labmath2

I believe the expression she is looking for is "i am raising a door mat"

After watching a video yesterday about "the banality of evil" i am skeptical of the idea that employers are doing these calxulations and operating at some pseudo effecient rate. How many people have used the phrase its my job, to do things they would otherwise avoid in their personal lives.

My main concern with your position is that if you are wrong, many people will suffer the consequences. I am skeptical myself, but then i remember those past cases involving things like cigarette or leaded gas. How proof should people demand when there are significant consequences to being wrong (in either direction).

Ironically, the transgender community rely on the idea that there are differences between men and women to prove it is not a psychuatric condition. While simultaneosly supporting feminism.

An easy one is extradition. Who would they ask about it.

Ti be honest with you, that articles was all fluff. You can manipulate language all you want, but that just detracts from the message. Maybe give a concrete example of the situation you are describing.

I do not understand why people resort to this. There are much more prevalent questions of similar quality.

I don't know how it is in Kansas, but telemarketers in NYC are always looking for people. The only catch is you have to approach strangers and its all commission.

I think the 1 percent assumption is overly optimistic. If you really wanted to do it, you would ask what are the chances they would be unhappy?

So true.

i think the point OP was trying to make is about generalizations. Like how employers assume college graduates are better employees that non college graduate because on average that is true. This could have a negative effect on people that did not go to college even if they are excellent employees because employers may be hesitant to even consider them (especially since resumes are run through algorithms). Imagine something like that is true for race (more likely ethnicity). Consider today the amount of men who are elementary school teachers or women who are sport enthusiasts. This can make it harder for those who wish to enter a field where their group is not well represented.

I never understood why conservatives choose to represent their ideas the way they do. Instead of making the case for free association, they instead say religious freedom. Its obvious atheist statists will loose their minds over religious freedom. I imagine no one will oppose free association.

From my understanding, the difference between anarcho-communist and anarcho-capitalist is property rights. The communists usually reject homesteading of land. I think there various forms of anarcho-communism too.

I think its about fdr2927

Your story resonates so much with me that if i had empathy, i would cry. I dont have friends either and i can usually tell something that i can say that would hurt someone's feeling within a few hours of spending time aroung them. I think unempathy is both a strenght and a weakness. I dont troll online, but i enjoy reading someone else being trolled.

I dont think gender is just sex plus lies. I think it is sex plus some observations we gave made about the average person of that sex. Sure everyone is different, but there are enough similarities that we can establish norms. Take for example, if you are male, i can reasonably assume you like females, despite the fact that some males do not. Does the fact that there are men who do not like women render all of gender identity false? No, because being a man does not automatically mean you like women, it just makes life easier if i assume you do until you tell me otherwise. I meant like women sexually.

In a free society drunk driving would be a property right violation if the roads were privately owned and contract violation if they were commonly owned. This is just my opinion.

The problem of racism is really one of humans being a pattern seeking species. I can think of at least three associations that people generally make and no one bats an eye because it has nothing to do with race (like stereotypes about gingers or blonds or smart girls).

Where did you find season 2, i have only seen the 2 seasons.

I don't think its that simple. Just because we can produce a surplus of food, does not mean everyone gets to eat. Untill the buyers are willing to pay what the producers are willing to take, there will be no exchange of goods. The problem with effeciency in production is that diminishingly small percent of the population can produce most of the goods everyone else needs. Everyone else has to produce what other people want, making their jobs less secure.

Yes, i understand your point, but survival of the fittest is what people often associate with evolution (or at least natural selection).

Now i see where our disagreement lies. I feel that the statement i highlighted is just a tautology. Since you are not actually comparing what is to anything else. One thing can only be best when compared to other things for specific reasons. If our reality is the best because it exists, then whatever reality exists by definition is the best. That is just an assertion, there is no proof that it is the case.

The reason i reject it is because it implies things cannot be better. For example, Governments exist instead of voluntary societies because governments controlled societies are "more fit." If we use this logic on everything, then there is either no reason for us to change what is, or if we do try to change things, that is also a product of "what is." This negates free will and hence sorts of defeats itself. If you want to change someone's mind it requires that their minds are not merely products of events, but also a product of their own will.

I basically gave you something to look into that could physically explain some of those coincidences and you called me disingenuous. I would go through the equations step by step and explain it to you, but i got a B- and C+ in my physics 1 and 2 class, respectively, so i am not confident i will not screw something up. If you go through it and it offers no explanation, that is fine, now i you know, but do not dismiss it before even doing the work.

This is where i think i fail to understand the criteria, which was what i was trying to understand during the conversation. What is the "rational" test? Stef suggests conceptual language is the rational test, if i understood him correctly. But isn't that just saying humans. Which is why the second question is necessary, to see if humans who do not pass this test also get human rights.