Wuzzums

I never understood something about Kant's categorical imperative. In his philosophy he talks about what makes an action immoral, and implies that an action to be moral must not contradict itself. Then in the formulation of the categorical imperative he says that we should act upon such moral laws in order to be moral. This leaves some leeway. If I'm a sadist and like inflicting pain on people, and if universalized this rule does not contradict itself, then I cannot be moral if I don't inflict pain on people. The NAP must be added there somewhere. Another thing would be his view on lying. He says that lying is immoral, but the phrasing of the categorical imperative states that it is actually moral. If everybody lies, then nobody would believe anybody, but this doesn't contradict the act of lying. Lying is defined as not telling the truth, it has nothing to do with whether or not other people believe the lie or not. It seems to me that Kant's imperative allows for preferences to be moral rules, which ironically is something that contradicts itself.

I was a little impulsive (haha) in attacking the title of the article assuming it was the same as the actual study. Read the study, it was very grounded and didn't really try to make outlandish claims like article. From the conclusion: "The behavioral and molecular changes in EphA3 mice including defective response inhibition and noradrenaline enrichment in the superficial layers of the SC phenocopy some of the symptoms observed in ADHD patients, specifically the adult and predominantly inattentive-type. (...) Our findings support the hypothesis that aduld ADHD patients present collicular hyperstimulation leading to the appearance of impulsivity and attentional impairments." OK, so there's a link between TWO symptoms of ADHD and overstimulation of that part of the brain. And also let's assume that mice and humans are exactly alike and we can extrapolate data from mice to humans with 100% accuracy. And also let's assume that ADHD is a well established disease which stood up to the most rigorous of tests. ADHD inattentive-type is defined in the DSM as having at least 6 of the following: Often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities Often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities Often does not seem to listen to what is being said Often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand instructions) Often has difficulties organizing tasks and activities Often avoids or strongly dislikes tasks (such as schoolwork or homework) that require sustained mental effort Often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (school assignments, pencils, books, tools, or toys) Often is easily distracted by extraneous stimuli Often forgetful in daily activities ADHD with hyperactivity/impulsivity traits is chracterised by at least 4 of the following: Hyperactivity evidenced by fidgeting with hands or feet, squirming in seat Hyperactivity evidenced by leaving seat in classroom or in other situations in which remaining seated is expected Hyperactivity evidenced by running about or climbing excessively in situations where this behavior is inappropriate (in adolescents or adults, this may be limited to subjective feelings of restlessness) Hyperactivity evidenced by difficulty playing or engaging in leisure activities quietly Impulsivity evidenced by blurting out answers to questions before the questions have been completed Impulsivity evidenced by showing difficulty waiting in lines or awaiting turn in games or group situations So they managed to determine that 1/6 and 1/4 symptoms are correlated with brain changes. Fair enough, but what about the other symptoms required to diagnose ADHD? The language they use in the study is very careful to not make the outrageous claim the article does. Saying the cause of a disease is the same with the cause of a certain symptom of that disease is like saying the cause of flu is fever.

I'm more interested how those researchers managed to determine the following in the mice: Often fails to give close attention to details or makes careless mistakes in schoolwork, work, or other activities Often has difficulty sustaining attention in tasks or play activities Often does not seem to listen to what is being said Often does not follow through on instructions and fails to finish schoolwork, chores, or duties in the workplace (not due to oppositional behavior or failure to understand instructions) Often has difficulties organizing tasks and activities Often avoids or strongly dislikes tasks (such as schoolwork or homework) that require sustained mental effort Often loses things necessary for tasks or activities (school assignments, pencils, books, tools, or toys) Often is easily distracted by extraneous stimuli Often forgetful in daily activities Hyperactivity evidenced by fidgeting with hands or feet, squirming in seat Hyperactivity evidenced by leaving seat in classroom or in other situations in which remaining seated is expected Hyperactivity evidenced by running about or climbing excessively in situations where this behavior is inappropriate (in adolescents or adults, this may be limited to subjective feelings of restlessness) Hyperactivity evidenced by difficulty playing or engaging in leisure activities quietly Impulsivity evidenced by blurting out answers to questions before the questions have been completed Impulsivity evidenced by showing difficulty waiting in lines or awaiting turn in games or group situations These are the DSM criteria for diagnosing ADHD. Either those researchers have an uncanny ability to communicate with mice, or they just messed around with some mice with the pretense that "it's for research" and flimsily linked it to ADHD to be more hip with the times. Bad science really pisses me off. First off the title gives it away: "Neurobiological Origin of ADD". What does that even mean? Everything the brain ever does is neurobiological. Thought is fucking neurobiological !

I think the two have more in common. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle states that the more you know about the momentum of a particle the less you know about its position. Same thing with Molyneux's Uncertainty Principle, the more you know about what's going to happen the less power you have over what's going to happen. In both instances the two variables cannot be simultaneously at 100%.

The thought of someone getting paid to link taking an abnormal amount of pictures of themselves to a narcissistic disorder makes me woozy. What's next? Will science finally give us solid proof that people who have lots of cat pictures are linked to a fondness of cats?

Well he's fogging the issue. You provided the hypothesis that one's life is one's property at the beginning of your e-mail and he accepted this premise: "Of course, you say, you didn't ask whether this view is right, you just said, SUPPOSE we take the libertarian view as given here. Well yes, IF one takes that view as given, then the ultra liberal view about suicide you describe is likely to follow." That's how long his response should have been. The rest is just him explaining how other should force others to make moral acts but he doesn't define what is a moral act. Like the sandwich bit. give an unwanted sandwich to a starving child = moral not give an unwanted sandwich to a starving child = immoral So what happens if I want the sandwich for myself? What happens then? Why would me wanting or not wanting something change the morality of an action? And why do I have a sandwich which I do not want in the first place? Let's assume that whether I want or want not the sandwich doesn't change the morality of the action. Therefore: give a wanted sandwich to a starving child = moral not give a wanted sandwich to a starving child = immoral What follows is a moral rule that says that we should feed a starving person whether we want to or not. This implies that being "starving" allows one to have different moral rules act upon them in contrast to everyone else. And now the question follows: What happens when a starving child with a sandwich comes across another starving child without a sandwich? (In between "sharing is caring" and all of that).

You cannot have winning without losing, one implies the other. Two people in a competition cannot both win or lose at the same time, so winning (or losing) is not UPB. So "winning is good" is just a preference because if it is objective then it doesn't matter who wins, what matters is that someone won. And if someone won then everybody wins including the ones that lost, because without them nobody would have won. Thus losing is also objectively good.

Protip: you gotta use proper grammar if you wanna troll, otherwise the reader will lose patience and move on.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BweADB78tBY There's no predictability in the stock market so it's just a game of chance. Look at it like poker. A seasoned player has a clear advantage over a newbie, and if all players at a table are of the same caliber then it's a coin toss who wins. This is why as a seasoned player, you would want to play with as many newbies as possible to make a profit. And how do you get newbies to join? Promise them riches, publish as many self-"help" books as possible, get as many people interested as possible, make the game as well known as possible, how easy the game is to play once you get it, offer "full-proof" strategies, assure them you have to invest lots of money to make lots of money, divulge "secrets of the trade", constantly tell them how it's "easy money", and so on. Personally I'm very weary of books written by people that make a living out of people not knowing what they teach. Don't go in with both feet. There are several programs out there that let you test out the real market with fictitious funds.

Regarding Mos Def's vid. Nasogastric intubation is a standard medical procedure done countless times in hospitals. This is how it actually looks like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgfNa7dzSn0 This procedure is more of a question about taking choice away from prisoners rather than the grueling torture Mos Def likes to portray. It shouldn't be done on principle, and I seriously doubt force feeding would be the most feared punishment when you're a prisoner of the state.

man buys a woman drinks and has sex with her = man rapes woman woman buys a man drinks and has sex with him = woman sexually coerced man

Don't know about you guys, but I can't distinguish real news from The Onion news anymore...

Double post, sorry. It was a link to this story: http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-news-from-elsewhere-26747649

Short of their leaders dawning a Charlie Chaplin moustache, when will the US realize they're living in an fascistic society? http://ibnlive.in.com/news/all-university-male-students-in-north-korea-are-now-required-by-law-to-get-the-same-goofy-haircut-as-supreme-leader-kim-jong-un/460589-79.html

I thought it was far too generic. Anna's your typical stock Manic Pixie Dream Girl which takes Kristoff, the simpleton that just likes ice, on a journey to find out what life is all about. This is all because the character that can manipulate matter and create life at will is afraid for some contrived reason... and has to sing a song. Then the third act comes along and the conflict comes dangerously close to being resolved when the writers had the brilliant idea of turning the only character that knew what he was doing into the antagonist. They didn't even bother to add some foreshadowing. He risks his own life to save the kingdom and the queen... but he was pure evil all along? It's the equivalent to watching Game of Thrones and then they suddenly reveal that King Jeoffrey was the good guy this whole time. The movie would have made more sense if Robofox42 had written the story.

I know that feeling. Mankind is probably the most entertaining show in the cosmos, but it sucks that you have to be a part of it.

I do not need to get raped in order to feel sympathy for rape victims in the same way a doctor does not need to get shot in order to treat a gunshot wound.

An alternative is making a FDR Deviantart group: http://makeagroup.deviantart.com/ Each user requires a personal deviantart account in order to post. Deviantart accepts any kind of files (video, images, mp3's, etc) and each new post appears as an update at the user's homepage.

Gifts require nothing in return, otherwise they wouldn't be called gifts. If you receive something and it comes with an obligation then you have to respect said obligation, it's just a transaction like any other. BUT if the obligation comes after the fact and you weren't aware of it at the time when you accepted the "thing" then I think you have no obligation to respect it. When's the last time someone charged you for free samples? You know what they call it when someone does charge you for something you didn't know you bought? Hustling. Your boyfriend needs to be clear about what "enough gratitude" means and if he's so upset about it then he needs to stop being so generous until you two are on equal footing. If he keeps doing these favors for you, you'll never catch up and he'll forever have the "enough gratitude" trump card over you.

Either way, nice of Putin to hold back on the invasion after he was done purging the public purse with the Winter Olympics. I don't think Crimea isn't military important, it's commerce important seeing how they're intending to exploit the region surrounding the Black Sea for natural gases. It's just a checkpoint for pipelines.

Crimea has always been there, so my question would be why does Russia hold interest in it all of a sudden?

Ok. So we're getting somewhere. It's not about free speech, it's about negative votes you think are undeserving. You posted some stuff, got negative votes and you're upset because you don't know why they downvoted you. This has nothing to do with free speech, it's about negative criticism. I'm not gonna look up the original thread you posted in but if they downvoted you without explaining why then it's not very helpful. If they did explain why then you should be thankful, feedback is incredibly important, especially negative feedback. Positive feedback just enforces that which you already know, negative feedback offers a different vantage point and with that the possibility of growth and/or correcting false data. I don't see where the problem is from my perspective. Yes, your reputation does collapse your posts but it's still readable. I probably agree with most people on this forum, and when I see a collapsed post like yours I'm more interested in reading it because chances are it's offering a different point of view from that which I already have. I think this thread would have been more effective if you were to ask for feedback on the posts you mentioned rather than criticizing the whole system.

YouTube uses the same system too, so I can only assume you sent them the same post also. Did they respond? You say it's about free speech. Fair enough. This means you should as angry for having -33 points as for having +33 points, yet you only complain about the negative reputation (it's not as if I can't read your posts). I checked your profile and saw you got some positive points. Please explain to me why you're undeserving of those particular points in as lengthy a paragraph as possible. Afterwards you'll have my full support on your quest for defending free speech.

How someone expresses physical affection is correlated with what relationships looked like to them as they were growing up, more specifically the father and mother dynamic. If she never saw her parents express love for each other (holding hands, kissing, compliments, etc) then that's the norm for her. Physical affection may not repulse her, it may just be foreign, kinda like how bowing down instead of shaking hands is foreign to us. With this in mind she may have made the jump to rape as a way to justify her behavior to herself, it's very hard to see our own out-of-the-norm habits when they are the norm for us. And such a leap is not that surprising with all this ridiculous feminism propaganda everywhere. You know: being asked out for coffee is sexual abuse, all heterosexual sex is rape, men have to be taught how not to rape, etc. If her parents did indeed express affection in a normal fashion then my guess is she's actively avoiding it, which suggests abuse like you said.

So the point of the video is for that parent to showcase her entire parenting technique? How about the subtitles, I myself don't speak Korean, but are they accurate?