I feel like if you truly, TRULY love someone, you won't want to be with anyone except them. If you're with someone and you still are wanting to sleep with other people, I feel like you just shouldn't be getting married.

>>77890
Sounds traditional.

Thats just fine : if you're like the 20-25% of the population who seems naturally inclined towards both traditional marriage and monogamy, then good on you. Helen Fisher reports people like you often make some of the best environments for raising children and will sacrifice happily to maintain it.

But this naturally-inclined-towards-traditional-models + naturally-wanting-to-be-monogamous if this group indeed describes you, is still only 1/5 to 1/4 of the population.

I fully support traditional marriage. Marriage without a dowry lessens the value of the bride. Marriage not under the arrangement of the tribe or family is selfish, if young people can't put the needs of the community before their own then they certainly can't put their partner's needs before their own either.

>>78120
ugh, i tried googling it, but i never found any good answers.

>>78121
You never know which source is most reliable.

I think a good doctor can definitely do a pelvic exam.
Things need to stretch, but a hymen can take that, as long as it doesn't chafe.

But the whole deal of breaking a hymen being messed up seems a bit silly.
It's supposed to break sooner or later.

>>78118
Only thing messed up here is the cultural obsession with a woman's technical virginity.

>>78108

Oh, don't start with that argument. Everyone does what they do because of the culture around them, whether it's a household culture, a national culture, or a global one. You're assuming that that culture is based in Christianity.

And I have proven that that's bullshit. First by pointing out that parents more prone to abuse would be more likely to own several books on discipline (the reverse causation argument, something that you still refuse to address) and by pointing to the fact that the Schatzes (and others, for that matter) specifically went against the teachings of the Pearls in regards to what they thought deserved "discipline" as well as how severe that "discipline" was. Unless you can show that the Pearls have ever suggested beating a child for hours for something as unrelated to the point of the book (and their teachings, for that matter) as mispronouncing a word, your argument is complete bunk. I have shown time and again that that sort of thing runs counter to the Pearls' writings as soon as the first spark of frustration forms.

So unless you can show that, no. Their teachings have not "convinced several parents to beat their children literally to death."

Last edited at Wed, Jun 25th, 2014 16:52

>>78109

Many of these people have claimed that they were not continuing out of anger, but out of a need to drive the 'rebellion' out of their children.

If someone tells people to take their car up to 80 mph while approaching a T intersection but to hit the brake at 50 meters, are they completely blameless when someone hits the brake at 40 and slams their car into a building?

But lets assume that you're right, that these people got none of their ideas about abusing children from their religion. That despite their own claims, they only call themselves Christians out of convenience.

It's pretty convenient for these horrible abusive people that they have the camouflage of wrapping their abuse in a popular religion, which has been so drummed up in the national rhetoric at this point that it makes many people afraid to stand up to them and challenge their behavior.

>>78092
It would be nice if things were up front. I would probably prefer it too. Not to come off as insulting, but I think that idealism is dangerous to apply in life. If you aren't playing the psychological manipulation game at some level you might be at a loss to mount effective countermeasures. You also are not as effective as your peers or competition willing to engage. Its a Buyer Beware situation and I think its entirely appropriate - if not a bit required - to develop a 'Seller Beware' system. As much as part of me hates to say it, I am cool with a level of manipulation that has a border on the grey primarily because I see it as a required life skill to immunize against like attempts. Its the harm that is done that decides it for me, but it would be nice if things could be presented up front and honestly. We're just so, so far away from that by now as a species.

Additionally, the world of organized religion is rife with such things intentional and perhaps not. I'm prone to find too much meaning in things so its probably also a bit of a personal bias of mine here at work too a bit.

>To me, that makes them trying to push a political issue even worse.

Well, a couple questions. Kind of pointed probes.

- What constitutes an issue as political or not?
- What issues are okay to push and which are not?

>>77998
>I think what I really want is for somebody to WANT to have sex with me.

There's the catch, isn't it. You want the validation of someone's romantic interest, but aren't willing to put much effort into validating the people you're looking to get that from.

Most people want to be wanted.

>>77999
The whole situation is some kind of strange Catch 22.
I'm willing to put in some effort, but the amount required seems WAY out of scale. Of all the things that you could possibly not be good at this is the worst. This is seriously the only skill I can think of that's actually shameful to not be able to do.

>>78001
Nothing worth having is ever easy.

If you really want it, put the effort into it. No matter how hard it is.

holy shit, this thread got moved to /dis/

>>78060
She's a dog, dude.

I got to say this was a hilarious read, this thread.

10/10 would kek again

>>77856
What do you think 'bounty hunting' is?

Bounty hunters in the United States usually go after and apprehend people who post bail and then skip out on their court date and leave town.

Do you mean Star Wars style bounty hunters who are basically just assassins?

It technically is, but they're just glorified cops. You still go to police academy, get a badge, etc. etc.

The only difference is that you only try and find people that, as Pyrite said, skip their court dates.

Now I'm assuming you're either talking about the classic kind of Red Dead Redemption bandito bounty hunter that goes and catches criminals of their own accord to get a monetary reward, or the Star Wars-y assassins mentioned above.

If the prior is true, then I could see several positives and negatives come of it. People would probably be more inclined to stop crime, and more criminals would get caught because, well, people like money.
Second, it would probably get out the violent urges and thirst for adventure many people have, in short, livening things up a little.
Although, since the government would have to pay the said bounty hunter if they caught said criminal, it would simply be another thing to spend money on. Although they might not have to spend that money on law enforcement if there's a bunch of bounty hunters running around. Then again, who really cares with the economical shithole we're in anyway.
Another con, if there was ever a slowing in the amount of criminals to catch, or some other roadblock got in the way of them getting their money, they would probably turn into the Star Wars bounty hunters, that just do whatever to get paid. That would be bad.

So in short, it'd probably be cool, but it has a 50% chance of being shitty later on down the road. …

Read more >>

>>78002
Pretty much what this guy said.

It is legal to be a bounty hunter, it's just not done the way it's portrayed in futuristic movies where you can put a severed head into a kiosk and money comes out.

I looked at it.

Your point being...?

>>77717
The irony, of course, is that pseudoscience is actually less open-minded than regular science.

lets vaccinate our children thanks

>>77667


>Organic farming activists, whose ideology leads to less efficient and thus unecological growth,

hahah, efficient for *what* is the question. certainly slow food artisanship can be more labour intensive, but this can be a design feature.

consider the perennial problem of listless untermenschen unable (or unwilling) to find place in society as it exists heretofore. presently, one primary solution in america is to bloat our jails using petty crime legislation as justification. incredibly expensive of course, but politically expedient.

labour intensive, but value added, projects like producing good old locally sourced, grass fed pesticide free organic goodness(tm) are far preferable solutions on multiple levels compared to extant alternatives. be it in terms of opportunity cost, but more importantly, in terms of giving people something to do in life.

'well who wants to work anyways, isint this what welfare is for?' indeed, the 'solution' that is anything but, as we have seen. in this case not merely politically expedient, but memetically adaptive. it should be pointed out that we already have examples of 'post-scarcity' societies, places where magic cards provide mana from the heavens, places like detroit.…

Read more >>

Joseph's analysis seems pretty good, but what is the Zeitgeist Movement's actual plan to get from where we are now to a better society? It's really easy to look at the world and see what we all should be doing to improve things. It's really hard to actually get people to do the those things, especially when all the world's financial, political, military, and media power is against the revolutionary changes that you want.

Joseph agrees that the present social organizations are corrupt and broken, and this happens by design; we cannot drastically improve things from within the current system. But he also says he doesn't want to depend on a large collapse.

>>76569
It's Marxism in a new suit.

It's easy to think that someone is right when they are the only one speaking and they are very charismatic. That's why whenever I listen to someone speaking like this I always put myself in the mindset of being a debate against them. I intentionally do my best to find every flaw and problem with every word they say. This way, only if they are able to overcome them will I know that they are speaking soundly. Lets do that here.

First, RT America. I always found Russia Today a bit sketchy, but that is neither here or there. Just showing that this 'Movement' is getting less media attention than the Occupy Movement.

Environmental Sustainability? He talks about how it's mean to be about preventing bio-diversity loss and helping the environment. It's Environmentalism in a nut-shell. He basically wants you to completely ignore the power of animals to destroy their own environments and for Nature to sometimes just be BAD for us and to accept blame for every little thing. I'm sure he'd want humans to accept blame for how there are rivers and lakes that are bad to drink from while forgetting that for thousands of years untouched by man they were bad for man to drink from. It's why explorers and settlers in the Americas had to boil and ferment their drinks so they could have liquids in their diet. Even Natives made prepared teas and other drinks, despite their small resistance to drinking straight natural water.

I'm all for protecting nature, but I am also for letting nature take it's course. Unless you want to give me a good reason why humans are not an aspect of nature, letting humans do what they wish is a part of that.

You will also note that he mentions 'Preservation'. I need to make clear what that is. That is preserving something for NO FUTURE USE. They basically want to mark out areas of land and put up signs that say 'No Humans Allowed'. This is why I am an Conservationist. Conservationists believe …

Read more >>

>>76574
>He targets Libertarians who believe in removing the State from the Free Market, he even calls them a 'subculture' or 'submovement' to put into your mind that this is a small minority instead of the truth where a large portion of Libertarians believe it.

He's right about it being a subculture. Its a sponsored political movement designed to go mostly nowhere of any real progress and convinces people to either follow intellectual follies of 'Free Market' mythology in pursuit of the manifestation of a deity-like force of collective human rationality summonable only once the market becomes 'Free' enough, or to vote against their own interests on behalf of the sponsor.

You can't even measure market's freedom objectivity. Its a farce. It does not exist. There is no way to test a market to see how 'free' it is or has become, or needs to be, and every market is subject to all kinds of rules and regulations which are both writ by society and the participants in the exchange as well as established but unwritten amongst them: and then there are the laws of nature as well, which we might do well to abide by if we want our 'markets' to stay functioning.

If libertarians want to 'free the market' they need to capture the government to use it to give an abstract concept an objective value that cannot be measured anyway.

Keeping in mind we are dealing with money here, an entirely quantifiable substance.

TL:DR…

Read more >>

>>77841
>95%

Its possible I don't understand which 95% but it keeps cropping up in various places. I am trying to find said citation.

http://biology.about.com/od/cellbiology/a/cells-facts.htm

Item 4
>4. There are more bacterial cells in the body than human cells.
>Scientists have estimated that about 95% of all the cells in the body are bacteria. The vast majority of these microbes can be found within the digetive tract.

Which scientists? Which estimate? I have yet to find it but I've heard this reiterated in a lot of other places. Perhaps I have worded it wrongly or misunderstood but it seems to be indicating that our 'human body cells' as we call them are an inclusive microbiome of mostly not what we previously consider to be 'our body' more or less.…

Read more >>

>>77843
>4. There are more bacterial cells in the body than human cells.
>Scientists have estimated that about 95% of all the cells in the body are bacteria. The vast majority of these microbes can be found within the digetive tract.

Okay, I can buy that. I hadn't really thought about it much, and bacteria are a lot smaller than animal cells, so it's certainly possible that there are more bacteria in our gut than cells in our body.

>our genes do behave and switch on or off or vary or what have you based on our interactions with other people and probably the food we eat and stuff like that.

You are absolutely correct there, variation in gene expression is how we can have such a variety of specialized tissues that all have the same genetic content. Changing expression to meet needs or conditions is one of the most important functions of our genome. And the microorganisms in your gut would also be changing and adapting, maybe even doing HGT among themselves, and I guess it's possible the intestinal cells could read into that and change in response to it. I don't know, the more I think about this the more plausible it's becoming.

>Are you sure that the nerve only goes one way
…

Read more >>

>>77845
>>77845
> I think you might be romanticizing the implications just a tad, but it's definitely a very interesting new frontier. Thanks for sharing!

You're right I do romanticize it don't I? I also am not well educated in stuff like this so I might get the right information but interpret it a little closer to the heart than to the academia.

If I find more I will post it here ^_^

Age-old question, like should the gov't be allowed to listen in on our phone calls. On the one hand - hell no, I deserve my privacy. On the other hand - catch criminals and terrorists. Hmm.

The trouble is, the internet has grown to be such a huge part of life that I don't think giants like Google can really say "It's your choice to use our services, so you can't complain about us keeping your information". Use of services like Google has become so central to our communicative lives that it almost seems comparable to walking through the park with a secret agent beside you listening to your conversation, saying "It's your choice to speak out loud where I can hear you, so you can't complain about me keeping your information".

Furthermore, it's not like the man in question Googled "Kiddy Porn" and then complained that Google retained that information. Information was put up about him that was damaging to him, information about past misfortune/embarrassment/malpractice. With that information publicly on the internet for all to see his prospects of getting a good job in the future are seriously damaged. "Freedom of information", cries the technogiant, but surely this is damaging if it means that no one is allowed to clear their name of the mistakes of their past? It would be like a recovered alcoholic walking around with a great big sign on his jacket saying "I Used To Be A Good-For-Nothing Drunk", even though he hadn't touched a drop in twenty years. Good luck getting a job.

On a more personal level, we all have dumb things on Facebook, Twitter, and so on. Dumb things from our youth. We are the first generation in history where future employers will judge us on the things we've done and said as teenagers - even as children, depending on when you signed up for these sites. In the past the only time something like that would show up for an employer is if you had a criminal conviction or something. Now ... anything goes. How can this possibly be a good thing?

The internet's previously unconstrained right to our information has allowed crime-fighting bodies to track dow…

Read more >>

>>77868
I agree that it's a rather serious problem, one that's gotten more and more serious with as the information age finishes it's dawn and climbs toward 'noon'.

Ideally, people should begin to realize that their fellow human beings are flawed, that they themselves are flawed, and engage in less demonization of the other when everyone they know has a sketchy past.

But if there need to be limitations, they should not place this level of burden on the company to directly resolve disputes.

>>77862
Why have you brought it back from the bottom?

>>77862

>necro-ing a 5(+) month old thread

>>77864
Srsly.

Locking this.

>>77834
>I fail to see the significance.

Just mouse over the image of the letter and you can read it.

>>77837
I did. Again, I fail to see the significance.

>>77840
Thats okay.

Check this out.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/05/09/1298152/-In-the-ultimate-Net-Neutrality-protest-web-host-throttles-FCC-connections

I lol'd. Back to AOL time's with you, FCC!

>>77567
Thanks for that! That is a really good resource.

Let me tell you a story while I am still able to do so.

But first lets make up two political party names. Goodguyians and Badguyians will do.
Lets make up a country for them. How about Nobodycaria? Good enough for the purpose of this mental ex... I mean the story.
Let's make Nobodycaria a parliamentary-presidential republic. In simpler terms it means the Parliament is in charge, the President can do some stuff, but most of the time just represents Nobodycaria everywhere.



In the dark future of the forty first millenium a Badguyian becomes the President in Nobodycaria. Plagues, natural disasters and general dissatisfaction with politicians sweep the land. (He soon, predictably, screws up, don't worry, Badguyian ratings plummet etc., etc., but I'm getting ahead of myself.)

The "majority" in Parliament, being mostly composed of the Badguyian party, is locked in a never ending stalemate with a coalition of smaller parties, led by Goodguyians - the largest party among the opposition. Both "coalitions" have approximately equal deputee counts, neither has the Constitutional Majority necessary to actually do something and break the stalemate (duh).
…

Read more >>

Would someone like to update on whats going on? I haven't been following.

>>77814
Rogan is pretty cool, but sometimes if you put him next to or on the line with or in the room with really smart people you can see that he might collect smart people ideas and conversations but he really needs the smart people to help him understand them.

>>77815
>Sometimes people will legitimately ask if its okay to go off topic in a dis thread by asking the OP and /dis/ if its okay
In all my years on the internet, I've never seen or heard of somebody asking permission to derail a thread. You learn something new everyday.

>>77817
We sometimes try not to step on each others toes here in /dis/ but I am rarely one to complain if things go off topic.

Threads sometimes do need to be pulled back closer to the original topic from time to time.