BorogoveLM's profile page

Profile picture

BorogoveLM (user #11,475) FemaleGold MedalGold TrophySuper StarDiamondBronze Crown

Joined on February 24th, 2013 (2,248 days ago)

Last login was over 3 months ago

Votes: 17,558

Questions: 222 view

Comments: 5,572

Profile views: 873


"You're so nice.
You're not good,
You're not bad,
You're just nice.
I'm not good,
I'm not nice,
I'm just right.
I'm the Witch.
You're the world."


BorogoveLM has submitted the following questions: voting view

48%
52%
Do you support non-partisan commuting? Yes or No 4 years ago 104 votes 8 comments 0 likes
57%
43%
Would you reccommend post-traumatic scuba-diving to a friend? Yes or No 4 years ago 134 votes 6 comments 0 likes
29
71%
Does this country have a problem with diabetic cattle-rustling? Yes or No 4 years ago 123 votes 13 comments 0 likes
76%
24
Do you accept Euclidian gymnastics? Yes or No 4 years ago 123 votes 4 comments 0 likes
46%
54%
Do you approve of antebellum catcalling? Yes or No 4 years ago 113 votes 3 comments 0 likes
47%
53%
Should we ban Jewish flag-burning? Yes or No 4 years ago 165 votes 12 comments 0 likes
42%
58%
Is Latino smoking a threat to society? Yes or No 4 years ago 149 votes 15 comments 0 likes
73%
27
Should we encourage heterosexual camping? Yes or No 4 years ago 148 votes 9 comments 0 likes
82%
Should gay marriage be allowed? Yes or No 4 years ago 170 votes 11 comments 0 likes
81%
Do you know the meaning of the phrase "Frivolous Distinction"? Yes or No 4 years ago 133 votes 6 comments 0 likes
84%
Should we put an end to extramarital birdwatching? Yes or No 4 years ago 124 votes 5 comments 0 likes
28
72%
Are you tired of congressional fingerpicking? Yes or No 4 years ago 120 votes 4 comments 0 likes
56%
44%
Do you believe in interracial parking? Yes or No 4 years ago 140 votes 13 comments 0 likes
39
61%
For those of you who know at least a second language with some competance, are lyrics in that language as meaningful to you as ones in your first language? Yes or No 4 years ago 94 votes 10 comments 0 likes
68%
32
Would you rather have a Young Teacher or Old Teacher 4 years ago 237 votes 16 comments 0 likes
44%
56%
Dear rrrather, I'm taking a break from this site for the time being. I'll probably be back at some point, but this month is particularly busy for me. Bye, Boro! or ...bye, boro. 4 years ago 203 votes 26 comments 0 likes
43%
57%
Would you rather People are marked with the percentage of their lives passed. or People are born with labels listing their expiration dates. 4 years ago 204 votes 25 comments 0 likes
29
71%
Should threats be protected as free speech? Yes or No 4 years ago 194 votes 10 comments 0 likes
37
63%
Threats are expressions of intent to harm which... A reasonable person would find frightening or Were intended to cause the target distress 4 years ago 164 votes 10 comments 0 likes
25
75%
Do you prefer digital animation that Looks like it was made by hand or Looks like it was made with a computer 4 years ago 217 votes 8 comments 0 likes
48%
52%
Would you rather Celebrate "Good Riddance Day" or Pour your tea in some water 4 years ago 234 votes 14 comments 0 likes
83%
As a child, were you aware of a distinction between boys and girls before you were aware of physical differences in sex? Yes or No 4 years ago 206 votes 15 comments 0 likes
68%
32
Would you rather be a Zoophilic Zookeeper or Zoophobic Zookeeper 4 years ago 172 votes 12 comments 0 likes
59%
41%
During a debate, your opponent raises a point which is neither true nor relevant in supporting their argument. Would you rather Show that it isn't true or Point out that it isn't relevant 4 years ago 125 votes 8 comments 0 likes
78%
22
Would you rather attempt to write 300 pages proving that 1+1=2 or 1+1=/=2 4 years ago 242 votes 23 comments 0 likes
36
64%
Is your favourite song the best song that there is? Yes or No 4 years ago 192 votes 17 comments 0 likes
57%
43%
Would you rather kill out of Hatred or Convenience 4 years ago 157 votes 2 comments 0 likes
56%
44%
Would you rather live in Brushsylvania or Becauseoming 4 years ago 103 votes 1 comment 0 likes
27
73%
Would you rather live in Kuleave or Lovei 4 years ago 91 votes 2 comments 0 likes
37
63%
Would you rather live in Southumberland or Oldfoundland 4 years ago 101 votes 4 comments 0 likes
45%
55%
Would you rather play ... Qc7# or ... Qe8# 5 years ago 127 votes 18 comments 0 likes
42%
58%
Which am I describing in the description below? Democracy, the French Revolution, Jacobins, Napoleon, the Napoleonic wars, and Constitutional Monarchy or Socialism, the Russian Revolution, Bolsheviks, Stalin, World War 2, The Cold war, and Social Democracy 5 years ago 134 votes 24 comments 0 likes
49%
51%
Would you rather See the Kim dynasty removed from North Korea and a democratic government form in its place. or See Korea united under the South. 5 years ago 386 votes 7 comments 0 likes
70%
30
For a password, would you rather use A made up word or A non-word 5 years ago 223 votes 20 comments 0 likes
36
64%
A piece of knowledge of a certain writer's life is meaningful to this writer's work. Would you rather know this piece of information Before reading or After reading 5 years ago 154 votes 4 comments 0 likes
23
77%
Would you rather Have no money or Have all the money in the world (literally). 5 years ago 199 votes 7 comments 0 likes
46%
54%
Would you rather colonize The West Indies or The East Indies 5 years ago 151 votes 4 comments 0 likes
68%
32
Which denomination of Islam would you rather follow? Sunni or Shia 5 years ago 167 votes 23 comments 0 likes
62%
38
If you were a god(ess) starting a religion by communication with a prophet, would rather communicate with someone in Europe or Asia 5 years ago 181 votes 5 comments 0 likes
48%
52%
Would you rather Privatize the police or Nationalize the press 5 years ago 296 votes 7 comments 0 likes
29
71%
Are these men arranged in order of Number of people killed or Amount of facial hair 5 years ago 190 votes 12 comments 0 likes
66%
34
Consent is only legitimate if it is made with both parties having full knowledge of the ramifications of the choice they make; otherwise it is fraud. True or False 5 years ago 124 votes 35 comments 0 likes
70%
30
Something which causes someone to perform actions which they would not perform otherwise specifically engineered towards producing a desired result on the behalf of the creator of the thing in question can be called "mind control". True or False 5 years ago 115 votes 5 comments 0 likes
78%
22
If I invented a means of mind-control, should it be illegal for me to use it on someone who does not agree to it? Yes or No 5 years ago 147 votes 5 comments 0 likes
36
64%
If I invented a means of mind-control, should it be illegal for me to use it on someone who agrees to it? Yes or No 5 years ago 129 votes 7 comments 0 likes
65%
35
If I invented a means of mind control, should it be illegal for me to use it on someone who agrees to it, not knowing that it will give me control over their mind? Yes or No 5 years ago 114 votes 2 comments 0 likes
63%
37
If I invented a means of mind control, should it be illegal for me to use it on someone who agrees to it, not knowing that it will give me control over their mind, if there is only a ten percent chance of it working? Yes or No 5 years ago 99 votes 2 comments 0 likes
61%
39
If I invented a means of mind control, should it be illegal for me to use it on someone who agrees to it, not knowing that it will give me control over their mind, if doing this allows me to provide a service to the public? Yes or No 5 years ago 89 votes 4 comments 0 likes
69%
31
Advertisements, despite funding certain services to the public, cause people to perform actions which they would not otherwise commit and are engineered with the expressed purpose of producing profit, even if they are not effective on all individuals. True or False 5 years ago 103 votes 7 comments 0 likes
26
74%
Would you rather Say "No Hetero" after every sentence or Address all cisgender people as "Cissy" 5 years ago 148 votes 10 comments 0 likes
48%
52%
Would you rather Only wear a T-shirt or Only drive a Model T 5 years ago 215 votes 10 comments 0 likes
49%
51%
If you saw a square circle, and it could be confirmed that you were not hallucinating, would you believe in it? Yes or No 5 years ago 166 votes 19 comments 0 likes
34
66%
If you were wearing two masks, one on top of the other, and wanted to show your face, would you rather Take off both masks at once or Take off one, then the other 5 years ago 149 votes 25 comments 0 likes
57%
43%
Which is more important? Someone's first word or Someone's first sentence. 5 years ago 131 votes 8 comments 0 likes
47%
53%
If a magic spell made it so that no crimes would ever be comitted again, should all prisoners be released? Yes or No 5 years ago 149 votes 32 comments 0 likes
41%
59%
(Part 10) Invasion Condemn his actions or Commend his actions 5 years ago 75 votes 8 comments 0 likes
35
65%
(Part 8) Rebellion Off with their heads! or Negotiate 5 years ago 95 votes 2 comments 0 likes
63%
37
(Part 9) Rebellion Go forward with the plan or Block the plan 5 years ago 72 votes 1 comment 0 likes
56%
44%
(Part 4) Constitution Limit the central government' in favour of regional governments. or Give free reign to the national government. 5 years ago 93 votes 10 comments 0 likes
59%
41%
(Part 5) Constitution Establish bicameral legislature (two houses) or Establish unicameral legislature (one house) 5 years ago 90 votes 1 comment 0 likes
43%
57%
(Part 6) Constitution Restrict candidacy to merited individuals or Allow anyone to run 5 years ago 97 votes 5 comments 0 likes
67%
33
(Part 7) Constitution Call for elections for judges or Have the executive appoint judges 5 years ago 96 votes 0 comments 0 likes
44%
56%
(Part 1) Off with his head! or Allow him to retire. 5 years ago 112 votes 3 comments 0 likes
31
69%
(Part 2) Crown her as Queen or Abolish the monarchy 5 years ago 96 votes 4 comments 0 likes
45%
55%
(Part 3) Maintain colonial rule or Withdraw from the colonies 5 years ago 84 votes 8 comments 0 likes
67%
33
Freedom, by definition, requires the absence of involuntary control from outside influences. (Author's comment) True or False 5 years ago 85 votes 2 comments 0 likes
74%
26
The laws of physics are effective in exerting control over material objects. True or False 5 years ago 91 votes 1 comment 0 likes
55%
45%
In order to be exempt from the laws of physics, something must be non-physical and can only result from a non-physical process. True or False 5 years ago 89 votes 4 comments 0 likes
81%
Physical processes have been observed in humans. True or False 5 years ago 84 votes 9 comments 0 likes
44%
56%
Non-physical processes have never been observed in humans. True or False 5 years ago 84 votes 23 comments 0 likes
60%
40%
If a process can be observed in humans, it is cogent to suppose that it is physical. True or False 5 years ago 70 votes 5 comments 0 likes
60%
40%
Will, by any reasonable definition, is a process observable in humans. True or False 5 years ago 68 votes 1 comment 0 likes
45%
55%
It is cogent to supose that will is the result of a physical process. True or False 5 years ago 66 votes 2 comments 0 likes
58%
42%
It is cogent to suppose that the laws of physics exert control over human will. True or False 5 years ago 67 votes 9 comments 0 likes
44%
56%
It is cogent to say that human will is not free. True or False 5 years ago 79 votes 3 comments 0 likes
92%
If a public school choir, during the holiday season, were to sing songs mentioning Santa, would you be offended because you do not believe in him? Yes or No 5 years ago 178 votes 14 comments 0 likes
39
61%
Would you rather Have potential in every area but be unsure of where to spend your life. or Have potential in just one area but have a clear direction as to where to spend your life. 5 years ago 121 votes 11 comments 0 likes
88%
Does one's mind change as one ages? Yes or No 5 years ago 160 votes 7 comments 0 likes
90%
Are two people with different bodies and minds different people? Yes or No 5 years ago 208 votes 24 comments 0 likes
54%
46%
(Description) Is this real, or a scam? Real or Scam 5 years ago 125 votes 36 comments 0 likes
90%
Would you rather say The big red balloon or The red big balloon 5 years ago 175 votes 13 comments 0 likes
76%
24
(Part 1) You are walking past a lake. You see a drowning child. You can save the child at no harm to yourself. Are you obligated (morally) to save the child? Yes or No 5 years ago 155 votes 32 comments 0 likes
74%
26
(Part 2) You are walking past a lake. You see a drowning child. You can save the child, but it will ruin the clothes you're wearing. Are you obligated to save the child? Yes or No 5 years ago 138 votes 8 comments 0 likes
68%
32
(Part 3) You are walking past a lake. You see a drowning child. You can try to save the child, but there is a chance that it will drown before you can reach it. Are you obligated to try to save the child? Yes or No 5 years ago 135 votes 9 comments 0 likes
67%
33
(Part 4) You are walking past a lake. You see a drowning child, however, after you notice it, I, in hopes of dissuading you, fly over the lake in my helicopter and drop a number of plastic decoy-drowning children. You can save the child, but you will have to go search through all the decoys before you reach the real one. Are you obligated to save the child? Yes or No 5 years ago 122 votes 11 comments 0 likes
76%
24
(Part 5) You are walking past a lake. You see a drowning child. You can save the child, but you have already saved four other drowning children this week. Are you obligated to save the child? Yes or No 5 years ago 133 votes 8 comments 0 likes
69%
31
(Part 6) You are walking past a lake. You see a drowning child. You can save the child, but to do so will have no effect on the conditions which cause children in general to drown in the first place. Are you obligated to save the child? Yes or No 5 years ago 128 votes 3 comments 0 likes
63%
37
(Part 7) You are walking past a lake. You see a drowning child. You can save the child, but you will ruin the clothes you're wearing and have to go though a number of decoys and you will still have a chance of failing. Additionally, this is the fifth child you'll have saved this week and you will not have any affect on the conditions which cause children in general to drown. Are you obligated to save the child? Yes or No 5 years ago 124 votes 7 comments 0 likes
23
77%
(A last question) After doing some research online, you discover that there are numerous organizations which prevent children from drowning, but only with donations. Are you obligated to make a donation? Yes or No 5 years ago 131 votes 8 comments 0 likes
61%
39
Your country is under a two-party system. Neither party is doing what you want. Would you rather Build support for third-parties in hopes of breaking the two-party system or Build awareness for your cause in hopes of bringing one party to your side. 5 years ago 102 votes 7 comments 0 likes
33
67%
(read description) Would you be willing to continue the marriage? Yes or No 5 years ago 125 votes 16 comments 0 likes
24
76%
Would you rather The Sinai Peninsula never existed, connecting the Mediterranean Sea to the Indian Ocean. or The Sahara desert never existed, in its place a semi-temperate region. 5 years ago 104 votes 3 comments 0 likes
46%
54%
Was the Byzantine Empire a legitimate Successor to the Roman Empire? Yes or No 5 years ago 100 votes 2 comments 0 likes
37
63%
Was the Holy Roman Empire a legitimate Successor to the Roman Empire? Yes or No 5 years ago 94 votes 2 comments 0 likes
84%
Was the Latin Empire a legitimate Successor to the Roman Empire? Yes or No 5 years ago 86 votes 0 comments 0 likes
20
80%
Was the Russian Empire a legitimate Successor to the Roman Empire? Yes or No 5 years ago 91 votes 1 comment 0 likes
28
72%
Was the Ottoman Empire a legitimate Successor to the Roman Empire? Yes or No 5 years ago 96 votes 2 comments 0 likes
24
76%
There are two urns containing black and red balls. The urn on the left contains an unknown ratio of black to red balls, whereas the urn on the right contains red and black balls in a 50/50 ratio. Your goal is to draw a red ball. From which urn do you draw? Left or Right 5 years ago 123 votes 16 comments 0 likes
76%
24
If countries were people, would yours be Male or Female 5 years ago 165 votes 17 comments 0 likes
40%
60%
Better general? Allie or Boney 5 years ago 91 votes 0 comments 0 likes
48%
52%
Better czar/ina Katie or Pete 5 years ago 77 votes 1 comment 0 likes
66%
34
Better queen? Liz or Vicky 5 years ago 89 votes 6 comments 0 likes
74%
26
Is gender Between your legs or Between your ears 5 years ago 183 votes 19 comments 0 likes
53%
47%
Would you rather marry Someone of the same sex or A Ferris wheel 5 years ago 142 votes 12 comments 0 likes
86%
Would you rather Wearing sandals, walk through a field once occupied by cows, and likewise occupied by their leavings, which is also full of mud left from a recent rain and covered with a layer of brown leaves that makes it very difficult to tell what you're stepping in. You're looking for a piece of wire. or Live in the city 5 years ago 102 votes 4 comments 0 likes
56%
44%
Kshama Sawant has been elected to the Seattle City Council running as a socialist, the first office won by an American socialist party in generations. Huh. or Big deal. 5 years ago 80 votes 5 comments 0 likes
81%
With all other factors being the same, would you rather hire A white man who is a felon or A black man with a clean record 5 years ago 359 votes 11 comments 0 likes
82%
(Part 2) Imagine there are two paintings, both identical in every way. The one on the left was painted by Picasso. The one on the right was painted by a machine designed to paint exactly what Picasso would paint. They are exactly the same in material; all the atoms are arranged in the same way. Are they the same painting? Yes. or No 5 years ago 109 votes 16 comments 0 likes
42%
58%
(Part 1) There are two shapes on two Cartesian planes. All of their points are the same. Are they the same? Yes or No 5 years ago 89 votes 0 comments 0 likes
53%
47%
(Part 3) If I took the painting on the right and told someone that it was painted by picasso, would I be lying? Yes or No 5 years ago 81 votes 6 comments 0 likes
83%
(Part 4) When answering part one, were you inclined to ask for the history of the shapes? Yes or No 5 years ago 83 votes 0 comments 0 likes
86%
Would you rather Get a 91% as a grade, but have it considered an A by your school. or Get a 92% as a grade, but have it considered a B by your school. 5 years ago 167 votes 10 comments 0 likes
45%
55%
Do you think older fans of My Little Pony who are women should be called Bronies; use the same word regardless of gender. or Pegasisters; use a specifically feminine word 5 years ago 117 votes 4 comments 0 likes
48%
52%
Which pronunciation fail is worse? "Yavurt chased Gene Valgene" or "The Kin Dynasty united China" 5 years ago 136 votes 11 comments 0 likes
32
68%
Have you ever invented any Euphamisms (please share) Yes or No 5 years ago 117 votes 13 comments 0 likes
29
71%
Do questions with one b/w picture and one color picture bother you? Yes or No 5 years ago 135 votes 11 comments 0 likes
47%
53%
Was there math before there were people? Yes or No 5 years ago 173 votes 16 comments 0 likes
40%
60%
Have you ever used a random video chat? Yes or No 5 years ago 260 votes 19 comments 0 likes
61%
39
Why should people be free? People have natural rights or Freedom is beneficial for everyone 5 years ago 142 votes 1 comment 0 likes
48%
52%
The link below is a tool which analyses your writing and guesses your gender. Was it right? Yes or No 5 years ago 604 votes 33 comments 0 likes
33
67%
Do you think Americans should celebrate Columbus? Yes, this country wouldn't exist if not for him. or No, why celebrate a genocidal foreigner? 5 years ago 127 votes 21 comments 0 likes
87%
Is there such a thing as "overthinking" something? Yes or No 5 years ago 150 votes 10 comments 0 likes
56%
44%
This is my 100th question. When I vote on it, it will be my 9000th vote. When I comment, it will be my 3000th comment. That's kind of neat. or Seriously, how long did you spend getting it to work out like that? 5 years ago 204 votes 17 comments 0 likes
41%
59%
Would you rather the monarchy of your country (hypothetical or otherwise) use Agnatic Succession or Absolute Primogeniture Succession 5 years ago 656 votes 13 comments 0 likes
47%
53%
Would you rather the monarchy of your country (hypothetical or otherwise) use Seniority succession or Primogeniture Succession 5 years ago 137 votes 1 comment 0 likes
42%
58%
If you were drawing/painting a self-portrait, would you rather Make yourself look better than you really do. or Stay true to what you see. 5 years ago 190 votes 16 comments 0 likes
94%
When describing someone from the United States, would you rather say Yank(ee) or American 5 years ago 281 votes 6 comments 0 likes
36
64%
Would you rather play A short text-based game about eight philosophical questions, the link to which is below. or A game you're guaranteed to enjoy, but likely won't teach you anything. 5 years ago 88 votes 6 comments 0 likes
38
62%
Are you more of a Trixie or Fluttershy 5 years ago 152 votes 9 comments 0 likes
69%
31
Do you think anime characters look more European (White) or Japanese 5 years ago 2,724 votes 8 comments 0 likes
37
63%
Would you rather live in the country with The highest homicide rate or The lowest literacy rate 5 years ago 292 votes 12 comments 0 likes
49%
51%
Would you rather live in the country with The highest public debt/GDP or The most foreign-owned debt 5 years ago 315 votes 9 comments 0 likes
49%
51%
Would you rather live in the country with The highest GDP/ Capita or The highest GDP 5 years ago 220 votes 3 comments 0 likes
73%
27
Would you rather live in a country with The highest income equality or The highest prisoner population 5 years ago 268 votes 17 comments 0 likes
45%
55%
Would you rather Increase funding to school gifted programs or Increase funding to "special needs" programs 5 years ago 173 votes 20 comments 0 likes
77%
23
Would you rather see Anti-Nazi Propaganda or Anti-Communist propaganda 5 years ago 133 votes 4 comments 0 likes
47%
53%
Which Disney song did you like better? Part of Your World- The Little Mermaid or Can You Feel the Love Tonight- The Lion King 5 years ago 822 votes 9 comments 1 like
20
80%
Which Disney song do you like better? Les Poissons- The Little Mermaid or Be our Guest- Beauty and the Beast 5 years ago 1,521 votes 6 comments 1 like
56%
44%
Would you rather live in An absolute monarchy or A democracy where only children under 10 can vote. 5 years ago 259 votes 12 comments 0 likes
40%
60%
Would you rather have term limits for politicians that Limit the number of consecutive terms or Limit the number of total terms 5 years ago 216 votes 2 comments 0 likes
41%
59%
Would you like me to draw a portrait of you? Yes or No 5 years ago 105 votes 12 comments 0 likes
49%
51%
Which Disney song do you like better? A Whole New World- Aladdin or The Circle of Life- The Lion King 5 years ago 874 votes 14 comments 1 like
70%
30
Which Disney song do you like better? I just can't wait to be king- The Lion King or A Girl Worth Fighting For- Mulan 5 years ago 874 votes 7 comments 1 like
57%
43%
Which Disney song do you like better? Be Prepared- The Lion King or Poor Unfortunate Souls- The Little Mermaid 5 years ago 1,018 votes 11 comments 1 like
75%
25
Which Disney song do you like better? Reflection- Mulan or The Bells of Notre Dame- The Hunchback of Notre Dame 5 years ago 860 votes 10 comments 1 like
51%
49%
Would you be at ease if other rrrather members found information about you from other sites? No, that would be creepy. or I'd be fine. 5 years ago 156 votes 15 comments 0 likes
47%
53%
Does this flag represent The Spanish Colonial Empire or The Duchy of Burgundy 5 years ago 314 votes 10 comments 0 likes
54%
46%
Is there a single and unchanging human nature? Yes. or No. 5 years ago 248 votes 12 comments 0 likes
88%
If I asked you what Millard Fillmore did as president, you would Be able to name one of his accomplishments. or Have nothing to say. 5 years ago 190 votes 21 comments 0 likes
73%
27
Would you rather Only be able to play dress-up games or Only be able to eat uncooked food 5 years ago 546 votes 17 comments 0 likes
29
71%
Do you prefer The classic Animated Disney Movies (Those made while Walt was still alive) or The renaissance Animated Disney Movies (Those made from 1989-1999) 5 years ago 852 votes 15 comments 0 likes
59%
41%
(Part 1) God is, by definition, the creator of all things. True or False 5 years ago 178 votes 44 comments 0 likes
64%
36
(Part 2) If God is the creator of all things, then he is the creator of time. True or False 5 years ago 162 votes 13 comments 0 likes
44%
56%
(Part 3) Creation is a causal event. True or False 5 years ago 135 votes 12 comments 0 likes
42%
58%
(Part 4) Causation implies time. True or False 5 years ago 113 votes 7 comments 0 likes
39
61%
(Part 5) If creation is a causal event and causation implies time, then time precedes the creation of time. True or False 5 years ago 104 votes 11 comments 0 likes
45%
55%
(Part 6) It is impossible for time to precede the creation of time. True or False 5 years ago 110 votes 4 comments 0 likes
39
61%
(Part 7) If the creation of time is impossible and god is the creator of time, then the definition of god is impossible. True or False 5 years ago 110 votes 11 comments 0 likes
37
63%
(Part 8) Something with an impossible definition cannot exist. True or False 5 years ago 120 votes 11 comments 0 likes
35
65%
(Part 9) If the definition of god is impossible and something with an impossible definition cannot exist, then god cannot exist. True or False 5 years ago 119 votes 25 comments 0 likes
44%
56%
(Part 10) If a god who is the creator of time cannot exist, then any existing god cannot be the creator of all things. True or False 5 years ago 120 votes 15 comments 0 likes
44%
56%
Would you rather Get all your information from Conservapedia. or Get all your food from McDonalds 5 years ago 554 votes 12 comments 0 likes
56%
44%
Would you rather have A shiny Weedle or A shiny Ratatta 5 years ago 3,575 votes 64 comments 0 likes
56%
44%
Would you rather Play a game in a language which is not your own. or Play a very bad game in your own language. 5 years ago 149 votes 17 comments 0 likes
51%
49%
Do you imagine me to be Male or Female 5 years ago 234 votes 19 comments 0 likes
67%
33
"Men are logical while women are emotional" Myth or Fact 5 years ago 351 votes 6 comments 0 likes
52%
48%
It is the year 1950. Would you rather rule over Europe or Asia 5 years ago 217 votes 11 comments 0 likes
29
71%
You have spent your life building an Empire. You are aging and will soon die. Would you rather Pass on the throne to a single heir, with the risk that the empire will collapse violently. or Divide the empire between heirs. 5 years ago 156 votes 6 comments 0 likes
36
64%
Which Soviet national anthem do you prefer? The Internationale or The hymn of the Soviet Union 5 years ago 124 votes 18 comments 0 likes
48%
52%
A man invites a guest into his house on a very cold day. Abruptly, he decides to throw the guest off his property. There are no other heated buildings for miles; the guest freezes to death. The owner had a right to decide who could be on his property. or The owner is guilty of manslaughter. 5 years ago 598 votes 18 comments 0 likes
45%
55%
Would you rather Be an excellent singer but only sing in the voice of the opposite sex. or Be an excellent actor but only play parts as the opposite gender. 5 years ago 1,141 votes 9 comments 0 likes
39
61%
Were the actions of the US in the Mexican-American war justified? Yes or No 5 years ago 247 votes 2 comments 0 likes
54%
46%
Would you rather Live in an egalitarian hunter-gatherer society or Live in an early agricultural state that was quite hierarchical. 5 years ago 155 votes 4 comments 0 likes
20
80%
Have you ever seen an opera? Yes or No 5 years ago 171 votes 11 comments 0 likes
42%
58%
Would you rather Be a monarch with absolute power or Be a symbolic monarch 5 years ago 142 votes 3 comments 0 likes
39
61%
Which Opera would you rather see The Barber of Seville or Carmen 5 years ago 85 votes 12 comments 0 likes
42%
58%
Would you rather Have your most important beliefs be proven absolutely and indisputably incorrect. or Have everyone the world over disagree with your most important beliefs. 5 years ago 203 votes 6 comments 0 likes
36
64%
Would you rather hear a preacher give a sermon on justice or read the Wikipedia article on justice 5 years ago 173 votes 10 comments 0 likes
60%
40%
Would you rather See gender roles disappear in your country. or See religion disappear in your country. 5 years ago 1,015 votes 23 comments 0 likes
20
80%
Would you rather Be the richest man in the world in 1900. or Be well-off in 2013. 5 years ago 208 votes 5 comments 0 likes
49%
51%
Would you rather Turkey join the European Union or Turkey be excluded from the European Union 5 years ago 629 votes 22 comments 0 likes
36
64%
You walk into a hotel with an infinite number of rooms. Unfortunately, there are an infinite number of people checked in, and all the rooms are full. Damn it, I'll have to leave. or No problem, I know how to get a room. 5 years ago 249 votes 28 comments 0 likes
82%
If you take one grain of sand from a mound, is it still a mound? Yes or No 5 years ago 208 votes 6 comments 0 likes
24
76%
Would you rather Gain 1 IQ point or Gain $1000 5 years ago 194 votes 4 comments 0 likes
52%
48%
Would you rather Gain 40 IQ points. or Gain $40,000 5 years ago 199 votes 12 comments 0 likes
38
62%
Would you rather be Blind or Death 5 years ago 297 votes 18 comments 0 likes
49%
51%
Do you prefer The digitally coloured version. or The original. 5 years ago 354 votes 16 comments 0 likes
47%
53%
Should I change my Icon? Yes or No 5 years ago 160 votes 12 comments 0 likes
55%
45%
Would you rather See Europe populated by a Muslim majority or Use violent force to drive away immigrants 5 years ago 465 votes 26 comments 0 likes
48%
52%
You are Emperor Constantine. Do you move the capital to Byzantium, or do you keep it in Rome? Byzantium or Rome 5 years ago 425 votes 6 comments 0 likes
55%
45%
If you went back in time, would you rather participate in The French Revolution or The Russian Revolution 5 years ago 1,298 votes 11 comments 0 likes
53%
47%
Would you rather Be a worker in China or Be a worker in Cuba 5 years ago 149 votes 4 comments 0 likes
58%
42%
Do you consider China to be a communist country? Yes or No 5 years ago 208 votes 9 comments 0 likes
51%
49%
Would you rather Be world champion of monopoly, and be payed to practice six hours per day. or Be terrible at something you like, but still be payed to practice six hours per day. 5 years ago 264 votes 10 comments 0 likes
31
69%
Would you rather Be the first person to set foot on mars, but live in the martian colony for the rest of your life. or Stay where you are. 5 years ago 301 votes 12 comments 0 likes
57%
43%
Does it bother you when people post a bunch of the same sorts of question all at once? Yes, it clogs up my feed! or Nah it doesn't bother me. 5 years ago 175 votes 18 comments 0 likes
43%
57%
How do you pronounce "rrrather" re-re-rather or ar-ar-rather 5 years ago 162 votes 23 comments 0 likes
35
65%
Colonialism was Necessary for spreading Western civilization. or Racist and destructive to indigenous peoples. 5 years ago 162 votes 2 comments 0 likes
90%
Can you be bisexual if you prefer one gender over the other? Yes or No 5 years ago 1,378 votes 11 comments 0 likes
70%
30
Do you use punctuation in your questions? Yes or No 5 years ago 355 votes 8 comments 0 likes
22 more questions hidden. Continue viewing questions

BorogoveLM has posted the following comments:

Transgender is a modifier applied to genders, not a gender itself. 3 years ago +2
Religion couldn't possibly count for more than 14 percent of a person (at least not one compatible with me). 3 years ago  
Supposing that it was a support move, it was probably still done mostly for money. 3 years ago +4
Firefox all the way. 3 years ago +2
Those aren't mutually exclusive. 3 years ago  
I didn't know that we were still in the 1860's. 3 years ago +3
I wouldn't need to ignore it... because it's not a bad thing. 3 years ago +14
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphor 3 years ago +1
They can talk about it. They can have opinions about it. They can even talk about the type of people that don't interest them. But they cannot condemn people and their transitions generally because they aren't interested in them sexually: to do so implies that the purpose of women is sexual. 3 years ago +1
It's your prejudice. Deal with the consequences yourself. 3 years ago +1
You're probably right, and I would, but it's still your responsibility to ask, and if you don't, then it's your own fault. 3 years ago +2
Yes you were. You made a judgement about the bodies of trans women based on their utility to men for use in sex with no other considerations. 3 years ago +2
Of course the main feature of female bodies is sex with men. How could I have forgotten that my body is for men and not for me! And of course, since I have a penis, it's my responsibility to broadcast it wherever I go, so as to relieve men from the responsibility of asking! After all, I'm just a f*ck-toy, and the whole reason that I exist is to ensure that I do a good job pleasing men. 3 years ago +3
Perhaps the one using slurs against us? 3 years ago +2
It's likely that women invented agriculture. 3 years ago +6
"Government" and "Free-Market" are weasel-words. I assign intrinsic preference to neither, especially since they are not mutually exclusive. Unlike you, I don't base my policy opinions on abstract notions about what is more or less "government" - whatever that means. I'd never, for example, propose higher taxes for the sole purpose of making the government bigger. My views on policies are based entirely on how they will effect people. Your policies are regressive because they are contrary to modern values, such as equality and interdependence. It's ridiculous to conflate the modern social welfare system with older systems on the basis of an entirely constructed label of "government control." Historically, that label has no continuity, no relevance, and - in the end - no meaning. 4 years ago +1
Protect it from *oppression* - Being part of the United States is not oppression, nor is being invaded following initiating a war. You haven't given any examples of Lincoln contributing to oppression of the Southern States, while I've given examples to the contrary. 4 years ago  
http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Libertarianism#Etymology : I am a libertarian in the broad sense of advocating choice in human affairs, rather than in the sense of advocating regressive economic policies. "Libertarianism" as a description of reactionary philosophy is purely a product of American electoral politics, and should really only be used with the capital case, but regardless, is obviously the topic of discussion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDHBvQRyOr0 4 years ago +1
He was the head of state when a US fort was attacked. What did you expect? In any case, Lincoln had the chance to legitimately oppress the South - seriously, read what the Radical Republicans wanted - he would have simply had to go along with Congress, but he chose to: all of his actions following the war worked to protect the South. It's absurd to say that he fought to oppress it. 4 years ago  
That's right. Lower-case. 4 years ago +1
Umm.... have you read about the Republican Congress in power while Lincoln was president? You are aware that it's thanks to Lincoln that the Southern States got their statehood restored instead of being admitted as "conquered territories?" I'll happily condemn the North's treatment of the south during reconstruction (although I'd appreciate if you would do the same for the Confederate States), but Lincoln is not the one to blame. 4 years ago +1
Libertarians have all misanthropy of conservatives, but with all the poor sense of liberals. 4 years ago +2
It's unlikely that the first extraterrestrial life we come across will be intelligent. 4 years ago  
Congradulations! 4 years ago +1
I looked it up: you're right. It's just not very common. 4 years ago  
Yes, but I don't think that word works in a subject-object relationship. You can say "X was widowed," but you can't say "Y widowed X." 4 years ago  
I don't think "widowing" is a thing one can do to someone else, though. 4 years ago  
I agree with you, but I don't think that the intuitions of some people like us should dictate the law. Unless it can be proven definitively that people will be safer with prostitution illegal, it's not really our right to prohibit it. 4 years ago +1
It's easier to open a closed game than to close an open game. 4 years ago +1
...because it's irrelevant to the question. 4 years ago +5
Sure, as long as you can show me a way to make the explosions bend around innocent civilians. 4 years ago +12
He wasn't hating. What he said means "It is silly and unnecessary to even distinguish between making one or many questions." 4 years ago  
I don't see that it's different from the others. 4 years ago  
Nothing. 4 years ago  
It looks very weird when young guys are overly muscular. But, no hetero. 4 years ago +2
2+2=5 is an analytic proposition, so in that case the answer is actually "yes." However, for synthetic propositions, insofar as their rejection is conceivable, of course not. 4 years ago +1
They used to have this hanging in my school's art room. 4 years ago +2
I'm going to answer this as "which has been worse for me." 4 years ago +1
While translated as "fear" in English, "φοβος" has a much broader meaning in Ancient Greek. That's why, for example, we describe molecules repelled by water as "hydrophobic," even though we're well aware that they aren't afraid of water. 4 years ago +6
I do find it interesting that Witty seems to have reversed his opinion on the "It's no one's fault but your own if you're offended" thing. 4 years ago +3
Don't argue with someone who asks you to stop. Apologize when you're called out on it. Don't make questions to escalate this sort of thing. 4 years ago +7
Those would be the people who have capital. 4 years ago +1
The objective of whom? 4 years ago +1
There's inadequate infrastructure for getting food to those who need it, and it's not profitable to build it. 4 years ago +7
The success of genes is defined solely by the extent to which they propagate, so I'm sure you're talking about some other type of success. Natural selection is over, but that's simply because it's succeeded: we've escaped the point at which the options are "compete or die," as a product of our success as a species. Those ideas are responsible for rather little, although they are traits of a more benevelent society. 4 years ago +3
That's interesting. I would think that Climatologists and Meteorologists would know how to write up scientific papers for peer review and publication. Funny how they decided not to, and the foundation which developed that "research" closed down 40 years ago. It's almost as if this graph has no credibility whatsoever. 4 years ago +1
Well that's some impressive honesty :) 4 years ago  
Constitutional amendments aren't federal laws. 4 years ago  
Yes it does, because they have to what the constitution says. 4 years ago  
Peritwinkle, of course. 4 years ago +2
No they don't. A man can make a marriage contract with a woman, whereas I cannot. By definition, the law applies differently to me according to my gender, which isn't allowed. 4 years ago  
Reread the last clause of section one of the Fourteenth Amendment. According to common law, equal protection under the law forbids discrimination in laws according to gender. If that isn't what's meant, then that's an issue that has to be decided by the Supreme Court, especially since also in this case is the question of marriages granted in one state in application in another. 4 years ago  
In your mind, what determines what is "absolutely necessary"? In this country, we have a constitution with twenty-seven amendments to tell us when its necessary for state laws to be struck down, so I'd think that would be the criterion. 4 years ago  
Wow. I guess that means that I understand physics perfectly, since I once read halfway through a physics book. 4 years ago +3
I don't think that they are equivalent, but I think that your dislike of judicial review doesn't have a very good historical track record. 4 years ago +3
Really? What feminist literature have you read? 4 years ago +5
"You waste all your time on the internet" isn't a valid ... umm... ad hominem ... when you're on the internet. 4 years ago +3
I started thinking that once he started calling himself "ubermensch" and linking me to articles about a "third way" between capitalism and marxism. 4 years ago +3
Sure they could. They did for hundreds of years before the big bad federal government came to stop them. 4 years ago +2
How about when it ended slavery in states that wanted to keep it around? Was that an overreach of federal power? 4 years ago +2
You must live in a different United States, because here, marriage is a state-granted contract which is already completely separate from the church. If you don't believe me, try reading the definition of marriage in Ohio's constitution which is being challenged: it doesn't implicate the church; it defines marriage in completely secular language. If the challenged clauses are struck down, nothing will change for any churches. Those which do not wish to perform same-sex marriages will not have to, and those which do (such as my own) will have their ceremonies legally recognized. 4 years ago +2
The Supreme Court has never made laws, and no one is proposing that it ought to. However, it can overrule laws if they are challenged in court and found to be unconstitutional. Ohio has an amendment in its state constitution stating that it will neither grant same-sex marriages nor recognize those given by other states. In the Petition for Certiorati, it was argued that these violate the Fourteenth Amendment and the Full Faith and Credit clause, respectively: http://goo.gl/FRasJU. This is the domain of Supreme court: to determine whether legislation inferior to the constitution accords with its requirements. 4 years ago +2
Decide what? People's rights? 4 years ago +3
Logic involves the derivation of conclusions from premises. In order for it to produce accurate results, the premises must be true. 4 years ago +4
Inalienable rights? Constitution? Equal protection under the law? What does that have to do with Democracy? 4 years ago +2
And of course *our legislature* is afraid to even touch it, so we have to depend on the evil, elitist intellectuals with their law degrees and presidential appointments (*gasp*) to make progress. 4 years ago +3
This isn't a question of legislative power; this is a constitutional issue. It's already established that the federal government can, and indeed, must, enforce the Constitution over all the states: the Supreme Court has headed this role since the very beginning. It can't make any rulings it wants: it must identify a violation of the Constitution. Ever hear of Brown vs. Board of education? Were you against that ruling? Did that give too much power to the federal government? 4 years ago +4
"Lie down." Lay is transitive, which means that you need to do it to something else. You would lay down your book, for example, but you would lie down to read it. 4 years ago  
It takes an amount of practice not to do it accidentally. 4 years ago  
Climate change may reduce quality of life dramatically, but there will still surely be humans living somewhere, and the only criterion given here is "survival." 4 years ago +2
*Inhales.* You linked to *blogs.* Not just any blogs mind you, but blogs without their own domain names. A blog is not a source. Anyone can make a blog, and any blog can say anything. At best, they will provide their own sources, which then have to be checked. Because bloggers, especially the type you link to, are generally neither scientists nor even scientifically literate, they don't bother with making accurate inferences from the results of studies or checking their credibility. This then has to be done by readers willing to expend actual effort. You've never done it, because you have no interest in filtering out nonsense information, so I'm unsurprised that you find this idea novel. 4 years ago +3
Sister, please learn what the word "measure" means. It involves numbers, which probably scare you. Health, you see, isn't like a checklist of "nutrients" that have to be filled in order for a diet to get it's smiley-face sticker. Instead, there are these complicated things called "proportions." That means that you have to get all the nutrients you need without getting too many of any particular type, such as fats, sugars, cholesterol, or calories in order to stay healthy. It's rather difficult to do this if your diet is 100% meat, even if you can find certain nutrients in specific meats. That's why there are lots of vegans in the world (who mostly eat fortified food, not pills), and carnivorous humans are effectively extinct. 4 years ago +5
100% of the people on this site have no life, and 90% want to be a douche. 4 years ago +1
This is essentially the immortal problem of the internet. Any half-wit can put up a blog promoting whatever crackpot theories strike their fancy in a matter of minutes, whereas searching down the papers they claim support their arguments, reading the full text, checking the credibility of the authors, and finding the relevant contemporary science refuting it can take hours or days. 4 years ago +4
Only in your bizarre world is that the metric for health. You're saying that because it is theoretically possible to find all necessary nutrients in animal products - assuming we include things that virtually no one in the Western world eats, such as eyes, bone barrow, and raw meat - therefore it is healthy, because the alternative includes supplements. That's seriously the only consideration you think you need to make in planning a diet? Are you out of your mind? 4 years ago +4
A useful word that means (people attracted to women) - Gynophile. 4 years ago +2
Votes by gender, votes by gender. 4 years ago +3
As much as I would dislike it, the middle east couldn't really get much worse politically. 4 years ago  
I'm not very sexual anyway. 4 years ago  
I'd probably die one way or the other with Mr. Kim. 4 years ago +5
Diminishing marginal utility. 4 years ago  
If you watch game theory in order to get education, you're doing it wrong. 4 years ago +3
I've come to use this word almost exclusively in reference to Hobbes, 4 years ago +2
Trust me, there are lots of better ways to do that. 4 years ago  
What did you want to prove? 4 years ago +1
I knew that Miley Cyrus was Hannah Montana, but I didn't know who Miley Cyrus was, so it made no difference to me. 4 years ago  
Equality from the guillotine means that everyone will be a peasant, not that everyone will be a king. You can't solve the problems of a society by simply doing away with the right villains. History repeats itself on this point so harshly it's as if they planned it out to teach us a lesson: //www.rrrather.com/view/81093 4 years ago +3
I knew that someone or other was the same person as someone else, or something, and that was more than mattered to me. 4 years ago  
Latin managed not to have a good word for "yes," but it loved its negatives. In fact, the word for "something" was literally "not nothing." I know nothing about Gaelic, but there's no way Romanian lost its words for "no." 4 years ago  
Excellent argumentation there. 4 years ago +2
It's an expression of disbelief. 4 years ago +2
Right. Just like how torture is "Enhanced interrogation techniques" and bombing villages is "Resolving an altercation." 4 years ago +3
You *speak* with a mouth. Mouths evolved with the purpose of consuming food. If we accept the reasoning that using body parts contrary to their biological purpose is to be condemned, then we would have to condemn speech, which is absurd. The biological purpose of body parts is irrelevant to ethical considerations. 4 years ago +1
While it's certainly true that Muslims have lived peacefully with "people of the book" for centuries, they've never dealt with a large population of (in historical terms) recently-immigrated Hebrew-speakers with a strong national identity before. I don't doubt that there are plenty of Muslims eager to live peacefully with the Jews, but I don't believe that Israel could realistically be wiped off the map in full without any negative consequences. I agree that its creation was a bad idea, but it's one we'll have to deal with for some time. 4 years ago  
The one where he called Muslims "barbarians." 4 years ago  
"Not for language" was a discrete negation of a prepositional phrase. It wasn't an alternate object of the "of" phrase. If I had meant it to be some sort of weird revolving sentence, I would have said "A mouth is meant for consumption of food, not of language." What I said was the equivalent of "A mouth is not meant for language, but for consumption of food." Dumb d!ick. 4 years ago  
No it doesn't; It just riles them up. Colonialism *doesn't work* for spreading civilization; the nineteenth century can attest to that. 4 years ago  
Well, this is interesting. As much as I wish that the State of Israel had never been imposed on Palestine, if the Jewish people stayed there in this hypothetical scenario, then we'd probably end up with more oppression, merely with Muslims carrying the reigns. If Mexico didn't exist... what would it be? Part of Spain? Would we swoop in and take over? There's so many people who'd be destroyed by this... I don't know. I'd need to think about it more. 4 years ago  
A mouth is meant for consumption of food, not for language, so why don't you shut up. 4 years ago +1
Good god! **How can you justify your belief that matter was created by ANYTHING?** 4 years ago +1
I wish I could be just a drag queen. 4 years ago  
Exactly. I agree 100% :) 4 years ago  
I think I owe you an explanation, at least, of the concept that you're failing to understand. When we say that something was "created," we're never strictly correct. "Things" such as trees, rocks, stars, and people, don't exist in any objective sense; those are all labels that we give to collections of atoms. When someone creates a chair, no new atoms have come into being - only one thing changed - a new label was assigned to a new arrangement of atoms. We call this "creation ex materia" - we observe this all the time, so it's a valid induction to suppose that when we find something in a specific state (a specific label), an explanation for this state can be demanded. What we have never seen, however, is "creation ex nihilo" - some type of physical thing coming into being. It's therefore *not* a valid question to ask where such things as matter, space, time, etc. came from - as far as we know, those things are the type of thing which "come from" anywhere. *States of being* are caused - "Being," to our knowledge, isn't. When scientists talk about evolution or the big bang, they're talking about why matter is arranged the way it is - not what brought it into existence. The first law of thermodynamics, in fact, says that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed. 4 years ago +2
You were asked how you knew that reality (everything) has to come from somewhere. Your answer was "everything has to come from somewhere." Congratulations, you've defined the word "tautology" for us. Then you explained why the idea of an origin for all things is incoherent - adding more elements to the set of "things which exist" adds to the set of "things whose existences is unexplained." I struggle to imagine the mind of a person who can simultaneously make this criticism while maintaining a belief in a logically necessary creator. 4 years ago +2
Make it illegal for doctors to tell the parents its sex. 4 years ago  
Well, I'd say it depends on how much inequality there already is between sexes. In cases where it's "boys are more valuable," then it pretty clearly propagates sexism. When it's "I would personally prefer to raise a boy/girl," then I'd say it's leaning more towards the "petty" side than the "criminal" one. The Chinese government certainly got it right given the type of society they were dealing with; hopefully soon they'll reach the point where no one will remember why they needed such a law. 4 years ago  
Remember that one time 200 years ago when British Canada occupied an American city? Remember how nothing like that has ever happened since? 4 years ago +3
Admittedly, it's not nearly as much a problem in Europe as it is (was?) in China. I'd imagine that there aren't enough people there doing it for them to have addressed it. 4 years ago  
How do you know that reality needs to "come from" somewhere? Have you ever seen something create a "reality"? Is that even a coherent thought? 4 years ago +3
Ok, if we want to determine the viability of a scientific theory, we have to look at the predictions it made when it was conceived. If we discover these predictions to be accurate, then we can know that the theory is strong. When Darwin postulated the theory of evolution, the fossil record was scant, and taxonomy was a largely incomplete field. Darwin enumerated several things that should turn up supposing his theory was true. He predicted that we would find Precambrian fossils. We found them. He predicted that different species would be found in different layers of rock, because he would not have expected them to coexist. We found that too. He predicted that we would find transitional fossils. We've found mountains of them, and - most importantly - we searched for them using the theory as our guide as to *where* we should find them.I'd recommend familiarizing yourself with Tiktaalik: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik. Furthermore all competing theories lack explanation power. Chickens have the genes describing how their teeth should form, they're just inactive. If chickens were designed fully-formed, why would they look like this? Moreover, why don't we ever find animals with fur that don't produce milk? The evolutionary explanation is that milk production evolved in a single fur-possessing species, the ancestor of all mammals. A creator should not be limited in this way, but evolution explains it plainly. Scientists are under an obligation to use some model in whatever work they do, so they have to use the best available theory: this is evolution by natural selection. Natural selection involves the idea that allele variation within species causes certain traits to be propagated to a greater extent than others, driving genetic change in populations. The same mechanic is used for breeding animals. This *is* evolution; there's no question at all as to whether it occurred, the only reasonable question is "how did it occur in the past." 4 years ago +4
I'm interested in what you think the phrase "explain my reasoning" means. 4 years ago  
Theories don't get promoted to "facts" once they reach a high degree of certainty. Theories are explanations for sets of facts, and their strength is measured by their explanatory and predictive power. 4 years ago +2
For those saying "both" or "unsure," note that creationism, as it's generally defined, posits that life forms were created *fully formed* in their current states. Theistic evolution is *not* creationism. 4 years ago +2
I mean it in the sense of "I like my coffee." You might say that even when you don't have any coffee at the time, because it references the general concept "coffee." I like *that there is* a government. 4 years ago  
You have a map, but it was written by people who wanted to go somewhere else. 4 years ago +2
I'd hate to be Obama right now. 4 years ago +2
Mongrel. 4 years ago  
Brown. 4 years ago  
Black and straight. 4 years ago  
Maybe it's because I already can't have biological children, but I can't understand the majority stance on eugenics. If someone told me "instead of giving birth to a child yourself, we're going to have you adopt from a pool of children bred to be healthier and more intelligent," I'd say "Thanks." I simply can't understand how people could value shared genetic information over their children's well-being. Naturally, since people do overwhelmingly think this way, I would never want to legislate eugenics, but I find that sort of thinking completely alien. 4 years ago +1
H is an absence of sound. 4 years ago +1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_hqLmxvpiI 4 years ago  
Well, my definition is probably the least important, but I'd say that it requires the potential for someone who made a decision to have made a different decision in the exact same scenario. 4 years ago +1
I love how this is a sweeping, bold statement and yet no one ever seems to ask for evidence of it. 4 years ago +2
It also says "Newtonian time" which regards time as something like a Cartesian grid. Obviously I don't believe in Newtonian time, I just happen to know what it is. 4 years ago  
I'm not sure that I have much interest in having sex with anyone, actually, but if it made him happy I could. 4 years ago  
I love that grandma/grandpa of mine. 4 years ago  
This is probably one of the strangest things I've seen on the internet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuCpNIwyjzc. 4 years ago  
I'm surprised that people even want to live as long as they do normally, let alone forever. 4 years ago +1
As a nice heuristic: virtually everything has improved through time, and people who think otherwise do so because they're only paying attention to the problems facing them right now. 4 years ago +1
It's already hard enough to find good music. 4 years ago +1
I got reduced price a long time ago, but not anymore. 4 years ago  
"A" heavily implies that *nothing* influences time, since that's what "absolute" means. 4 years ago  
Ermm.... I haven't checked in a while, and Alexw made it harder now that comments on your page are hidden. It's at least 9 and no more than 12. 4 years ago  
There are many good reasons to move to Canada, but that isn't one of them. 4 years ago +1
I wouldn't call someone an "idiot" unless I knew that they weren't interested in considering other opinions. 4 years ago  
"The Lion and the Unicorn fight for the crown..." 4 years ago  
What! She's finally getting a movie? Excellent. I won't watch it of course. 4 years ago  
The Supreme Court only hears cases when someone has a standing, and since laws like those are never enforced, they don't get removed. 4 years ago +1
Is the conscious mind exempt from causality? 4 years ago +1
A) I think that the universe operates according to laws, and that these laws govern the human mind. Humans aren't except from cause and effect, and while clearly choices are made, the answers to those choices are caused by a great manner of external influences. B) The brain is clearly connected to human behavior, and we've never seen anything that could influence human behavior without influencing the brain, so until someone shows otherwise, the brain rests as the cause of human actions. Ex) 1. I do know enough about the differences between individual twins and humans to answer, and I don't think anyone else does either. 2. Blame is a social deterrent from certain behaviors. It isn't a rational consequence of actions, it's just a tool used by humans. As far as I can tell, a tiger cannot understand such social mechanisms, and a robot certainly cannot, so I see no reason to subject it to such. This is the metric to use; if someone is sufficiently able that the fear of blame will deter them, then it is acceptable. 3. I have read into it to a small degree, and it appears consistent with my conclusion that causality extends to humans. I don't find this to be at all demeaning, and i think that essentially everything is some type of input-output machine. I wouldn't be surprised if our research progressed to show that the universe was predetermined, but quantum physics currently suggest that at least some part of it isn't. Ex) 1. Presumeably, "omniscient" means "knows everything that there is to know, and excludes the unknowable. People who believe in free will *and* think that god knows the future are off their collective rocker. 2. Again, we're still working on quantum physics, so I'm not sure I can say that because 3. I don't know my theoretical physics well enough to have an opinion. 4 years ago +3
Only if it would have been possible for you to choose otherwise. It could very well be that the process of you deciding between the two would always produce the same result. 4 years ago +2
Israel is a much more significant country with a much larger and more robust military. North Korea is an undeveloped, unimportant, and un-threatening backwater. That said, either scenario sounds fairly absurd. 4 years ago  
I suspect you're a bit young to be selecting a love for your entire life. 4 years ago +2
This person, I'd imagine: http://www.thevisualist.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Caps-for-sale-04.jpg 4 years ago +4
I haven't gotten around to playing any of the Hearts of Iron series, although I was tempted by East vs. West. 4 years ago  
But... I thought they were part of Great Britain... 4 years ago +6
Neither pose any significant threat to the US, but that tells us nothing of their significance. 4 years ago +4
Thanks! 4 years ago  
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dennis_Prager 4 years ago  
Find me an example of a successful non-representational artist who was unable to make representational art. 4 years ago  
No you couldn't. If you could, then someone without artistic expertise would already have done it by now, and no one has. 4 years ago  
I've said it before and I will say it again. Telekinesis is moving object from a distance. Magnets, for example, are telekinetic. The word for moving things with one's mind is "psychokinesis." 4 years ago  
Very little. 4 years ago +1
Well... when I typed it, it was only one comment. Keep in mind that I do this primarily for fun and secondarily for practice. 4 years ago  
Aww... you'll miss all the fun. Nothing beats squeezing an inflated ego. 4 years ago +2
While that should completely close the issue, we can go on to explain the confluence of totalitarianism and atheism in some states, and no, I'm not trying to make atheism sound "badass." I'm sufficiently intelligent to know that revolutions (and by that I mean military coups, not wars of secession) rarely produce net social improvements; for every revolution that did, I can show you several that didn't. It's simply factual that atheism has historically been a very radical intellectual position, and so has revolutionism. That is the best explanation for the confluence, and it's much preferable to yours which doesn't provide any mechanism other than "atheism is just bad." Your test, positing that I should be able to point to a non-totalitarian atheist revolution is absurd, because if it weren't totalitarian, it would be pluralistic, and thus it wouldn't be an atheist revolution, nor would it have any particular view on apolitcal philosophical issues. By the way, Juche is scarcely atheism when "dear leader" receives prayers. Supposing that we do use the broadest definition of atheism, which would also include Buddhists and Shamans, who I know aren't the people you're talking about when you say atheism, Juche is certainly not the skeptical naturalism which you confront today. 4 years ago +2
I brought up the difference between being "rooted in a philosophy" and "practicing a policy" because I figured Mr. Superman was smart enough to understand that those states, while holding the policy of state atheism, were founded on Marxist-Leninism, not atheism, and that it's childish to assign the blame to atheism when the actual cause was evident to anyone with two brain cells to rub together. But that's beside the point: if your intention was to criticise state atheism, then welcome to the club, because almost no atheists of today support it. If your intention was to criticise atheism through state atheism, you should be able to show how state atheism is different than any other non-pluralist state policy. Your statement that "the majority of the recent ones have been atheist" is clearly incorrect: most of those of recent times have been Islamic. Before that, most of them were Christian, and before that, most of them were pagan. 4 years ago +3
He refers to himself as "super man"... I think I've heard this before somewhere: http://youtu.be/np-e8NM8oRo?t=43s. Care to explain *how* beauty, order, or continuity suggest a god? Any universe that operated according to laws would certainly include the latter two of those, and beauty is simply a perception made by sufficiently sophisticated beings. It shouldn't surprise anyone that these things exist, and even if it did, there's no reason to posit magical beings as an explanation; there's not a single example in history where doing so was the correct answer. Weather, natural disasters, rainbows, and a whole host of natural phenomena have been explained this way, and again and again we see that methodology failing. 4 years ago +3
"To my mind God's existence becomes fairly obvious through observation of the natural world" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias. You have to try harder than that. I won't try to change your mind, since you believe yourself to be some sort of ubermensch and always correct about everything. I will, however, try to get you to stop using this ridiculous argument: "Take an honest look at 20th century history and see all of the horrible regimes rooted in atheism and statism. Now try to tell me atheism isn't bad for society, and watch yourself fail, crushed by historical facts." There has never been a regime "rooted in atheism". Hopefully there never will be, because such a regime would have very little to do other than write papers about a specific philosophical issue; thankfully most states are rooted in such issues as "governing". There have, of course, been several regimes which *practiced* atheism; this is not any issue, the practice of atheism never harmed anyone. The harm comes from the policy of "state atheism," which is disastrous. This, however, says absolutely nothing about the merits of atheism, because "state anything-ism" produces similar effects. If you examine atheist totalitarian states and non-atheist totalitarian states from the same time period (because as technology progresses, so does the ability to repress), you'll find that they aren't particularly different. If you argue that the number of atheist totalitarian states is greater than one would expect, that would neglect that atheism has historically been very revolutionary, being held by those holding pitchforks to the towers of both Versailles and the Kremlin, both producing totalitarian regimes. This, however, has nothing to do with the merits of atheism itself and much more to do with the points in history in which it has been held, which, notably, were different from today. 4 years ago +2
Based on the pictures, I'm assuming that gender is being used to refer to "secondary sexual characteristics," in contrast to genitals, being "primary sexual characteristics." 4 years ago  
http://goo.gl/UfNaW3 I hate things that are different. Science is for morons: http://goo.gl/mfcuzw. Fat people are a political group. 4 years ago +1
Peritwinkle, no doubt. 4 years ago +2
It's tempting to believe that, but I can't do it anymore. It reminds me of the times when every disease or crop failure was blamed on a hidden witch. While the corrupt politicians and evil corporations are a convenient face we can pin all our problems on, It's sloppy intellectually. How convenient it is that it gives us an excuse to not pick a side, since both sides are corrupt? How convenient it is that it gives us an excuse not to vote, since both parties are the same? How convenient it is that we don't have to explain why our opinions - despite being clearly and obviously correct - aren't being adopted by law: the government is just evil! While it's easy to believe, I can't do it for the following reason: no one's done anything about it. Isn't it curious that everyone knows about the evil, corrupt government? Isn't it curious that none of these people make it into politics? Isn't anyone concerned about this? Don't we have elections? Why aren't all these people mobilized to stop the corrupt government once and for all? As you move closer to politics and law, it becomes obvious that things are much more difficult than you assumed. I'm not denying that there's corruption in Washington, but by the same token, there are people there who really do want to help people. The government is a complex institution; probably the most complex we have, and breaking it down to a simple understanding *just doesn't work.* 4 years ago +1
*blinks* 4 years ago  
Drugs, as long as you die from overdose. 4 years ago +2
My mother's family was too rich and my father's family was too Irish. 4 years ago  
It's more like a room full of fairly intelligent people with differing motivations and opinions about the best way to do things. 4 years ago +3
You say that as if it furthers your point. 4 years ago  
My favourite game is collaborative writing, my favourite cartoon is the movie Persepolis. 4 years ago  
You seriously can't see what's wrong with this? If he was always impotent, it isn't contingent on his decision, still evading the question. If he was always impotent, the question "what if an omnipotent god did X" isn't answered. 4 years ago  
If he's omnipotent, then he *can*. 4 years ago  
Questions that start with "Would you rather" and cannot have a correct answer. 4 years ago  
Go back to Stormfront. Whatever racism you're talking about has no tangible impact on anything. 4 years ago +1
Well...no, it's just the best of mine, and only of a small category of my questions. 4 years ago  
I don't consider that to be a "normal" question. That's a philosophy question. 4 years ago  
Yeah. 4 years ago  
I'm pretty sure this is my best normal question. 4 years ago  
That's not grammar. That's usage. 4 years ago +1
My gender studies professor told us that Obama, despite having dark skin, was culturally white. I was going to ask how that could be when he lived in Indonesia, but that was an aside, so I couldn't really justify it. 4 years ago +3
I've seen all the arguments for A before; I have nothing to learn from it. 4 years ago +2
http://youtu.be/8V06ZOQuo0k 4 years ago +2
"Grasping at straws" doesn't dismiss an argument. If it did, it would be used for every point. The grammar issue might be interesting in Wittgensteinian sense, but if things can be grammatically impossible, that suggests that the idea that god can think/speak things into being is flawed, since speech and thought are grammatical. Also, I mostly posted this because it was amusing, not to make any sort of an argument. 4 years ago  
Then you're simply evading the question, although interestingly you choose to do it by agreeing with my conclusion that god is impotent. 4 years ago  
My teacher didn't let anyone touch it, and it didn't seem to enjoy the experience at all. 4 years ago +2
I brought a chicken to school once when I was in fifth grade. 4 years ago +1
...Because sometimes 2d animation is *more* realistic? Because it can present motion in a way that 3d cannot? Because you can exaggerate for effect more easily? Because simple objects are more universally pleasing? Because 3d animation can fall into the uncanny valley? Because 2d just plain looks better? You might just as well ask "Why would you make an animated movie when live action is so much more realistic?" 4 years ago +2
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/10 4 years ago  
Why then, did he become impotent? 4 years ago  
If god was never omnipotent, then the initial thought would never have come true, leaving him omnipotent, which is contradictory. Saying that in his impotence he wouldn't have thought it is a silly objection because had he not thought it, he would not be impotent, and, in any case, what he "would"do isn't relevant, since we're discussing the "all-powerful" not the "all-doing." 4 years ago  
It's not necessarily critical, is it? 4 years ago  
Fine. Let's amend the statement: "That which god thinks never becomes true." 4 years ago  
I see no reason why I would have to express an opinion on such a matter to my theoretical children, since it's a pretty silly question. Whether someone is special or ordinary on its face is a meaningless; everyone possesses some special and some ordinary qualities. If they asked, I would tell them that their question isn't meaningful. If they saw where I was going and asked if they were special in a regard which will impact their lives positively, then I would tell them that this is a choice that they can make for themselves. Then I'd go make them hear Walt Disney's opinion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhwXgvOfJc8 4 years ago +3
Here's the best way to imagine it. Among god's abilities includes thinking things into being. God can think something, and it becomes true. God can then think "That which god thinks does not become true." That's paradoxical; if he's correct, then what he says does not become true, and thus the established rule is in effect, making him wrong. If he's wrong, then, by definition, he must be correct. That's impossible; omnipotence contradicts itself; your illustration demonstrated the same principle but less purely. 4 years ago  
There are two arguments here, and I'm not sure which one you mean to present. The first is "If something can be expressed in language, it is necessarily conceivable." That's clearly false because "square circle" is perfectly grammatical. The second is "People only invent words for conceivable things." This is pretty silly, as it would be completely possible for us to make a word for a square circle: I'll call it a "circumangle." That doesn't make it concievable, and it wouldn't even if everyone started using it as a word. Nevertheless, the question is raised as to how we arrived at the idea of omnipotence if it is inconceivable. The first thing to point out is that people never actually envision omnipotence, they imagine a powerful being, and they use "all-powerful" to describe it. You could, for example, call someone "a friend of all things." What you mean by that isn't that they are literally friends with everything, but that they have the character exemplified by such a person. That's the main point: you can arrive at an impossible conclusion by extending patterns in the possible. It's the same way that we can name the location of an asymptote; we see a pattern, and we imagine that pattern to it's greatest extent. 4 years ago  
My toaster doesn't pop :c 4 years ago  
Explain what that would mean 4 years ago  
They can both apply, but neither can apply only in part. I'd say that, if you think both are necessary, option B is the one you would go with, since no one gets taken to court for making a threat if no one found it threatening. 4 years ago  
You can't apply "a bit" of a rule. What would that mean? 4 years ago  
That doesn't work in courts. 4 years ago  
I never said that we have to understand something in order to discuss them. I said that, in order for something to be in the realm of credibility, it has to be conceivable. The difference is in orders of magnitude. For example, I can conceive of a machine that can duplicate any object I put in it, but I cannot understand how such a machine would work. The machine is in the realm of logical possibility; I just don't understand it. A square circle, however, I can't even imagine; it's self-contradictory. If I accepted square circles into the realm of logical possibility, I would no longer be able to assign any meaning to "square" or "circle." I would have to give up rationalizing things, because none of the rules of logic would work. Accepting the inconceivable, epistemologically, is game over. Without parameters to logic, knowledge is impossible. 4 years ago  
A god would have an understanding of everything, because it's supposed to be omniscient. 4 years ago +2
If we can't categorize him, then, in any case we can't call him omnipotent or good. 4 years ago  
The first premise of all philosophy is that we set aside conclusions that are inconceivable. Whether our ability to conceive of things is limited or not, if we include the inconceivable, thought is impossible. We'd have to discard the identity property, and with it, the ability to ever make conclusions about anything. We'd have to say, "although Socrates is a man and although all men are mortal, it may be that Socrates is not mortal in a way that I can't understand." So, yeah, sorry, that assumption is one I'm not afraid to make, because otherwise I could never justify believing anything. If I only believe things that are conceivable, it doesn't matter if I'm somehow wrong, because, in any case, I'm as right as its possible for me to be. 4 years ago  
And when something that isn't *logically* impossible is brought up, like slowing down time, I do point it out. 4 years ago  
I know. The answer is "No," because omnipotent beings cannot exist even in theory because inherently, they are paradoxical. It's no different from asking "Is a square red circle possible?". The answer is "a square circle cannot exist, and what color it is doesn't matter." 4 years ago  
Fact: The average person has one ovary. 4 years ago +5
Making transactions makes me faint. 4 years ago  
"We hate science" vs. "We hate people" 4 years ago  
That's the whole point of asking questions. 4 years ago  
If we did that for every "potential terrorist," there would be no Afghanistan left. 4 years ago +6
It's not possible for god to be omnipotent - full stop - 4 years ago  
No one's heard of China, I'd imagine? 4 years ago +6
*nods* 4 years ago  
It might be a bit early to call, but look at that gender division... 4 years ago +2
Jaw. 4 years ago  
The other is only a meaningful question for insecure mortals. 4 years ago +1
I am surprised. 4 years ago +2
They shouldn't be pressed as criminal charges, if that's what you mean. Obviously there can be civil charges, although I suppose that depends on how you count "victimless," which is pretty absurd wording to begin with 4 years ago +1
Firstly, it isn't selling it unless it is transferred as property; prostitutes USE their bodies for a fee, which is the same as what everyone else does for every profession. Secondly, whether he personally wants to is wholly irrelevant; presumably, he also wouldn't want to be an opera singer or a dominatrix, but those are allowed. 4 years ago +1
The only badges tgat matter are gender, diamond, and crown. 4 years ago +2
Does this sound right: "One hundred years ago, my great grandfather has immigrated to America"? The imperfect is used when denoting the first in a series of ongoing events. 4 years ago +1
It depends how old they are. 4 years ago  
*were killed. 4 years ago  
People get to make their own decisions when no one else is involved. 4 years ago +2
Legalize it, tax it, and regulate it. That will be much more efficient. 4 years ago +3
My life isn't something I value very strongly. 4 years ago  
Race is a social construct. Once, Irish people were not considered to be "white," while southern Europeans are, despite being darker than Turks, who are not. 4 years ago +2
I'm finding that my depression is worst when I'm away from school, so what difference does it make? 4 years ago  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwnwbG9YLE 4 years ago +1
"Education is really effing important-day" 4 years ago +2
There is no mens rea. 4 years ago  
My least favourite states?! 4 years ago  
Peri lost?! 4 years ago +4
Reasoning? 4 years ago  
Spain has a monarchy. 4 years ago  
Without worrying about pollution, we may have an easier time solving world hunger, as the economy will be better. 4 years ago +2
My height bothers me. It would be nice to have someone taller than I am. 4 years ago  
What a juvenile approach for looking at international issues. 4 years ago +7
Right. So its inconceivable that anyone could ever want any of this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_and_responsibilities_of_marriages_in_the_United_States#Rights_and_benefits. 4 years ago  
Something being a legal contract in no way makes it pointless. 4 years ago +2
If the sense in which it exists is so outside of my understanding that it doesn't even conform to my definitions of words, then I can't be blamed for using thise words to say that it doesn't exist, since, in the way that my words reference states, it doesn't exist. Even putting thay aside, that argument coukd work foriterally anything. Square circles might exisr, but only in a way that I can't understand. If an argument can be employed for any statement, then employing that argument is an admission that such a statement is the weakest possible claim, since the only argument in favour of its veracity can equally be made for the opposing claim. 4 years ago  
Hold on... based on the current scores, the finals will be between my two favourite users. 4 years ago +5
It is, actually, given that police and courts are much less likely to take cases of woman-on-man abuse seriously. 4 years ago +4
My grandmother suffered from terrible depression in her life. Why? She's married to a successful entrepreneur who grew up with servants, she's travelled on every continent except antarctica, and she graduated from university magna cum lauda. She should have had everything. What she lacked was fulfillment. She was given all the advantages, but she recieved then as an object. She was never employed in her life; she was never given any agency. Despite being a wonderfully intelligent woman, the most challanging thing she ever did was plan for a big holiday gathering. That led her life to be devoid of meaning; the physical benefits of being a housewife meant nothing in the absence of freedom. This is what reactionaries fail to understand; we women and our allies seek status as agents, not as objects. We seek to be valued for our accomplishments rather than soley for our physical appearance. We seek equal representation in the social and political processes which affect us all. We seek to exert our influence on every level of society in which we live. Men and women, even with the best intentions, who do not recognize us in such areas do nothing to improve our quality of life and do nothing to advance society culturally, politically, or intellectually. 4 years ago +10
I'll give three issues where feminists overwhelmingly support equal rights for men: Paternity Leave, Military Drafts, and Male Genital Mutilation. Now give me ONE example where the reverse is true. 4 years ago +7
It's called "psychokinetic" if you move objects with your mind, and you're "psychic" if you read minds. 4 years ago +4
Of course, there are plenty of sports where women have the natural advantage, but there's always less interest in those. 4 years ago +2
Turkey should, since it should be severing its ties with the Ottoman empire anyway. Sweden should not, since that design is common among Scandinavian countries. 4 years ago  
Which is strange, since I'm against the death penalty. 4 years ago  
People from Texas never cease to amuse me. 4 years ago  
If Scandinavia were a geographic region, then it would include Russian Kola. 4 years ago  
I've never had it. 4 years ago  
Denmark and Iceland are in Scandinavia. 4 years ago +2
If there is a god, then he should be deposed. 4 years ago +1
Start in high school? Never mind; that makes no sense. It should start in preschool. 4 years ago  
An excellent start. Some observations: you only used three tones, and they're all flat, pikachu's cheeks on the hood are round in your drawing but not the photo, the angle from which they're looking at us isn't the same as in the photo. 4 years ago +3
Of course. 4 years ago  
Because he likes them? The same reason that a girl would? 4 years ago  
Tge fact that sonething can produce bad results speaks notgibg od its potency to produce good ones. 4 years ago  
We should have categories. Best questions, nicest, most creative, most insightful comments, etc. 4 years ago +6
Elegance. Of course it depends on the girl or guy wearing it. 4 years ago  
Advice for newbies: questions should be symmetrical. If both answers have a "but" clause, they should contain equivalent ideas: two statements about money, two about social ramifications. The can be positive or negative, but remember to have an equal number of positive and negative clauses on each side. 4 years ago +5
You're going to be great at it ;) 4 years ago  
And they're 100% natural. 4 years ago +7
I'm taking a summer course in law right now, so at the moment the idea of being a lawyer stands prominently in my head. 4 years ago  
Then you'd have to upvote most of the comments that I make. 4 years ago  
If we're only allowing for absolute certainty, the only things to which I hold a gnostic opinion would be the statements "thought exists" and "truth and falsehood exist". So, no, I guess I don't have absolute certainty. However, I do have relative certainty that god, at least as defined in specific ways, does not exist. For example, if god is the creator of the unverse, then god does not exist, because time is part of the universe, and since creation is necessarily a temporal event, time cannot have a creator. In that case, I know that god does not exist with the same certainty that I know time to exist. If we define god merely as a being which oversees the universe, then I am still justified in my belief that it doesn't exist, as I have nothing distinguishing it from the countless things which do not exist. Nevertheless, my certainty that it does not exist cannot be higher than my certainty, for example, that there are no other planets where people speak English. So, where you draw the line distinguishing kNowledge from high certainty is the main issue. 4 years ago +4
There's an infinite number of possible ways that the world was created. It could have been created by a god in seven days. It could have been created by a goddess in five days. It could have appeared when a bunch of dogs coughed up grass. The number is limitless. However, there's only one way that the world really was created. Given that, any given explanation, unless shown to be specially distinguishable from the others, is virtually gauranteedto be false, because its odds are, quite literally, one against a nu.ber approaching infinity. 4 years ago +8
Wow, it's as if someone picked up Carl Jung's ideas, stapled on a title, and hoped that no one would bother to check any of their evidence. 4 years ago +3
all children should be required to watch this:http://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=kp&v=kOfZJZLcTh0 4 years ago  
The universe operates according to the laws of nature. humans are part of the universe and cannot control the laws of nature,可是 it is possible to learn what those laws are。for some reason 我的 keyboard is stuck on Chinese,and IT isn't giving me English for some of the words。 4 years ago  
My hands are too big。 4 years ago  
I don't have one on hand; I could do a cursory google search, but you can do that just as easily. 4 years ago  
If I were my dad, which is what this is asking grammatically, I wouldn't want my mom to know everything about me at all. 4 years ago  
As long as there is one, Australia should be in it. 4 years ago +1
According to science, spoilers improve your experience. 4 years ago +1
I don't remember posting this. Most likely, it was because at the time, online, I was identifying as genderqueer, and I was wortied about people finding out. 4 years ago  
Yeah, I can't wait until all the topsoil floats into space. 4 years ago +1
Wait, are you answering these in series? 4 years ago  
End, as we understand it, has to be defined in terms of the universe, so the universe itself can't "end." It might do *something* that we haven't discovered yet, but we can't justify calling it "ending." 4 years ago +2
Ham was really easy to give up. 4 years ago  
I only have one strong memory of this happening, and the project was kind of doomed to fail from the start. We were writing a detective story... as a group. The person in charge of the middle decided to ignore what we had agreed on, so when I wrote the end, it made no sense at all. Even worse, my teacher decided to give three separate grades, and naturally, since my part was the illogical one, I got, I think, a flat 80%, while the person who did the middle got an 87%. 4 years ago +2
The quizzes on OkCupid are really good. 4 years ago +1
My comment didn't imply that it would reverse anything; it was an explanation as to why, even if I were a man, I wouldn't consider the option to be that problematic. 4 years ago  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Du2mLuK9edk 4 years ago +1
I think Pope Francis should call a crusade, and the European Union should send a force to overthrow the current government and restore the Kingdom of Jerusalem. 4 years ago  
Thanks for making me compare my favourites. 4 years ago +1
If by "man parts" you mean "testicles," then sure. The two main functions of testicles are hormone production and sperm production. If I were a man, I wouldn't want children, so the latter is negligible, and the former can be corrected medically. The problem, then, is purely aesthetic. If you think that neutering includes the shaft, then you're interpreting the word strangely. 4 years ago  
No, the problem is that there's no such thing as a "rational nature," not even in a relative sense. Humans are governed by desires which are inherently arational. Reason is something you learn when you desire to make a precise decision, or to be perceived as a rational person; it isn't part of anyone's nature, and supposing that it were, there's no reason to think that evolution would have randomly assigned it to half of the species. 4 years ago +2
I don't really understand what the problem is. Reproduction? 4 years ago  
If I were a man, I would just take testosterone supplements. 4 years ago +1
Who should participate in politics, might I ask? Men certainly wouldn't, since they by no means have a rational nature. Computers? 4 years ago +4
Square circles 4 years ago +2
They are two different girls who both use Cat as their nickname. 4 years ago  
That's the nickname of a girl... two girls actually, in my history class. The first one was really nice... she spoke to me on occasion. 4 years ago  
The engineering possibilities are endless. 4 years ago +4
Ireland keeps its alcohol at cellar-temperature. It's only a "cold one" in the united states. 4 years ago  
I saw Frozen on my plane home. I really wish that Disney would stop intentionally making their animated films worse (a la pic A). More importantly, what was up with the protectionism? Why did they embargo Weaselton? How did that even make any sense? 4 years ago +3
2800. I only got the right continent once. First, I mistook California for Eastern Australia, then Western Australia for Ethiopia, Then Northern Sweden for the Western USA (how it managed to look like that, I don't know), then South Africa for the Western United States (I could have sworn that that sign sad "miles per hour".) I landed in a forest that looked like it could have been right outside my house, so I guessed Pennsylvania, and it was Maine. 4 years ago +2
You're online! How long have you had that badge? 4 years ago +1
You're back? 4 years ago  
They rescheduled the flight. 4 years ago  
Oh what fun we'll have during the campaign season. 4 years ago  
Well, that's probably the dumbest thing I've heard today. 4 years ago +3
I'll admit, coming home after having your flight canceled can make you feel a little nationalistic. 4 years ago +3
Wow, where are you going? 4 years ago  
I was supposed to leave today, but my flight got canceled, so Im leaving tomorrow. 4 years ago  
When looking at the influence of one variable, everyone knows that you look at raw data and not the anomoly present. 4 years ago  
Australopithecus is found in the geological stratum in which we would expect to find proto humans; there's no better candidate. 4 years ago +1
Adaptation has little to do with evolution; that's when an organism uses its current genetic features for new purposes. Evolution is the gradual change in gene pools caused by natural or artificial selection. Which do you believe in? 4 years ago  
If Americans came from England, why is there still England? 4 years ago  
No one claims that humans cause all climate change, just the significant changes of the most recent centuries. 4 years ago +1
That questin would be brought into question when considering using the power, but not when considering gaining it. It's a good idea, but I'm not sure it works in the button series. 4 years ago  
You never get to use the power in B, though, so even if you never use it, you haven't lost anything. 4 years ago  
But then you wouldn't have anything to show from this experience. 4 years ago  
I'm inclined to think that it was mostly used to justify things that people were going to do anyway. 4 years ago  
Do you really? 4 years ago  
Also, the top lists. 4 years ago  
For a while I wanted a third gender badge. They could still be labeled as unknown in the statistics, just an identifying badge. It should, though, only be available after a certain number of days of having no gender marked, because otherwise it would be used mainly by people who aren't third gender. 4 years ago  
I've never met a radical democrat, which is sad, because we need one for 2016. 4 years ago +3
When people walk around with machines that kill people, fewer people will be killed. 4 years ago +6
Whoops, I switched between picking the most useless to the best and back over the course of answering these. 4 years ago +2
Draw blood, convince scientists that I'm real, have DNA sequenced, get some clones...??? .... profit 4 years ago +5
This would have been great during my trip, since no two toilets in Italy flush the same way. 4 years ago  
I saw venice a few days ago anyway. 4 years ago +1
I saw a documentary about this; it's a lot more interesting than you might think. 4 years ago +3
Would it hurt? 4 years ago +4
You can take it off. 4 years ago  
Hack: Marry a trans guy, still have interlocking genitals. Or just marry a girl with no boobs; that makes little difference. 4 years ago +1
That's what I don't get about this question. Is there any negative to picking A? 4 years ago  
At the moment, I don't have a dream school and I only have three friends, including one whom I know only through the internet and mail. 4 years ago  
This is the first part if a series addressing the creator god as a logical possibilty. This question merely establishes this as the topic. 4 years ago  
My orchestra is on tour 4 years ago  
He has a genetic condition which makes his eyes especially sensitive to light, causing him to lose vision after prolonged exposure to the sun, although he can still see the outer part of the vision field, since it's less responsible for gathering light. 4 years ago  
B would mean that everyone would know everything. Think about that. 4 years ago  
There's this thing called "historical context." 4 years ago +2
I'd rather have rights and be against them than have fewer rights and be against that. 4 years ago +2
I know, wouldn't it be great? 4 years ago +1
My brother sometimes wears a top hat. 4 years ago  
Peritwinkle, Sassynopants, Mimismurf, Chronicrose, Aporia, Shyanna, Tristeng, Phenenas, Otakumon, etc. 4 years ago +2
Chess 4 years ago +1
The liar paradox only works if they always lie. Better, however, is the simple statement: this statement is false. 4 years ago +1
I thought that at first, but it says "a lifetime" not "infinite," meaning that you would only have enough food to help at most two or three people (since I'm confident in thinking that most Americans eat at least twice the requisite amount for life). 4 years ago  
I was just there yesterday! 4 years ago +2
Did I ever tell you how my father became blind? 4 years ago +6
The evidence that this actually occurred is tenuous. 4 years ago  
I'll take the one with people on it. 4 years ago +1
So we'd interview people in various places to see what sort of answers they give, allowing us to note relevant cultural trends? Or a fictional narrative? 4 years ago +1
I haven't had it yet. 4 years ago +1
Currently, Verona. 4 years ago  
I'm in Italy right now. 4 years ago +2
Twice as beautiful as I am isn't saying much. 4 years ago +1
I feel like I should, since I'm quite fond of John Green, but I haven't gotten around to it. 4 years ago  
Monotheism was one of the most influential religious ideas ever. 4 years ago +1
I don't understand the American civilization. I especially don't understand whythey have an Englishman as their leader. 4 years ago  
Two of my early questions (including my first) are tied: //www.rrrather.com/view/28905, //www.rrrather.com/view/31614 4 years ago  
I've never done either. 4 years ago  
The only superior religion is one that has been relegated to the intellectual dustbin of history. 4 years ago +3
Go home, Cooperb, you're drunk. 4 years ago +2
5,855 4 years ago  
That describes quite well the difference between legalization and decriminalization. Decriminalizing drugs would treat drug dealing similarly to selling tainted food; the seller would be held accountable for the buyer's misfortune. It's different from legalization, which would allow the free buying and selling of drugs. 4 years ago +3
In case that last sentence was meant to support the previous, then I'll remind you that you're begging the question. 4 years ago  
Well, there's always complexity, since you haven't given a reason to reject it. Nevertheless, even if we allow you to reject it ex gratia, you're giving different standards for physical and nonphysical claims. You haven't explained how a nonphysical property can result in consciousness, you merely stated that it would. If such reasoning is allowed, it must extend to physical claims as well; there could be a physical property that produces consciousness by means that we do not understand. 4 years ago  
People who use heroin are not criminals; they are victims. The user of heroin experiences a great deal of harm. It's completely reasonable to want to prevent this, but putting people in prison is a poor recourse. You're merely changing their suffering from self-inflicted to state-inflicted. The goal of anti-drug policies, instead of punishment (at least for users), should be prevention, focusing on communities with heavy drug use, and rehabilitation. I don't have an especially large problem with charging drug dealers criminally, but imprisoning users is simply counter-productive. 4 years ago +9
All drugs should be decriminalized, and marijuana should be legalized. 4 years ago +10
(Hint: One expects outrageous assertions to be accompanied by evidence. Since I don't have burden of proof, I didn't have any assertion to make, but I did have a resource to address all the arguments I was expecting to see, including yours: http://youtu.be/RS4PW35-Y00?t=3m40s) A pulley does not deal with information; at least, not on its own. The proper analogy would employ a logic gate. In computer chips, logic gates can store binary information; in days when the circuitry was less sophisticated, possessing fewer gates, the amount of information available was lesser, and thus the functions that computers had in the past was lesser. It should be obvious that a complex function such as consciousness would require a certain high level of complexity. Dismissing that idea categorically is the strangest idea I've heard from you since you told me your epistemology. Furthermore, even if you do so, why would you assume that something non-physical is involved? Wouldn't the simpler explanation be that people have a special physical property *other than complexity* which allows consciousness? That's the superior explanation, as we have evidence that properties exist, whereas we have no evidence at all that non-physical things exist. 4 years ago  
"Wacko Specialist" for my preferred name and "Amazing Hunter" for my birth name. 4 years ago  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS4PW35-Y00 4 years ago  
♫ Assertions don't require reasoning or evidence. ♫ 4 years ago  
Colloquial materialism is different from philosophical materialism, which is the belief that everything which exists is either made of material or defined by a relationship between materials (such as thoughts). 4 years ago  
Although I certainly don't hate marriage equality, I will point out that these aren't mutually exclusive. You can hate something without thinking that it should be illegal. For example, I hate religion but I absolutely do not think it should be banned. 4 years ago +3
I'm officially underweight as of last month. 4 years ago  
You're online :D 4 years ago +2
I subscribed to a Christian vlogger once. In a few months, he announced that he was an agnostic. After a few more months, he became an atheist. Now, he's a satanist. 4 years ago +4
I've never really liked dogs. When I was younger I was scared of them. 4 years ago +2
He's not one of these people, then? http://oldforums.mineski.net/discussion/12798/anime-is-satanic/p1 4 years ago  
This isn't especially interesting, but I had two thank-you notes to send to my two grandmothers, and I mistakenly reversed them when putting them in the envelopes. My fathers' mother sent it back to me. My mother's mother didn't realize that I was thanking her for something she hadn't given me, and actually wrote back remarking at how nice it as of me to send it. 4 years ago +3
The only developed philosophical though I've heard expressed here was by a guest from Costa Rica. 4 years ago +3
I disliked 4th edition, and haven't really been keeping up since then. If they fix the problems, then I might take interest, but I don't suspect I'll be able to get a group together again anyway. 4 years ago  
Animal welfare is important. Science is more important. 4 years ago +4
She probably looks something like this: http://instagram.com/p/i-Ms6dHHep/ 4 years ago +4
I probably need to see it eventually, although I hate the admittance of cgi animation into the Disney animated canon. 4 years ago  
I already don't. 4 years ago  
I don't know about the short terms, but certainly not in the long term. 4 years ago  
I'm sure you could do without the parenthetical statements. 4 years ago  
I was at thirteen when I found out what masturbating was called, and I had been doing it for at least a year prior to that. 4 years ago  
Didn't he shave his head about a year ago? 4 years ago  
I can't imagine that he would look like Michael Moore. 4 years ago  
Although I strongly support breast-feeding, I'll point out that while lactating increases breast size, breast feeding does the opposite. 4 years ago  
Some guys look good in skinny jeans. 4 years ago +2
You can tell the difference in that babe used puppets, whereas it's pretty clear that Charlotte's Web used CGI. 4 years ago  
Ok. Here's a deal: once you pass legislation providing free food and healthcare (and I'd imagine that housing require something similar) then I'll consider your plan. 4 years ago  
My position in terms of belief in god is dependent entirely on the qualities ascribed to God. If you define god as "everything that exists," as some do, then naturally I would be a theist, although I would question if this deserves to be called god. If god is kept vague, being "the greatest conceivable being," then I am an agnostic atheist, as I have insufficient evidence to believe in such a being. If god is defined as "the creator of the all things," then I am a gnostic atheist, as creation is temporal, meaning that time had to exist in order for any creation to take place, disallowing it from being created by the creator of all things, making the notion of such a being contradictory. The best label for my position is simply that of "atheist," as it covers the most bases. 4 years ago +3
It's usually said "Agnostic Atheist," since agnostic is usually an adjective while atheist is usually a noun. 4 years ago  
I have no religious beliefs, however, I am associated with the Unitarian Universalists, who have no creed. 4 years ago  
He was quite the character. I think he was arrested for dueling a few times. 4 years ago  
I'm inclined to think that *that* is pretty strange, but you're probably right. 4 years ago  
Sexuality is something I'm inclined to think that people enjoy. 4 years ago  
That's reasonable. I don't however, think that most people voted for that reason. 4 years ago  
I spent years reading the rulebooks before I could convince anyone to play. 4 years ago  
"Cute" refers to people you'd like to hug. "Hot" refers to people you'd like to fvck. 4 years ago +12
You people are strange. 4 years ago +6
Sales taxes have the greatest effect on people who spend their money on consumable commodities of real value. In this context, "real" means commodities which can be used to fulfill a need in the present (as opposed to having potential to fulfill a need in the future), and "consumable" means commodities which require continuous purchases, such as food. The poor most commonly purchase such commodities, at least in proportion to other objects. Thus, the sales tax will make it even more difficult for the poor to ever save enough to make any investments, for example, education, which are critical in allowing social mobility. 4 years ago  
I have ideological objections to all religions, it's just that until now, I haven't had any personal issues with Islam, although that's due mostly to my lack of experience with it. I have had a personal distaste for Christianity for a long time. You could say that people would be mistreating their children regardless of religion, and you'd be correct, but I'm sure that Peri's parents would not. That is the problem that have. My initial statement wasn't regarding the judgement of people, so I'm not sure why you bring it up or what it has to do with open mindedness. 4 years ago +3
Firstly, I didn't say I wouldn't forgive Muslims, I said I wouldn't forgive ISLAM. Plenty of Muslims are wonderful people; heck, Peri was one. However, I now find the beliefs they hold to be objectionable on a personal level. Secondly, putting aside the fact that atheists are among the groups least likely to be criminals(http://goo.gl/DKMcOr), even if an atheist did rape someone, their atheism didn't cause it. Peri's situation as directly caused by Islam; their parents zealotry exists only because of their religion. If Islam had never come into being, assuming that a similar religion hadn't taken its place (although it probably would have), Peri's parents wouldn't have had any reason to take their child's beliefs as such an offense to their being. If atheism didn't exist, people would still commit rape and for the same reasons. 4 years ago +2
What goes on in Peri's life is theirs to share, not mine. 4 years ago +2
This conversation reminds me of something: http://youtu.be/ThjerfgPC7c?t=19m34s 4 years ago  
I know that the elimination of social mobility might sound like a good idea to you now, but I'd recommend thinking about it some more. 4 years ago  
Yeah. Except actually, no: http://goo.gl/l2Qtun 4 years ago  
Peri's parents, being somewhat radical Muslims, have taken Peri's recent turn away from their religion as the work of the devil and are currently in the process of making Peri's life miserable (It isn't my place to share the specifics), and it remains to be seen what will happen next. 4 years ago +2
No. I'm blaming the religion for enabling people of that sort. The soil might not be so terrible, but the plants that grow in it are destructive. The belief that "open-mindedness" means never forming an opinion on anything is possibly the only understanding worse than that it means blindly accepting everything one hears. 4 years ago +3
Said political illiterates at every point in history. 4 years ago  
Occam's Razor. 4 years ago  
Franklin Roosevelt was given the country in the worst state it had ever been in and returned it in the best state it's ever been in. 4 years ago +1
No, that's invulnerabilty. "Vinc" means conquer; invincible means undefeatable. 4 years ago  
On my finals, I used all if my time on each one. Everyone waiting to talk was staring at me. 4 years ago  
After what's happened to Peri, I will not forgive Islam. 4 years ago +7
Yes. Most potatoes are not made from other potatoes. 4 years ago  
I cannot help my preferences. 4 years ago  
Does a set which contains all sets which do not contain themselves contain itself? 4 years ago +2
Captain America perfectly represents movies that I hate. 4 years ago  
If the best evidence you can find is that an article written for children doesn't explicitly state that you're wrong, then your position has some terrible problems. Regardless of the points it brought up, it doesn't in any way refute my argument becayse it never addressed my point or presented any strong conflicting evidence. While its true that some of the points are not covered in my article, notice that I said "relevant points". Your article includes bizarre and extraneous arguments like "wind farms don't reduce CO2 emissions" which dont in any way reflect whether or not global warming is natural, most likely becuase they couldn't find 100 readons. 4 years ago +1
Firstly, there's a difference between sourcing data to support your argument and calling someone else to make your argument for you. Secondly, even if you do that, you have to actually read the article that you link to. Why don't you look to the last paragraph of the first article where it says "I think there is more evidence for human influence rather than natural causes." Then look at the images under the text which clearly imply a link between CO2 emissions and climate change. That article's point was that climate is complicated to study. It doesn't reach any more of a conclusion than that on the issue because it is clearly, CLEARLY written for children. Nothing in that article posed any problem to my view at all; if that was the best you can do, you shouldn't be surprised when people don't take you seriously. As for the second link, the arguments fell into three categories: the irrelevant: "Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population," the misleading: "Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history." (no one claims that humans caused all the climate change ever only the climate change over the last 100 years, which is a small portion of the worlds history, so we should expect a small number), and the outright false "There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s" current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades". (they provided no sources). In case I missed something, virtually every relevant point is covered here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php 4 years ago +1
Hold on. You accept that carbon dioxide causes climate change. You accept that we're putting a tremendous amount of Carbon Dioxide into the atmosphere. You accept that the climate is changing. You even admit that humans are causing climate change. However, you think that humans are only causing some of the climate change. That's a new one. Might I ask what IS causing the remaining climate change? Before you say "the sun," I'd like to point out that solar temperatures have been decreasing over the last few decades: http://goo.gl/B0tSmx. You talk about theoretical science as if it doesn't involve observation: this is nonsensical; science is defined by observation. We've observed what has happened in the past and we use it to predict the future. This reasoning is so elementary that we use it every day: even if you knew nothing about the workings of a faucet, you would expect that water would come and of it rather than milk. That's because every faucet you've ever encountered yielded water. Discounting evidence because it is taken from the past requires you to throw out the most basic cognitive functions of pattern recognition. We recognize patterns such a "lightning strikes taller objects" and use it find that "electricity follows the shortest path". Without theoretical science, like the theory of electro-magnetism, there would be no technological science, because there would be no basis by which to make make predictions. It's obvious to everyone that your denial of basic pattern recognition is caused by your terrible case of confirmation bias and willingness to ignore evidence tat contradicts your views. That is the definition of closed-mindedness, and I have no interest in continuing to support the obvious, as I have finals to worry about. 4 years ago +1
If you had met a boy, and he began acting like a girl, would have thought that he had become a girl? Would you have been able to concieve of a girl who acted like a boy? 4 years ago  
PSA: The theory of evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origins of life. Its not intended to explain how life came into being. Saying that it can't is not unlike saying that the theory of gravitation must be false because it doesn't explain lightning. 4 years ago +1
You mean the one that has always existed and is changing its movement patterns due to changes in glonal weather from CO2 emmissions? The one which is strong evidence of climate change? What about it? 4 years ago +1
...and that theory has no evidence of any kind and is an excellent demontration of how religious beliefs harm society. 4 years ago +2
Science denialism... the defining characteristic of barbarism. You're neglecting that, since the invention of the scientific method, we've persistantly become more and more correct. First we thought the earth was flat. We were wrong. We then thought that it was a sphere. We were still wrong. Now we know that it is an oblate spheroid. While we weren't correct on our first try, we were still less wrong. We may discover that the earth is a different shape, but we can be sure that our understanding of it today is better than it was 100 years ago. More importantly, the only way that we know that we were wrong in the past is SCIENCE discovering it. Unlike any other theory of knowledge, the scientific method is self correcting; it follows the evidence where it leads, and it adjusts itself when new evidence is found. Thats why, since the days of Galileo, humanity has progressed more in 400 years than it had for the previous 4000. How dare you criticize science through the internet. If you had your way, there wouldn't be an internet, because its built entirely off of scientific progress. 4 years ago +2
How large was your kindergarten class? 4 years ago  
Yes: climate change which directly correlates with Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, as I already stated: http://goo.gl/BEwL9e. From what we know, this is a major engine of Climate change, and we know for certain that we are influencing it: http://goo.gl/GQTcba. If you learned to read things, making an argument would be easier. 4 years ago +4
Hmm.. that's strange. It's almost as if gender exists as a social classification. 4 years ago +4
Well, we've proven that Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere correlates with temperature: http://goo.gl/BEwL9e, that humans have increased the Carbon in the atmosphere over the last 100 years: http://goo.gl/GQTcba, and that temperature has increased over the same period: http://goo.gl/CU76VS. So that expains why the scientific community agrees overwhelmingly that anthropogenic climate change is factual: http://goo.gl/1399Bs. The question is: why don't you? 4 years ago +3
Because a youtuber whom I follow commented on one of her videos. 4 years ago  
It's just a question. 4 years ago  
Would you rather write good questions, or bad questions? 4 years ago +2
I would like to participate. 4 years ago  
The anime should have been based off of Pokemon Special. 4 years ago  
A youtuber whom I dislike ended her videos with a "would you rather" segment, and I thought the idea was interesting, so I googled it. 4 years ago  
I never referenced religion. Interbreeding is totally irrelevant to the topic. We were talking about sex, not breeding. When I said "dictate" I meant "it dictates nothing about what humans ought to do". 4 years ago  
What is spiritual harm and how can you know what causes it? How can something be non-physical? What does that even mean? 4 years ago +2
False anthropomorphism. Nature does not dictate anything. 4 years ago +2
Why? 4 years ago +1
It probably is, but I wouldn't recommend it, since we don't know enough about animal psychology to be sure that it is signalling that it consents. 4 years ago +5
I would, but only if there was nothing better to play. (since superhero bore me). 4 years ago  
Right, I was agreeing, but I didn't agree with the terminology you were using. 4 years ago  
Very few people want to work harder; if they did, then we wouldn't need to attach a reward to it at all. People work because it is socially necessary; society has an expectation that certain pieces of work will be done. By signing up for a difficult task, you direct society's expectations to yourself. This is what I mean by with "expected". The point is, labour expends personal resources such as time and energy. If someone loses these without getting something in exchange, then that is not an equal exchange, it's a net loss. That creates inequality, not equality. You must keep in mind, though, that it was theorized at a time when everyone in a given area did essentially the same work at essentially the same rate: it can be equality in that context, but not in the context of an unequal exchange. 4 years ago  
6, 6, 6 4 years ago  
Umm... not any more than anyone else. People should look to artists and scientists as role models. Athletes should be viewed as a source of entertainment. 4 years ago +3
What? I thought that was just the upper limit. Is it mechanically necessary that they add up like that? Fine, 12, 1, 11 4 years ago  
3, 1, 4 4 years ago  
5,120 more comments hidden.

BorogoveLM has created the following lists:

The Logic of a Creator 10 questions 45 votes 5 years ago
Self-reference 18 questions 27 votes 5 years ago
Best Comments 5 questions 24 votes 5 years ago