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.
Men's nipples have breasts under them as well.
I didn't know this, but you recognised what i meant and attacked anyway. besides, from the perspective of someone who has not participated in or seen the results of a male breast dissection, which would be those who generally make up 'society' males do not have breasts.
You are pointing to a THIRD double standard
please tell me what you think a double standard is
Such pleasure would not exist without said sexualization.
effect->cause? don't think so
Neither men's or women's nipples are inherently sexual although true, something does not have to be inherent to be true, particularly where society is concerned. you can't deny that women's nipples are sexualised. men's are not (or at least as much)
The double standard involves the fact that women's nipples are sexualized and men's aren't
this would be a double standard if they had the potential to be equal. they do not. mens nipples do not have breasts under them, nor is pleasure derived from them. there is an actual difference here, not just something unfair conjured up against either gender.
the reason we censor nipples are because we believe them to be a part of something sexual and for possible reasons we censor nudity (https://www.youtube.com/
there isn't really a double standard as far as practical as male nipples are not seen as sexual, so there is no need to censor. if penis's were not censored and vagina's were or vice versa, then there would be a double standard.
i am honestly concerned that a chatbot has invaded createdebate
not sure you know what bigoted means. i was not defending paedophiles. i said that the hate for paedophilia was misproportioned to the actual crime.
you can downvote cuaroc all you like, but he is right, you didn't read the argument, which brings it to twice in a row so far. this is twice so far you have invented a contrary gist of what i was saying and argued against your idea.
i think this video should be seen by everyone worldwide. i cant help but admire the woman for publicly speaking out against a benefit to the immediate feminist cause for truth
i really think this idea of pedophilia has become far too bloated. i would agree raping children should be a crime as with all rape, and perhaps with consequences higher than that of regular rape due to possibly more intense psychological issues as a result. but this unusual almighty hatred for this particular group of people seems more scary to me than the pedophiles themselves.
it is a perfectly understandable hatred, as most people will spend about half of their lives dedicated to children, where both the cause and effect is love between them. any harm to them obviously will cause outrage, and so it is reflected in society. but this demand for justice against crimes that shouldn't be much more distinguished than a regular case of rape shows me that both society and the law are too close to unchecked emotion rather than to rational thinking.
boy turns out great, whereas a girl most times is negatively effected.
greatly depends on your outlook and criteria for 'great'. your idea of great really doesn't help you with your appearance.
debating online does bring out the worst in people. you can't see the person you are 'listening' or 'talking' to, which can make it hard to understand, respect and empathise. there are no concerns from someone screaming insults at a rock, for that may as well be what youre talking to for its human value at times. on top of that you can get away with anything online with few consequences, which largely removes the barrier to insults and douchebaggery. power and misunderstanding creates the worst in people. step on an ant and you will be proclaimed a murderer regardless of what you see.
and yes, occasionally there is some bitching, insults, name-calling and narcissistic bigoting contests. but generally i see most people tolerating each other and being polite enough.
i agree too, particularly when you involve benefits, but wealth redistribution isn't just stealing. however most rich people don't actually do anything significant or useful. many just move items around the market, or provide luxuries or live off inherited fortunes your generalisations of the lower classes are perhaps not unfounded in reference to intelligence and may apply to some in laziness, but many of them are very hard working, operating multiple jobs with little aspects of hope for them or their family and children. it can be hard enough to get a sustainable job without further education, which many will never receive either.
thats because santa can be proven and is favourable, god is
not.
people pray to god to save people and prevent disasters and punish the wicked... people go unpunished, Japan gets rekt and family members die. people send letters to santa asking for presents and what do they get? presents...
god asks for your unconditional support and devotion, bans pre-marital sex and sends floods of genocide. santa asks that you be nice to people.
If god disagrees with you he will send you to a fiery shithole where you burn and are prodded at with spiky nasties. probably watches too. santa will deposit a lump of coal rather than what you asked for in order to warm your cold heart, because he understands that a naughty person stems from a cold beginning, and wishes to help.
god apparently lives in some fantastical and inaccessible realm (or at least you can't change your mind once you get there) land exists in all time and space. santa lives in the north pole.
santa also can be seen and heard. he tries to be everywhere at once (which god only pretends to do) i see him every year to thank him for the previous year, and at the convenience of my nearest shopping market no less! he truly cares.
santa was so kind as to start giving out presents on the tyrant, jesus's birthday as to alleviate our suffering at this reminder of disappointment and injustice.
so for these reasons atheists believe in santa, but not god, as a form of honourable silent treatment, backed by god's own apathy towards his existence in our eyes.
im hoping ill get extra presents this year for preaching santa's kindness.
not once did i deny that. read what i wrote before replying please.
genetic differentiation is a mechanic for survival that outperforms mitosis. otherwise we would be massive bacteria, self copying, with minimal evolution and without the 'change in numbers' factor bacteria have in evolution. meiosis not only provides evolution through copying errors as with mitosis, but also scrambles a load of other information as well. better for the rate at which humans reproduce and the rate the environment changes at.
that said you could still say that people are people when they are different from people. basing human identity on genetics to an extent i can agree with. but basing human value on genetics seems arbitrary.
history shows you can, thousands of ideas or cultures and millions of people have been adopted to a single way of life. anywhere you look this happens. America, British Empire, Roman Empire, Persian Empire... sometimes the assimilation of a people is not flawless and sometimes it adds something new to the whole, but millions have been unknowingly indoctrinated out of their original habitat to another.
i might do sometimes as is usually obvious, but i typically don't.
This is incredible. Never have I seen such a dedicated argument. I think it should be taken into consideration that (for some hypothetically) if the bible was fabricated at the time it would contain the moral values of that time. Back then all things described in your post were socially acceptable.
Just as if today a similar document was composed and was viewed a couple thousand years later it too would be scrutinised and rejected as immoral because morals change. Which the bible is ironically proof of.
there are groups for everything. make sure those groups are not identified by others and you have no target on your back.
as for feminism, i empathise. i would rather be treated equally than below another. so do most others. as far as i see it, (although a misleading title) feminism is a desire for pompous idiots to realise that to a large extent they are the same as everyone else
this crap is everywhere now. personally i see white and gold and that has not changed. here is what i found out:
1. i go to school so everyone i encountered was around the same age, yet there was about a 50-50 split amongst who saw what, so i dont think the idea that something in the eyes was deteriorating to make older people less sensitive to colour. i also asked older and younger people than i and still i got the same spread.
2. ive looked at this photo with a variety of effects (iphone effects) but this photo does not change to blue and black which is apparently the colours of the dress when deconstructed in photoshop and in other pictures. so it may not be anything particularly special about the colours themselves. (previously i had an idea it was a colour that didnt exist and our brain was substituting the closest existing colour. this is not the case)
3. ive tried looking at this photo in different lightings and at different angles, but to no change so it isnt the angle you look at it or the light intensity of your surroundings.
4. it is hard to believe that half the population is colour blind so that is probably not the case. even so: got people to look in the background of the photo and got a singular opinions. havent really heard of white-blue colour blindness anyway.
5. made people who have not previously seen the photo describe the colour of an individual part of the photo which contained virtually one colour only for both 'white' and 'gold' parts before asking the colours of the composite picture, but i still got a spread of blue and black, white and gold. however at the very least the colour they see on the composite dress is consistent with the individual colours described.
6. i had myself (with both a short and long sighted eye), people with glasses and people without glasses describe the colour, but to the same 50-50 spread amongst them.
7. i had everyone view this picture on the same screen, and still got the same spread. so it is not any particular screen setup or display property.
8. a few people (somewhat rare) see one colour then switch to seeing the other later, but i performed 1-7 on them with no change during that period of 1-7.
conclusion: not really anything left to conclude, ive tried to disprove virtually everything. but i think, despite 8, that this is to do with the brain rather than anything physiological. it seems that once a colour is chosen maybe due to individual sensitivity to different colours it will tend to stick that way (where switchers maybe have no particular tendency towards either colour). i think the blue-gold spread is more important than differentiating gold and black because i think the overlay of 'choosing' white affects the black-brown to turn lighter (gold).
an experiment i have not tried and would really like to see is that the picture is printed and shown under different colours of light.
maybe that will help provide a solution?
those are actually the real colours of the dress, your eyes are fine. peoples brains are not.
change isn't really the drive of evolution. people are born with mutations regardless of whether the world they are born into will be difficult for them or not. rather global warming would kill all but the ones with such a mutation that might benefit them to put them above others to survive more easily. non-strenuating circumstances does not prevent evolution. also, there seems to be some preconceived notion that we and other species will evolve, but there is no guarantee at all. the odds of a beneficial mutation are small, much less one specific mutation for one specific purpose. sure we have technology to dull the effects of the climate around us, but it would still be a huge issue for us. for other species it would be far worse. with no shelter from a change in environment, countless species would die, and very few would evolve perhaps other than some of the rapidly breeding species such as bacteria, which would not be fun to live with as they would likely take more dominance than they already have.
i have very much agreement for this after my own experiences. but i think in general its better for parents to actually be parents for kids to end up semi-normal. even if they only end up with one parent, it is still very possible to end up fine provided the lonely parent is capable of taking up a solid role
dogs haven't been selectively bred for human food and as a result are not as efficient as a food source at this time. however if put to it i don't see there to be much of a problem with eating dogs. pigs are very similar in that they are intelligent, and it is as easy to form an animal-human relationship with a pig as it is to with a dog. yet most have few qualms with bacon.
i think there are worse things than what is mentioned in the video, and not just for men either, but yes, the video does touch something tangible
i think there are, but i dont think they would be the type to get many girlfriends...
the satire was that people were using violence to get their way rather childishly, and that it is wrong. the sad thing is that it is true, try to talk away death and you will certainly lose. it is too bad things cant be resolved in a way that does not involve death, even if it still means people must fight.
yes it is. and yet equality still will reign amongst the populous as it should in any just society.
canine: K-nine... kitten: K-ten... (slightly annoying character limit)
yup, carbon lattice. and your beautiful rainbow sparkle is repulsive to some.
were i to believe a god to exist i would undoubtedly ask questions. i was raised into christianity, it was my inquisitive nature that made me doubt the presence of a god in the first place.
a little aside from the topic, but if to be posted on a side, it would be here. i don't understand how people who put their trust and faith in a god can believe that no other religion is right, despite similar people leading similar lives with similarly unshakeable faiths to other gods. any argument related to religion can be heard in so many other cultures... "our ancient book told us so" "because god loves us" "because they saved us from evil" "because they have a special place for us" are they simply incapable of empathy? arrogant? or is there something i am missing?
not necessarily. dna as far as i see it is used for cellular and sexual reproduction, take reproduction out and you have no requirement for dna. take a jellyfish. a jellyfish is immortal through time through regressing its cells back into stem cells, sort of like recycling. but this immortality opens up the possibility that certain lifeforms can be immortal. perhaps over time such a life form will "delete" its dna, yet still be able to continue as a life form (albeit not long as a collective species (external death influences)) this is only a passive statement, just thought it was intriguing i dont agree that there is any spirituality to life. besides, the proof of dna in every life form does not exclude that possibility anyway
actually through math, although quite hard to conceptualise, has been able to calculate and explain objects in multiple spatial dimensions. something string theory is quite thankful for
i think too many people are strangely considering god as the only thing there is to die for, which considering the lifestyles of people today is dishonest and inconsistent. there are infinite things you can find to do, experience, love, enjoy and die for, regardless of whether you are an atheist or a theist, therefore this question is somewhat flawed in that it doesnt really have much of an answer... even from a non-relativist point of view
