How dare you laugh at the idea of taking a dump on a 358/2 guide ? I' m a KH fan and I take great offense to this. No seriously, the less power you give to symbols, the more power to you. Feel free not to find it funny, but people are as entitled to unapologetically view and treat the bible as a random piece of paper as you are to consider it to be holy. If it makes you feel better take a dump on my mum' s picture or whatever, see if I care.
You forgot the toilet paper. Unless you think you got that covered with the bible.
Amongst other things, but frankly I' d probably just win the lottery, place the money, use whatever percentage of the interests I need to live a decent life, and give what' s left to whoever needs it. It also opens near-immortality perspectives.
I need a save point.
"I think therefore I am" and a few mathematical axioms aside, absolute certainty is a red herring, We can come closer and closer to the truth, using science and logic, but our conclusions usually remain imperfect approximations. However, as imperfect as our theories on electricity might be, they' re close enough to the truth to allow me to type this on a computer, which is good enough for me. I think of truth in practical terms, I mostly care about what is demonstrably reliable and useful.
The way I define those words, yes, they are : if, when asked if you believe in a god, your answer is yes then you' re a theist. Any other answer makes you an atheist. When defined that way it is a true dichotomy, same as the guilty/not guilty dichotomy used in tribunals, there' s no third possibility. You might define those words differently, idk, but ultimately what matters is the way you define your position, not how you label it.
I believe I mentionned it myself earlier, but whatever. I' ll take your answer as a 4.Even if you do realize there' s no way to know for sure it doesn' t mean you can' t or don' t have a position of belief. For instance I' m an agnostic atheist. I do not think we have sufficient evidence to know if a god exists, but I reject theistic claims (I do not believe in any god). Also, death of the author says hi. As for your claim that you' re neither theist nor atheist ... not sure if serious.
To be fair we' re closer to monkeys than lions. Gorillas and some other apes have a matriarchal society, but chimps ? Macho macho males. Lucrative careers are based on competition, in the broad sense of the term. Yes, we' ve obviously outgrown those biological imperatives (well, most of them, I' m not about to get pregnant anytime soon), but I still cannot help but wonder how much of our gender role perception is or can be influenced by genes.
I meant this is the only profession where I' d like to see a close to 50/50 representation, to match that of the kids and because of all the time they spend there. School is the mini-society we put under their eyes. Agreed. My wording was clumsy. Well, men have more upper body muscles and women have uteruses and breasts. Look at other social animals, who tends to be the hunter and who tends to take care of the babies ? So yeah, I' m pretty sure that societal norm comes from biological imperatives. I can' t say for sure, but I wouldn' t be surprised to learn that this gender role distinction is ingrained in our psyche to some degree, via DNA, rather than just being a social consequence born of purely physical divergences. I ... was being rethorical. Should have put a smiley or something. ^^
I have several things to say here and I' m not sure where to begin. First, just because there are exceptions to a trend doesn' t mean there' s no trend. Second, the explanation for that trend is not necessarily entirely sociological, there are fundamental biological differences between men and women. Hormones for instance, which impact our moods and personalities. We don' t understand all the factors yet, and yes, they don' t set everything in stone, but it would be foolish to deny them entirely. I don' t expect every single area of society to be balanced in gender representation anytime soon. Strike that, not ever. I' m sure some men make it harder for, say, women to become CEO, but even if both sex were given a fair chance everywhere I would still expect to find gender discrepencies. That' s why I don' t see the point of reaching a gender representation balance for the sake of gender representation balance. I' ve been an I.T. student, I' ve seen first hand how very few girls those careers draw. Trust me, we weren' t happy about it. I can' t think of any sociological explanation for that (aren' t girls suposedly slightly better at math than us ?), but the point is that, as long as people choose a career they' re happy about, on their own free will, who cares if there' s a gender discrepency ? Would the video game industry be fundamentally better if it wasn' t as masculine ? Their products seem to satisfy boys as well as girls. Incidentally, you' ve picked as an exemple one of the few professions where I think gender representation does matter : teachers. Kids need role models to construct their identity, and nope, their parents don' t necessarily cover both genders (single parents, gay couples etc ...). There' s a corelation between the feminisation of teachers and the number of male drop outs, and male nerds are generally stereotyped as sissies. Coincidence ? We need to send kids the message that being knowledgeable is a positive and desirable trait, for both sex. Once they' re knowledgeable they' re empowered enough to follow their dreams, whatever those dreams might be, whether they fit the current gender trends or not. I wouldn' t give the same sociological explanation as the one you mentioned to explain the feminisation of education. Teachers are supposed to be authority figures, not replacement mothers. Hell, in the past it was considered a masculine profession for that very reason. If I am to believe the studies I' ve read most men are unconsciously drawn to "successful" careers while most woman are unconsciously drawn to lightweight hours careers (to take care of the kids). Problem is being knowledgeable doesn' t culturally qualify as success anymore, fame and money do (especially in the US). People would rather become Justin Bieber or the Koch brothers than Gilles de Genes. Do you even know who Gilles de Genes is ? Hopefully this post makes sense, despite me jumping all around the place.
...
Source : http://www.gameblog.fr/news/35171-final-fantasy-versus-xiii-sortira-sur-ps4-et-ps3 A guy on FFDream (the one who made that infamous "Vs XIII renamed FF XV" fake reveal vid) says their staff also heard it from many sources, he says he' s 97% sure that it' s true. Ah well, I' d rather hear it from SE. Just a little more patience, E3 isn' t that far ...
I don' t think women really have any ground to complain about their representation in politics in the US. In my country we passed mixity laws so that half our politicians are women. It might look like a good idea at a quick glance but it actually isn' t. In practice it means we pick people based on sex rather than merit. The thing is, there are fewer women than men interested in political careers, it' s a cold hard fact. Because of that law inexperienced women have been propelled on the front lines while more qualified men had to sit on the bench. I' d call that sexism. We hoped they would at least make our debates a little less petty. They didn' t. In the US you seem to have plenty of women in politics, and you didn' t have to force anyone' s hand to get there. Sure, you haven' t had any female president yet, but just like us you' ve had female presidential candidates whose scores weren' t exactly neglectible. Now openly atheist politicians on the other hand, you have an unmistakable issue there. Point is, just because the representation of genders or ethnicities in a profession doesn' t match their percentage in the overall population doesn' t necessarily mean they' re being discriminated, and vice-versa. You' d be better off comparing the numbers with the proportion of said profession wannabes, keeping in mind they don' t have to match closely. Mmm ... mother Teresa ? But yes, all the main monotheistic religions are patriarchal. They' re written that way. What are you gonna do, rewrite the bible ? All you can do is stick their fallacies up their asses whenever you can, if they keep being called on them they might end up calling it an unfortunate misreading, like those embarassing bible verses advocating for slavery. They already do to some extent, how many Christians actually believe women should remain silent in the presence of a man ?
Frankly in my country I don' t think there' s much to do left. Laws have been tweaked sufficiently to put make us equals on paper, give or take a few minute details. Mentalities on the other hand still have a little way to go, but I' m confident that they will given enough time. I' m sure the US could use some improvement too, but it seems feminists often see problems where there aren' t any. For instance, since this is a gaming forum, I take it a few people here have seen this : Spoiler Well my answer to that would pretty much be this : Spoiler
^ This, pretty much. They can only put a few people to the task, your whole life wouldn' t suffice just to get through today' s data. Just because the government has information on you doesn' t mean someone will actually read it. Not unless you give them a reason to by being involved in something illegal that someone complained about. Basically it' s the same as the data they already have on you, unless your name pops up in an investigation no one will bother looking through it.
Wh ... why would anyone in the government give a flying **** about your vegetables ? We' re not talking about making that database available to anyone who asks for it just to go all ... On a side note, if that' s what you' re afraid of then consider what google offers you (google earth) then ask yourself what' s the military version of it. Don' t let the bedbugs bite. ^^ More realistically that (probably utterly boring) information would only be made available to policing entities who' d be monitored and held accountable. If they ask transparency from us then surely they won' t be surprised if we expect transparency from them. You said it yourself, you' re already sharing all sorts of informations with your government, this wouldn' t be treated any differently. Wait ... why would you trust a private company to handle it any better than the government? Especially when nothing holds them to transparency ? How is that less potentially creepy ? I' m afraid using an alternate mailbox doesn' t exactly fool them. What you' re afraid of is already a reality, with or without CISPA.
Actually maybe you should have paused to think it through : what' s the difference indeed ? The thing is, ISPs and on-line social services already give or sell our informations to whoever is ready to pay for it. It' s a more or less implicit part of our deal with them, each and every one of us tacitly agreed to it (whether we even bothered reading the fine prints or not). Most of those services are free, in and of itself that should already warn you that you' re the merchandise in their business. What' s the point of clinging to a privacy you never had to begin with ? Not to mention the people who howl at privacy and paste their entire life on blogs, Facebook and whatnot in the same move, I mean come on ... eat the cake, have the cake and get a date with the baker' s daughter much ? Point is, whoever wants to spy on you can already do it, provided the know-how. Hell, the lack of privacy is precisely what the writers of that bill are complaining about : The only full-proof way that I know to retain privacy on the internet is ... to not use it. So no, I don' t mind them sharing their information with the government, at least not on principle. The only way for me to become more than an anonymous blip on their radar would be to do something illegal. Which is the heart of the issue here for me : what exactly would they define as illegal ? The answer to that question would decide whether I' m for or against it. On a side note, I don' t live in a country whose government can ignore the legal burden of proof entirely whenever the hell it sees fit, as opposed to the US, which tremendously helps my williingness to let it have information on me.
