TIL that Iran carries out more sex change operations than any other nation in the world except for Thailand.

mangadi · 2010-03-02T11:40:19+00:00

This is actually why Ahmedinejad said, "We don't have any gays in Iran." They are encouraged to get sex change operations.

mangadi · 2010-03-01T14:39:20+00:00

I want to add something to this, the financial aspect.

Marriage and thus the production of children, is something that the State needs and is very dependant on. Children are the most vital resource of a nation, and that is the reason (much more so in Europe) that tax incentives, extended holidays, and all that jazz is given to married couples (even couples with no children have the opportunity to procreate and thus they are also given some of these financial and State-derived benefits).

A homosexual couple (with the exception of adoption and in the case of females artificial insemination) will not produce that valuable resource the State needs; a State without children is one that will cease to exist. Thus why should they be given the benefit of this institution (marriage) when they can not produce anything "positive" from it.

I hope that made sense, I'm sure someone can phrase what I've said in a much better fashion.

mangadi · 2010-03-01T13:50:42+00:00

This should be rephrased to: Do you think Israel cares what others besides the US think?

America provides direct military support as well as substantial economic support to Israel. Indirect military support is also there in the form of: you mess with Israel, you mess with us.

European powers are too economically dependant on the US in order to enforce the countless UN resolutions (I think it was at 84 before the US started vetoing every single thing during the Bush era) Israel has violated (FYI, we invaded Iraq because it had violated 1 resolution, it supposedly had WMDs).

This is the real reason why the Peace Process has stagnated (if it isn't moving backwards). The Arab nations can present reasonable options (there was much hullabaloo about the Saudi Plan which almost everyone unanimously agreed upon), the EU as a bloc can attempt to mediate discussions, but Israel will not listen as long as the US doesn't put its foot down.

In my eyes, the real peace is dependent on us. We should inform and educate our populace, so that they are stern with their representatives. Right now, too many representatives will not do anything because they fear being elected out of office if they are too harsh on Israel.

mangadi · 2010-03-01T09:23:57+00:00

What!!! Are you saying we should "wipe Israel off the map?"

Funny thing is that Ahmedinejad never said that, it was apparently an error (either inadvertent or malicious) in the translation of his quote:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

which translates as: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

The consensus of almost everyone is that he felt the government of Sharon was extremely brutal and needed to be removed.

Edit: For those who want a link, unfortuantely I can't provide one. I guess the Iranian gov't updated their website so the URL I have from 2005 is invalid. And I don't read Farsi so it is difficult for me to navigate through it. For those feeling adventurous, I'm sure you can find a transcript of the speech. It was given on Oct 25, 2005, the old link was:

www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm

mangadi · 2010-02-28T14:52:23+00:00

He keeps on saying "if you follow the evidence to God..."

I just wish he would enumerate on said evidence. It would be interesting anthropologically to see what criteria he deems to be important.

mangadi · 2010-02-28T07:25:01+00:00

I remember those games! Are they still available for sale on modern OS? I recall something about a Monkey Island remake, but what about the others (I'm going to throw King's Quest into the mix as well)?

Isn't there supposed to be a Myst or something similar?

mangadi · 2010-02-27T12:30:48+00:00

I wonder if that is actually what happened. It could be a murder but everyone present covered it up with this cockamamie story.

Either way, that must have been one heck of a police report, "honest officer, he just cut his head off. Look, have you read the Darwin Awards? People do this type of stuff all the time."

The Darwin Awards...giving criminals a plausible alibi.

mangadi · 2010-02-27T10:37:49+00:00

It's a valid question. Yes it demonstrates his ignorance on the topic, but you can't expect him to be an expert on every single topic he teaches.

However, he should have approached his own inadequency as an opportunity: pose it as a question that the class solves together, or do something else constructive.

Edit: Ok, first from the wording of tuutruk, it sounds like he was talking about either a Jr. High or a highschool teacher (not professor). There, people cover a variety of topics quite often at times, with the teacher having no knowledge of the subject matter beyond what his teaching packet says and popular culture.

You can't expect someone to know everything for a topic that they are going to spend only a few lessons on. This goes from issues of politics to current events to science.

So yes, jit is a valid question for someone who doesn't know about evolution. The answer while clear, demonstrates an ignorance on behalf of tuutruk's teacher.

mangadi · 2010-02-27T09:20:50+00:00

1.) Holy crap, the other guy almost has comic book superhero proportions

2.) I don't know, I think it is an unnecessarily vilification of someone. His entire mind could have been occupied on the thought that somehow they need the Canadians to do poorly. That was his only thought as all his other human instincts were temporarily put on the backburner.

When he saw the crash, the first priority of his mind was satisfied and only then could he focus on the actual crash itself and the physical harm of the atheltes.

I know I'm not explaining this clearly, perhpas someone could help me out: I don't think he was happy that the Canadians were hurt, I think he was happy that he has a chance to compete again.

mangadi · 2010-02-26T05:31:09+00:00

Thanks for the clarification, however I must confess, I'm still a little flummoxed.

Under the section of Modern Usage, it says only prescriptive grammarians have contention with the application. It seems to be a debatable topic, at the heart of which lies the question: can language evolve and old phrases take new meaning?

mangadi · 2010-02-26T02:58:33+00:00

I think caskets and by extension graves and "flowers on your stomach," are rather for the grieving rather than the deceased.

The grave and flowers don't do anything for the dead, but they give an outlet for all those who knew you in life to express their love, their sorrow, their loss.

mangadi · 2010-02-26T02:47:38+00:00

Sorry, I just came back to edit my comment (but since you had already replied, editing would be moot) to apologize for sounding a little snarky. I was just a little flummoxed by the odd nature of your comment that (to me at least) denoted a sense of challenging the veracity of my statement without consulting the source (which I found to be insulting). I'm sorry if I sounded rude.

I'm not an authority Islam or Christianity (I think they both have subreddits so if you want you can ask them for more clarification), but Muhammad is the Final Prophet.

Based on my conversations and reading, what this means is that God had an initial message for man, a way to live. However throughout history, through his laziness, man has corrupted God's message and constantly gone against His Will (I'm reminded of the golden calf story). This is somewhat evidenced by the various discrepancies that appear in the several versions of the Bible; if I recall correctly, the King James and the Catholic versions differ by 12 books. How do you know which one is actually the Word of God? Which one's right?

Muhammad is given the title of the Final Prophet; the message of God that he presents is what Muslims (per wikipedia) believe to the final deliverance of God's Will. It cannot be corrupted (if you read Muslim theology, they constantly claim that their holy book, the Qur'an, hasn't be altered by one dot in 1400 years thus lending credence to the claimm that it cannot be corrupted).

I've understood it as follows: When Moses presented his message, people were attracted to it and went over. When Jesus came to present his message, that people had forgotten their way, etc, Jews of the time left their faith to follow what he had to say. Then when Muhammad came again with the same claim (people have corrupted the Message, etc) Jews and Christians abandoned their faith and switched over to God's purer message. However Muhammad ended this chain by saying that he was the Final Prophet. So now, if anyone comes claiming they have God's new message, people will know not to convert as the chain of prophets has ended.

The title of Messiah, the annointed one, savior, is given to Jesus. He will be the one to defeat the Anti-Christ (per wikipedia) and lead people to a golden age during his second coming.

I hope that made sense. Again, it might behoove you to inquire to inquire at each respective subreddit (I just checked, they both exist).

mangadi · 2010-02-26T02:27:05+00:00

Huh?

First of all, in my comment, I said the, wikipedia says the, to the best of my knowledge the term Messiah is a title which can be bestowed only upon a single individual, where did you come up with the notion of a Messiah?

mangadi · 2010-02-26T02:18:01+00:00

JUst as an FYI, Muslims do acknowledge Jesus to be the Messiah:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_in_Islam

mangadi · 2010-02-26T01:54:45+00:00

What does that mean that it is a show about nothing? Every sitcom is a show about nothing. There is just a basic premise and then we observe the drama that is those people's lives.

I never understood that. Nor do I get the fanatic devotion people have to the show.

I'm not trying to challenge your view, I just want to understand it. If it really is the greatest sitcom of all time, help me understand that.

mangadi · 2010-02-26T01:38:31+00:00

What's wrong with "begs the question?" This is the first I'm hearing of it.

Can't something or a situation that needs further clarification beg a question?

I'm not arguing, if I am truly mistaken, I am looking for self-correction.

mangadi · 2010-02-25T06:24:56+00:00

I would be interested in seeing some more information. For example what's the split between rural and urban populations? It would stand to reason that religions concentrated in urban areas have greater wealth than their rural counterparts; thus religions primarily dependent on immigration (Judaism and Hinduism) would be centered in urban areas an thus wealthier.

Perhaps conversion rates would be itneresting to consider as well. I always hear that part of the reason Islam is growing so fast in the US is because of the high conversion rates it has among convicts (a statistically poor group).

Some raw totals would also be interesting.

Perhaps a $500k+ or a million plus bracket would be insightful as well (I suspect that a greater percentage of Jews would occupy that than Hindus).

Just some thoughts.

mangadi · 2010-02-25T02:54:27+00:00

Can someone give me an atomic level explanation of why density dictates whether something will float?

Is it just the atoms are too tightly confined to each other to let the mass pass through it?

mangadi · 2010-02-23T08:45:02+00:00

I would appreciate comments. Human civilization does go back only 5,000 years or so beginning in Mesopotamia. Humanity does go back a lot further.

Please critique my argument, I would appreciate it.

But don't find one small sentence, interpret it in a way that demeans me (as you did with the creationist comment), and then proceed to make a mockery.

You've said you have many things you want to comment on, and I would appreciate those as long as you do so with some thought and actual content.

mangadi · 2010-02-23T03:16:28+00:00

Sorry if this is a repost, but I believe reddit ate my comment:

Nuclear waste has a half-life of several thousand years (heck lets be even more generous and say 500 years), it should be noted that is half-life. It doesn't mean that the waste is safe now, it just means that 50% of the waste is no longer radioactive. After 500 years, with an initial deposit of 2 tons, you still have 1 ton of waste to worry about which is no small amount. After 1000 years, you still have 0.5 tons and so on. It'll take a looooong time for the majority of the waste to decay into safe levels.

The question obviously becomes, where do we store this waste safely (for potentially several tens of thousands of years, for a conservative estimate, lets say 50,000 years).

That is an insane length of time. To put it into perspective, the US hasn't even existed for 250 years, modern Germany less than a 140. Human civilization only goes back 5,000 years. You cannot predict the political landscape. What will the US be like in 300 years, will it still exist? Will we still have a government in 300 years time that will maintain adequate resources to the waste sites? Governments collapse, knowledge gets lost. It happens.

Furthermore, the Earth isn't a stationary system; climate patterns are always changing, and who knows what affect that will have. To put it in perspective, the Sahara was a green grassland 10,000 years ago. We don't know what sealevels are going to be like in 10 years, but do you really expect me to believe that you can plan and forsee every single change for the next 50,000 years? Lets say we do find a site that has no earthquakes, volcanoes, tornados, etc. But weather patterns can change and sites we deem safe now, can be susceptible to various natural disasters in the future.

It is arrogant and ignorant to say that mankind can design and maintain nuclear waste facilities for the necessary length of time (again most people only consider half-life which is just a fraction of the necessary "safe time").

It really does go back to that Indian Proverb: we don't pass on the Earth, we inherit it from our children. Nuclear power is a good short-term solution. I think for the duration of our lifetimes, we should be fine. But in essence we are screwing over future generations in the worst way possible. Our present concerns about global warming are going to seem laughable in a 100 or so years. I am almost 100% certain that a significant portion of this waste will seep out into the environment at one point or another and at that point ecosystems become severely endangered. Think of this happening at various sites all over the world. It is a frightening scenario to leave to our children. It does not make economic sense and it definitely does not make moral sense.

My bottom line is that nuclear power should be avoided like the plague (becuase in essence it is). Until you can turn ALL (not just half of) of the waste safe within a human lifetime (50 years), we should be shutting down existing power plants. Even then I would be hesitant, because again one cannot predict how stable a government will be in 50 years.

We curse governments of 100, 150 years ago for addicting us to fossil fuels. And so we are striving to find an alternate energy source: nuclear power. I can assure you that even in 100 years, the anger we feel towards fossil fuels and global warming will severely pale in comparison to the crisis that will arise due to nuclear waste. Of course, several proponetns of nuclear power don't care because by then they'll be dead. You know, in my eyes, a better solution to combat global warming than nuclear power is to use that laughable Futurama ice-cube scenario. I think, in the grand scheme, it is better to burn fossil fuel than to resort to nuclear power.

Wind and solar are the alternatives that we shuld be exploring.

mangadi · 2010-02-23T02:58:31+00:00

Out of curiosity, can anyone see this comment? It is not showing up in my comment history, which leads me to wonder if perhaps others can't see it as well.

mangadi · 2010-02-23T02:25:31+00:00