of nomad/farmer? The upper bounds of children are different in each scenario. Isn't K better for nomads and r better for farmers? Still, having a mix of strategies in a group makes it better for that group to deal with large external pressures.

Any prose can be overanalyzed to produce wisdom where none had been intended (Nostradamus springs to mind). It can be enjoyable, but at some point you have to consider if the effort is worth it. We can recognize virtue, whatever the motivation, but we don't give accolades and applause to those who produce virtue without intending it.

What is in conflict is the methodologies: empiricism requires only accepting claims that have verifiable evidence without contradiction producing a testable framework. Faith requires accepting some claims that have no verifiable evidence and that discard contradictions on the basis of some extra-natural and untestable framework. In another thread I showed that accepting all faith claims without discrimination produces no framework at all, but that all justifications for faith frameworks require someone to construct a framework and insist that only it is correct. A lot of blood has been spilled on this last point. Pointless bloodshed at its root. There is no cohabitation with philosophy and religion under the same roof. There is only a tension of polite relations so long as there are forbidden topics of discussion. This is the tension of my marriage, and it's no cakewalk. It's not impossible. Take good the good, defer or ignore the bad. Wing the rest. Accept the fact that you are living a not-entirely-philosophical life and be done with it. I'm more of a pragmatist than a philosopher.

$15/hr workers cost employers more than that. For example, payroll taxes and social security are a significant percentage of a paycheck that's not reflected on the pay stub, but is nonetheless a cost for the employer. There's training, re-training, dealing with unexpected sickness, scheduling, making sure they don't get into overtime, and so on. Robots can work more than 28 hours a week and not draw Obamacare. Also, robots are a capital investment and not a wage expense. It's taxed differently that way as well. Also, robots don't exhibit high turnover, leaving for another job when they get tired of flipping burgers. Etc. etc. etc.

"Luminous Beings are we, not this crude matter." http://home.web.cern.ch/about/updates/2015/04/cern-researchers-confirm-existence-force

You pay for people to earn money for you in excess of their costs to you. In entry-level retail, with such high turnover, you don't bank on lifetime of progressively greater earnings, like you do in other professions. It has to be about the here and now, because they will leave if anything better comes along... and as soon as they have a few months of experience, their opportunities increase dramatically. Raising the minimum wage just makes it harder to get a start in earning and proving you can be valuable. Of course, the people that push minimum wage can wage far more power from coddling unvalued people than pressuring people that understand their value.

It's an important principle to celebrate victories, if not as a pick-me-up, at least as a book end to a slice of life. Take a bite. Savor it. Then swallow it down and move on.

Burden of compelling cause is on the "having a child" side, not the "holding off" one.

No matter what she says, can we not give this show any more attention, please?

My wife says that I have never gotten anything good out of therapy because I'm extremely good at reading people and then manipulating conversations away from I don't like. I need to explore this.

When in doubt, quote George Carlin, "The last thing I need is for my day to be ruined by a loose-lipped cashier."

When you get forced to do something, it's seldom for your own good. I think it should be more annoying to vote, and that the lifespan of things that get voted for should be based on the ratio of who voted for it against the full population, and I think that only the people that vote for taxes should be subject to them... but I'm a radical.

Genes don't express organs, they express proteins, transfer RNA, or small nuclear RNA. All Terran DNA is a giant laundry list of protein recipes. There are multiple systems of regulation that cause specific sequences to be copied and used to make proteins, or to combine them. The expressiveness of this system is obvious because the same system produces different types of cells (which house quite a few different types of structures) and the same system produces enough of certain types of cells to make tissues, and organs, and to continue growing them, and to stop growing them. Sure there's systems to fix damage, but there are no systems that make the DNA of any one organism fit some cosmic unchanging master blueprint. The system that has survived billions of years is one that accepts dramatic change and takes a lot shots at surviving offspring. It does not take tremendous changes to alter the regulation system to make startling changes. We generally hear about the problems but sometimes there are beneficial changes. Most of the time these are unnoticeable changes unless they get triggered by some event. You carry the recipe for a ton of proteins you will never express. Your last sentence makes it sound like it is a catastrophe if anything gets changed... but these things get changed all the time. When a new offspring is produced totally different sequences are recombined into the new creature. Some sequences are lost. Some are combined into new sequences. Some vast swathes are copied. There's a lot of stuff that has multiple copies of essentially the same recipe. The result has to be close enough to be viable (that is, generally within the same genus, and even then a lot of these pairings fail) and even closer to be fertile (that is, the same species, and we get combinations of humans that are not fertile from time to time). Contemplate freeing yourself from the "static, perfect" model of the DNA and embracing the chaotic, edge-of-the-envelope aspect of it all.