Nomoturtle's Waterfall
the intention is more to do with the reverse. the psychotic dark humour is supposed to be funny
ask this question of yourself after you've gone through a self diagnostic for personality disorders
those who disagree with you on abortion do not consider the fetus to be an "individual"
i really can't understand the relevance of this when the fetus undeniably has the potential to become an individual
i wouldn't say all women are bisexual, but perhaps many are. in that video you linked to the other day where a woman pretended to be a man for 18 months she commented that much of a women's sexuality was up in their heads, while a man's sexuality was seemed very physical. she concluded that from the popularity and workings of the strip club she frequently visited as a man and from many female dating partners she hooked up with. she said that after revealing herself to be a woman after the date some of the women felt a connection and wanted to continue the relationship.
i wouldn't make any statement on which race is worse, but i agree with the woman. before criticising another sub-race you should remove any possibility of hypocrisy, but whites murder each other and give and promote a criminalising stereotype for blacks
this is beautiful. it should be glued next to everyone's monitor
in ways, yes, but men are too.
really though, the title is pointing to a different point of view that breaks from the video, it's like you're trying to catch them out.
gotta vent out somewhere, the outlets are drying up. some day even the white oasis will dry up too.
this is a violation of rights. save the trees from themselves!
i propose isolating them until an undoubtable sign of consent is shown from all plants... wow, that orgy.
this describes exactly the purpose of reform programmes, although you're referring to lobotomy, the result is very much the same. while needlessly controversial, with the prisoner's consent it is exactly the same as the reform programs in place today
what DKCairns said, except it also makes sense logically (in reference to evolution and survival), as if 99% of women die, it will take a long time to repopulate, whereas even one man can repopulate the species, so they are far more expendable.
i think the whole idea of evacuating women and children first is entirely due to chivalry, but it does have an underlying support.
the US has a problem with guns, this is undeniable. it is has the highest gun related deaths among developed countries in the world. however while banning guns is only one solution, other nations have proven its potency for reducing gun crimes. just look at these two links, the correlation is generally very obvious. it isn't even up for argument. restricting guns is effective. a good example is japan. 0.6 guns per 100 people. 0.06 gun-deaths per 100,000. if you were to scale japans total gun related deaths by population in comparison to the US, the US should have a min5, max 30 deaths per year.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Listofcountriesbyfirearm-relateddeathrate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numberofgunspercapitabycounhowever there are large discrepencies in this trend, and frankly this is because the US is so irresponsible. america has a total of about 30,000 deaths gun related deaths annually. 8000 of these are homicides, leaving 22,000 gun-[suicides or accidents]. additionally there are countries with relatively high gun ownership rates, but with far lower gun related deaths per capita. eg. germany with 30.3 guns per hundred (relatively very high from the mean rate per country, but pales to the US's trophy 88.8) has 1.24 deaths per 100,000. america has 8 times this, despite also having relatively high gun ownership rates.
yeah kurzgesagt are pretty good. you should take a look at wait but why as well. it's far more speculative but covers similar content
its disgraceful. the lies we infer to children. perhaps one day our mistakes will be corrected, preferably by one of those plumbers
sentience seems to have many definitions. some define it as the ability to perceive (with senses?). some as the ability 'to feel pain' (emotional? as a sense?). others as the ambiguous 'to feel'.
you seem to be using sentience in place of consciousness, yet another definition.
there are ideas that you, or your consciousness is your body, your brain, or a sequence of information. i would agree with the latter, but would say that this information, this tendency to make certain choices and follow certain patterns is created by the brain as it 'learns'. i therefore believe that the creation of the brain is the creation of the personality.
the brain exists as a control centre which takes stimuli and reacts accordingly in ways that have in previous circumstances worked for its survival. in my simplified version, the unique way in which a brain reacts to stimuli is consciousness.
evolution can be used to explain the creation of the brain and as far as i am concerned, therefore the creation of the self.
not your original question, but no, evolution does not really explain the beginning of life, but explains how one form of life can slowly become something unrecognisable to the original. then you just need a starting point.
there are a few (scientific) theories, but i'll stick with chemical evolution here. as you sort of said, chemical reactions come together to form life. this has been demonstrated in a lab where molecules under a simulated lightning form amino acids: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
admittedly there is a gap here, while amino acids are considered the building blocks of life, there is no known chemical method or process that would make these building blocks become a self-replicating organism. i honestly can't say anything other than they randomly happened to form together in a functional and cooperative manner in reference to a living organism. this is the same explanation we started with, that chemical reactions randomly made life, but is less of a stretch considering life's foundational components exist naturally.
life evolves because life changes. mutations occurring randomly throughout all life bring small changes to it. if the changes make that organism more successful it is more likely to (in the case of life) survive. evolution needs a drive such as survival to give these mutations a direction of progression. mutations that do not contribute to a specific goal (survival) are killed off by predators or bad compatibility with environment.
computers do not evolve because they lack any process of change. no change means no evolution in any direction for any purpose. computers also have no goal or selection process other than what is prescribed, so were they to evolve, the results would be random, and in most cases detrimental to the initial function of the computer.
i can appreciate the absurdity of evolution from another perspective, however your analogy is missing a crucial component which could be fixed with something like a mutation script. applications that do not properly or competitively meet their purpose are deleted and so linux runs these applications with minute changes and iterates. every iteration is reviewed for its relative success and the change is assimilated into the application if it makes the app more successful for its purpose.
evolution is just a theory, but as with other theories is a constructed guess upon facts and backed by evidence. arguably the ideas some come up with to explain these facts are just as ridiculous and false as the next. but as of yet, evolution has no contender to better explain our origin with the current information.
The fact that society is ignorant of this is the cause of the double standard, not a defense of it.
it is a defense of it. my point is that if there is actually a difference between the two then it is possible that one may be sexualised while the other is not. provided there is a physical difference other than to which gender it belongs to in this case. there is a physical difference, as female breasts are typically much larger than male breasts and sustain children with milk. as for the reasons why society would make breasts a sexual object is beyond me.
it is even implied that there mustn't be a difference for a double standard when jolie wrote: "Female nipples are censored.
Male nipples look like female nipples."
1stDS, not a double standard, which i am arguing for.
2ndDS, a double standard i used in contrast, not in reference to.
3rdDS, as in previous paragraph
you do not find the same obsession and sexual pleasure derived from them. this is interesting.
