Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Simple (Score 1) 509

by SillyHamster (#47510379) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Future-Proof Jobs?

Okay, so you are just using sexual stereotypes? The women I know often do get into marriage and motherhood, and also have job skills. The former is important, and the latter can be absolutely vital, particularly when a woman has children and no husband.

Please read what I'm saying more carefully.

At no point have I said women should not get job skills. My every response has been to point out that it is worthwhile and reasonable to suggest she pick up home-making skills (ex: home econ).

That is not equivalent of "don't learn any job skills" in any shape or form. Homemaking IS a job skill; it can be used in a paying job, as well as to support a family. This interpretation of "learn home econ/homemaking" as "be useless" is utterly illogical.

Comment: Re:Simple (Score 1) 509

by SillyHamster (#47503535) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Future-Proof Jobs?

Thing is, if I lose my job, there's plenty of other jobs out there that I can get, and I can work there without being intimately and sexually involved with the companies. Finding a husband to support one is a lot dicier, and I know one woman who wound up with a really bad choice.

Thing is, how many women want to die alone and barren, but with a well-paid career?

Obviously it'd be great to have a husband and kids and the well-paid career - but given a choice between one or the other, I think most women would pick the former.

Telling girls that they should pick up those skills is on average going to be a net gain. The few who 100% want nothing to do with men and do so for their entire life are the only ones who would "lose out" by picking up these skills. (As if they don't need home-making if single)

Having some home-making skills does not exclude one from picking up job skills.

Comment: Re:Simple (Score 1) 509

by SillyHamster (#47477613) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Future-Proof Jobs?

Staying married isn't necessarily a skill. It can be a test of endurance, given an abusive husband. A woman should at least have a viable plan B should her husband become an alcoholic, or die, or become incapacitated, or find somebody younger and prettier, or anything like that.

Staying married is a state.

Picking a husband worth keeping is a skill. Developing habits and capabilities that make one desirable to such a husband is a skill.

Homemaking as a career is very risky.

All careers are risky - and I'll note that most divorces are initiated by women, the "hotter replacement" risk is lower than it seems.

The question is if the risks and rewards are in line with one's values and desires.

Comment: Re:Simple (Score 1) 509

by SillyHamster (#47472069) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Future-Proof Jobs?

Women have no significant inherent advantage over men as homemakers. They can give birth, but that is basically irrelevant. They can breast-feed babies, but a man can feed the kid with a bottle containing formula (personal experience here). Everything else can be done equally by men and women.

They have a psychological advantage raising kids in the early years. Giving birth is not irrelevant, especially given the current legal system.

Moreover, "homemaker" isn't a particularly good career option if she's looking for steady employment. If I lose my job as a software developer, I can get another such job. If a woman loses her homemaker job, she may well not be able to get another one.

Being desirable for marriage and staying married are both skills. A poor homemaker may end up getting "fired" (which is not that frequent) - but so can a poor software developer.

Comment: Re:Simple (Score 1) 509

by SillyHamster (#47472027) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Future-Proof Jobs?

can't outsource child making and rearing

*cough* public school system *cough*

How exactly do you plan to outsource child making to the public school system?

How effective do you think the public school system is at replacing parents?

has capabilities unique to her sex.

What kind of sexist bullshit is this? What? Men can't raise children?

Last I checked, men don't have wombs. Or breasts.

I guess at some point there'll be artificial wombs ... but still, men who want children need a woman. And if they're halfway competent, they'll want her to keep mothering them.

Comment: Re:Simple (Score 1) 509

by SillyHamster (#47472005) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Future-Proof Jobs?

Homemaking is hardly limited to women. But really the only future-proof jobs are: 1) Prostitution 2) Drugs, including legalized MJ Neither is limited to XX or XY chromos.

You're using a different definition of "future-proof" there.

Think about the level of demand for a 60 year old prostitute, versus a 30 year old one.

Comment: Re:Simple (Score 4, Insightful) 509

by SillyHamster (#47461471) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Future-Proof Jobs?

Suggesting she become a homemaker despite her explicit request for career information and knowing nothing about her other than her gender -- yes, almost certainly misogyny.

Homemaker is a career, and it does take certain skillsets that are developed over a lifetime. It's an important career chosen by many women throughout history. Consider what happens if the next generation is not nurtured and educated.

And it is a future proof job - can't outsource child making and rearing, and she has capabilities unique to her sex. (eg: half the potential competition of other career paths) Kids are also an effective retirement plan when raised well.

Even if you don't think it's the best option, it's a valid option, and a noble one.

Comment: Re:Misused? Murder is intrinsic in communism. (Score 1) 530

by SillyHamster (#47410577) Attached to: Foxconn Replacing Workers With Robots

Gandhi, Lincoln, Henry Ford, Churchill ...

Those are the "worst of people"? Flawed is not the same as "worst".

Stalin and Hitler are much better candidates for being "worst of people". Does that make them any more likely to have good ideas?

And does that definition of a "good idea" involve murdering massive amounts of people?

Comment: Re:more leisure time for humans! (Score 1) 530

by SillyHamster (#47408887) Attached to: Foxconn Replacing Workers With Robots

Karl Marx saw this coming over 150 years ago

That economic illiterate thought value was measured by labor-hours. Anything he "saw coming" is by chance.

The final end result of mass mechanized production is that the available workers will far outnumber the available jobs, and this is the problem that communism was intended to solve.

Jobs aren't zero-sum. Cable guy didn't exist as a job 200 years ago. Modern plumbing and all the jobs needed to support the infrastructure didn't exist until recently.

The idea that there's a fixed number of jobs out there is stupid. It scales with the level of technology used and the number of people consuming goods.

Comment: Re: If everyone loses their jobs... (Score 1) 530

by SillyHamster (#47408819) Attached to: Foxconn Replacing Workers With Robots

United States is starving []. Europe makes do with filthy socialism and Japan with the remnants of feudalism. But don't worry, you've succesfully propagandized about the wonders of austerity, so it's unlikely that Europe will rise from depression any time soon.

Show me the pictures of a US child who has whittled down to skin and bones. This is the land of the obese, not the skinny.

Food "insecurity" (as opposed to starvation) can be better traced to dysfunctional culture (single-mother households with many children by different fathers) than to automation.

Comment: Re:Myths are socially hilarious (Score 1) 198

As for your point of a narrow claim, well, congratulations. So the rest of the Bible supports the sort of genocide, but it's not specifically in 2 Chronicles 15? Yea, I'm putting words in your mouth, but the very notion that you want to make a "narrow claim" highlights the point that you clearly don't feel comfortable in making a broader claim about the Bible's support of genocide.

You are too short for this ride. The narrow claim is not mine, but what I responded to.

The claim is that Christians are eagerly looking to kill unbelievers according to 2 Chronicles 15, such that an unbeliever needs to be cautious and fearful of them.

This is wrong on so many different levels, it can only be made in irrational ignorance.

2 Chronicles 15 is a relatively obscure chapter. The majority of Christians will not have studied that verse in the past year, so pointing to it as a motivation to plan death for others is silly. If they're not even paying attention to it, how do you think it's going to motivate them to kill?

Then it's in the Old Testament, and was a record of what a historical Jewish community decided to do to follow God. This has less weight to a Christian than an Old Testament command (see the 10 commandments and various ceremonial laws) or the New Testament (NT) commands.

I can tell you right now that the NT has absolutely no commands regarding the killing of unbelievers. Instead, it has verses such as Rom 12:18: "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone." To look to the OT as if it were the standard of true Christian belief is ignorance of *ALL* Christian theology. Arguments made in complete ignorance are not likely to be true.

That is why it's pathetic to believe Christians are bloodthirsty killers looking to implement 2 Chronicles 15. It's simply not true, in a way that betrays a severly broken thought process.

Your entire response can be summed up as, "but Christians are still evil". That's an emotional argument that logically surrenders the point, but without the integrity to acknowledge the original accusation was wrong and should be retracted.

That may make you feel better than those evil Christians, but it's not going to yield truth or understanding. Abandon those at your own risk.

Comment: Re:Myths are socially hilarious (Score 1) 198

The 25 most shocking anti-gay stories from Russia so far []. Anti-gay Ethiopia eases away from new crackdown []. So, not a high body count because it's almost entirely persecution. But, then, the body count for apostasy itself is incredibly low around the globe, officially. Why? Because most people are persecuted and officially renounce whatever beliefs they have to avoid death. The same for people who are persecuted for being homosexual and being "in the closet".

Homosexuality isn't a belief system. What does non-lethal persecution of a set of behaviors have to do with killing unbelievers?

Furthermore, how are the Ethiopia/Russian governments representative of Christians, and how are their actions rooted in 2 Chronicles 15? I was responding to a narrow claim, and you're replacing it with a very different one in order to say that I'm wrong.

Concede the point before expecting me to change topics, if you're actually interested in discussing that.

That seems a pretty clear us vs them oath. Granted, it doesn't specifically mention conversion, but the "all who would not" sort of implies that you at least try to talk and ask people to convert before you go about slaying them, as they may well be willing converts.

Read my argument carefully, please. Did God command them to take such an oath? No. Is there any killing commanded by God? No. That's what the text plainly says. Thus, God did not command to kill/convert.

If your complaint was that the people killed each other in the name of following God, it'd be a more valid criticism. But I can only answer the argument as was presented.

It's all "meaningless emotional babble" when you dare speak in terms of "body count" as if it takes more than a single human life to matter.

You claimed Christians kill and imprison using a "millennial old text as justification" - you have a responsibility to substantiate the accusation. For the claim to be true, all of its parts that need to be true simultaneously.

You need 1.) Christian actors. 2.) someone killed or imprisoned. 3.) Justification of the activity using the Bible.

Your list of Ethiopia and Russia is insufficient without demonstrating that they are (1) Christian and (3) acting based on the Bible. Your hostile inability to provide examples of killing also indicates that you threw "kill" in there for emotional effect. Logical fallacies are fallacious.

But, whatever. Explain to me again why Christians shouldn't follow the oath to "All who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman" as offered by God?

1.) God does not offer such an oath. (Christians generally take time to comprehend the Bible they claim to follow, at least relative to non-Christians who criticize said Bible)

2.) Christians aren't living in a Jewish theocratic kingdom. If you live in the US or other Western countries, you're living with a government that has religious tolerance protected by law, put there by Christians.

3.) Agreements are binding on the parties that agreed to it, and are not binding on the parties that did not agree to it. That oath was made by a specific Jewish community several thousand years ago, and is not binding on Christians in different cultures and locations and times. An understanding of Christian theology will also discover why Christians have no need to imitate such an oath. They may learn from the history, but they do not need to repeat it.

Comment: Re:Myths are socially hilarious (Score 1) 198

What? Seriously What?

Do I seriously need to explain that in the Bible, God's commands are relayed by prophets?

If you read the entire chapter, which parts are "God's commands", and which parts are historical documentation of what the people did in response? (Hint: I quoted the prophet's words for a reason)

In case you don't feel like reading that whole thing, as you seem to be partial to simply quoting parts that agree with you

Reading sentences that are meant to be taken together is hard. Adding the previous sentence:

"They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their ancestors, with all their heart and soul. All who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, were to be put to death, whether small or great, man or woman. "

Understand? This is not a record of them killing "unbelievers", this is a record of them making a covenant (agreement) to do so, after God had commanded them to follow Him. (but there was no command to go on killing/conversion spree)

You'll also note that this promise is followed by peace. ("So the Lord gave them rest on every side. ") This indicates that this was a domestic policy, not a foreign one, seeing as there are plenty of unbelieving countries that the Jews did not attack. Those who lived in the nation of Israel were to follow the God of Israel; but other nations that followed other gods were left alone.

Now, did the Israelites go on a killing spree? It's possible - but it's not necessary, since being put to death is meant as a deterrent. (note the future tense of the covenant)

If I was there, I would be put to death. Non believers, killed right there, just like it says Are you going to challenge what is right there in the bible? Huh, go figure.

If you were a Jew who "would not seek the Lord" living in Judah several thousand years ago, sure. But you'd have fair warning to change your beliefs, as well as strong evidence that it was a good idea.

Consider that the nation had just won a miraculous military victory, and its history was filled with miraculous interventions credited to God. Someone denying the source of those miracles, advocating forsaking God, would be viewed as a threat to the community, seeing as there was also a history of the negative results of that. (invaded by other countries, etc)

This does not, however, remotely translate into Christians being commanded to purge un-believers, or that they're just biding their time. Take the USA - a rather Christian country in its culture: The 1st Amendment clearly protects religious beliefs - and that was codified and approved by Christians!

That you think the Christians are out to get you is along the lines of Blood Libel. Ironic.

PS: I suggest you read about this Jewish guy known as Jesus the Christ if you want to know why Christians have no need/desire to imitate 2 Chronicles 15.

If you want to attack a religion for conversion by the sword, I'd suggest focusing your criticism on the one that is actively killing people every day in this modern era. You do know the one I'm talking about, right?

"You know, we've won awards for this crap." -- David Letterman