But subsidizing crops doesn’t keep encourage them to Become complacent. Crops are not people.Just like we subsidize (in an ideal world) crops that are less profitable but that we need in some quantity, we should subsidize unemployment because some quantity of it is needed to keep labor competitive.
WAIT THAT’S ACTUALLY A GREAT WAY TO EXPLAIN THE NECESSITY OF WELFARE IN CAPITALISM TO UNTRAINED CAPITALISTS WHO HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE FUCK THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT
The argument over trans identity has like, zero clash
Making it a really, really shitty argument on both sides. Both sides should be ashamed of themselves.
One side takes a scientific/biological perspective and one side takes a social perspective. Neither side’s arguments actually address the other side’s arguments. This means the question of “should trans people be considered the genders/sexes they claim to be,” according to the outcome of this argument, is decided by one’s position on whether biology trumps sociology or vice versa.
You can take both perspectives. Especially if you use psychology as a bridge perspective. Learn to do that and debate like you care what your opponent has to say.
All of tumblr sucks at debating and I’m proud to say that I came to the conclusion that trans people should be considered the gender/sex they claim to be without the influence of the completely pointless debate on this nest of logical fallacies we call a website.
But how can one care what his or her opponent has to say if it is blatantly nonsensical? Should one then pretend a substandard argument is up to par?
You just dismissed both sides—precisely what you accused both of those sides of doing to one another, whilst stressing its unacceptability.
“lol j/k”
It’s a fact that using the “oh, I was just kidding” defense—whether you were actually kidding or not—is the easiest method of attempting to weasel one’s way out of any conflict that arises from stating one’s opinion.
Some things really are jokes and some people really are too humourless to take them in kind, but other statements, especially those delivered over the internet, are far too ambiguous to be taken at anything but face value. Not standing by your own words is pretty lame under those circumstances.
there’s an article in the Detroit Free Press about parents who allow their children to use medicinal marijuana and apparently its a huge controversy
like we live in a fucking society where kids can be prescribed crystal meth (Desoxyn) legally and theres no controversy over that. nope, lets instead complain about kids being prescribed a natural herb.
Neither of them are good, and just because one is a “natural herb” means nothing. Case in point—methadrine is found naturally in certain species of acacia tree.
Not to mention it has been shown time and time again that although cannabis possesses legitimately medically useful properties for the terminally ill, it
- lowers the psychosis threshold http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120508112748.htm
- promotes depression http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111010074853.htm
- is physically addictive http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/04/120424095651.htm
Now, there is much talk of correlation and causation, but I and many other had their first psychotic episode triggered by it, so it is not at all absurd that long-term usage creates long-term propensity, through the same probably mechanisms as HPPD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallucinogen_persisting_perception_disorder) not to mention that all drugs of addiction exacerbate psychiatric symptoms through their hijacking of the goal-oriented glutamatergic system.
“The unstated premise that nature is nice lies behind many of the objections to the Darwinian theory of human sexuality. Carefree sex is natural and good, it is assumed, so if someone claims that men want it more than women do, it would imply that men are mentally healthy and women neurotic and repressed. That conclusion is unacceptable, so the claims that men want carefree sex more than women do cannot be correct. Similarly, sexual desire is good, so if men rape for sex (rather than to express anger towards women), rape would not be as evil. Rape is evil; therefore the claim that men rape for sex cannot be correct. More generally, what people instinctively like is good, so if people like beauty, beauty would be a sign of worth. Beauty is not a sign of worth, so the claims that people like beauty cannot be correct. These kinds of arguments combine bad biology (nature is nice), bad psychology (the mind is created by society), and bad ethics (what people like is good). Feminism would lose nothing by giving them up.”—
Steven Pinker (via fucknoliberals)
This is an excellent “pool” to throw feminists in and see if they can swim, because it reveals the solar system of logical fallacies composing their most deeply held beliefs.
But I have to wonder what he proposes is good?
“Good” and “bad” are not satisfactory terms to begin with. There is only the appearance of cause and effect and “I like this”, “I don’t like this”, “I feel nothing” or “I am confused”.
~+~+~+~
Yes, I took it there. And rather rhetorically, I guess, because the person I reblogged this from can’t speak for the author of the quote.
monalisacunt asked: Do you plan on forging a career based off any of the subjects you're currently studying? If not, which career do you plan on pursuing?
Hah, that’s the big question.
In a word, no. Most of these sociopolitical fields of study are far too joyless for me, and I only blog about them because they distress me so much. If I weren’t able to maintain that distance between myself and these aspects of humanity—if they became an obligation, my discussion of them would no longer be a vent, but something from which I could never escape. And that would be my ultimate undoing (frayed as I am already at the edges of the acceptable criteria for sanity.)
Instead, I’m pursuing training to become a medical transcriptionist—basically the person who creates and/or edits formal medical documentation from the tape-recorded jargon of physicians. Neuropsychopharmacology is probably my greatest interest, but I have neither the patience nor the emotional fortitude to go through medical school. Hence, medical transcription is something that requires little more formal training than that which I already know so nerdishly, combined with my typing ability, and is low-pressure enough so that I can work from home and be at liberty to follow my obsessive compulsive pursuit of knowledge in general without a gun to my head (other than my own ludicrous aspirations to know and actively process more than my brain’s hardware will allow.)
Anonymous asked: >implying anyone can stab me in the back if I spend all day locked in my room refreshing your tumblr and guzzling urine
Aside from the fact that you are deliberately decontextualizing a scenario which was contingent on illustrating the personalized eventuality of a large scale mentality towards social order, I could not have come up with a better way to mock you than you have for yourself.
…..Forgive me—me before I address these points, I’ll have to first compose myself after shaking my head and laughing vigorously at the fact that someone so earnestly believes that hate crimes can now apparently be committed against dead people.
The most important point that can possibly be addressed with regards to this article is that the “other side” in these conflicts is thinking the exact same thing. To propose that this is a “new” type of mentality that came about because of Europeans in the Enlightenment era, is one of the most shockingly pseudoscientific claims I’ve ever seen in a behavioural science article.
Not to mention that it is immediately contradicted later on by the mention of headhunting tribes, and allusions to human nature, both of which constitute far more valid conclusions.
It would be ludicrous to imply, as does the overall thrust of the article, that this huntsman mentality towards the “other” has not been employed by every human group that has ever gone to war with its enemies, in order to dehumanize them. That’s the way we work.
And ultimately, rendering this all useless is the overarching ideology that it somehow matters why people do what they do in a war, so long as it is a part of their orders, or what happens to a body after it dies. That’s war. If it were the time for deliberation over sensitivity, it would not be war.
How the hell is anyone supposed to be happy if the things that make life worth living create depression? Answer: happiness is incidental and largely superfluous to evolutionary biology. And that, my friends, is the most depressing truth of all.
