Wuzzums

I heard that argument several times, and yet the people that made it in other instances have expressed great moral outrage over some thing or another. This makes them hypocrites, and arguing with hypocrites is like learning dance choreography from one of those gas station airdancer things. If their philosophy of life is "might makes right" then they should feel no outrage at being sucker punched in the gut and have their wallet stolen. If you're stronger than them, simply point this out and have them agree with everything you say. They cannot make a counter argument because you're stronger, you see, and might makes right.

We all know why we do things. For instance you just gave me several reasons why you wanted to move: "It may be because I am sick of living in my home town so close to my family of origin. The place I want to move is fairly arbitrary too. It looks like an interesting city, and I have one friend there." This also answers your last question. You might feel unease at explaining yourself to others because, using your words, they might deem your reasons not "good enough". I often find that whenever I try to explain myself it's not that I don't know why I'm doing it, it's that other people don't want to accept the reasons I give for doing it. I wanted to move to another place too, and like yourself I have similar reasons for it, yet my parents insisted that there must be something else I'm not telling them. They were so convinced of this I started to believe it myself, at which point I started to search my head for some ulterior that I wasn't aware of. Of course I found none, therefore I concluded that I had no valid (or logical) reason for wanting to move and I only wanted to move "because I feel like it".

Feedback is advice on how to improve something. Criticism is that plus personal opinion on that something. Basically the difference between "This soup needs more salt" and "I don't like this soup, it needs more salt". An ad hominem is when you direct the insults at the character of a person. Sources: Dictionary

So the sauna increases my IGF-1 which in turn gives me muscles or other goodies. Why shouldn't I just skip the sauna bit and just inject myself with IGF-1 directly?

He's an academic. He gets paid through the state. In his mind he can't be the bad guy, therefore him accepting the stolen money is moral and necessary. Or it could be he is incapable of realizing there are other humans out there in a democracy that don't have it as good as him, which is like a staple of modern academia. "I'm living well therefore the world is fair and just". "I'm poor because of ridiculous laws and taxes therefore I'm living in an Orwellian nightmare".

"You should join the EU, it'll be great for the economy", said the politician. "You should get out of the EU, it'll be great for the economy", said the politician.

Disproving science using science. Surely the irony must not escape you.

What tests specifically did they run?

Kids are best raised with a mother and father present. I base this on the fact that evolution made it so. One parent less is a deficit thus a bad thing, one parent more is a surplus. If the surplus would have given the child an evolutionary advantage then most kids today would have had more than two parents. Another arguments is from genetics. Why would my genes be more or as interested into propagating another person's genes compared to my own? If I had such genes then they would die out in only one generation, thus it's impossible to propagate genes that would enable a person not to care whose is the child in question. Even assuming that such a tribe would exist, what do you think the demographics would be? With that high of a promiscuity rate the number of pregnancies would skyrocket. Let's assume we have 100 people of breeding age, 50 male, 50 female. Each male wants to have sex with each female. How would 100 people be able to give the care and attention to 2500 children in the same manner a "traditional" couple would give to their own child? But there's more. Let's assume that those 100 people can indeed raise those 2500 children. In a generation those 2500 people would create another 1562500 people. Now it's a mathematical resource hell, such a breeding tactic cannot be sustained for long.

But there's a clause with FDR donation pleas which is "you should donate if you get value in return". With religion it's more like "you should donate or else".

There are people out there that dedicate their lives to studying the cosmos. Why would someone choose the life of exile in a monastery if they thought god was a hoax? Just imagine what that kind of obsession can achieve. Their goal is to fund their hobby, and if their hobby is getting into space what does it matter if the ISS is a hoax or not? Either way we'll still eventually have a fully functioning ISS (or something similar). Lastly, may I ask, what difference do you think it makes if the ISS is a hoax?

Don't be. It was just a misunderstanding. I didn't find your post to be accusatory.

Yogi Barra is a master of double entendre. For instance he takes advantage of the adage "respect others and others will respect you in return" and this is meaning you first get from the quote, it's a win-win. BUT it doesn't apply to this particular instance because the person you're supposed to show respect is dead. The person cannot get any respect because they're dead, and you can't get any respect back from the person cause they're dead, lose-lose. He uses "they won't come to yours" instead of "others" as a hint that he's talking about the deceased. You can either go or not go to a funeral, either way the result is the same.

The woman an alpha males chooses. Is the answer vague enough or should I try again? But seriously speaking I find the descrption of the alpha male of a group to be very maleable. It can be the strongest, the handsomest, the most charming, the most rich, the most violent, the most promiscuous, etc. People like Russel Brand and Genghis Khan both fall under the description of an alpha male yet the differences are way too stark between them. Who's the alpha usually depends on the person that's talking and their view of the world, it's not some objective characterization. Knowing Stef he's probably talking about someone honest, kind, nurturing, with strong moral convictions and brave enough to live by them.

When it comes to funerals I always remember these wise words: "You should always go to other people's funerals otherwise they won't come to yours." - Yogi Berra

The atmosphere, because the Earth is a sphere, acts like a massive lens bending the light thus making you see things you would otherwise not be able to see were there no atmosphere. This is the exact definition of a mirage. Each time there's a sunset the Sun geometrically disappears below the horizon long before we see it disappear with our own eyes (or camera lens). Now a 2000+ feet high mirage doesn't seem that implausible, now does it? What is the exact number of photos of Earth you require in order to be convinced the Earth is not flat?

In a work environment it's difficult to point out the individuals with high or low self-control. High self-control might be linked with a higher intelligence but a smarter person might simply choose not to put forth their competence lest they get more work. This is called strategic incompetence, which is when a person chooses to perform a task poorly in order not to be assigned that task again. This leads to a catch-22 like scenario, in which if you have high self-control then you're gonna have a bad time because people treat you unfairly and if you have low self-control then you're gonna have a bad time because you're your own worst enemy. However if a person is passionate about their work then this prejudice against their success can only push them strive for a higher level. If we judged the best of us by the standards of the worst of us then how can we ever raise the bar? There's this story of a teacher that gave his students an assignment and when they submitted their projects the teacher was literally blown away by the quality of their work. He was speechless, it was far beyond anything he could have done, so he asked his mentor what he should say to them. He said he should keep a stoic face and tell them that: "You can do better." For someone who's fully dedicated in some field, knowing for certain they reached the zenith is a terrible blow... I imagine.

Chimps but there's probably a lot more animals out there that do this. The sign of aggression is not baring the teeth per se, it's a series of cues one of which is an emphasis on showing off the canines. I would argue that a full toothed smile is very natural seeing how there's a muscle in the face specialized to doing just that, the rizorius muscle. Its purpose is to pull back the corners of the mouth to expose as many teeth (molars) as possible. This muscle is used only when smiling.

I'm completely on board with a blind guy being able to fight ninjas but a blind guy being able to use a smartphone... c'mon.

I have a question. If farmers consider supermarket food waste unfit for pig consumption, why does the state consider it fit for human consumption?

"Bad Pharma" by Ben Goldacre goes in exhaustive detail about this whole phenomenon, a really great read. Unfortunately he offers no real solutions other than the evident "we need more regulation" mantra.

They're telling her that the boys' education is far more important than hers OR they're telling her she can't learn a thing when she's horny and goes to school just to get laid.

You flat out ignored my whole point. I said the premise of UPB is that a passive person is moral, yet you still push forward the definition of morality as something you have to achieve. You're confusing YOUR definition of morality with the definition put forth in UPB. It's like me putting forth the proposition that "a+b=c" and you're argument against it is that "a+b=d". This is a factually wrong statement. Your whole argument is invalid. You're not making any logical sense. Rape and murder are two different sets of actions. You can't mathematically say that "if a=/=b and a=/=c then b=c". How are you not getting this? My cat has almost 2 decades worth of training in spoken language yet I have never heard him say even a single word.

I was gonna say something about how men are indoctrinated to believe there's such a thing as righteous violence (war movies, good vs. evil, honor, etc) but there might be more truth to the sexual frustration theory. Take videogames for example. There's been an increasing trend towards more and more violence to the point where the violence is so intense it's comical. Because videogames are still part of a free market this means this violence is catering to the buyers. And what is the image that comes to mind when you imagine your typical hardcore gamer? Jihad is like the ultimate RPG. You get to fight evil through magic and in the end women will adore you.