I voted in opposition because it's true intent is to limit free speech, which includes the artistic experession known as pornography.

Silly girl, cats don't eat peas.

God damn foot splinter.

I have a'plenty of time on my hands to ensure Hanover gives up to the sheer power of me; all I will need to do is find what people hate the most before using it against them. — TimeLine

The tension growing between us is palpable.

My place is better than yours. Try to guess my favourite books on the mantel. — TimeLine

The Catcher in the Rye

I'm in the burbs. There's a pizza delivery store every 10 feet.

If you guys have a request, please let me know. I'll see what I can do.

What does Hamburger Helper look like with peas and carrots added to the mix?

My feet and my dog on a Friday afternoon. Enjoy.

Is evil necessary?

In response, I say: does there exist a possible world in which evil exists?

If yes, then evil is not necessary.

If no, then evil is necessary.

My gut says there is such a possible world, as there appears to be no contradiction in existence, even our own, containing evil. — Chany

I don't understand this analysis. There exists an actual world where evil exists, so why ask if there is a possible world where it might exist?

If there exists a possible world where evil does not exist, then evil is obviously not necessary. Is that your question?

The last sentence made no sense to me. Does it make sense to you?

Now what is W A S P — Rosalina

You have a non-waspish name.

I'm wondering if evil can sometimes be good. — Rosalina

Then it's not evil.

I'm an old man, and keeping up with the latest slang strains my already full memory. — Bitter Crank

The word is derived from the cuckoo bird, who supposedly invaded other bird's nests, pushed aside its eggs, and laid its own eggs in the nest, causing the other bird to unknowingly care for the egg and eventually raise the cuckoo bird.

A cuckold then would be a man who would unknowingly allow another man to invade his eggs (which are conveniently located in his wife's womb), and eventually raise that other man's child, thinking it his own.

Enough of the history, and on to the perversion. The common use of the term applies to the knowing cuckold, who derives masochistic pleasure in seeing his wife sexually satisfied by another man, while being denied the same access as the invader. It's a humiliation fetish.

As our good poster used the term, she was referencing men who she found less than masculine, like those who were weak and feminine (i.e. pussies) and those who couldn't sexually satisfy their partners (i.e. cuckolds).

I am under the assumption you are speaking more of a masculine aggression rather than evil, a dominant figure that has the strength to fight and commit immoral acts and yet still has the heart to protect and even love, which is perhaps what you may find attractive. All women find this attractive, it is instinctual. — TimeLine

Are you a spokesperson for all women or are you just telling us of the sort of bad boy you adore?

We try to destroy evil by punishing it. — Rosalina

The intent of punishment need not be a desire to eliminate it, but simply to offer the natural consequence for the bad act. That is, punishment need serve a deterrent function, but it can be a just dessert.

Sometimes I think evil is attractive. It's necessary in this world or else we won't be able to appreciate good. — Rosalina

This is an attempt to classify evil as good, which overlooks instances where evil is not at all good, where there is no silver lining, and where the net outcome is negative.

But not me, so not everyone. — Michael

There are 3 possibilities:

(1) You are not part of everyone
(2) My dog did in fact bite you
(3) My statement was incorrect

There is therefore a 67% (2/3) chance that my statement was correct. That's how it works.

You just have to acknowledge the reality of suffering and that up to a million people feel the need to commit suicide every year. — Andrew4Handel

If suicide is an option, then life is continued by consent once suicide is declined, which is by far the most prevalent choice. Ethically speaking, wouldn't it be the right thing to do to offer life, considering most often those offered it desperately protect it?

If I get two, would I have boxen?

I had a miniature schnauzer who bit everyone, including me. I really liked that dog. He took no shit. People would ask if he bit, and I'd say, "oh yeah, he'll bite," and then they'd try to pet him, and they'd get bit. I mean, why ask if you're not going to believe me?

I also had a Shetland Sheepdog, which is basically a miniature collie. He was a pretty good dog, but he was pretty timid and would pull on the curtains when it thundered.

I've had a few other dogs as well. My favorite dog is my cat, which, technically speaking, isn't actually a dog. She's really nice until she's not. You can sort of tell when she's tired of being petted, but not always, so you can expect a scratch every now and then. I like that about her. She takes no shit.

I want to get a boxer and name him Cassius after Mohammad Ali. I think the name would be cooler than actually having the dog, so I've held off for a bit.

Yeah, good chat.

The OP's questions were (1) did McEnroe speak the truth, and (2) was it ok for him to say it.

Taking the questions literally, (1) yes and (2) yes.

Of course, if the subtext was to suggest that women are inferior, then, (1) yes and (2) no.

You offer no basis for your bias in favor of the mathematically inclined, and until you do, it's impossible to convince you your conclusion is wrong. My best suggestion is that you ought not have preconceived notions without justification. Prejudgment is the cause of prejudice.

Instead of tattooing it, I'd get it tagged on my ear like they do to cows. It's easier to see.

If in saying "It's raining," one is saying he believes it's raining, then it is logically contradictory to say "it's raining but I don't believe it's raining."

The contradiction arises because it's implicit that the speaker who states it's raining is the same speaker who states his belief that it's raining and it's assumed that a speaker can only assert beliefs even should he proclaim his statement as truth.

Contextually and implicitely you're saying "I believe it is raining but I don't believe it's raining," so you have a direct logical contradiction.

A performative contradiction (e.g. " I am dead" or "I ate my mouth") states an impossible performance. I cannot tell you I'm dead because death eliminates speech. I can't eat my mouth because my mouth does the eating.

The raining example you gave is 2 seperate propositions, and of a different form than my examples above.

And so now a diversion into the wisdom of affirmative action? Nothing I've said hinted at whether affirmative action programs were morally, Constitutionally, or pragmatically sound. What I pointed to was the injustice of discrimination, not to whether our legislatures have properly addressed the evil.

Regardless, it is likely we share the same conclusions on this subject, but I'd suspect for differing reasons because I tend to look at law very pragmatically, and I see such programs as offering little good and usually to those least needy, but all of this is a major degression and topic shift.

Hanover's post suggested that the reason for social inequality was arbitrary, which is wrong. — Agustino

Where did I suggest anything was arbitrary? I don't even follow the use of this term in this context. "Arbitrary" describes the basis of a decision indicating it was without rational basis, just whim or caprice. It isn't like 1000 years ago a committee arbitrarily decided society should be a certain way. Society evolved the way it is, and perhaps for the reason you or Michael suggested. Obviously there's a reason things are as they are. The point is that the cause of the injustice offers no support for the continuation of the injustice.

We could provide a societal evolution theory explaining why certain groups became slaves and other masters, all of which may be correct, but none of which would justify continued subservience by the oppressed group. So sure, women were given the weaker roles because they were weaker, but since most contemporary jobs don't require clubbing tigers, adherence to Neanderthal norms is not only unjust, but it oppresses significant talents and limits potential human development.

It is a common rhetorical ploy on this site to state that one's position is obvious or self-evident. That is almost never true. — T Clark

Where I said "Let me state the obvious," I guess I should have said, "Let me state what ought be obvious. "

Sure, she understands the sounds, but in terms of her own thought processes, she doesn't rely on language. For example, should she think about where Fiona is, the meaning of those thoughts are not internally reduced to language.

If I say to my dog Ginger "where's Fiona" she darts around the house, looking everywhere where Fiona (my other dog) usually is (on the bed, under the bed, in the basement, upstairs in the kid's room) and she barks when she finds her. This is a very basic task for a dog. Part of Ginger's excitement is that she knows once Fifi is found, they both get to go outside.

That is, Ginger understood what I was talking about (Fiona and going outside) and her behavior was future oriented, fully expecting her current behavior to lead to an anticipated result. I am quite sure she has no language going through her brain, but the thought of her and her little buddy running outside was in her head as she went looking for her.

So, what is my purpose in this thread? — Thinker

Yeah, good question.

Let's state the obvious. Women have traditionally been relegated to submissive roles due to the power structure in place. Barriers have been reduced, but not eliminated. Some women have transcended those traditional roles through special effort, others have fully consented to embracing those traditional roles, and others still have tried but failed to overcome the limitations imposed by their social situation. That is to say that whatever successes elude women (other than those requiring brute muscle), is the result of environment, not some inherent leadership, intellectual, or emotional deficiency existing specially in women.

Are we really having this discussion?

It responds to stimuli - whether that amounts to 'counting' is moot, in my view. — Wayfarer

It counted without language.

Where did you get the idea that most women are mostly gentle? — T Clark

Yeah, no shit.

How would you know whether someone can count without language? — Wayfarer

If a bird sees two people go into the brush and sees one exit but continues to wait for the other to exit before it enters the brush, it has successfully counted. I'd guess it could count higher than 2, but I don't know how high.

Is counting prior to number? — Banno

Sure, counting can occur without language.

She's poorly adjusted due to a fucked up childhood, and she seems to thrive under the relative stabilty of Wosret's home, while still retaining some anti-social behavior picked up along the way. The path to her success is paved with unconditional love and support, although Wosret is perfectly correct in not accepting that duty if he doesn't want to.

I understand. The question was how to parent, not whether to parent. As to the former, I stand by what I said. As to the latter, I agree with your assessment. It's not your cross to bear. You're being taken advantage of, which is the role of parents and of fools. Since you are neither, her days with you are limited, determined only by your tolerance level and by your resolve to see things through, but there will inevitably be a day when enough is enough. Just don't let them take you down with them. Despite the freefall everyone around you is in, your future looks bright.

As noted in The Shoutbox, the key to surviving a terrorist is by running, even past those who seek your help.

Thank you for bringing clarity btw to an unrelated issue in my life.

I've actually had this thread on my mind awhile. Your sister has had a really tough time of things, and she'd be in such a different place if she had had stable parents and a stable life. I can't tell you how to parent her specifically, but I can tell you generally.

Tell her that you love her, that you are there for her no matter what, that as long as you have a roof over your head, she will too, as long as you have food, she will too. Tell her that she can mock you, criticize you, do whatever, and nothing will change between you, but you'd rather she not because it hurts you. Tell her you're so sorry that the adults in her life have let her down, that it's not her fault, and that you will make sure she gets the best you can give her.

Yeah, tall order. You won't be judged if you don't accept this task because you're not really her dad, but if you were, that's what you might say. That's what I'd like to think I'd say.

Trump and his campaign.

I actually do agree with you here whole heartedly on the point that talk without action is self righteous thumb twiddling. Sitting in the pew knodding with the preacher does nothing for anyone if it doesn't motivate you to act.

What will be discovered is that Trump did not collude with the Russians and that his firing of Comey, while ill advised, was not obstruction of justice. At best, the Dems will interfere with Republican progress, despite having a majority in all branches, which is all they're trying to do anyway.

Politics is about power, not truth seeking, and the Dems are no holier than anyone else.

This thread is interesting (and I'm not being sarcastic) to the extent that I get to hear how the choir talks among itself after a sermon.

http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/2252532-despite-allegations-no-evidence-of-trump-russia-collusion-found/

No, I actually don't think I'm fit to be a moderator, but I would have other people to propose: Mariner, Thorongil, yourself, John and a few more! I'd aim for a mix between theist/atheist, progressive/conservative, just to make everything fair. — Agustino

Posts aren't moderated on the basis of political leaning. If they were, I'd delete all of BC's posts. The reason I don't is because he has something intelligent to say. And that answers the OP as to what criteria the mods use.