Wuzzums

It's less than 1 minute of interaction between mother and daughter and they're both laughing. Why the strong response?

I am a big fan of the comic book, it's a very good read. The tv show however is very different. Frank Darabont (director of the 1st season) is also a big fan, him and Kirkman (the writer of the comic book) decided not to tell the same story again because they knew most of the audience will be comprised of people that read the comic. Instead they created a "what-if" narrative, same characters, different scenarios. Season 1 was a success. It created an audience. Then the studio fired Darabont, cut the funding significantly, hired some idiot, then released season 2. This is why there's such a huge contrast between the first two seasons. Darabont's TWD project had a story that was supposed to pan out for several seasons, it was a work of love, and it was made with a specific direction in mind. All the ideas he had for the show are now gone. (a little spoiler warning) For instance, in the original narrative Andrea and Dale were major characters, quintessential to the survival of the group, but in the tv show they were just annoying and got killed off early on. "Coincidentally" the actors that were playing these characters are close friends with Darabont. Dale's role in the story was replaced by Hershell, Andrea's role in the story was replaced by Daryl. TWD got better by season 3 and 4 because the show hit rock bottom with season 2, and when you hit rock bottom the only way to go forward is up. I like the show now, it finally got some traction, but who knows what could've been had the studio not fired the only guy that knew what he was doing.

Depends. Medically speaking: yes. Psychologically speaking: ask him. He might not even remember it if it wasn't that traumatic. And if it was, talk to him about it.

"In a statement, Baltimore police said Taylor, a five-year veteran, has been suspended without pay." Who knew you get a harsher punishment if you kill a puppy rather than an unarmed citizen. https://www.google.com/search?q=cop+shooting+suspended&oq=cop+shooting+suspended&aqs=chrome..69i57.9316j0j7&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8#q=cop+shooting+suspended+with+pay

The title alone detonates the whole reasoning. If they didn't notice they were richer, it means that money has an insignificant impact on their lives. And if it has an insignificant change on their lives, how is obamacare better than the previous system? It's like saying: "Thanks to the carbon tax snowflakes crystallize much prettier than before AND YOU DIDN'T EVEN NOTICE, YOU UNGRATEFUL PARASITE."

I know the US is messed up. I was using the pricing of medicine and medical services from my country which are reasonable. The actual work that goes in is very little. Consult: <30min including the paperwork X-ray: pressing a button Additional tests: about 2h of work Treatment: the patient can do it themselves (all drugs come with instructions, doctors don't know any more than it is written on the prospect) or a 10 min job for a nurse to stick a needle in if necessary 4x a day at most (nothing more, nothing less)

Price of a consult: 100$ (it's about <30 minutes of work) Price of an X-Ray: 20$ Price for treatment: 800$ (for 10 days with the most effective, and expensive, drug... and also added the manual labor, i.e. some nurse that all they have to do is stick a needle in you twice a day, the actual drug costs about 400$ for the whole treatment) Price for hospital stay: 200$ per day => 2000$ in total (I just used the pricing of a 4-5 star hotel would use) Total: 2920$ I'm hoping the article was intentionally misleading when it implied he racked 400 000$ from pneumonia alone, because otherwise something is terribly wrong...

This is factually incorrect. It only stands if Lamarck's theory of evolution is valid, which it is not. In a darwinian context however the opposite stands, the only way you had inherited a bad liver is if your grandparents hadn't been heavy drinkers at all (cause they also had bad livers and had they started drinking before passing on the genes, they would have reduced their chances of living and reproducing considerably). Regarding the concept of Karma, isn't it constrained to the individual? I.e. my bad karma cannot be passed on to my child, and misfortune unrelated to any action is bad karma from another life I lived or something like that.

I'm a medical student and what I can say for certain is that doctors have a ridiculous inflated sense of self worth. To a lesser extent, they're exposed to the same family-cult indoctrination like you see in the army. Special language, special uniforms, specials ranks, and so on. They should look at patients as clients, instead they see patients as a burden they have to suffer out of the goodness of their hearts. All through-out their career doctors have been fed this "noble profession", "saving lives", "fulfilling job", propaganda. And when they're treated the same as an electrician and not hailed as the gods of compassion and health they think they are, they recoil with phrases like "not what it used to be".And they always, always, allude to an earlier time they didn't even experience, for example: "the joy that my father felt in treating the poor farmers and others in the small Indian town of Nainital." If you wanna see how ridiculous this article really sounds just replace the word "doctor" with "mechanic" and "patient" with "car". The self-entitlement becomes obvious. "Consequently, mechanics have been pressured to see more and more cars in the same amount of time. It should be no surprise that such encounters have become more like business transactions rather than what they should be: rich and intensely human interactions potentially resulting in tremendous fulfillment for both parties."

North Korea has such a great army because of starvation. Joining the military is for most the only alternative to not starving to death (walking skeletons in uniform may look scary, sure). We do not know they have weapons of mass destruction. Not even they know if they have weapons of mass destruction. They're all bark and no bite. South Korea DOES have for certain weapons of mass destruction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korean_nuclear_research_programs#Nuclear_Capable_state No, what you're arguing for is US dominance over foreign countries because of imagined threats. This is how you sound like: "We must invade Iraq! Why? Because they might have weapons of mass destruction! Because they might be a danger to neighboring countries! Because they might harbor terrorists! Because they might be a threat to our freedomz! Wait, what?? Tiny starving soldiers in rags with out dated weapons said they can kick our ass? We'll have none of that, increase military funding and presence in South Korea, please!" This made me actually laugh out loud. I can taste the irony. Dude, firstly, I'm not american. Stop thinking that if someone speaks english then they're american. And yes, my american friend, you can count yourself safe in your country even if your ridiculous scenario does indeed unfold. Just pick up a map. Look where the US is on the map. Look where Korea is on the map. Secondly... I dunno how to break this to you but... America IS evil. The US Government I mean. It commits frequents acts of genocide outside its borders, in puts a huge amount of its citizen in forced labor camps for ridiculous reasons, it steals food from your children's mouths, it murders in broad daylight people who do not conform, it is holding the whole world hostage through its constant threats of nuclear war, and it indoctrinates its young to the point where they cannot form a thought that's not some propaganda mantra.

What are these mathematics you speak of exactly? I have different numbers. The elite North Korean soldier is on average about 1 foot shorter than the average South Korean soldier. This implies NK can barely feed its soldiers. The ONLY fat guy in the country is the dictator, they receive aid from all over the world without which they would starve to death. The poverty these people live in is shocking. South Korea has stronger soldiers, more soldiers, better weapons, more bullets, actual weapons of mass destruction, and gas to fuel their tanks. But nevermind all of this, why would you just assume a war would break out of the US were to leave? In your own words you said NK's are bred with a deep hatred for the US, so what's the logic in attacking SK when the US is not even there? Don't forget that NK and SK were once a single country and they still have great sympathy for each other. I base this statement on the countless SK movies I've seen in which NK's are portrayed as fellow countrymen under an oppressive regime, and NK's efforts on unification with the South through peaceful means. Plus there's the "we need to liberate our fellow SK countrymen from the oppressive US occupation" type of propaganda. People cross the border from North to South regularly (illegally of course) but they always return because otherwise bad things will happen to those left behind. NKs have contact with the outside world, and they know they've been fed bs all their lives. A war between North and South without US involvement seems highly unlikely. I understand NK present themselves as this superpower, and I also understand the US likes to present NK as a superpower and a threat but it's all propaganda on both sides. There are several covert filmings within NK that detail life outside Pyongyang, they paint a completely different picture than what you were told. Oh, and the punishment for such recordings, in which the regime is presented in an unfavorable light, is death. In this once clip, there was a bridge from which several bodies were hanged and left to rot. The guy filming said they were caught doing what he was doing right then, filming. Hitchens said that NK is not like "1984", NK is "1984".

Well you said he said it was in his opinion. This means he didn't state it as an objective truth, just a preference. Some people find twerking sexy, others find it ridiculously unappealing. Some people juggle baby geese...

I went to Hungary as a kid with my family many years ago, and I remember trying to order food this one time. We tried english, french, italian, romanian and pictograms. In the end we did manage to order food, granted it was the wrong order but food nonetheless. It was pretty funny.

It did clear that part up, thank you. But now I'm confused about the rest. So Stefan is arguing for the existence of god and you're arguing against his existence?

The mind is a result of the body (mainly the brain). How can a mind exist without that which the mind depends on existing? Water is a result of the interaction between Hydrogen and Oxygen atoms. Water cannot exist without Hydrogen and Oxygen. Now you can define "the mind" as anything you want but please make that clear. It's very confusing when you use a different definition of "the mind" to what is conventionally accepted but also imply your definition of "the mind" is exactly the same as the conventional one. How is your definition of god objectively verifiable and not created to meet your own needs? Because to me those two statements seem contradictory. Never mind that. Have you heard about Ultra-Dude? The most basic conception of Ultra-Dude involves an disembodied mind who transcends space-time AND God. We should start praying to him cause he's a lot more powerful and loving than God. Oh, and, uhm... I'm his prophet.

Psalm 147:5 Great is our Lord and mighty in power; his understanding has no limit. 1 John 3:19-20 By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything. Psalm 139:4 Even before a word is on my tongue, behold, O LORD, you know it altogether. Isaiah 46:9 I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done. Matthew 19:26But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.” Luke 1:37For nothing will be impossible with God.” Isaiah 40:28Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable. Psalm 147:5Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure. I can copy-paste all day: here's the link http://www.openbible.info/topics/omnipotence

But your definition of Dog is not the same as the Bible's definition of God. #1. Dog can find out anything about anything in His universe. #2. Dog can do anything possible except sin. #3. Dog can go to any place and time in His universe, in as many different visits as He wants. #4. Dog exists within the boundaries of reality. #5. Dog is at least one unit of something. #6. Dog can reach out and intervene here [no barrier preventing it]. In contrast to: #1. God can find out anything about anything anywhere. (he is all-knowing) #2. God can do anything possible. (he is all-powerful) #3. God can go to any place and time in His universe, in as many different visits as He wants. #4. God existed since before the dawn of reality. (he was there even before the Big Bang) #5. God is at least one unit of something. #6. God can reach out and intervene here [no barrier preventing it]. So God can't exist because he has self contradictory traits thus the Bible has no value. Dog can exist because he's in the realm of possibility but he wrote or inspired no Dog version of the Bible hence nobody can know his will. Catch-22.

This is all speculation and given it's not contradictory falls into the real of plausibility. All atheists agree that such a being as you propose is feasible, nobody can predict the future. But what's the point? It's just fantasy, sci-fi literature. Plausibility =/= existence. You said you're a christian, and it's confusing for me when you use the word "God" because it's seem to me you're arguing for the deist world view in the rest of your post. Arguing for or against the deist theory is like arguing for and against the existence of Obi-Wan Kenobi in a galaxy far, far away. If it's in the bounds of reality and there's no tangible proof for its existence, any argument for its existence is as valid as any argument against its existence. You say "Planet Krypton exists" to which I reply "It cannot exists because squirrels have fuzzy tails". Why can't a planet (which exist) called Krypton (which is a name that exists) exist because of the tails of squirrels (which exist)? Well because of all the made-up reasons. It's just fantasy, I can make as much stuff up as I want. Now if you're arguing for your God, the christian god, then it's a whole different story. That god has a specific definition, and that definition is self contradictory, therefore the christian god does not exist. End of story. And now let's assume that your god, let's call him Dog for the sake of argument, does in fact exist without a shadow of a doubt. So there's a being out there called Dog which can: #1. Dog can find out anything about anything in His universe. #2. Dog can do anything possible except sin. #3. Dog can go to any place and time in His universe, in as many different visits as He wants. #4. Dog exists within the boundaries of reality. #5. Dog is at least one unit of something. #6. Dog can reach out and intervene here [no barrier preventing it]. What has changed in my life considering Dog always existed? Nothing. Physics is the same. Biology is the same. Religion is as irrational as before. Society is the same. It's like the discovery of dark matter, it has absolutely zero intrinsic value to me. My life is exactly the same and will stay the same as it was before the discovery of dark matter.

Description: "Mr. Kanamori, a teacher of a 4th grade class, teaches his students not only how to be students, but how to live. He gives them lessons on teamwork, community, the importance of openness, how to cope, and the harm caused by bullying. In the award-winning documentary Children Full of Life, a fourth-grade class in a primary school in Kanazawa, northwest of Tokyo, learn lessons about compassion from their homeroom teacher, Toshiro Kanamori. He instructs each to write their true inner feelings in a letter, and read it aloud in front of the class. By sharing their lives, the children begin to realize the importance of caring for their classmates. Toshiro is an amazing example of what all teachers across the world should be like. He truly understands what teaching children is all about and certainly made a positive difference in the lives of these 10 year olds." Don't know if it has been posted before, I searched but didn't find anything. I found the documentary to be very moving. My favorite scene is when the little boy stands up to the teacher which, considering the cultural background, is a pretty formidable feat.

Usually questions like these have two parts, the "how" and the "why". How some things make us happy deals with the underlying process that goes on when we achieve a state of happiness by doing an action. I can't even begin to give an answer. A satisfying answer would have to go through the mechanics of the brain and body, hormone interactions, consciousness and so on. It's far too complex and I don't think it can even be answered at present day. Why some things make us happy is significantly easier to decipher. Evolution is a process, it creates beings capable of reproducing. The sole purpose of any of those beings is to reproduce. We are a product of evolution so anything we do or feel is a result of evolution too. This means that the answer to any "why" question is "because it's advantageous to our reproduction" (or it might be advantageous at the very least). Why does someone like to play the piano? Because our environment is such that playing the piano offers an evolutionary advantage, it gets your genes spread. So if you want to get your genes spread (which everybody does because that's what evolution is all about) it's probably a good idea to play the piano. And how do your genes trick you into playing the piano? By offering you an enjoyable altered state called happiness while doing so.

An ad hominem is code for "I have no retort to your argument and must concede but because you made me feel stupid and because I want to save face I shall insult your character". This can be used to your advantage because people that aren't worth the time of day readily identify themselves by using ad hominem attacks. Nobody that's willing to listen to another's point of view will use such a tactic. You're probably better off debating with a chair.

I feel that Aaron Swartz should have gotten a mention at the very least.

An antifragile system is a system in which that which does not work does not get repeated. I was skeptical when you said the government is such a system, I think the society as a whole is antifragile and the state is just one of those things that doesn't work yet it gets repeated over and over again. But if I look at the government not as part of society but as an entity all on its own I can see your point. If the government's purpose is to oppress for its own benefit then the antifragility traits seem obvious. At first it used slaves, then when that wasn't in its interest it abolished slavery, then it took freedoms little by little and whenever the livestock noticed it uses propaganda to hide the fact, against gay rights then for gay rights, against feminism then for feminism, and so on. If this is true it means it becomes more and more efficient. I read Taleb's book, and the implication of his theory is that antifragile systems can go on ad infinitum. Very gloom.

I agree. But I'm guessing the humongous paycheck he received probably says different.

Because of Phillip Seymour Hoffman's death I remembered this movie he was in, "Happiness" by Todd Solondz. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0147612/?ref_=fn_al_tt_2 It's a very dark satire of modern life, it shows the lives of different people which live "normal" lives while strongly showing the dysfunction underneath. It's pretty hard to describe because Todd Solondz's films are their own genre, they feel like a strong punch in the gut. A "feel-bad" movie is probably the most accurate genre for it. I know the movie industry rarely spits out a work that doesn't enforce the viewer's prejudices, and Happiness is one of those movies. The movie itself from what I know was distributed very poorly, they even tried to sugar coat it. Check this trailer out which makes it look like a comedy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FkQ_JxoWUP8 Now check out the intro to the movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4b_x9R44qoI Also here's the full movie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q7plOP4qlIo