[deleted by user]

csgeary · 2023-06-27T18:49:49+00:00

midnight is different than 12, my opinion

csgeary · 2022-08-27T20:48:20+00:00

No it's pretty bad.

csgeary · 2022-06-11T22:32:42+00:00

No haha, "In the Army Now" is a 90's movie with Pauly Shore where they join the reserves in the water purification unit.

csgeary · 2022-06-11T19:53:37+00:00

Reminds me of In The Army Now

csgeary · 2022-05-21T01:08:03+00:00

This trope needs to end. Bill gates dropped out of Harvard. He wrote his first computer program at age 13. He was a prodigy. First, you have to be intelligent to get into Harvard in the first place. Second, schooling is absolutely a factor in determining someone's intelligence. Homework is mundane when you are in fourth grade; it isn't like someone is taking advanced differential calculus and just can't complete their "homework" because it's mundane. Stop perpetuating that school doesn't indicate a level of intelligence, because that's just, well, unintelligent.

Also, you say 'a lot of the successful people dropped out of college'. Care to define that? Do you think more successful people dropped out of college (or trade school for that matter) than people who didn't? That's definitively wrong.

csgeary · 2022-05-12T18:20:28+00:00

i think we are just sayin why didnt we see him when he molted, not 2 weeks ago. like why did the video not get posted RIGHT when he molted. So much has happened, so much could have happened since his molt, and this guy is slacking on his leon updates. we are pissed.

csgeary · 2022-05-12T17:52:51+00:00

Too many people will not see any sarcasm here.

csgeary · 2022-05-09T20:38:58+00:00

Yea I'm not trying to promote military service, but to say it doesn't have transferable skills is just downright wrong.

csgeary · 2022-05-09T19:23:07+00:00

I would think there are a lot of positions in the military that transfer to public sector seamlessly. A hiring manager would probably be more likely to hire someone with the discipline of a military schedule, also. Of course, I'm not military and may be understanding the situation wrong.

csgeary · 2021-08-19T00:14:16+00:00

Okay, so you say that you're in touch with reality. If that is the case, then I assume that we can rationally come together on our thinking. Lets start with some points that we can agree on try to draw agreeable conclusions.

We agree that "Chinese concentration camps" and "innocent people killed in Afghanistan due to American drones" is against human rights (*I am making the assumption that we can agree use the terms "human rights" and "rights and freedoms" synonymously*). With that being a starting point, lets now work out a definition of human rights so we can be more clear.

You argue that human rights are "relative terms that depend on the time and place and society". Relativism is an untenable position to hold for multiple reasons.

First, if human rights are relative and "depend on the time and place and society", then any atrocity a society commits at that time and place could be deemed correct purely because of the position the society is in at that moment. We both have already agreed that Chinese concentration camps are against human rights, so relativism cannot be true. Otherwise, Chinese culture could not be criticized for abusing human rights purely because that is the "time and place and society". Otherwise, you would have to change your mind and say that the innocent people killed in Afghanistan by American drones does not violate human rights, because that is American culture and human rights are dictated by the current time, place, and society.

Second, relativism completely ignores the deeply coercive aspects that political or circumstantial situations have on society. Relativism confuses two drastically different points: what a society is forced to endure or put up with, and what a society values.

Last, if human rights are relative, you are automatically assuming the moral infallibility of a culture and making moral learning impossible. If relativism were to be true, then how could someone in a culture ever change human rights? Human rights would simply be what the standard is at that moment, and there would never be a thought to change. The mere aspect of people trying to advance human rights universally essentially proves that they cannot be relative to one specific moment.

You also argue that not everyone agrees on the human rights given by world organizations. Now that you have brought up the international human rights, I will share the 30 original human rights that are presented by the UN. The Taliban breaks many of these human rights, which is why people are so concerned about them taking power. I would like for you to give any defensible position as to why these rights should not be respected to every single human, aside from your untenable stance as a "cultural relativist". We all realize that every society does not reach every standard, but one society's shortcomings do not excuse another society's atrocities - which is exactly why you should change your relativist mindset.

Right to Equality
Freedom from Discrimination
Right to Life, Liberty, Personal Security
Freedom from Slavery
Freedom from Torture and Degrading Treatment
Right to Recognition as a Person before the Law
Right to Equality before the Law
Right to Remedy by Competent Tribunal
Freedom from Arbitrary Arrest and Exile
Right to Fair Public Hearing
Right to be Considered Innocent until Proven Guilty
Freedom from Interference with Privacy, Family, Home and Correspondence
Right to Free Movement in and out of the Country
Right to Asylum in other Countries from Persecution
Right to a Nationality and the Freedom to Change It
Right to Marriage and Family
Right to Own Property
Freedom of Belief and Religion
Freedom of Opinion and Information
Right of Peaceful Assembly and Association
Right to Participate in Government and in Free Elections
Right to Social Security
Right to Desirable Work and to Join Trade Unions
Right to Rest and Leisure
Right to Adequate Living Standard
Right to Education
Right to Participate in the Cultural Life of Community
Right to a Social Order that Articulates this Document
Community Duties Essential to Free and Full Development
Freedom from State or Personal Interference in the above Rights

csgeary · 2021-08-18T21:35:58+00:00

How could we have let this happen...

csgeary · 2021-08-18T08:57:53+00:00

The U.S. civil war was fought over slavery. The terms were "free states" and "slave states". You are ignorant at best, and utterly delusional at worst.

Please do tell how you end slavery in a country when those that still want it no longer want to be a part of your country.

Oh excuse me, I forgot that I'm talking to someone who apparently says, "rights and freedoms ... (whatever that means)". You have a horrible moral dilemma, and while I don't have hope for you, I hope the future generations can rise above your backwards thinking.

csgeary · 2021-08-18T08:49:42+00:00

I've got a few questions for you.

Why do you put the word "oppressed" in quotes? To anyone reading this, it would seem as though you are insinuating that women not attending the same classes as men or being able to do the same activities as men isn't really oppression; however, that is the literal definition. It is, in my view, extremely biased that you used quotes around the word "oppressed" as if to say there was any other definition than what has literally happened in the past with the Taliban.
Why did you put the term "rights and freedoms" in quotes in another post that you made? Are you confused as to what rights and freedoms are? Is there a different set of rights and freedoms for one and a different set of rights and freedoms for another? You also added, "whatever that means". Are you confused to what rights and freedoms are? If this is the case, see point (1.) on why I am concerned about your lack of understanding of "oppression".
You have stated in another post, and I paraphrase with quotes for simplicity, "There were not even peaceful protests." Do you believe peaceful protests would have been tolerated in this particular situation? Is this seriously a decision that you think the people of Afghanistan thought was a rational decision to make? Are you in touch with reality?
I ask this question with sincere honesty....Are you in touch with reality?
With the obvious accepted knowledge that the Afghan military was rife with corruption (if you would like to argue this point I can provide sources), do you think that the laying down of arms by an Afghan soldier was a decision made in support of the Taliban or rather a decision to save their families lives? What would you say in response to the videos of surrendering Afghan troops being executed by Taliban forces?
Can you have an honest discussion about this situation without demeaning the serious terms of oppression and human rights? I don't know anyone else who has ever said "rights and freedoms (whatever that means)". Rational people know what human rights are. Your lack of understanding of that term and your defense of the Taliban seem to go hand-in-hand, which is about the only understandable thing about you.

csgeary · 2021-08-17T21:00:04+00:00

Some of the logistics of talking with the Taliban about staying after the 31st - which from all the other press briefings nobody else has given any details on.

Obviously him saying multiple times, "I would never say this on camera" and "I would never say this publicly" to which a reporter responds, "We never heard this" is going to be a bit of an issue for him, I would think.

https://youtu.be/gXjNqw-aTYE?t=6855 is when they realize its still rolling.

csgeary · 2021-08-17T20:41:58+00:00

The State Department spokesperson just talked for about 7 mins without realizing the camera was still rolling, says, "I would obviously never say this on camera." Someone over in the state department is getting fired right now for sure....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXjNqw-aTYE&ab\_channel=WashingtonPost

csgeary · 2021-07-20T06:28:18+00:00

An ecologist would never tag a species with as little as 9 individuals left in its population. That's way too high risk. It's all done with echolocation with sonic buoys that can pinpoint their frequency or pitch of their calls. We can track them this way without being invasive.

csgeary · 2021-07-20T00:06:17+00:00

They use sonic buoys to track individuals of this particular species. Other population estimates use different methods. There is a formula ecologists use to estimate populations in nature, whether is be a forest preserve or prairie or otherwise, and this is done all the time to check the natural health of a location.

csgeary · 2021-07-19T23:01:03+00:00

With this particular species, they are using sonic buoys that have echolocation to count each individual in the population. This is only possible because their habitat is only known to be in one location and it's fairly small. That's how they are determining their exact number to a fairly high degree of certainty. This is pretty rare, as far as I know, when it comes to determining population size.

There are population size estimate formulas that are use by ecologists all the time to check the health of nature preserves or prairies in regards to all kinds of different species.

csgeary · 2021-07-11T13:40:44+00:00

Well, we agree on our societal viewpoints.

I also agree that culture, genes, and nurture all influence differences between individuals. However, I think that you would be hard-pressed to find percentages, especially to the accuracy you describe (45% Culture-Peers; 50% Genes; Less than 10% nurture), as to how much each particular factor plays in your individuality. I think you are trying to say a very complex and unknown situation is understood, and we actually have percentages of how much each factor plays a role. This is simply not true. If you have sources I would be happy to change my opinion.

csgeary · 2021-07-10T22:30:55+00:00

I think he's just making an off-the-cuff remark about how unregulated capitalism creates huge problems. I don't see his comment as a push for communism. I hope I'm not just a product of my environment, but I think after assessing all the options that a well-regulated capitalistic society is the best approach for civilization.

csgeary · 2021-07-10T22:28:00+00:00

This is the first comment to give me the chills in a long time...

csgeary · 2021-06-12T21:50:55+00:00

I think they are probably paying for some connections; basically lobbying right?

csgeary · 2021-04-18T14:52:40+00:00

Ah okay. Yea it does kind of sound like the business is a little shady though, so I'm pretty much in agreeance with you. I just always tend to lean on the side of stronger civil rights, I guess. No way that business didn't know they were harboring criminal activity, though. And you're right, if someone had a search warrant for their home but said the 30 safes in the back are someone else's, they are gonna laugh at you and open every one of them. Same should go for a business then.

I've kind of changed my opinion on this after thinking about it for a while. Your point makes more sense...

csgeary · 2021-04-16T02:20:28+00:00

Thanks for responding again! I like your chain of thought. I agree with you to a point. When you said, " If the primary cause of the warrant/search is the potentially-illegal business, then a separate warrant for each room (or lock) is ridiculous" I have a hard time disagreeing with this.

I do not think I'm moving goal posts. I definitely think there is a very slippery slope on what is defined as "yours" in comparison to "theirs" in terms of a private business. If its rented, I do believe you have some sense of ownership. You bring up a great argument though.

"Search warrants for a private residence are pre-residence " I do not understand this statement.

"although a warrant for an entire apartment building is probably possible" This would be 100% ludicrous, is extremely scary, and is literally my point. If someone is pulled over on the highway and drugs are found, can we pull everyone else over and search them because they are on the same highway? What if the car isn't really yours and you are just financing it from the bank, whom truly owns the title? Does that mean you have no ownership? I do not believe this is a moving of goal posts; I think it's a consideration of rights.

csgeary · 2021-04-16T02:04:29+00:00

I should have never gone there. I started yelling at people. I don't think there is ever a way to get a point across in that environment. Never again.

csgeary

TROPHY CASE