Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 10, 2015, 09:20:55 PM

The breeding wasn't for physical attributes, but to get free slaves. I don't think there's much merit to your theory. Superiority in sports is pretty much entirely due to height differences and related body attributes.

It was for both, mostly physical attributes. A slave owner that wants to make some decent profit will breed slaves to maximize their performance. Which they did.

There's no evidence of this. It's all supposition. There's barely even evidence of any widespread breeding let alone trying to isolate certain traits, which would take many generations and couldn't have possibly resulted in any radical changes like you're claiming.

The WaPo is rejecting this explanation, however, claiming that the Commissioner "expressly rejected this theory of liability".

Probs because home address isn't private information and there's zero merit in the theory.

Not at all impressed by Eisenberg's Lex Luthor, but it looks really good so far.

Why didn't the Japanese-Americans fight back? Why didn't black slaves fight back? Why didn't the Irish fight ba- oh, bad example. Anyways, they really had no means to do so. They were starved and worked, with no tools or means for organization.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 10, 2015, 09:20:55 PM

The breeding wasn't for physical attributes, but to get free slaves. I don't think there's much merit to your theory. Superiority in sports is pretty much entirely due to height differences and related body attributes.

They usually bred the best slaves though, and usually those were the ones that would sell the highest.

Slave breeding wasn't rampant at all, and the human development cycle is so long that it really wasn't feasible to selectively breed new and better "crops" of slaves (and I apologise for using that insensitive phrasing). Marriage was common, and slaves were typically encouraged to have families because it would make the slave trade self-sufficient to reduce reliance on importing slaves. So while the stronger ones may have been more valuable in certain capacities, there was really no widespread effort to breed certain characteristics, and claims that it was done are merely suppositions since there's basically no evidence it was done.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 10, 2015, 04:51:17 PM

Halsey needs to take the stick out of her ass.

Implying parangoski Osman and Palmer aren't a billion times worse

Palmer's fine. Everything Halsey says sounds like a suicidal teenager that just discovered a thesaurus.

Halsey needs to take the stick out of her ass.

The global warming "pause" never actually happened

global warming "pause" never happened

global warming never happened

I knew it!

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 09, 2015, 08:20:29 PM

I can guarantee you don't need calc for economics unless you're going with some sort of econ-wizard financial engineering route like I did. I saved almost all of my lectures and materials in my dropbox, and I'd share it if my name and personally identifiable information wasn't all over it. I'll check to see if anything can be easily cleaned.

i had to keep mine the old fashioned way. I've even kept a notebook that got pissed on by a dog because it had my engineering notes in it.

Thankfully my school converted to keeping almost everything online. I still have stacks of notebooks filled with my work that I can't bring myself to throw away, but it's nice having access to all the lectures.

I can guarantee you don't need calc for economics unless you're going with some sort of econ-wizard financial engineering route like I did. I saved almost all of my lectures and materials in my dropbox, and I'd share it if my name and personally identifiable information wasn't all over it. I'll check to see if anything can be easily cleaned.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on July 09, 2015, 06:36:20 PM

Well I obviously don't think so, or I wouldn't have made it.

I'm afraid I don't really see the connection. There seems to be quite an obvious distinction between mutilating oneself out of mental instability and then making the decision to end your seemingly permanent suffering in a peaceful way. One causes suffering, the other relieves it. Care to elucidate your position?

Self-harm relieves suffering. Depressed individuals use it as a means of controlling and corporealizing their mental pain; in effect it's a form of self-treatment, even though it does absolutely nothing to improve their wellbeing. Suicide is an extension of self-harm in the sense that it is perceived as a means of retaking control of their pain and faculties while simultaneously bringing relief to said pain. Ask any suicidal person and to one degree or another they'll all agree that they don't wish to be dead but simply see no alternative to end their suffering. So if doctors are willing to legitimize death as a treatment of sorts for treatment-resistant depression, why not self-harm? What if the patient could remain alive, with symptoms acceptably mitigated (as indicated by lack of suicidal tendencies), by regular self-harm?

I wonder if they would approve a right to self-harm.

I'm mostly curious what kind of cake this was. I've been to a shit-ton of weddings, and none of them have ever had pictures or writing on the cake. They're almost always plain, sometimes with flowers or other shit on them.

The article says they just said they couldn't do it when they were told there were two wives. I think that's what you're referring to.

Quote from: Meta Cognition on July 09, 2015, 11:22:56 AM

Is their faith wrong? I think so. Are their values stupid? Sure. But you don't change stupid values by violating their freedom to hold them.

But in the state of Oregon, their anti-discrimination laws prevent you from denying a service to a customer because they are gay, which is what happened here. If this was a straight couple, this wouldn't have been a problem in the slightest.

I wonder how many cakes this bakery provided to adulterers and the like, since that's also a no-no in the Christian faith.

Well maybe if someone came in requesting a cake for their adultery party, they might refuse that, too.

It's not about the couple, it's about the event.

Or because Marty was an overpaid, one-trick pony working for a company that was rapidly cutting costs and changing in structure and goals. It's not a huge mystery why he was fired.