This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Tsirist
61
« on: March 14, 2016, 12:55:50 PM »
All people should be killed.
now you're talking
I'm pretty good at generating bad opinions. 
62
« on: March 14, 2016, 12:47:30 PM »
All people should be killed.
63
« on: March 09, 2016, 01:40:48 PM »
this state machine is pretty dysfunctional tbh
64
« on: March 09, 2016, 01:18:36 PM »
What is anonymized metadata anyways? If the data isn't in your hands then the safest assumption is that someone out there is keeping track, especially if they have resources on level with a corporation or a government. If you're using an external service that requires information from you why would you ever assume it is being discarded or "anonymized" somehow?
It's not a good situation at all. Best for now to stick to services that at least aren't confirmed to be feeding into monitoring programs, but of course that's no guarantee. Just have to hope new technologies in distributed computing, cryptography, and quantum computing can offer real security in the future.
65
« on: March 08, 2016, 04:05:34 PM »
An AI must be established. Lesser issues revolve around how we interact with/are incorporated by it. Biggest thing we should be focusing on right now in my opinion.
66
« on: March 05, 2016, 02:04:03 PM »
You suck it up and get away from Smite because HiRez is a terrible studio with no regard for their games other than as means to make money. 
So just like 90% of the gaming industry today?
Unfortunately I can't think of another studio that immediately dropped one of their "live" games (which had plenty of potential even as an esport) the moment a more profitable fad arose. And now they're making their take on Overwatch/TF. Just sayin', I guess if you like the game support them now, but don't expect it to have longevity if they get distracted by something else. Valve and Riot have their flaws but at least the multiplayer/esport games (TF, CS, DotA 2, LoL) they make are ones they're dedicated to as far as I know.
67
« on: March 05, 2016, 01:46:30 PM »
You suck it up and get away from Smite because HiRez is a terrible studio with no regard for their games other than as means to make money.
68
« on: March 04, 2016, 05:23:04 PM »
You call it "the social contract" as if the concept is anything more than philosophers' ephemeral catch-all for government policy. Taxation is one of the most obvious forms of a social contract, but it certainly doesn't dictate specific terms; it can't be quantified, so it's irrelevant.
And on the other hand, in the face of many leading economists disparaging Sanders' plan as a net detriment to the country, wouldn't the same social contract demand we listen to them?
I guess it's irrelevant up until the point that the people who disagree with you get their way with government policy eh?  My point was merely that, if you want to say "you should feel bad for expecting some people to pay for many others" that you better be sure that the people you're speaking to agree. It's a pretty weak approach. I agree that the economists' opinions deserve attention. Hence my urging you to resort to such an argument over the other one.
69
« on: March 04, 2016, 04:51:38 PM »
I'm ok with investing $1.5t a year into the well-being of our people.
That's incredibly easy to say when your cost would be little more than what you already pay for healthcare, while others are forced to shoulder the same cost for thousands of individuals themselves.
Are we supposed to feel bad about that though? The social contract binds you to such obligations in many folks' minds. An appeal to its affects on the well-being of the economy would be more effective.
70
« on: March 04, 2016, 04:29:52 PM »
Paying for health insurance is considered by most people to be a necessity anyways. The only difference between that and paying for a health care system like this is who you pay and what you call it.
71
« on: March 02, 2016, 01:21:50 PM »
cuddling has an odd tendency to lead to sex
72
« on: March 02, 2016, 01:04:27 PM »
really cheesy but was listening to this back when i was falling for my current girlfriend
73
« on: February 29, 2016, 09:06:07 PM »
Here's that official age meter everyone's familiar with
shit
74
« on: February 26, 2016, 07:19:24 PM »
leaves are lovely
and there are so many
so much lovelier and so much more plentiful than so many things
75
« on: February 26, 2016, 05:14:16 PM »
“We simply built too few,” six retired Air Force generals said in a commentary published by Breaking Defense when the B-21 contract was awarded. Well that's not something you hear every day.
76
« on: February 26, 2016, 03:35:45 PM »
dumpstep=deathstep?
LEVELLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL
77
« on: February 25, 2016, 06:02:30 PM »
this one cute girl
78
« on: February 24, 2016, 11:34:46 AM »
You're obviously not LGBT, so why do you even care enough to protest it?
triggered
holy shit ROFL
79
« on: February 23, 2016, 01:42:12 PM »
Because preparing laborers for the workplace has never been the responsibility of the higher education system.
This notion that one "needs" college to live a successful life is relatively new.
What I really don't know is why there is so little emphasis on learning trades today. It doesn't seem to have been such a problem in the past.
I'm not sure I agree with that entirely. Again, because of specialization. There are some fields that lower education will simply never be equipped for preparing you for, so in those fields it pretty much has to be the responsibility of higher education. I agree with your other two points.
80
« on: February 23, 2016, 01:20:45 PM »
right. Public schools are already working on this to one degree or another.
My high school offered an agriculture track, an auto mechanic track, and cooperated with the local hospital and community college to offer nursing training to Juniors and Seniors. I wouldn't mind increased spending to expand and diversify programs like these.
Me neither, actually. We had some of the same. But we didn't have programs for many things people were interested in college for. Rather than transfer responsibilities from one to the other, why not focus on improving the existing the infrastructure for those programs?
81
« on: February 23, 2016, 01:13:55 PM »
But we already have """""""""""""free"""""""""""" education that everyone attends
It's called public school and it is open to everyone from the age of 5 to 18
why not just make that better, if the objective is simply to make the population "more smarterer"
At some point people need to specialize their knowledge. We shouldn't necessarily focus on making everyone smart at everything.
82
« on: February 23, 2016, 01:05:35 PM »
i think the gist is that if college is free then more people will go, if more people go then you have a populace which is better educated.
if a country can make it work without too much of drastic change then i don't see why it shouldn't be free or at the very least affordable
In this sense it is both still a personal investment (albeit less so financially) and also a social/economic investment the same way lower levels of education already are.
83
« on: February 21, 2016, 08:45:18 PM »
Corphish
fuck
twinsiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeees
this couldn't be more perfect <3
84
« on: February 21, 2016, 08:40:53 PM »
Corphish fuck
85
« on: February 21, 2016, 08:32:22 PM »
The claim I was responding to was "Homosexuality is an erroneous desire". I said it's true biologically, therefore the doctor is right about the claim. I'm not talking about the doctor's support of his claim, only you are doing that.
I think you're missing an implication there. Distinguish between these two claims: "Homosexuality is [a biologically] erroneous desire" "Homosexuality is [a socially] erroneous desire" It is clear that his was the second, and it has relevance to the discussion at hand because it discredits his views on other matters of social importance. The former claim is true but has almost no relevance at all to this discussion. For example, distinguish between these two claims: "Smoking is (physiologically) good for you." "Smoking is (emotionally) good for you." One of these is arguably/occasionally/weakly true. The other is downright false. Either could be condensed to "Smoking is good for you" in the context of a conversation in progress, but you would know to what the person was actually referring. Sorry if that's a weak example, I'm trying to think of something simple that illustrates this notion of something being true in one sense and not in another/the importance of context and implications.
86
« on: February 21, 2016, 08:22:51 PM »
I have no idea what connection you're expecting me to talk about, I stated that the claim that homosexuals have an erroneous desire is correct from a biological standpoint, meaning that the doctor's claim doesn't discredit him. Failing to reproduce because of a desire to mate with the improper sex, makes that desire erroneous.
You need to stay on what was said instead of looking for shadows to fight.
The issue is that the doctor did not make that claim. You did. His statement was not a biological one; yours is. You can go back and read his exact statements yourself. He is discredited exactly because he is attacking the issue from a non-biological/non-medical perspective. Meanwhile your point is simply . . . irrelevant. Biologically/evolutionarily it is an error, yes. But I'm pretty sure that aspect only has relevance to about 5% of the population, and not for any good reason.
87
« on: February 21, 2016, 07:58:19 PM »
Great point, unless if something is going to end our species, it's not a problem at all.
I see what you're trying to say so, in that case, please demonstrate the logical connection between homosexuality being a biological error and it being a social problem that demands some solution.
I'm glad you see what argument I'm making, because based on your comment I sure don't.
Was your intent merely to state that homosexuality is a biological error? Without meaning to imply that that should have any bearing on the discussion at hand or this thread?
88
« on: February 21, 2016, 07:50:24 PM »
Great point, unless if something is going to end our species, it's not a problem at all.
I see what you're trying to say so, in that case, please demonstrate the logical connection between homosexuality being a biological error and it being a social problem that demands some solution.
89
« on: February 21, 2016, 07:42:25 PM »
That's a social appeal. Not the argument I was making. Nice try, kiddo. My bad, I thought you were defending the guy whose statements were being contested. In any case, while what you said may be true from the perspective of evolution as an agent, it amounts to an appeal to nature in the context of this social issue, which would be pretty weak.
Appealing to a biological requirement for our species to continue existing is a weak argument?
if homosexuality showed any sign of threatening our species i would consider it a valid concern
as it stands i'm gonna need to see some evidence suggesting the world will be coming to an end as a result of tolerating homosexuality. in the meantime i have faith in heterosexuality to be able to keep up considering the comparatively low rate of homosexuality
I don't even understand this anymore, are you trying to not be insane? Never was the claim made that being tolerant of gays will doom the human race, only that they have an erroneous desire, which biologically is completely accurate.
I went from (apparently) misinterpreting one of your statements as being an appeal to nature in the context of a social issue to you claiming that it is relevant in our species' need to reproduce. Again, the biological "error" would only be relevant to this social issue if it were an actual threat to our species, which it isn't. So how is it relevant again?
90
« on: February 21, 2016, 07:13:08 PM »
Correct me if I'm wrong but this study seems to almost explicitly refer to HRT, not SRS, which wasn't my initial contention.
For the most part yes. There's Table 4 at least. In any case, NcHugh's statements did not just concern SRS, and criticisms of transgender treatments for the suicide rate often extend to HRT without SRS. Sorry, maybe I kinda use that post too much as a catch-all.
|
Show Posts
