RussK
-
Posts
458 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by RussK
-
-
I've reached a moral dilemma going through my collection of books. Due to a religious past and some world-religion classes I took in college I have accumulated a small number of books whose contents I entirely disagree with. These books span christianity, catholicism, buddhism, and islamicism (including their individual scriptures) and some books specialize on their leaders, homosexuality, and apologetics excusing violent philosophy, as well as much more innocent but still persuasive fiction.
I've acquired a few Christian books over time (about six) and refused to sell them at garage sales, etc... I won't allow anyone to read the book from my actions and will keep them out of circulation by destroying them some day. Probably, I'll just throw them in the trash; burning them would require much more work.
-
I think we should be more active at NorwayLoto. Also, we should somehow prove Sebulba's "Propaganda!" being a propaganda on which I'm working right now. All we need to do is more activism, of course.
I'm still behind the different orgs for building hospitals, etc... I'm going to have some extra time in a few days and plan on looking into the matter in more detail. I did talk with a hospital maker in U.S. who builds and donates Q5 hospitals, and he's not a government entity. So, it is a very real possibility, even in the game. I'll be talking to him more in the future.
-
I still think you're wrong: you're verging on cultural determinism by focusing on "conditions" while ignoring the unique powers and choices of individuals.
Undoubtedly, the potential heroic creator requires a reasonably fertile culture to make and propagate some a huge discovery or invention. Yet that culture might take many forms, and it's certainly not enough in and of itself. From the history of Greek philosophy, it's pretty clear that the laws of logic would not have been discovered absent the self-made, fact-oriented, this-worldly super-genius of Aristotle. Even though the culture was very rational, he was many, many heads and shoulders above everyone else. (Plato would have been capable, but he chose to busy himself with the world of Forms.)
Individuals -- and their choices -- are the driving force behind these monumental discoveries and inventions.
No doubt culture and the self-made play a huge part in discovery. When you wrote about native americans above, the first concrete example that came to my mind was Newton's discoveries. There's no way the indian's could have formulated these discoveries or added much of anything to science. Even if there were a serious, fact oriented native american, the culture--the prior discoveries and building blocks--did not exist for him to integrate and use.
-
5) Sex and sexual intimacy is a basic human need just as much for singles as for those in romantic relationships
NO IT IS NOT. Sex in and of itself is NOT A FUCKING NEED. You will not drop dead just because your dick isn't inside a vagina every single second you're awake. It's not going to "hurt your psychological health" to *not fuck*. It WILL hurt your psychological health if you fuck women you don't care about all the time. You need to find someone you LOVE, then have sex with THEM, as much as you want. That's the only time sex can be called a need - in a romantic relationship.
Is this post supposed to be serious? I agree with Tito about questioning your respect or understanding of sex, even as it's represented by Ayn Rand. Myriad works by Rand illustrate how uplifting the sexual experience and relationship can be, implicitly highlighting the psychological benefits. Of course, this isn't a need, but I think you read too much into whoever posted that to begin with; however, it is a very big ingredient in the sum of one's happiness or esteem. As for the harm of not having sex, I think I already alluded to that in giving support to the prior poster who said that practice was good: it's a good way to increase one's social ability, which does effect the 'psychology'. Additionally, in the actual fields of psychology and sociology, theories exist about the negative effects of being prudish, if that's the right word--sorry, I can't give any sources first hand right now. Personally, I believe in these effects, from cases such as the Puritans to the modern day Islamist.
-
Umm, what does it matter how experienced you are at sex? If two people love each other, they won't care. You'll look past something as minor as "inexperience" in the bedroom. If you aren't willing to look past that, then you aren't in love with this person and you don't deserve to be in a serious relationship.
That's why I said this:
Of course, yes, it is very possible to have sex with an inexperienced person and temporarily ignore their noticeable actions from their inexperience, but that's not to say that they couldn't have been a better partner if they would have had more experience.My post was very short, so I don't know how you glossed over this.
To say that "gaining more experience" is a good reason to have casual sex is nothing more than a rationalization to fuck more people. Get your brain out of your dick/vagina.No, that's you rationalizing the position. I contemplated adding some qualifier to my post in the hopes of preventing such rationalizations, but I figured it went without saying and determined it a waste of time. Which, I guess I was right; no qualifying statement is likely to prevent misunderstandings in those who take away from the statement "multiple sexual encounters are good for your current and future sex life (and relationships)" that "gaining experience is a rationalization to have sex with more people."
-
All else aside, I take issue with this point. I've heard it before and I'm not buying it. ...
You don't need to have a bunch of meaningless "practice".
Well, I guess you don't have to buy it, but I happen to agree with the poster who brought up the practice issue. Not only does it provide for better sex, but it also would help with the transition to that point in the relationship. I don't know of anything that won't get better with practice. Even social relationships in general, for example, are affected by how you've engaged in them in the past (practice). Of course, yes, it is very possible to have sex with an inexperienced person and temporarily ignore their noticeable actions from their inexperience, but that's not to say that they couldn't have been a better partner if they would have had more experience.
-
I don't see benefit in asking the question. I've never asked the question--though I have thought about it to myself--and hate it when I'm asked. It takes me by surprise and I become displeased with the person asking. My being displeased occurs because I think the question throws out what someone has learned first hand about me, giving more authenticity to some number that will probably be rationalized into some kind of judgment or impression. It just seems petty to me.
-
This is why I'm not "religious" about adhering to the diet, and I certainly don't try to eat like a primeval hunter-gatherer. (It's silly to even think that all populations of humans should have exactly the same optimal nutritional requirements, anyway. I'm a ghost-pale northerner, I'm rather distinct from people who once hunted the African Savannah.) The parts of paleo that are useful, to me, is the recognition that eating saturated fat is not bad for you and that carb-loading IS. It's a radically different concept from most diets where you avoid fats like the plague in favor of unsatisfying food that serves to fuel your desire to overeat.
Yeah, and I wasn't really saying that everyone who promotes paleo wants to return and live like humans from that period, but I did think it was essential point to make, highlighting the need for variation, etc... Actually, I'm not sure that I've ever known a promoter of the diet to advocate going totally paleo. Most use qualifiers or redefine the word. For example, Diana Hsieh generally uses the term "paleo-ish" if I remember correctly.
The point you make about regional environment affecting diet is actually one that I've seen on the internet. Concerning the diet of paleo beings, Wikipedia gives an entry of how Africans would have had different proportions of food types (meat & veg) than extreme northern beings, which makes a lot of sense to me.
I don't really try to stay away from either carbs or fats; however, I am a promoter of a complex carb diet. Strangely, I actually enjoy very fatty meats, even the fat itself, while most people seem repulsed by it and put it to the side--it just has a good flavor to me. However, even though I think sat fat foods should at least be a part of a diet, I don't go out of my way eat them and definitely keep it relegated to a small part of my daily diet. For example, I usually eat one egg every morning (two if I make an omelet), cooked in butter, and I would have no problem eating a slice or two of bacon if I had the supplies. I recognize the benefits of eggs, but I also know the risks of them; I'm not sure that bacon has much nutritional value, but it tastes good
.The foods I stay away from are primarily simple carbs and heavily refined carbs. As a general rule, if a carb food doesn't have a good amount of fiber in it, then I am more hesitant to eat it. Minus the focus on fiber heavy carb foods, staying away from simple and refined carbs is just one of the many similarities between my general diet* and the paleo-ish. So, I want to make it clear that I recognize benefits of the paleo diet and have said as much on other forums, like NoodleFood. Generally, I just try and argue that carbs are not evil and are beneficial, and likewise that fats are not necessarily evil either.
*this term is used because, like I said, I don't follow the diet religiously. Alcohol is not a part of the diet, but it's a part of mine
-
Worse yet, these women are probably convinced that it was right for them to be mutilated like that.
I agree with this statement in that many of the women subject to such cruelty may be convinced that their punishments were just. Many people who are abused think that they are the problem; some women will say "they had it coming to them." These pictures are an extreme and graphic example of a systemic problem in such countries, and where abusive ideas are so ingrained it's probably more likely for the victim to blame themselves. For example, many slaves in America probably thought it was quite natural for the way they were treated, such as this case:
"They wasn't no church for the slaves, but we goes to the white folks' arbor on Sunday evening, and a white man he gits up there to preach to the niggers. He say, "Now I takes my text, which is, Nigger obey your master and your mistress, 'cause what you git from them here in this world am all you ever going to git, 'cause you just like the hogs and the other animals--when you dies you ain't no more, after you been throwed in that hole." I guess we believed that for a while 'cause we didn't have no way of finding out different. We didn't have no Bibles." (Federal Writers' Project, Lay my Burden Down: A Folk History of Slavery) -
Yes, I cringe at the propaganda, but these are msm networks and true believers. Social metaphysics is the way they operate. I saw the weak throw he made at the baseball all star game, though.
The Vikings are a great story! I might root for them if the Cardinals or Cowboys don't do well.
You know, I think that the cause for the NFL60 and the President is good. No one can really bash the cause to get children more active. However, your reactions were like mine, because the portrayal in the commercial, with all the slow motion effects, were way over the top.
The Vikings are a a great story. I've never tried to watch any of their games until this year. To me, the most important story is with Favre: he has sidelined everything and put his goals and desires first, to play football. His actions, minus the pre-season drama, can actually be called role model material.
-
There is the explanation. It is grade school debate tactics. Democrats can't get what they wanted, so Republicans won't get what they wanted. That's "fair".
As if we are not really at war, as if the war is only republican, as if OBL doesn't matter.
Actually, for the quote you selected, I thought the most damning thing was equating the war in Afghanistan--as it should be, not as it is or was--with universal health care.
*edit: quote as topic below:
OBEY: If we wind up being committed in Afghanistan for eight to 10 years, that's also going to approach $800 billion to $900 billion. And if we're going to do that, it seems to me that if we're being told we have to pay for health care, we certainly ought to pay for this effort as well. -
Great idea, although the structure of it could use more work. If people want to "support the troops," let them put their money where their mouth is; let them give the troops what they've always fought for them to have: "the ability to fight and win." Of course, I'm approaching this more from a voluntary taxation position, but that's besides the point given the nature of our current funding means. It's also important to note that "Share the Sacrifice" is nothing but a play on the words currently used to describe the actions of military personnel as sacrifice, or the death of military personnel as The Ultimate Sacrifice, so there's nothing ominous or new about the title. Also, I'd like to point out, that the only people committing the ultimate sacrifice are our elected officials who are committing military personnel to situations of potential harm and death, while upholding altruistic war policy.
-
It seems the nationalists are gaining in political power about everywhere in Europe:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/11/29...ndum/index.html
This "group warfare," competition for collective powers from the government, is always going to create problems. Swiss muslims will definitely push back, and they'll have a reason. Unfortunately this just convolutes the debate concerning Islam.
-
So, has anyone seen the NFL60 adverts featuring President Obama? Good catch Mr. President
My team, NY Giants, are continuing to look hopeless. Just to add to their problems, Manning has a stress reaction in his foot. I've pretty much decided to root for the Saints first and Vikings second. I'm going to have to get some Who Dat apparel and Who Dat recipes; tonight I think I'm going to have jumbolia.
-
You seem to have missed the point of the paleolithic diet. The principle isn't ancient, but evolved.
Man, like all animals, evolved over millions of years -- man adapted to the foods naturally available to him. On the other hand, agriculture, grains, synthetic fats, vegetable oils etc. are all recent developments - man has not had enough time to evolve to process these foods.
Why is the Mesolithic period and everything past it considered considered as evolved? How can you tell me that agriculture is a recent development? Granted, it's more recent than the end of paleo, but 10,000 BCE is far from recent. However, this is not to say that you're wrong in suggesting the possibility that newer, synthetic foods may be unhealthy.
Additionally, what exactly is being considered evolved about the diet of paleo period beings? If I'm not mistaken, it's the digestive system that's being identified as having evolved--adaption to available foods over time. Of course, this is a fact most no one will disagree with; however, this fact says nothing about what these hominids ate. As far as I know, science is still trying to determine what the beings from this period ate and in what proportion; therefore, I find it very misleading to use the label "evolved diet."
Interestingly, however, what we can consider as having evolved, for better or worse, is the human diet. Over time, with the growth of agriculture and technology, the human population has exploded because of the increase in nutrition. This diet, of course, was even 'evolving' in the paleo period. Where did agriculture come from--why were food products grown to begin with--if not from humans planting food that they had already been consuming; doesn't the fact that agriculture was created have some weight on the importance to the diet of early humans of the staples being grown?
Of course, un-evolutionary does not mean the same as unhealthy: it is perfectly plausible that in the future, we may engineer a food type that sits well with our existing nutritional requirements. However, it does mean that we should treat all new foods with some caution, since they do not have the biological guarantee that comes with the foods we evolved to eat. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that all of the foods deemed unhealthy in the paleolithic diet are, in fact, unhealthy.I agree with much of what you say, but I must disagree that paleo is necessarily healthy. Actually, I would argue that paleo is less healthy than diets that evolved after that period died. From a more sociological perspective--if that's even an accurate usage--the paleo diet is unattainable for our population and productive lifestyles. Furthermore, taken to its conclusions, returning to the hunter-gather method would result in massive death and would constitute a return to the primitive.
Several sources have been cited, but some more of my favourites are:Dr Diana Hsieh's posts on food
There are probably more than enough links on those. I am convinced that the Paleolithic diet *is* the scientific diet.
Concerning the Freetheanimal link, statistics can't tell everything; however, what I'd like to see are statistics and evidence promoting the eating heavy saturated fat, sodium, and cholesterol; and then show me the evidence for blaming fruits and vegetables, or eating less of them. Furthermore, I'd like to comment on the author's analysis of the LDL figures for people admitted with CAD. CAD is the result of the plaque buildup--which is made of cholesterol-- so it happens over time. Just a guess, but these people admitted are probably on medication to normalize their cholesterol counts; however, if one were to show a graph depicting those who are diagnosed with CAD, the LDL counts would probably be quite high.
As for the Weston link, I visited that site many months back, and the BS flag was immediately raised. It could be the general layout of the site, which looks like it was developed by the same people who develop the penis enlargement and teeth whitening fraud sites, or it could be the absurd statements used as evidences in their crusade against soy products. For example: "In Japanese Americans tofu consumption in mid-life is associated with the occurrence of Alzheimer's disease in later life," and "Japanese housewives feed tofu to their husbands frequently when they want to reduce his virility."
-
Why don't we instead figure out what the best diet is based on science, and call it the scientific diet? How does this Paleolithic thing make any sense to anyone?
I get how it makes a little sense but only in the context of it being a reaction to prior attacks against fats and meats. What I don't get is people who are religiously following the plan, committing the same mistakes that prior movements made. It's one thing to experiment with a diet and even get behind it, but it's quite another to act like the diet is the proven holy grail of health and fitness. Then there are the facts of this 'evolutionary diet' that you pointed out that show that most paleo diets aren't quite paleo. Even if it were, because of the proven evolution of society and population--and the way it eats--such a diet would be unattainable by many people on this planet.
We should have told the Indian's during the Bengal Famine that they couldn't eat those nice legumes because they weren't good for their health. -
I couldn't figure out what is being called altruist in this article. If this is identifying as altruistic anything that's not 'paleo' then there's a big problem with that. I think it's great that many Objectivists are forming diet and fitness groups, most of which are firmly behind the paleo movement, but that doesn't make one diet or another Objectivist.
I have no idea what the best foods are to eat; I can only go on what I observe from my own body changes and energy levels, as well as generalizing on other peoples' eating behaviors that I can observe--this, of course, is even less scientific. From that type of evidence, my skinny ass will continue to eat a diet of moderation consisting primarily of less-refined grains and vegetables.
-
If people are to be convinced to contribute, I think they will want to have a feel of what they're being asked. So, do you know the approximate cost of a hospital? If the price is variable, is there a way -- using the contract-enforcement system that the game has in place -- to "pre-negotiate" a price with some hospital-builder?
Yeah, I'm looking into it. From what I've learned from the wiki, the quality of the hospital is dependent on the amount of wood used. I'll probably communicate with the only hospital builder in eNorway, and ask him for the details. But as you said, the approximate, or even an agreed on price with a builder, would have to be laid out in the plan and in the advertisements.
-
I think that's a pretty good idea. I can contribute some seed money to the organization as well; does anyone know whether we can buy hospitals anywhere and then deploy them? How do the mechanics of that work? If we can find them somewhere else for a bargain we can buy them cheap that way and it'd be a lot easier to pull off, and then just advertise for voluntary donations.
Not everything is available to our market, and only governments can buy them. That's just the way the game was created.
-
We have essentially been challenged through many comments to show how voluntary taxation can work. I've been thinking of just how we can go about doing that besides the NorwayLotto, which I think is too high of a focus for the moment. Something that we can focus on that is not as broad as the whole budget of eNorway is building hospitals.
I know that many have said that they see no benefit for having multiple hospitals in the country, and it seems to have become part of the party platform due to various comments by party members. However, this is not a good way to promote the party, and it's not necessarily bad to have multiple hospitals. In fact, I think it's good to have hospitals in every region, especially the more important ones that have resources. Hospitals allow for higher citizen levels and stronger citizens for war. By having hospitals in the lower populated regions, immigration is promoted and regions--and nation--can be defended better. Additionally, the nation's (game's) political system is somewhat dependent on regions, since congressional nominees are selected by region.
With that in mind, I propose that we start building the infrastructure for voluntary funding of the government, starting with hospitals. If the party wants to get behind this idea, then we need to figure out the organizational method for funding these hospitals. There can be the creation of either one organization for the general funding and purchase of hospitals, or multiple organizations can be created for specific regions. For example, the eNorway Hospital Fund, for all eNorway citizens to participate, with the government responsible for selecting where a hospital would be installed using the funds; or the Trondelag Hospital Fund, which will focus primarily on receiving funds from Trondelag citizens themselves, but also eNorway citizens. Once the infrastructure is in place, an advertisement campaign would be launched--which seems to be fairly cheap--focused on the particular fund's target audience.
What do you all think about this? I really think this is our best opportunity to create and utilize voluntary methods for funding government operations. The people in these regions want a hospital, those in the higher populated regions want to move to these lower populated ones, and we can put something in place to allow them to work toward getting a hospital. This approach is more modular than the NorwayLotto. If it works, we can create other institutions for funding budget items, like training wars.
-
"In Defense of Oil," Voices for Reason Blog:
This week, I will be visiting four universities–University of Utah, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Carnegie Mellon University, and University of Minnesota (Monday-Thursday respectively, see schedule here)–to encourage students to question the idea that oil is an “addiction” to be ended as quickly as possible. Why question it? Because the standard line on oil only tells one side of the story: all the (alleged) negatives that come with our use of oil. But what about the positives? What is the positive we get from our use of oil, and what would be the consequences of a major government initiative to fulfill Obama’s mandate that “the age of oil must end in our time”? This neglected aspect of the debate will be my focus in “In Defense of Oil.” Following each talk will be an extended question period where audience members are welcome to ask questions about any and all oil controversies (climate change, peak oil, Mideast oil politics, etc.)Is anyone here going to be attending the lecture at the University of Minnesota?
-
From what I've heard about this Maj. Hassan, it would be hard to call him an Islamist, of the likes that we are at war with. Of course, the investigations are still on going, and much more information is likely to come out. My current opinion is that this person most likely committed this act due to factors ranging job related issues to other personal problems (some sort of victimization and isolation), with Islam being more of a solidifying factor or rallying point after he went off the deep end.
-
I get your point, and agree that the majority of tea party participants are proponents of christianity and haters of secularism. He can through a few nice little phrases out there like tyranny &etc, but it is his reason behind his arguments that makes his statements incompatible with liberty.
On a side note, taking one of those anti-christian elements from that speech, which is rationing, I would like to come out in favor of rationing of government health care. I've wanted to write a short essay on the topic for a couple of months now, but just haven't had the time.
[edit: and my motivation concerning this BS is getting lower over time]
-
Are you serious? The whole point of successful Psychological warfare is that the victim is not able to chose whether to expose himself to it or not. At least I think that was his original point, not a war situation, geeez!
I think you're making a big leap here. Psychological warfare can and generally does occur without the use of force. Now, I'm sure there are some heavy examples, such as shooting someone in the head--or the modern Iraqi alternative, to cut off someone's head with a dull knife--that have been used throughout history, but most forces have constraints that don't allow them to coerce. For example, a military force dropping leaflets from an airplane, dispersing money and food, and building schools can affect the choices of a population, but those are simply methods of persuasion, not coercion.
What happened to Capmag?
in Current Events
Posted
I was wondering that myself two days ago. I've always been a reader of the site, but for whatever reason for the past few months I had not visited it until recently. Usually I would check the site daily, sometimes more than once, for updates. Maybe my change in viewing habits was because I relied on the RSS feed for the site to scan for an interesting topic, but it hadn't been updated in so long I just forgot about it.