Jump to content
Welcome to InsanelyMac Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About superstition

  • Rank
    InsanelyMac Geek
  1. Salvia

  2. Hoodwinked by capitalism

    http://money.cnn.com/2008/04/0...egap/index.htm?cnn=yes First, the idea that hard work = financial improvement is often a myth, or a gross distortion. Often enough, people who work less end up with more money than working class folks who work till they drop. Money makes money. Timmy who has big trust funds and the right connections is unlikely to have to work as hard to earn $40,000 as Milt the trucker, roofer, and street repairer whose only inheritance was a sick mother to care for.Second, the idea that hoarding resources at others' expense is greed, not "bettering oneself". The only moral solution is to reduce population so that resources can be spread more fairly. People are supposed to better humanity, because civilization is a cooperative, not individuals in anarchy.Just as education isn't about getting a job, bettering oneself isn't about getting a financial payoff. When I see multi-state lottos with single 300 million winners, I wonder why there can't be 2400 winners instead who get $125,000. The lotto is a symptom of the problem of stratification. A good society would have no lotteries and no charity.
  3. Free speech has consequences

    You can't have it both ways. Either you reject science or you abide by its conclusions. There is nothing stopping you from doing studies. If you follow correct methodology there is always the possibility that you will uncover something new for science. If you think there's more work to be done in this area, do the work. Put up, or shut up. That's science. Since you can't put up now, guess what you can do...
  4. Salvia

    I can't even have chocolate anymore because it &^$#s me up. I think I'll pass on stronger poisons.
  5. [Poll] Are you homosexual?

    All you're saying is that when puberty hits, sexual attraction starts and {censored} kids are faced with the challenge of formulating a {censored} identity despite a lifetime of programming for the opposite. Well, I'm just one example of a person who was attracted to the naked male body well before puberty. The earliest examples I can think of are from the third grade. Did I think of myself as {censored}? No. I didn't fully understand my sexuality until around age 13, and even in High School I had some non-sexual but strong attractions to two girls which complicated things a little. {censored} men can have attractions to women just as hetero men can have attractions to men. But, they tend to be non-sexual, no matter how strong. http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html
  6. Free speech has consequences

    Oh brother. I suggest you read this, a statement from an organization of 250,000+ mental health professionals before telling us about your "free will": http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html
  7. ‘Gay is OK’ in Afghanistan

    What's sick are posts like this. Luckily, ignorance and hate can be cured.
  8. Homosexuals

    This is at the heart of anti-{censored} prejudice. Consider the ramifications of your statement. What you're saying is that homosexuals are irrelevant. Irrelevant things are censored, shunned, and ultimately, eliminated. Why? Because they don't matter. What's more... they are an intrusion - a problem. The other aspects of anti-{censored} prejudice are: 1. I fear retaliation due to identification as homosexual, for myself or others. 2. I can profit from anti-{censored} prejudice. Fear, ignorance, and greed are the cornerstones of anti-{censored} prejudice. {censored} invisibility rhetoric is designed to force {censored} people to disappear. I created a topic called "Homosexuality is never relevant" to discuss this in another forum. It disappeared after some time and was deemed irrelevant before it did. If homosexuality were truly irrelevant, this topic wouldn't exist and you wouldn't have posted in it, eh?
  9. Not if there are certain topics that are specifically places where people are fairly free to speak while topic creation in general is more restrictive. There could be something akin to the "Great Debates" only with select controversial topics. Another problem with vanishing topics is that they don't teach people what to avoid doing like leaving topics locked and visible does and allow moderators to waste posters' time by facilitating the deletion of reasonable material due to excessive political agenda bias. I've seen forums where moderators delete topics because they don't like positive things to be said about {censored} people, literally. One of those moderators accuses anyone who says anything positive about a {censored} person (even having people agree with that person's views) to be posting propaganda. Since the topics vanish, the public doesn't see this moderator's bad behavior very well. It's quite convenient for bad moderation, but not helpful for a quality forum. That forum, a tennis forum, also deletes topics that call for racquet regulation. I've seen a badminton forum that bans posters who question the proof regarding corporate marketing (like nanocode technology in racquets). A forum like that, of course, is beyond help, as banning people prevents any discourse whatsoever.
  10. Best CPU Fan for Overclocking

    Noctua has a new unit that got a the top rating from Anandtech. Also, the Xigmatek 1280 series is supposed to be good and it's quite cheap. http://forums.extremeoverclocking.com/t287906.html
  11. OS X Annoyances

    The main point issue is requiring a CLI or hold-down keyboard codes at boot. I'm quite aware that some users love CLIs. Having to boot into setup and reboot isn't the issue I was talking about. I was talking about replacing BIOS screens with a CLI. Which is why I object to CLIs and hold-down keyboard commands because when I use a computer I expect it to be fairly user-friendly. A CLI hides the controls, although "man" helps to some degree. It's also linear/modal because each line is entered one after the other. In what way? Not wanting a CLI BIOS and having to learn hidden commands like "hold down these keys to do this" at boot? What computers should have by default is something like the Lisa's environments visual boot manager where users can select the boot volume visually with a single click, without having to hold down keys at special times and hope a stupid BIOS window or something else decides to show up, having to reboot, or having to hold down special keys and wait for a long time for the spinning wheel to stop and the volumes to show up. With my D3SL, I have to either go through BIOS screens and save changes to change the boot volume or I have to press f12 at the right time and hope that the boot menu will come up (it doesn't always). That boot menu also takes some time to appear and then one must go to a sub-screen to select the volume. It's tedious and archaic. Apple's machines require users to hold down the option key and that's even worse because it takes forever and often misses volumes. Boot Camp addresses the problem in a limited fashion, but at least it's something.
  12. OS X Annoyances

    Um, Microsoft is the primary offender. Microsoft has been disrespecting Apple's directories for many years. Why? Because the company can. It's fun for them to stick it to Apple. The first example is Office 6 which created a Microsoft directory right in the main hard disk directory. Then, its replacements Office 98-2008 spammed the Documents folder with "Microsoft User Data". Other companies, like Adobe and Roxio, have followed Microsoft's lead and decided to spam the folder.
  13. Free speech has consequences

    A worthless position for a rational person. If you didn't think science can be blithely ignored, you'd know some scientific facts. 1. Sexual orientation isn't a matter of choice, so your comment "be {censored} if you want" is specious. 2. Whether or not you accept reality isn't particularly important to reality. 3. If you mean convert your orientation by "embrace", then you would know that sexual orientation isn't chosen. 4. Sexual orientation isn't a "lifestyle". A {censored} fireman and a hetero fireman have similar lifestyles as compared to a {censored} nun or a {censored} priest. 5. That you use your experience as a heterosexual to say "I can't imagine why anyone would" shows why it's necessary to have science. You are limited by your biases. If you check the science, you won't see a correlation between sexual orientation and childhood sexual abuse. In reality, the most common sexual predators are heterosexual men who abuse girls. Anecdotal accounts are not evidence. Again, you need to understand basic science. Then maybe it's time to start learning what those rules are instead of rejecting them. The scientific evidence is quite clear on many fronts that would help you avoid the mistakes in logic you've made concerning homosexuality. People are arguing about it. Some people don't think she should be held accountable. I'm willing to add a question if it's necessary. Here's another forum where someone is very intent on arguing that her words should be condoned if anything: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=185654
  14. Free speech has consequences

    She's not being "bashed". She's taking heat for trying to turn {censored} American citizens into monsters to further her political agenda. There's a lot to argue, as the discussion in here already demonstrates. People are discussing this in other forums, too, and no one has, until this point, questioned the existence of the topic. I'm really baffled that you think this isn't worth talking about. It's like a re-hash of Nazism in 2008's America. Here's some more discussion: next quote So, if she were to embrace, verbatim, Hitler's Final Solution and the like, that should be defended? In what way? The notion that hate speech is somehow more deserving of being condoned than normal speech is absurd. Hate speech is hateful. It's not fuzzy bunnies and flowers. It's about hurting people. It's violent behavior. Fear-mongering about members of the population via hate speech can carry a serious price in human happiness. What right does she have to hurt others? Censorship happens constantly. If people spoke in stream of consciousness no one would want to deal with them. If people gave voice to every vicious horrible thought in their minds, the world certainly would be a lot more chaotic. There are limits to acceptable speech, in all contexts, whether you realize it or not. Those limits are necessary in order for society to function. Indeed, there are limits to your "free speech" in this forum itself. What she's doing is far worse than accidentally giving voice to stray vicious thoughts. She is promoting the harm of {censored} people by trying to scare people into believing they're evil.
  15. Free speech has consequences

    No study has, since Dr. Hooker's work in the 1950s, shown that homosexuality is a disorder. That's over fifty years of scientific consensus. And, the reason Hooker's work differed from prior work is that she was the first one who correctly avoided using a polluted sample. Anyone, including you, who wants to invalidate science faces the burden of proof. Nothing is stopping you from doing studies in a manner consistent with legitimate contemporary science. There aren't any that support bigotry against homosexuals. While a good scientist doesn't do research in order to prove anything, if you want to disprove the consensus, it's up to you to produce the research. Until you do, you can't simply plug your ears, cover your eyes and dismiss the consensus. The bottom line is that we're talking about heterosexism (the prejudicial belief that heterosexuality is superior) and homophobia (the irrational fear of homosexuality). Without those, {censored} people aren't going to get hurt feelings and use weak epithets like breeder. Homophobia and heterosexism are not immutable constants of the human condition. They are cultural and therefore able to be diminished via education. Prejudice is learned, and its underlying ignorance can be overcome by facts. Homosexuality isn't a disorder, so this line of reasoning is irrelevant. As soon as a person invokes religion and rejects science, there is no room for argument and no room for learning or reason. The person may as well proclaim the tastiness of a green cheese moon. And, even in a religious context, "the Bible" is no trump card. It's a political document that exists in many forms.