Yeah, you're right, I know it's a choice. It just doesn't feel like one. I know the reality is that I'm doing this to myself, but it feels as if this is just the way it is and there's no escape from it. The illusion that I have no control is powerful.
I'm already choosing to change. At this rate, there's no question I'll achieve the age-appropriate independence I seek. But it's taking so, so long. It was coming along smoothly and swiftly until she died -- the only reason I made it to age 24 without achieving that independence was because I tried to go to college out of state when I wasn't ready and pretty much threw away two years by not being able to function in a different state, and I was pretty much a few months away from graduating when she died -- and now I'm still fixing shit, but it's slowed down to a crawl. I don't feel I have the physical or mental energy to make it go any faster, and it's frustrating, because with each passing moment that I'm not finished improving my life, I can't throw off the false illusion that I haven't made any progress at all, and if I could just permanently stop thinking things like that, that would probably be enough to speed things up a little.
I think that's fair. In certain instances, particularly whenever the system won't defend victims, crime can only be fought with crime.
The introspective power of the brain is surprising. There are a lot of things about human beings that you can intuit with shocking accuracy if you just close your eyes and think for a very long time. I suspect such studies as biology are mainly necessary A) to cement such inferences as fact, phrased in more certain, absolute, and technically useful terms than our instincts can provide, and B) because society is a busy place, and people don't often take the time to just listen to the bio-noise of their own brain anymore.
Are you sure? We only remember a minority of our dreams, you know. Maybe you just aren't remembering any at all.
Disagreed because the question ended with "To all those who want to take it to that level.. Come get my hat ****! :)" If your point had been "To all those who want to take it to that level.. [something along the lines of 'violence is wrong']," then I would have agreed. But I can't agree with "Come get my hat." You're explicitly asking for violent acts to be committed against you. I do not want violent acts to be committed against you. If you want something to happen, and I don't want it to happen, that's basically the definition of a disagreement.
I'd imagine they would, if the left complained about their freedom of speech being violated by private institutions. But that's generally not the kind of irrational complaints the left makes. Not saying they don't make irrational complaints, just that this in particular is not the nature of them.
You're saying the right could justifiably complain about the left complaining about their freedom of speech being supposedly violated by private institutions. I'm saying the left don't complain about their freedom of speech being supposedly violated by private institutions. How could the right justifiably complain about something being the case when that thing is not the case? Do we have the same definition of "justifiably"?
Thanks, that makes sense.
No, not just "minorities." Representational minorities. I was careful to phrase it that way, and I don't see why more people don't use that phrasing, seeing as there are many populational minorities who are not representational minorities and vice versa. I would say "hunkies" were also representational minorities. I don't see what them being white has to do with that.
Also, you may not want reparations for how your ancestors were treated, but if you haven't already gotten them, I think you deserve them. In fact, a great many representational minorities of different sorts need reparations. I'd go so far as to say the only people who don't need reparations for something, are the ten-or-so families who've carefully sidestepped the law, over the centuries, and thereby inflicted or overseen the harm in the first place for which so many reparations are rightfully owed, for the vast personal gain they now enjoy.
That no-longer-so-secret society now encourages us to take back the reparations from one another, each on the basis of the quality opposite that for which they were oppressed -- encouraging women to take reparations from men, encouraging blacks to take reparations from whites, and, I'm sure, if complaining about being descended from Central European immigrants who were forced to work in coal mines became popular enough, they'd encourage such people to seek reparations against people born in Pennsylvania and West Virginia or something. Anything to keep the blame off their own backs. "Shoot the messengers," they say -- "get back at the descendants of the hapless lackeys who carried out the job, they're the real oppressors" -- "pay no attention to the gents behind the curtain."
It's "OK in society" because THEY (you know who I mean) are, for whatever reason, not interested in exploiting you to control public opinion. What they did to your ancestors was a hit and run. They didn't return to the scene of the crime to piss on the grave while pretending to cry on it. Which is exactly what they do to more commonly known representational minorities. They piss on the graves, point a finger to the nearest complementary representational majority, and cry fake tears while declaring "HE did it." In your case, they just quietly collected the spoils and left.
I'd imagine it's because what happened to your ancestors hits a little too close to home for "them." You were exploited not by any demographic, but directly by corporations. AKA "their" own arms and legs. To call out that exploitation, in an attempt to further exploit the resulting sentimentalism, would be to dig their own grave.
Don't you see what I'm driving at? The enemy is not ANY representational minority, nor ANY single complement thereof. The enemy is the small group of people making truckloads of cash by cajoling everyone on a daily basis into behaving like this.
To be honest I think I like "Pink Mouse's Image Organiser" better. :)
For others' hindsight: PMIO = port-mapped input & output, MMIO = memory-mapped input & output. To understand the difference between PMIO and MMIO, it's crucial to understand the difference between memory and RAM. Many people think, as I once did, that memory and RAM are the same thing. However, in actuality, RAM only occupies a part of a computer's full memory space. The rest of the computer's devices -- often including the processor itself, and almost always including at least one I/O bus, which is what you plug things like USB devices into -- are also parts of memory. They're connected to the computer in such a way that memory addresses can point into the devices' internal storage. For a device's internal storage to be hotwired into the computer's memory address range in this way is referred to as the device being "mapped." A "mapped" device is considered to be "memory-mapped" if it's wired in such a way that the complete internal storage of the device can be indexed directly by memory addresses. On the other hand, it's considered to be "port-mapped" if there are only a small handful of memory addresses that correspond to the device's internal storage, and there's some kind of mechanism wired up to those addresses that pushes data into the real internal storage in order as it's fed to the mapped addresses, like an orderly queue dispersing into a large room through a narrow doorway.
So for example, while RAM is almost always memory-mapped / MMIO, removable media, like CD ROMs and USB sticks, is usually port-mapped / PMIO. Because removable media is port-mapped, let's say it's mapped into the system at address 0, and the removable media is 5 megabytes, then every time you write data to address 0, it gets stored into the next unused byte out of those 5 megabytes. And there's probably some other nearby address you can write to in order to seek within those 5 megabytes and change which byte is indexed next time a read or write occurs. But because RAM is memory-mapped, let's say it's mapped into the system at address 0 and you have 5 megabytes of RAM, then any address between 0 and 5 megabytes will just point directly to the corresponding byte of RAM. And then if you go beyond 5 megabytes, you'll just be pointing into either some other MMIO device or some other port.
Let P be your statement. Then P = I can't prove P.
For the purpose of argument, let's make the bold assumption that I can prove any statement that can be proven under a given consistent system. (By the way, we shall assume the system we're using is consistent.)
Then P = ~provable(P). So ~P = provable(P).
Which indicates, if provable(P), then ~P. But if ~P, then obviously ~provable(P). Therefore, by transitivity of implication, if provable(P), then ~provable(P).
Any statement that implies its own inverse is merely a special case of proof by contradiction, whereby premises leading to a contradictory conclusion must be rejected. Therefore, if (if provable(P) then ~provable(P)) then ~provable(P). But we've already proved that if provable(P), then ~provable(P).
But we've already established P = ~provable(P). Thus, from the premise P = ~provable(P), I have proven P to be true.
HOWEVER: if I have proven P to be true, under no premises but its own definition, then provable(P). But we have already established ~provable(P).
Again we have reached a contradiction, and are forced to conclude one of our premises is false. But my only formal premise in this logical argument was that P = ~provable(P).
Therefore, P does not equal ~provable(P). In other words, the statement you've submitted is logically invalid in form.
I've heard a pretty interesting explanation. Supposedly, dreams are the result of random cerebral misfirings during sleep. People are often tempted to reject this explanation because it seems to dismiss the deep meanings that dreams hold for many people. However, I don't think it does so at all.
The cerebral cortex stores information in neurons, and stores meaningful connections between information in the synapses that connect those neurons. When neurons are activated, the associated synapses are activated as well, and the neurons associated to those synapses are activated in turn; one's "train of thought" proceeds in this manner until the signal has forked off enough that every child signal has died out. It's entirely possible for meaning to be gleaned from random neural signals, because the meaning already exists in our brains, encoded in the structure of the breadth-first subgraph starting from the initially misfiring neuron. The deeper meaning is already there, it's just waiting to be randomly activated. That is, dreams aren't just made from any ordinary random noise; they're made from random noise among bio-structures capable of forming and retrieving connections in an experience-trained predictive Markov graph.
Speaking of that graph being predictive, that's a popular hypothesis as to why dreams evolved. It may be that dreams help us make the most survival-effective use of our time, by using the existing connections in our brains to make trained predictions about future events so that we can be prepared when they occur.
Additionally, in animals capable of dreaming, dreams are believed to play a crucial role in their mental health, and eventually in their physical health. It may be that nightly random neural activations are needed to reinforce our most valued synapses and protect them from being mistakenly pruned during the eight or so hours we spend sleeping at night. It would be a huge problem for a baby animal to go to sleep one night and wake up the next morning with no idea who its mother is.
Mental hospital for people who need it. Prison for lost causes or people who are too dangerous to try to help them. If a mental hospital is such an awful place, I'd rather see it reformed than supplanted by prison.
I'm going to try to translate so I can understand well enough to answer.
"this is so hilarious...when you celebrate your21st burthday, you have finished 21 years on this planet and start your 22nd year."
It seems your point in mentioning this is that when you celebrate a birthday, it's for the cardinal number of years that have passed for you, not the ordinal number of the year beginning for you. (1)
"So if this is year one of the century of 'me', in ten years it will be year ten."
Actually it will be year eleven.
Think about it, if this is year one of anything, then in one year it will be year two of that same thing. One year later it will be year three. How many years in total have passed since year one at that point? Two: the "one year" I mentioned earlier, and the "one year" I mentioned immediately after that.
Anyway, it seems to me your point in mentioning this is that time passes. I can't glean any other meaning from it. (2)
"that year will end and year 11 will begin and so will the next decade: year 11 to year 20."
Again, I'm forced to conclude your point in mentioning this is that time passes. (2)
"Can you people count and conceptualise a tranche of ten??? Analogy...a cup of 100 mililitres is a century ( 100 ml ok?) you can't stop at 99 ml and call it a century past"
From what I understand, you're saying a century is strictly 100 years, and that 99 years does not qualify. (3)
"We are within the year whatever, just like you are within your own socks... amirite?"
In context with what you've said previously, I think what you're saying here is that even though you celebrate your Nth birthday when you've passed N years on this earth, you've actually entered into your N+1th year, not your Nth year. (4)
So, to summarize your argument as I understand it:
1. When you celebrate your Nth birthday, you've finished N years on this planet and start your N+1th year.
2. The passage of time is inevitable.
3. A century is strictly 100 years. 99 years does not qualify.
4. When you celebrate your Nth birthday, you've finished N years on this planet and start your N+1th year.
Or, to simplify:
1. When you celebrate your Nth birthday, you've finished N years on this planet and start your N+1th year.
2. A century is strictly 100 years. 99 years does not qualify.
Anyway, I don't see the point you're making. I agree with both of the statements I was able to glean that you may have been trying to make, but I don't understand how you're proposing they relate to one another or what conclusion we're supposed to draw from them.
I think you MIGHT be trying to say the following:
When you celebrate your Nth birthday, you're entering your N+1th year. HOWEVER, a century is strictly 100 years, and 99 years does not qualify. THEREFORE, when you enter your 100th year of life, you have NOT yet passed a century, because you are only 99 years old.
But... again, what's the point of saying as much?
It FEELS like you might be trying to make the argument that the practice of numbering our birthdays by how many years have passed instead of which year we're entering is a bad practice. But that doesn't hold up under the reasoning you've submitted. If you were trying to argue we should number our birthdays by which year we're entering, then by mentioning the 100 vs. 99 thing, you've proven the opposite of what you must have wanted to prove. After all, if we numbered our birthdays by which year we're entering, then someone who's 99 years old, and thus has not lived for a full century, would be considered age 100 instead of age 99. (Not age 100 as in 100 years old, but age 100 as in 100th year.)