Credo
Spirit
Sense
of
Life
Objectivists Headquarters
War
People
Store
Forum



Forum
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Saturday, September 24 - 3:51amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

Katherine,

   

         You said you are an evolutionary biologist in the "description". I heard someone (more than one person) said that many evolutionary biologists (especially social biologists) always (unconsciously) take some biological f-acts as ethic codes. For example, the difference between human males and females has biological bases and it is maybe the products of evolutionary mechanism, so this difference should be retained and the boundary between men and women should never be obscured. I think this claim is an uncertain one, but it sometimes fits people's common senses. Because quite a few people always interpret "be" as "ought to be". (Such as, "we should live this way because we have been doing so hitherto.") So, could you tell me what the f-act is in biologists community?

 

 

Regards




Post 1

Saturday, September 24 - 6:14amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Katherine,

Where's the hypocrisy?  The allegation that Benedict is a conspirator is predicated upon a letter in which he claimed the Vatican's jurisdiction over the case.  Shall we have the President of the United States named a conspirator in a foreign trial because he opines that a dispute belongs in a U.S. court?  Besides, it is obvious that Benedict was named in the suit only for the sake of publicity.  It was a waste of time consuming the resources of the court.  Stunts like this should be subject to sanctions.

Andy




Post 2

Saturday, September 24 - 8:17amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Femino the first time I read your post I kept seeing f-act and thinking you were making a strange reference to "the act" of f-ing. But now I think it is your super-secret censor-avoiding way of writing "fact."

But more importantly: Katie, do you like girls?



Post 3

Monday, September 26 - 3:15amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

Ashley,

 
   "F-act" is absolutely not the roundabout way of writing "f..u..c..k   act" or some other bad words. The syllable "f____a" is the part of  "f()a       l__u__n          d+=a()f__a"    or     "f**a    ()    l¡ªu¡ªn  ()     g/o(n)g" in Han-yu pin-yin. This is the top sensitive syllable in C++h==i-n{e}se. So whenever I meet the syllable "f---a" , (such as f-all, f-act, f-aint, f-an, f-ace, f-abulous), I have to separate "F" from "A".



Post 4

Monday, September 26 - 7:39amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Femino:

It appears that this is all far more complicated that I had even imagined. But now I know how to read your f-a__ words now. As far as the rest of them, I might have to practice a bit.

If all your internet posting requires so much effort, though, I commend you for sticking with it.

Ash



Post 5

Tuesday, September 27 - 3:22amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit

Ashley,

 

Living in a country under d{ic}t{at}or{sh}ip, people are forced to develop some special skills to deal with the d-ic=ta+to*rs. Overcautiousness and hypersensitivity is the most important skills of communication between civil=ians in inter-net. C~~h<>i<>c+o*m's firewall will b=lo=ck any "k-e-y  word" no matter what context it is in; you should carefully pick them out. For example, the word "methodology" itself is not a sensitive w-o¡ªr-d anyway from a human perspective. In c=h=i_n_e_s_e this word contain three syllables "f_ang   f()()a     l()()u{}{}n". As you have seen, the word contains the most sensitive syllables  "f{}[]a    l()u{}{}n" which is exactly a part of "f{}{}{}a l{}{}u{}{}{}n  d___a    f{}{}{}{}a". Although the c+h=i*n-e-s-e characters the two "f_++-a   l+u+++n"s have are different. But as long as they share the same sound, they will be blocked as well.   Their   f-i-r-e-w-all    "evolves" as well.  Another example is the phrase "Canadian   Judge". In c=h=i_n_e_s_e it is pronounced as "jia    na d()()a   ||     f()()a guan". As you have seen, there is a "d()()()()a      []         f{}[]a". Although "d__a" belongs to "Canadian" and "f------a" belongs to "judge", the fi-re-wa-ll takes the two syllables as one intact word. The most ridiculous one is that the character "j_i_a_-n{}g" was once b-loc-ke--=d. You may know this is the name of some "great man". This made people cannot even write any article (this character means "river"). So people have to take apart that character which theoretically cannot be detached.

 

If we review articles as a machine does it (that means to disregard the context), we will discover tremendous "k-e-y words" therein. I know many of you don't get accustomed to texts with so many s.e.c.r.e.t    s.p.e.l.l.i.n.g.s.(How do you think about this?)  But my problem is that I have become not accustomed to a text without any "technical proc_essing". This has become my "occupational disease". Even my homework occasionally contains "proce+ss+ing" punctuations. I hope this would not reveal my true thought. Because I have to pretend to be a docile person in front of my teachers.  




Post to this thread
User ID Password or create a free account.