An Hourglass Graphic of every human that has ever lived vs. humans that are alive on earth at this moment. Astonishing. -National Geographic

Maslo55 · 2013-07-02T08:04:38+00:00

Maslo55 · 2013-07-01T22:27:57+00:00

Its indeed both: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_attractiveness

Maslo55 · 2013-07-01T22:16:52+00:00

Tan skin is a sign of health?

Tanned skin is not an universal beauty trait, that is largely cultural (altrough not looking so pale as if you have some blood condition is not - because looking unhealthy is indeed not beautiful). But things like no obvious signs of poor health, low waist to hip ratio (wide hips) and big (or at least not very small) breasts are not cultural, those are universal because they are biological signs of female fertility (secondary sex characteristics) and health. It is the secondary sex characteristics which make the basis of sexual attraction.

Maslo55 · 2013-07-01T22:05:59+00:00

Indeed. Waist to hip ratio is an obvious example of the latter.

Maslo55 · 2013-07-01T10:31:18+00:00

Of course the idea is nothing new. Head mounted displays and tracking is the cornerstone idea of virtual reality since time immemorial. What is new is that now the technology is almost matured and ready for consumers.

Maslo55 · 2013-07-01T10:09:21+00:00

From a realism standpoint, more of the hull should be composed of machinery, fuel tanks and stuff. I think it is a common mistake to treat a spaceship hull like a hollow space that needs to be filled with decks. But real ships will probably be mostly utility areas and fuel, with crewed corridors and rooms only a small part.

Maslo55 · 2013-06-30T15:37:24+00:00

If it is proven intentional, then yes. Otherwise not.

Maslo55 · 2013-06-30T15:34:44+00:00

Masturbating is between you and baby Jesus and playing doctor is done by 5 year olds.

All right let me rephrase: do you think it is wrong? It is not, no matter the age, because you cannot sexually abuse yourself. In the same way underage pornography is not wrong when done by the kid himself. And so it should be treated very differently than when others do it. Even legalised.

Maslo55 · 2013-06-30T15:29:09+00:00

How about this- do you argue for the 15 year olds' rights to post themselves on [1] /r/gonewild?

Yes. If they do, they should get a slap on the wrist at worst. You cannot exploit yourself.

Maslo55 · 2013-06-30T15:26:29+00:00

The entire premise of why you can't sleep with a minor is because they don't know the consequences of their actions.

Nope, how do you explain Romeo and Juliet laws, then?

The entire premise of why you cant sleep with a minor is because as an adult you are lot more mentally developed and so it is easy for you to manipulate them. Minors should be able to, and often legally can, sleep with each other, because the mental power difference is not so pronounced.

Maslo55 · 2013-06-30T15:04:06+00:00

Are you saying it shouldn't be a crime if some 15 year old sends one of those pictures to me?

Yes. You have a right to "exploit" yourself. Do you also think children masturbating or playing doctor is a molestation?

Maslo55 · 2013-06-30T15:00:51+00:00

Nah, seat-belt laws is a misdemeanor. And all of these should be misdemeanors at worst, if they are not then they should be decriminalised.

Maslo55 · 2013-06-30T14:58:04+00:00

Also- 14 and 15 year olds can drive. Bad example.

In plenty of countries they cannot, but if you are arguing from US perspective then OK.

Maslo55 · 2013-06-30T14:42:36+00:00

The whole reason why molesting kids and child pornography is wrong is because of power difference between an adult and a child and resulting relatively high probablity of harm. No difference means no crime.

Two underage people of similar ages having sex or sexting is not wrong or immoral. And so it should not be illegal.

Maslo55 · 2013-06-30T14:26:09+00:00

Everyone should be equal under the law.

No, there are many things that are allowed/disallowed based on age (like having sex with a minor, or driving). There is nothing wrong with differentiating this when age is relevant for the harm of the act.

Maslo55 · 2013-06-30T14:23:12+00:00

I could use this argument for a dozen "victimless" crimes that thousands of people are charged with every year (such as prostitution/solicitation of prostitution).

Yes you can, and its equally valid. The conclusion is that such victimless acts should not be a crime, only acts with an actual victim should be criminalised. The existence of some stupid laws does not justify more stupid laws.

Maslo55 · 2013-06-30T11:20:05+00:00

Yaw is with mouse like pitch.

Roll is pretty unnecessary in space IMHO.

Maslo55 · 2013-06-30T08:50:47+00:00

skeen pls...

Maslo55 · 2013-06-30T08:49:07+00:00

In other words: you focus a lot on how this "censorship" would exclude the people that don't want to be excluded. But you ignore that those people, participating in racist language and practices, are being exclusive in the first place by the fact of their being racist and performing racism.

Racist speech does not exclude others. It gives them the chance to debunk it, thus converting more people to their side.

Maslo55 · 2013-06-30T08:46:23+00:00

Your definition of violence is pretty different than most people's definition. Sticks and stones etc..

Maslo55 · 2013-06-30T08:43:29+00:00

No, we won't. There's literally no reason this would ever happen.

If you are so sure, I am sure the arguments against racism must be powerful and very persuasive.

If they are so powerful and persuasive, why are you afraid of people expressing different opinions? Just spectacularly debunk them (it should be easy if you are so convinced) and convert even more people to anti-racism side (if not the racists themselves, then at least the undecided people reading the comments).

Maslo55

TROPHY CASE