You are making my point. Real science is possibility:D, not the inability to see possibility:p. Sorry to break it to you…but you’re… normal. Thinking…normal, Creativity…normal…
Keep that in its proper perspective, ecco477: It is also true that quacks are real, and that quackery is a whole lot easier than science and often pays better, and that for every Galileo there are at least a thousand TimeCube Guys.
If you mean a technology that governs human emotional states . . . Well, many would object based on “liberty,” just as they would object to a government scheme to dose all our food and water with mellowing-out drugs, even if it would demonstrably reduce the crime rate to zero. Remember that Brave New World was written as a dystopia and practically everybody reads it as one.
And if the technology were simply marketed and its use left to the individual, not all would use it to keep themselves from being violent/angry/obsessive/etc. Some, far more than you might expect, would far rather use it like the berserkergang-inducing drug in Jacob’s Ladder.
Its about as silly as the position some people have about religion’s role in human suffering.
PROFESSOR FARNSWORTH: Nothing is impossible if you can imagine it! That’s what being a scientist is all about!
CUBERT: No, that’s what being a magic elf is all about!
From now on to hold a position of power, corporate or government, you must have ovaries, not balls!
Yeah, I know, women can be corrupt too. But I say, roll the dice, they could hardly botch it up worse than the men have.
Especially at peace talks - no men allowed! You want peace to prevail, put a mother to the task!
You want education, healthcare for all, again, put a mother in charge.
You know what else I think would improve the world? You know how you always see politicians being sworn into office? Hand on bible, very ceremonial, etc. I want some bite in that oath. I want consequences, clearly delineated for failure to deliver, for corruption etc. Harsh, swift consequences. I want the bastards to tremble when they take that oath, damnit!
From The Next American Nation, by Michael Lind:
And that’s America. Europe is far, far more “post-Christian.” Don’t really know as to Latin America, but I’ve never heard of any zealous missionary movements coming out of there. And the Catholic doctrine of Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus, as officially interpreted, now includes loopholes for pagans.
Paging Margaret Thatcher . . .
“Come back with your shield or on it.” - Spartan mother to her son. Women have historically been as fond or more so than men of warfare. The idea that women are more peace loving than men is nonsense; they are only less willing to risk themselves personally. Which IMHO is why women suddenly collectively decided they were pro-peace as soon as aerial bombing and long distance artillery was invented; suddenly they were at risk of harm even if their side was winning, it wasn’t a matter of just sending men out to die for them anymore. That doesn’t apply to some female leader sitting in a bunker or thousands of miles away though. As said, look at Margaret Thatcher.
You could make a case that this is perfectly in accord with biological imperatives: A man’s duty to the community is to fight, a woman’s is to breed, and of the two the woman is less expendable.
Certainly. And the irrational behavior here is men throwing their lives away, not women declining to do so. I was just objecting to the attempt to portray women as morally superior.
Perhaps it shows that more high school students are ignorant of what various religions actually believe since Buddhists do not have an official deity and even bodsitavvas (yeah I spelled it wrong) are more accurately saints rather than gods.
Not morally superior, just more trustworthy and less inclined to violence.
That is portraying them as morally superior. I see no evidence that women are less warlike than men, and I have no idea where you got the impression they are more trustworthy. Women lie and betray as enthusiastically as any man.