While I agree it’s infuriating the use of -punk for non-rebellious things, there were several other -punks before 2000s. The main one that comes to mind is Gothic-punk, which has been used in Vampire the masquerade since 91 to express the game’s gothic and rebellious influences.
There are a few misconceptions in your logic.
Both of them are easy to disprove, but not obvious at first sight.
For 1 consider any case where a woman might have power (not physical) over a man, e.g. blackmail, teacher, parole officer, boss, etc. Another possibility to remember are weapons or physical threats to a third party. Also you should remember that humans have a fight/flight/freeze response, so a third of humans would just freeze regardless of being able to overpower their attacker. Finally there’s also the possibility of even without any threat, even being able to think properly, and knowing that he could physically overpower a female attacker, a man might not do it for fear of legal or moral repercussions, e.g. being thought not to hit girls or believing that no one would believe that he was defending himself. In fact lots of women who get raped don’t try to fight back or escape, believing (sometimes accurately) that their attacker would worsen the offense if they did that, e.g. by killing them (even if no threat was made), it’s not uncommon for rape victims to feel ashamed and guilt about not having fought back, and by saying that men can’t get raped because they could theoretically overpower their attacker you’re indirectly saying that any woman who doesn’t fight back with all her might is not being raped either, because they could have overpowered their attacker of they tried.
For 2, erections (and even ejaculation) are physical responses, in fact you can make a corpse get a hard on and cum (some wives do it to preserve their husbands sperm). This is no different from women getting wet or having orgasms while being raped (both of which are common), it means nothing, it’s just a physical reaction to a physical stimulus. In fact lots of victims (both men and women), especially those in abusive relationships think they deserve that because of those physiological reactions. To put it in simpler terms, saying a men can’t be raped because if they got an erection it means they wanted it is like saying that people can’t be stabbed because if they bled is because they wanted the knife.
I used to always want this wish until I adopted a dog under very specific circumstances (We were coming back from the mall and the car in front of us ran over him and kept going, we stopped, grabbed him and took him to the vet). Since then I always think that if I ever get to ask this wish it needs to be back to a moment where I had already rescued him, otherwise those very specific conditions might never happen. So I can completely understand someone with kids thinking the same way, that is a LOT more impossible to match the conditions.
That’s exactly what I thought of while reading that answer.
I’m not insulting you, but thinking that facts are always knowledgeable is a childish vision of the world.
You put quotes around expert because you know they weren’t, actual experts were saying vaccines did not cause autism. Let me ask you then, how do YOU know that vaccines don’t cause autism? Because to me the answer is simple, I’ve listened to the consensus of the experts, but to you that’s a fallacy.
Facts are not always knowledgeable, authority in a field gives one credibility over the facts they claim.
The thing is that facts are not as clear cut as you think, that’s a very childish vision of the world (to think that it is always possible to differentiate a fact, don’t believe me? What am I wearing now? There is a factual answer, but you have no way of knowing it)
Plus if Neil deGrasse Tyson claims something about astrophysics and you claim he’s wrong, you better have at least someone as knowledgeable as him in astrophysics to back that claim, otherwise I’m siding with the expert on the matter.
Plus all discussions rely on the backing of experts, otherwise any discussion is impossible, I could just claim your argument is wrong because some word you used means the opposite of what you meant, your only counter argument would be to point to a dictionary, which is by your own definition an appeal to authority fallacy.
That’s a common mistake, an argument from authority is only a fallacy if the person is not an authority in the field. Quoting Neil deGrasse Tyson on political views is an argument from authority, quoting him on astrophysics is not.
I know the point of your answer was not to dwell on these things, but:
And what would a chair look like if our knees bent the other way?
Is actually very interesting, would’ve we designed it as a normal chair but we would rest our chests instead of backs? Or would they have a place to rest the legs instead of on the floor?
John Doe from the John Doe TV series.
Warning, it only lasted one season and was cancelled. But the premise is about a guy who wakes up naked and doesn’t remember anything about him, but he knows everything about everything else.
You talked a lot about what the person would want, how do you know that the people who’ve had their heads shrunken didn’t want that? It seems just as strange as wanting to get embalmed and preserved inside a reinforced and padded wooden box below the earth, yet people choose this daily in most western cultures.
Freedom from religion.
You’re not entitled to be free from people practicing their religion near you, e.g. you don’t have the right to not have churches in your block
The right to clean food and water.
You can’t invade someone’s property to get food and water.
The right to self defense.
A juri needs to agree self defense was required, you can’t kill someone because you thought he was going to do something to you without evidence of it.
The right to attempt escape from imprisonment.
That’s not a right most countries even recognize, in fact it is a crime on most countries to attempt to escape imprisonment, even if you are wrongfully detained by the state.
The right to a fair trial.
Fair is very relative, people get injustly put away constantly, just as much as guilty people are not. Even if we had 100% certainty on the conviction, people would disagree on the penalty, to some it’s not fair that a person who killed others gets to keep living, while to others it’s unfair that someone should be sentenced to death regardless of their crime. While I believe that this is the hardest one to answer of your points it is so because the word fair is very subjective, what if my idea of a fair trial is so different from yours that we can never conciliate both? Whose idea of fair trial is the one that gets implemented? Certainly the other will believe the trial was not fair.
The right to life
Unless you try to kill someone and he defends himself
liberty
Unless you commit a crime
and security of person.
Again, unless you threaten someone
The right of the abolition of slavery in all forms.
That’s another wording for freedom, by several metrics, prisoners are slaves.
None of those are unrestricted, which is what the original person said.
Of course I believe in human rights, but I also think there are limits to it. And you didn’t answer my question, what right do you believe should be unrestricted?
Because they point out facts? Or do you really think there is an unrestricted right?
Your disk is like a file cabinet, there’s also an index folder where for example it says that “your file.txt” is in cabinet C7. You go there and there’s a sheet of paper written in pencil with the contents of your file. In this analogy here’s how several solutions work:
There are already lots of great answers, I would like to point out that Natural Selection doesn’t care about the individual at all, it cares about the population, e.g. internal gestation, do you think any individual enjoys carrying a baby inside them? Preventing them from doing anything during the gestation period, being an easier prey to predators, etc… Unfortunately for the individual, creatures that carry their unborn babies inside them are less likely to abandon them even temporarily while seeking food, they’re also more easily kept warm, so for the species as a whole it’s better that there be internal gestation.
In short more individuals = better, imagine you have two populations, one with only 10 strong individuals, and one with 100 individuals of which only 10 are strong, which do you think is more likely to survive? And that is even assuming a strong/weak deterministic position, which is not the case for anything.
My grandpa used to do this way before smartphones, I remember his 30.000 days birthday when I was a kid.
It’s curious, I have a similar story but with different countries, and the reactions are VERY different. I was born in Argentina, but my family emigrated to Brazil when I was 13 years old. I speak fluent Portuguese but obviously have an accent that people can’t quite place, but once it’s pointed out they notice it. Yet the vast majority of my interactions about it are something similar to:
- Where are you from?
- I was born in Argentina, but lived in Brazil over 16 years
- Ah, so you’re mostly Brazilian then
And I think that that says a lot about Brazilians and how they’re very welcoming and friendly. Unfortunately the British don’t seem to be the same way, at least from your experience, maybe people in larger cities are more used to immigrants so they would see you as mostly British or something.
As for the voting, for me at least the only way was to become a citizen, most countries allow you to ask for citizenship if you’ve been living legally long enough so you probably qualify. Just bear in mind that some countries ask you to abandon your other citizenships when you do so, so not sure if that’s your case and if it’s worth it just to be able to vote.
I’ve also studied some German but I don’t think it’s at any level worth mentioning. I can also say the phrase “Sorry I don’t speak X, do you speak English?” In:
Essentially every country that I’ve visited I can at least ask the person if they speak English, I consider it rude to ask that question in English.
Human brains are excellent at computing certain things that are almost impossible for a regular computer. Having worked for years on computer vision I can tell you how hard it is to make computers realize simple stuff, heck, you need massive server farms just to do a basic object recognition that any 3 years old can already do. Sure, you can train a simple AI to recognize some objects, but it will never (currently) be as many objects or as precise as a person can instantly recognize.
The truth is human brains are excellent at what they evolved to do, i.e. pattern recognition. So much so that when trying to figure out data it’s usually easier to plot the data in many different ways to see if something shows up. In fact usually when you try to do cluster analysis the first machine result is, let’s say not great, but you can see that things are wrong and adjust the parameters.
As for your other point your brain does this automatically, they can just put a billboard with the thing they want analyzed and your brain (and millions of others) will give them the answer. Or they could use our dreams, even during sleep our brains are still active, and they could run any scenarios then. There are many other ideas, e.g. people playing videogames inside the matrix are actually controlling robots, or people working in forklifts are actually piloting construction robots in the real world, etc.
The original CPU idea was excellent, but computers weren’t so ubiquitous back then, and the producers thought that the audience wouldn’t understand it.
I feel people still don’t understand how much a billion is. One Million dollars would still be life changing for most people here, but consider that 1 million seconds ago was 11 days ago, 1 Billion seconds ago was 31 years ago.
To put it in another perspective, a very bad investment would yield you 0.1% monthly. This means that if a billionaire was to invest money the worst way possible, he would have to spend over 1 Million dollars per month to ever decrease his fortune.
If you had an infinite money machine, that as long as you don’t spend more than a million per month it just keeps on growing, would you ever work? Yeah, thought so, billionaires are the same, they might have hobbies, and those hobbies might be something others consider work, but they’re not working.
I personally believe that if a person ever gets 1 Billion dollars he should receive a letter congratulating them for winning capitalism, and informing them that any cent above 1 Billion will be taxed at 99.9999% (including investments).