Go sealion somewhere else.
I don’t believe that you are this obtuse. Someone shouldn’t have to explain the entirety of multiple subjects just to appease a bad faith argumenter.
I tried giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you obviously don’t want to engage in good faith, you’ve made this abundantly clear.
I’m out, cheers troll.
Yes, you never discussed basic human nature and how we’ve evolved over time? I figured you had some knowledge on the subject since you were talking like you know something.
You’re just a troll then? Has anything I said even gotten through that thick skull of yours?
It’s funny, you are the one with the indefensible position, all I’ve done is explain past history to you lmfao. And your answer was, where do the hate start. That’s well documented throughout history, no one has the time to explain it to you. That’s on you.
If hate is inherent, why don’t everyone hate? Why is it only a small portion of people can’t handle that emotion properly? Maybe because it was taught and they are using it wrong…? If we had to teach love, we would have been dead a species long before this topic would be possible.
Maybe think about your point before bloviating about it? It doesn’t even hold up to a little thought.
No I haven’t at all, all you’re doing is defending racism and other hate.
Where hate comes from? From thinking we are superior to OTHER beings, like say apes. Now when you think black people are apes… you can see where the hate starts. From OTHER EXAMPLES. It’s not originally from hate towards another humans.
The issues is, to them they aren’t human. I think I’ve already addressed this….
Of course people don’t like it when it’s pointed out that they were actually taught to be racist.
You made a wildly racist remark in response to someone saying that everyone should be treated how they treat themselves.
Of course you’re gonna get called out.
And the human teaching the baby can CHOOSE what to teach the baby. If you’re teaching it to respect XYZ during ABC, you’re teaching it hate.
Babies and kids share, yes there will be fights, that’s also human nature, but look at those reasons. To provide shelter for those close. They aren’t doing it out of hate, it’s for protection or other issues.
Just because someone takes your food doesn’t mean you go to war, invite them, share with them. Yes it can go south, but that’s also taught behavior. The chain has to be broken somewhere, and if you need it to be pointed out that you’re one of the issues… well the cutters are there. Just because the past has hate, doesn’t mean you need to perpetuate it forward.
where does hate come from?
From being taught that someone is different from you in some way.
Does this seriously need to be explained? And do you think babies naturally hate? That they are capable of it without being taught? They know to love and snuggle with humans, any. They’ll even snuggle with a deadly lion. They need to be TAUGHT otherwise.
Babies don’t care about colour, or religions, they don’t even know what the fuck that stuff is dude. Until they are taught.
social conformance among healthy well-adjusted humans
By racism you mean? Those are leaned behaviors that take over from being taught that others are different from you.
Humans inherently care, and love each other. Anything else is taught by someone else who thinks they know what’s okay.
The only objectively correct way to treat anyone else is how you treat yourself. Anything else is just learned hate.
what ever respectful means is a defined by your culture. What is considered respectful is different in the uk versus the us, at least that’s what thought this post was about.
Umm that’s racism…. You’re describing what it means to be racist. If you need to be taught that only certain things/people/races/religion/colour are to be respected… that’s why people think black people don’t have livers.
You are the issue mate, full disrespect. You are racist. If you choose be respectful to someone only to blend into those around you… you don’t deserve any respect.
Makes sense, and yes It’s not copyright on the bottoms my bad.
I guess the confusing thing is, I always assumed the spine was the current publisher, so why Fawcett, instead of Ballentine.
And in the end it’s saying this is based on the first edition of Fawcetts? Would there be any printings from their later editions? Not asking about in general as I assume it’s per book, but for this one specifically do you know?
The edition printing is hard enough to figure out sometimes -.- no standard system and sometimes they just randomize the numbers for fun!
Ah! I was telling my brother how Heinlein couldn’t seem to complete a thought without going on a tangent. But for CHAPTERS! Hah I love it.
I’ve noticed this is kinda common in scifi, it’s a chance for people to bloviate about their profession or hobby. So yeah there’s a lot of side quests.
I need this joke explained. If I read that book in school, I don’t recall anything about it sorry,
Wasn’t a “prank” or a maybe returned book to get money back but kept the material?
Oh jeez, makes you curious how something like that is able to happen.
I don’t know when computers took over typewriting for manuscripts and typesetting, but at some point some stuff just shouldn’t happen.
I honestly don’t know the printing, it’s confusing me. It says both Fawcett and Ballentine, first edition, with a copyright of both 80 and 82, but the spine says fawcett, which is the earlier printing.
But to answer the question, chapter 22 pages 194-195.
Oh, well if you meant ENCLOSED, you maybe should have said that originally.
Uhh… the original conversation topic was about that… I shouldn’t have to specify… if it needs to be specified, that means you missed the topic originally, so your aren’t being pedantic… you’re just a moron or you thought you could be smart by being pedantic, while Ignoring the entire topic title….
Being pedantic only works if you are A correct, and B don’t miss the obvious.
You did neither.
Just because you assume something can close without a door doesn’t make it inside. Using your example, parking a trailer with it sticking out, would make it not inside the garage anymore, because inside implies COMPLETELY. So without lips, it’s not a mouth, and can’t be inside. If you understood this, my comment wouldn’t need to specify this… since this is obvious once you understand the nuance of something being actually inside. Like the CD and VHS’ from the topic……………… and I added floppies because they’re identical, I called out SDs…. Since they are different from those 3…… why? The door making them actually inside! Do you need this explained still……?
You can’t be a pedant of you don’t actually understand the topic, you’re attempting to be smart, while being an idiot. The picture even specifies eating like a mouth! Does that not include enclosing inside with a door (lips).
Right, but they still aren’t ENCLOSED like the other ones.
When a floppy goes in, you can’t touch it, and a dust cover comes down to… well prevent dust from coming in. You couldn’t see it, or touch it until you ejected it.
They are wholefully different situations, unless you’re a pedant who can’t quite understand nuance can make a massive difference. Especially when debating something as INSIDE, like a mouth.
They do not. They stick out so you can pull them or push them out.
Point to the horses or pumpkins analogs instead?