>>75884
Well thank you for the time to look at the post.
I must now return to searching and playing the waiting game.

By "involvement in the world", are you referring to charity events and the like? The only article I found that makes reference to them and looks like it might be considered an academically reliable news source is http://www.omaha.com/article/20130319/LIVING/703199973

It's going to be hard to find references from any news source, though, because regardless of how prominent bronies are on the internet or how many charity events some bronies are a part of, the fact is that we're just a fanbase for a TV show first and foremost, and news sites don't tend to report on things like that except in opinion pieces. And the opinion is usually that we're either pedophiles or manchildren.

My understanding is that most of the charity events created by bronies are done through other, already academically recognized charity organizations like the Red Cross. You might have better luck looking through resources from those charity organizations themselves, records of bronies working with them, like the Your Siblings pages for the Seeds of Kindness events ( http://yoursiblings.org/portico/seeds-of-kindness-3 ). Unfortunately, it looks like those might be hard to find as well, but I still think it's a better bet than news articles.

I have to admit I don't keep up with all the charity events, though. If you asked this same question on /good/, or e-mailed the people at Bronies for Good, some of them might be more familiar with bronies' history with the news media.

If "involvement in the world" means things other than charity, there's always the Bronies documentary (which may also reference the charity events somewhere in there, I don't remember). And news sites will usually at least report that Bronycon is something that happens, and it should be easy to find video footage to reference a lot of the events that take place there as well. Once you get enough sources to acknowledge that Bronycon is a real thing, I …

Read more >>

>>75881
This is the right place. /chat/ and /oat/ are for casual talk. /dis/ is for more serious discussion. It can be slower because of that but you can get serious answers here.

>Bronies and their involvement in the world.

That is a pretty broad range of interactions between Bronies and the world around them. Is it that way by design? Do you have any particular things in mind? Keep in mind that even though EQD itself is not a valid source, they should link to sources that you can cite.

I can think of some significant events like when the Berlin parliament Pirate Party got the rest of the parliament to watch episodes.
http://www.equestriadaily.com/2011/12/berlin-parliaments-pirate-party-calls.html
You can use google translate on the article EQD links.
http://www.dradio.de/dlf/sendungen/dlfmagazin/1630017/
…

Read more >>

>>75781
>Alcohol helps me to sleep when I need to.
Mmmmm, I'd recommend using Diphenhydramine if you haven't already. As far as getting to sleep goes, it's a great over the counter hypnotic, and while I'm no pharmacologist, I'm willing to bet it's significantly safer in the long term than alcohol is. Always check with your doctor though of course.

>>75861
I sometimes take Melatonin if I need an extra kick. I'll look into that, though. Thanks!

Also, What do you all think qualifies as a "functional alcoholic" versus an "uncontrolled alcoholic"? I draw the line at there are some days I don't need it. I admit, its a habit now.

I think the underlying reasons for both fights can be explained by the same basic underlying principle: What you have here are four different ideologies, each of which is its own self-contained set of rules that, when followed, purports to lead to the most idealistic society possible. When people adopt any of these ideologies, it only makes sense they would want to do what they can to support it and bring it about as a universal reality. However, each of the ideologies is completely incompatible with one of the other ones, so it cannot be realized in full until the opposing one is eliminated.

Creationists and evolutionists both believe that they know the actual truth of how the laws of the universe work. Evolutionists believe that laws are learned, understood, and utilized through scientific study, while creationists believe that the laws of the universe are dictated by God as outlined in the Bible. You cannot follow both of these beliefs simultaneously. As such, no matter which of the two sides you're on, you're going to believe that the other side is misleading people and preventing them from reaching a higher standard of life, telling them it's okay to ignore the truth as long as it doesn't interfere with their own selfish biases and false assumptions. I think it's natural that people would get hot and bothered about that.

As far as Democrats and Republicans go, there are definitely similarities between the two parties and how they conduct things as far as the actual people in power are concerned--it's a tactical necessity for both parties to play by the same rules if either one wants to have any power or influence in politics at all--but I think you're glossing over how the two parties are interpreted on the public level. Liberalism and conservatism represent political philosophies as well. Whether people are active in politics or not, many of them still have their own beliefs about what would make for the most ideal system of government, and as it happens, liberalism and conservatism are polar opposites of each other in many different aspects. If you believe society as a whole would be better off going in one direction, it would argua…

Read more >>

>>75863
>Creationists vs Evolutionists
Lets see if I can do this in a purely neutral way.

This one stems directly from the fact that as humans we innately want to see people around us act in accordance with what we believe to be true, and additionally we see people acting according to things that are not true as potential threats.

Lets say you have three explanations for features about reality called belief A, B, and C, and there are people that believe these explanations are true. These beliefs are based on a set of facts (The "Details") that most people don't directly access either because it is difficult or they just don't want to access them. Additionally, the society that these people live in is actually structured at least in part based on information that assumes the reality of A, B, and C. People that grow up in this society have experiences day in and day out with A, B, and C an unconscious part of that world.

A, B, and C are utterly incompatible with their counterparts a, b, and c. They simply do not describe the same reality and can not both be true.

Now toss in a group of people who believe in a, b, and c, which are a set of beliefs based on their own set of "Details" I think this is fair because there are a lot of non-scientists that get the details about evolution and the evidence that support it wrong. Likewise I have seen creationists disagree with one another and complain of other groups getting things wrong.. These folks cause some tension when it comes to interpersonal relations because they don't agree on the fundamental fundamental realities of the world that A, B, and C people do.
…

Read more >>

>>75857

>I think it is offensive; most people are extremely uncomfortable in the presence naked people and there is really no need to force others to watch them in public, especially not those less than aesthetically pleasing (to put it mildly)

Even nudists have the manners and common decency to put on clothes when they leave the colony.

I think the context and type of nudity determines whether harsh punishments are warranted. Some high school kid streaking? No, of COURSE that kid should not be put on the sex offender registry. He should maybe get suspended for a day and given a good talking to or something, but the sex offender registry is an insanely harsh punishment for something that is ultimately benign.

On the other hand, if someone, say, walks up to a kid, pulls out his penis, and starts masturbating while staring at the kid, then I think that guy might deserve to get on the registry. Some forms of nudity are ultimately benign despite being potentially offensive, but some are not.

>>75846
I think there are degrees. I don't think a streaker ought to be put on to a sex-offender's registry. It looks like the story you link is in exceptional circumstances - firstly that a fifteen year old boy is put on a SOR for streaking (seriously, wtf?) and secondly that he killed himself as a result.

But I think that there is enough material for us to build a case in favour of nudity being offensive and punishable by law.

-In the first case, although I have no figures, I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people consider public exposure to be offensive - that is, something they would rather not see. Therefore, by democratic poll, it would probably be deemed offensive to the general public.

-Particularly important is the fact that many parents would not want their children exposed to nudity in this way. Growing up and learning about anatomy is a relatively delicate process for small children, and I think parents have a right to control what their children see and how they learn about anatomy - preferably, I would expect, not from a naked man on the street.

-Depending on the nature of the public exposure (and I would not include streaking on a football pitch in this), people may feel sexually aggressed by the naked person. It would be considered offensive to go up to a stranger and say sexual things to them, in the same way it would be considered offensive to go up to a stranger and display sexual things to them.

-Frankly, whether or not the exposure is sexually threatening, many people are just unpleasant to look at when naked. I'd much rather go shopping without seeing a hairy old man's naked self.…

Read more >>

>>72809

TL;DR: A very good point about impressive looking things that anyone could post. Things like the link I posted.

I'm not entirely happy with it either to be honest. I remembered it being a good point to get into some of the data about processes that are oppositional to new behaviors and similar. So I'm actually glad you spoke up.

This being cutting edge, speculation has to occur. But either vagueness should match real data, comparisons should be reasonable, or examples should be directly relevant. I take the vague and impressive approach so I can zoom in as necessary when anyone has questions. I actually like it when people ask me to explain myself.

There are examples of neurogenesis in the elderly. Among other things like learning new musical skills it seems tied to exercise.
"New neurons in an aged brain."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22024433
…

Read more >>

>>72616
I read the entire thread, now wondering, do you think you may be a relatively "normal" person, whatever that means, with the slightest dusting of aspergers? There's plenty here to tell me that you don't, but it's a weeeee possibility. It's rampant these days, this "autism light," which gives such great pain in social interaction to sufferers. I especially think that your current ease of social interaction makes you uncategorizable as such, but please do a little research then ditch it if it sucks. Let's forget aspergers for now.
I have to know, have you ever brought abuse or addiction into the awful mix?
I was massively heartbroken a week after I turned 21, smoked a bit of weed (no more, but no hate), was told by my heartbreaker that a psychologist wouldn't hurt, as she was hurt by her parents' divorce. Then I got referred to a psychiatrist by my request, got anti-depressant Zoloft, quit caring about anything while I coupled it with cheap-ass malt liquor out of nowhere, practically starving myself since I slept a solid 20 hours a day and missing my dorm meal times, and aside from a couple fucks and great parties, my 20's were shit. The start of my 30's, therefore, shit.
A couple bad hours are the tinker toys of a bad day. A couple bad days screech into the end of a bad year. Coupla them and do an image search of Charles Bukowski. Don't read up on him. Don't be garbage. Don't be a bad person intentionally.
Do anything you can think of to get out of this, less the offing, because suicide will make things worse. Believe be, I'm in a shittier place FOREVER from a couple two tree of 'dem, friend and fam. Been a couple years, As above, so below, so you surely don't want to haunt a house, no matter the pain. As you should know, sometimes, you just must take it.
Yeah, sometimes you must unquestionably accept the most awful things in life. What you're going through, ACTUALLY CONQUERING, (shh) is something to be approached both delicately …

Read more >>

>>75815
Good grief.

Hello anon, thank you for your thoughts. I don't think I have any kind of aspergers, no. Some people find socialising easier than others, but that doesn't mean that everyone who finds it harder has aspergers (or "slight" aspergers). In the same way, not everyone who's bad at spelling has dyslexia (or "slight" dyslexia), or all wild and untamed children have ADD (or "slight" ADD).

Do I, therefore, contradict myself where earlier in this thread I refer to "mild" (a synonym for "slight") depression? I don't really know. Happily, I don't have to. It's all gone. I was rather unhappy, now I am not. I am a happy person, and I know why I am happier now than I was then. I jealously protect my happiness and try not to give too much thought to my past (which can cause complications when my past tries to get in touch with me, but I'm strong now, and I won't fall for it, no matter how much it means well).

No, I haven't abused any substances. I do abuse my wallet though - I have a passionate taste for whisky and cigars.

I'm sorry to hear that things haven't gone all that well for you. I'm a little confused as to exactly how things have gone for you, but that could just be because you didn't really want to explain in detail.

>>72754

relation between standard deviation and risk aversion

You might be on to something here, but how to formalise it in statistical terms? Standard deviation alone clearly isn't a suitable measure.

Let's have a look at your example. The expected value is $850 and the standard deviation $850000000, if my calculations are correct, which they seldom are. You should probably always verify my results.
Now let's consider a scenario where the chances of winning and losing are even, equal to 0.5, to have something concrete for comparison. Then the expected value is half of the amount you can win, and the standard deviation is, naturally, the same: $425000000000000.

A quantity that suggests itself is the utilised risk, in statistics called the coefficient of variation. This coefficient combines both the EV and SD in a very simple way: the SD is normalised according to the EV's magnitude resulting in the sought value, CV = SD / EV, in one-dimensional cases. It's a dimensionless quantity, which is independent of the amount of money in your example, whose value is zero if there is no utilised risk, and goes up to infinity as the probability to win reaches zero.
So, let's apply it to the examples; the former one results in the CV of 1000000, while the latter's CV is exactly 1. If you were sure to win, then the CV would be 0. Looks reasonable enough; I hope this is what you're looking for.
…

Read more >>

Don't mean to derail or divert in any way, but I have a related niche question in relation to this. Any answer would be nice. Did anypony see the young Aspie Brit gentleman in the documentary, "Bronies: The Extremely Unexpected Adult Fans of My Little Pony" (MUST SEE BTW)? Aspergers, although I'm no expert, is in the shadowland between autism am non-autism in that it makes for some really uncomfortable social situations for the inflicted. If you listen to him before he experiences the glory of Bronycon UK, it sounds like the basis of his thread is rolling through his head constantly. This is a heady thread with lots of thinking ponies, but can you toss in your two bits and philosophize on how this philosophy may affect these people? Don't know any, myself, but hell, listen to Ladyhawke, she can pull off a mean pop melody, but gets along best with cats and other animals? Does Fluttershy have aspergers?!

>>75813
>Don't mean to derail or divert in any way, but I have a related niche question in relation to this. Any answer would be nice. Did anypony see the young Aspie Brit gentleman in the documentary, "Bronies: The Extremely Unexpected Adult Fans of My Little Pony" (MUST SEE BTW)? Aspergers, although I'm no expert, is in the shadowland between autism am non-autism in that it makes for some really uncomfortable social situations for the inflicted. If you listen to him before he experiences the glory of Bronycon UK, it sounds like the basis of his thread is rolling through his head constantly. This is a heady thread with lots of thinking ponies, but can you toss in your two bits and philosophize on how this philosophy may affect these people? Don't know any, myself, but hell, listen to Ladyhawke, she can pull off a mean pop melody, but gets along best with cats and other animals? Does Fluttershy have aspergers?!

This sort of thing is pretty much where I spend my existence at the moment. I'm a person with tourettes looking at the specific cognitive disadvantages, and advantages and looking at how my life has become warped around them and even more importantly what I can do to use my advantages with knowledge.

The Advantages of Tourette’s
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/04/the-advantages-of-tourettes-2/
When a schizophrenic deficit becomes a reasoning advantage.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16632331
The Upside of Autism
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303816504577307491933671470.html
…

Read more >>

>>75778
I have only two problems.

One:

>It would be more accurate to describe their meaning as "dissolved calcium from submerged rock formations created an environmental challenge that organisms evolved to deal with in different ways."

Please don't speak in terms of truth that which has not been tested (nor can be tested) to be factually valid. It is only a hypothesis, not fact, and one of many that seeks explain the sudden arrival of fossils in that layer.

>The underlined bit is utterly false.

This is utterly false and in that same paragraph you explain why:…

Read more >>

Hm. As an evolutionist and I imagine the sort of person you're lambasting, and admitting that this material isn't my forte, I'm going to say this looks like another bullshit flavor-of-the-month "what if?" paper that got stuck in the resonance chamber again.

Global flood type theories are more popular in Eastern Europe anyways, particularly the former USSR. The Soviets never were very keen on continental drift. If global flooding is your thing you should see some of the theories they came up with!

>>75785
>Please don't speak in terms of truth that which has not been tested (nor can be tested) to be factually valid. It is only a hypothesis, not fact, and one of many that seeks explain the sudden arrival of fossils in that layer.

You are changing the subject that I am speaking about. Probably unintentionally but still...
When I say "It would be more accurate to describe their meaning as..." I am removing the exaggeration from your words and returning the nuance to what the scientists are saying. When you say,
>Yet, here it is. An Evolutionist saying a global flood is the explanation for the Cambrian Explosion,
That is not something any person working in any field related to evolutionary biology would say. They would consider such flooding a single factor among many that shaped the evolutionary process in that era. The item in the quotes that I provide after that, "...dissolved calcium from submerged rock formations created an environmental challenge that organisms evolved to deal with in different ways." is my more accurate replacement.
So don't claim I am making a claim when what I am doing is correcting your exaggeration with respect to how the scientists would describe their work.

Despite your slight misdirection, there is a point here that I have seen in discussions with creationists before that I would be happy to address. Since I was not actually making the claim for the scientists, but instead showing you a more accurate phrasing for their work. I'm requesting that you point me to a specific problem area and we can discuss what they are really saying.
1. Expand on this. "Please don't speak in terms of truth that which has not been tested (nor can be tested) to be factually valid."
It is vague and they are your fact claims. You seem to be saying that not only have some things have not been tested, but can not be tested. Be specific with a few fact claims that t…

Read more >>

>>75626
I have to admit that I am a bit sloppy in calling myself a feminist because I usually don't have any of the schools of thought about them in mind when I use the term. What I do is read about the problems facing women in attempts to obtain equal treatment and call myself a feminist as a symbol in attempts shift the parts of society necessary to obtain that equal treatment in those specific areas.

What I try to be is an ally with respect to specific problems first and the symbol second. The symbol is necessary for discussions about meanings and intentions though. I'm always willing to chase down what someone means when they use the word feminist both when they say they are one, and when they claim someone else is one, or when someone asks me what I am (which is a functional thing to me and many many others). The way the word is used is all over the map and looking at what educational cheat sheet companies say show 23 different categories!
http://sparkcharts.sparknotes.com/womens/womens/section4.php
This makes sense to me given that many cultures will have many different things contributing to inequality between the sexes from the feminine perspective.

>Not to criticize the blog you linked, Flutterguy; I went into it worried, given how it introduced itself as "This controversial man tells you what's REALLY going on with gender issues", but I thought the articles you linked were very reasonable about discussing the core issues involved, and showed genuine interest in solving problems for both sexes. For one thing, though, it's extremely rare to find a blog that will talk about these things calmly without resorting to some level of sex-based outgroup name-calling. If the writers don't do it, the commenters will; these are just extremely sensitive topics, and it's hard to avoid getting emotionally involved with it. And I understand the idea that you can…

Read more >>

neither machist or feminist, even if i prefer the presence of feminists, as long people are still allowed to have different genders and roles that goes with. a mother is a mother, and a father will remain a father. a family needs both.

here comes a new parameter: the fact transsexuals and all the lgbt crew wants more or less the definition of male and female to be erased. this isn't the natural aspect of things under some kind of rule that's emerging today, and will, i'm certain and i swear be distasteful for the upcoming generation, deprived of their identity.

>>75724
>...as long people are still allowed to have different genders and roles that goes with.
It's not about allowing. It's about what people are. No one wants to prevent anyone who is male or female and straight from being that. The issue is that not everyone fits into what we think of as Man/Woman. Add homosexuality into the mix and you have the added dimension of being one sex and attracted to the same or both.

Add an internal self-image being different from what the outside looks like and you have transgender. That's three variables now, physical sex, what one is attracted to, and what one feels like they are/should be.

Add changes in the capacity/ability for arousal and now you have to consider asexuals, demisexuals and such. It's not about preventing anything, unless you count preventing society from suppressing awareness of other sorts of people.


>...a mother is a mother, and a father will remain a father. a family needs both.
Actually the families of gays do just as fine as the families of straights on average. There are plenty of families that do just fine with two mothers or two fathers.
…

Read more >>

This example will cover How our system of touch is structured and thought to be processed from contact with reality to the site of long term memory storage (cerebral cortex). It will take a series of posts to go through this path and I will need to do a few asides at the ends that cover things like the structure of the spinal cord, additional paths that these neurons take that work outside of consciousness, and what some of these arbitrary sounding terms mean. That way in future posts I can refer to this information if I need it later. I am excluding several other sensory systems that share paths and computational interaction with the sense of touch such as the sense of temperature (thermosensation), pain (nociception), and place-in-space (proprioception), but at least wanted to mention that they were there. As I travel from structure to structure I will try to give a summary of what the role of the structure is in cognition, as well as what other parts of the brain it "talks" to. As the posts accumulate I hope that a picture starts to form.

A really good review that covers this material is "Touch sense: functional organization and molecular determinants of mechanosensitive receptors." [www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]. That and The Human Nervous System [books.google.com] are my main resources for this.

The brain and conceptual categories of data
Each of the parts of your brain seem to have sections devoted to three fundamental categories of data: sensory [en.wikipedia.org], motor [en.wikipedia.org], and …

Read more >>

This is really cool, thanks flutterguy!

Just browsing over it now, but I will go back for a solid read in a bit. Have to get some uniforms for my new job tomorrow.

>>75774
No problem! As usual it's supposed to read clearly and the links are there for more information. But I'm always looking for how I might improve the presentation. It takes me a while to plan one of these and I'm still not really sure if anyone even gets anything out of it. I do it partly because it actually helps me in learning it since if I think I can teach it, I stand a good chance of knowing it pretty well.

Also I hope you enjoy your new job!

Last edited at Mon, Oct 7th, 2013 14:07

Coincidentally I'm going to be doing a paper on this same thing. Let's see if I can get something going with what I have at the moment.

In the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, he makes the case for War by laying out what he calls the Just War Doctrine.

Taken from the Summa Theologica, Question 40, Of War (In Four Articles)

Objection 1: It would seem that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Matt. 26:52: "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Therefore all wars are unlawful.
Obj. 2: Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Matt. 5:39): "But I say to you not to resist evil": and (Rom. 12:19): "Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath." Therefore war is always sinful
Obj 3: Further, nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue. But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin.
Obj. 4: Further, the exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself.

On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counseled to cast aside their arms, and give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: ' Do violence to no man... and be content with your pay' [*Luke 3:14]. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."…

Read more >>

>>75729 cont.

Reply Obj. 1: As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): "To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority." On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not "to take the sword," but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.
Reply Obj. 2: Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augstine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): "Those whom, we have punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy."
Reply Obj 3: Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Matt. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."
Reply Obj. 4: Manly exercise in warlike…

Read more >>

>>75729
>>75730
I think my brain grew three sizes today.

>>75737

Oh indeed, hard currency like we used to have is better I think. But it sounds like he's promoting abandoning all currency both hard and soft in favor of some kind of silly barter system.

>>75739

But that's kind of the problem. "X is normal" is just... not an argument. Either it's an argument for why it's good or bad (in which case, it's argumentum ad populum) or it's immaterial, in which caes, it's a red herring.

>>75728
>1. You used argumentum ad populum right at the start. "All governments do it, so it's okay."

Not really. I didn't say it was okay, I said it was normal, in fact, its exceptional to not be a developed nation with trillions of dollars in national debt. In fact, on that chart, every nation that submitted data has public debt in the billions to trillions. The only possible exceptions are ones that didn't submit data.

This is part of the design problem. It happens because we didn't plan this far in our monetary system and so there are some major issues when we get this far and haven't fixed the reasons why it ends up like this.

Stating those public debts are where they are, as prevalent as they are, is a reflection of data: its an observation. Its not an argument. If that chart is even remotely correct there is no arguing about the observation that all those nations are floating public debt in that order of magnitude.

>2. Just as the most basic cause of debt, we have to pay interest on the debt, which actually amounts to a pretty sizable chunk of government spending (6%, which is a huge amount to spend on any one thing).

Yes just about all debt is interest bearing debt, including debt created via money creation a la fractional reserve banking.…

Read more >>

>>74214

I have autism and 4chan is a place where they bully autistic people, especially bronies. I went there once and got banned for complaining and defending myself instead of having them banned. It's perfectly OK for them.

>>74224
Mockery should not be tolerated in any website especially toward others' differences and if I need a hugbox I know where to have it when I need it when I have problems. I just think mocking others on their personality or disorders or gender is like racism and should be illegal.

>>75742
I agree that mocking immutable traits is lame, but making it illegal? Seriously?

>>75311


blame for what? im identifying a dynamic, and enumerating its effects.

"hey kids let's say we're a huge family and i'm your daddy!"

>>75732

>>75508
The most important thing to me is unpacking this statement since the thread has to do with psychology and sex,
>>75494
>"...group that treated/treats sexuality more like Bonobo monkeys than your average person..."

...and that was modified by,
>Care to see their STD rates?
>Also Bonobo monkeys don't pair bond.

The thing that makes this comment insulting is that there is basically no attempt made to tie the appellation to the reasons that the gay community has the problems that it does with respect to sexually transmitted disease rates. I literally have no reason to think that somehow Homosexual Psychology has anything directly to do with their sexual transmission issue. Rather it sounds to me that the group of human beings in the US that can be defined as "Men who have sex with Men" have problems taking sexuality responsibility as a precise statement. It can be just as easily claimed that the problem is that they are Men having sex and that is why they are irresponsible (which I am not claiming but only offering as something consistent with the evidence though if one looks at the data on lesbians...)

In fact it's a "group of humans behaving in a particular way" problem and that problem is not necessarily homosexuality or polyamory . It is also an issue of observational skills and common sense checking up with potential partners and I'm certainly not one to coddle people who want to be mentally and perceptually lazy. …

Read more >>

Whoa I've been missing out in this thread o.o!

My feelings are that I wish it didn't exist.

Before you attack me for aphobia (or whatever you might want to call it), I identify as functionally asexual/aromantic. I was fine with being this way (though a little sad at the prospect of not having children) until I met my ex. Those in the know about sexuality understand the concept of exceptions (someone maybe one in a hundred people will ever experience), and she was mine.

But, as you may have noticed, she's my ex. And now, I'm not fine with being alone, but at the same time, she's the only person in whom I'm interested or, as near as I can tell, could be interested.

So when I say that I wish it didn't exist, it's for a reason. At the very least, I wish it didn't exist within me.

Edit: I am perfectly aware that aromanticism is my main issue here, but without the asexuality, I doubt that there would be aromanticism.

Last edited at Fri, Oct 4th, 2013 04:37