I find it amazing how men are still blamed for this. Check out porn stars. That's what men want. They aren't boney little skin bags. This is a problem created by women for women.
This is what I say whenever women blame men for this problem.
I'm not saying the stereotype is a fact, I'm saying that by definition denialists don't have well-reasoned differences of opinion because they aren't using facts, same as moon landing deniers or flat earthers. If they had well-reasoned arguments based on fact they'd be called skeptics and would not flat-out deny well-established science. They'd try to answer their own questions instead of bringing up dead old arguments that anyone could easily find an answer to.
The X-ray type is ionizing, and although the dose is tiny it is enough to kill a few people with cancer...more than terrorism will, to project current numbers.
Verily, it is of the utmost importance that we parlay in only the most proper English on this esteemed forum. The business conducted here is of the most serious variety.
The middle eastern hellholes that contain uneducated, backwards people happen to have Islam as the dominant religion. Therefore, Islam must be a religion of war. Congrats, you win.
Islam is a religion of peace in the same sense that Christianity is. Do Timothy McVeigh or Anders Behring Breivik make Christianity a religion of war? Would it be a religion of war if there was some middle-eastern country full of Christian fundamentalists?
Too bad about those people who had to die (including Americans) as part of his little demonstration, right? Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs I guess. I'm sure it was worth it.
Another completely messed up analogy. It's more like saying "that bridge will collapse if you drive a truck over it. I'm going to drive a truck over it, watch what happens." Then an engineer says "we know, we're working on it, we have signs up to not drive trucks over it, so please don't do it OK?" and then you drive a truck over it and lots of people die.
He didn't just say "Afghanis will riot and kill if I publicly burn a Koran." He then proceeded to do it, even after the consequences were spelled out, and surprise surprise, people died.
Well using science, the best we know so far, mainstream global warming theories are supported and the theory that the sun's role is underestimated appears to be wrong. So what magical data do you have that's better?
From what I understand from the story the warming was caused by the blades mixing air at different altitudes rather than any slowing of wind (which should be immeasurably small):
But on huge wind farms the motion of the turbines mixes the air higher in the atmosphere that is warmer, pushing up the overall temperature.
I agree that he shouldn't have done it, but I'd hardly blame him. I know every day when I get on the freeway that if I look at the person driving the car next to me, they might shoot me. If I look at someone and they shoot me, am I just as guilty as the shooter? He had a point to make and radical Islamist proved him right.
This is a completely wrong analogy in many ways. First you're not an outside party putting innocent bystanders at risk. Next, your chance of being shot on the freeway of LA for looking at so is infinitesimally small, while the chance of violent riots resulting from a burned Koran was near-certain.
These people were not mad because he burned a Koran. They were already mad. All he did was give them an excuse and bring them out from the rocks they've been living under. His burning of a Koran had no effect on their lives, whatsoever. They CHOSE for it to have an effect and they chose what effect it would have.
The people of Afghanistan are religiously brainwashed, how much choice did they really have in the matter? They don't know modern concepts of secularism and tolerance, only the religion that was disrespected as horribly and publicly as possible.
He had a point to make and radical Islamist proved him right.
He caused the death of innocents, including Americans, to prove a point we already knew. Swell guy, no blood on his hands.
No, he's saying it's better to be right than to coddle the opposition. They do not have well reasoned differences of opinion. This makes skeptic wrong and disagreer dubious.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it amazing how men are still blamed for this. Check out porn stars. That's what men want. They aren't boney little skin bags. This is a problem created by women for women.
This is what I say whenever women blame men for this problem.
You won't be doing donuts in that car.
Hey speak for yourself man.
I'm not saying the stereotype is a fact, I'm saying that by definition denialists don't have well-reasoned differences of opinion because they aren't using facts, same as moon landing deniers or flat earthers. If they had well-reasoned arguments based on fact they'd be called skeptics and would not flat-out deny well-established science. They'd try to answer their own questions instead of bringing up dead old arguments that anyone could easily find an answer to.
Here, we have a tiresome stereotype not based on fact.
Here's the problem, you're not entitled to your own facts.
The X-ray type is ionizing, and although the dose is tiny it is enough to kill a few people with cancer...more than terrorism will, to project current numbers.
They're still microwaves which can interfere with electronics. Same way you get weird noises from speakers etc. just before a cell phone rings nearby.
The screener probably just liked fat women. Fat people can hide things in their fat folds that these scanners can't see anyways.
I've seen a lot of back-of-the-napkins showing that they'll kill more than terrorists due to the increase in cancer risk.
The scene where she's tied up in a chair will be legendary to boob guys. It's like a 9.5 on the Hendricks scale.
Department of Inland Cash Kleptocratic Services.
Every legitimate question raised so far has been answered. It's the re-raising of those old questions that separates a skeptic from a denier.
s/parlay/parley/g
(bet many of you didn't notice that!)
In one of the movies there was a factory ship parked in international waters to skirt local laws.
Verily, it is of the utmost importance that we parlay in only the most proper English on this esteemed forum. The business conducted here is of the most serious variety.
Was gonna say the same thing, but actually it's different this time: These guys are all rich.
It's been true since the current generation of consoles.
The middle eastern hellholes that contain uneducated, backwards people happen to have Islam as the dominant religion. Therefore, Islam must be a religion of war. Congrats, you win.
I consider them mentally ill. Maybe we'll have to disagree on that point.
Islam is a religion of peace in the same sense that Christianity is. Do Timothy McVeigh or Anders Behring Breivik make Christianity a religion of war? Would it be a religion of war if there was some middle-eastern country full of Christian fundamentalists?
Too bad about those people who had to die (including Americans) as part of his little demonstration, right? Can't make an omlette without breaking a few eggs I guess. I'm sure it was worth it.
Another completely messed up analogy. It's more like saying "that bridge will collapse if you drive a truck over it. I'm going to drive a truck over it, watch what happens." Then an engineer says "we know, we're working on it, we have signs up to not drive trucks over it, so please don't do it OK?" and then you drive a truck over it and lots of people die.
He didn't just say "Afghanis will riot and kill if I publicly burn a Koran." He then proceeded to do it, even after the consequences were spelled out, and surprise surprise, people died.
Well using science, the best we know so far, mainstream global warming theories are supported and the theory that the sun's role is underestimated appears to be wrong. So what magical data do you have that's better?
From what I understand from the story the warming was caused by the blades mixing air at different altitudes rather than any slowing of wind (which should be immeasurably small):
But on huge wind farms the motion of the turbines mixes the air higher in the atmosphere that is warmer, pushing up the overall temperature.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9234715/Wind-farms-can-cause-climate-change-finds-new-study.html
I agree that he shouldn't have done it, but I'd hardly blame him. I know every day when I get on the freeway that if I look at the person driving the car next to me, they might shoot me. If I look at someone and they shoot me, am I just as guilty as the shooter? He had a point to make and radical Islamist proved him right.
This is a completely wrong analogy in many ways. First you're not an outside party putting innocent bystanders at risk. Next, your chance of being shot on the freeway of LA for looking at so is infinitesimally small, while the chance of violent riots resulting from a burned Koran was near-certain.
These people were not mad because he burned a Koran. They were already mad. All he did was give them an excuse and bring them out from the rocks they've been living under. His burning of a Koran had no effect on their lives, whatsoever. They CHOSE for it to have an effect and they chose what effect it would have.
The people of Afghanistan are religiously brainwashed, how much choice did they really have in the matter? They don't know modern concepts of secularism and tolerance, only the religion that was disrespected as horribly and publicly as possible.
He had a point to make and radical Islamist proved him right.
He caused the death of innocents, including Americans, to prove a point we already knew. Swell guy, no blood on his hands.
No, he's saying it's better to be right than to coddle the opposition. They do not have well reasoned differences of opinion. This makes skeptic wrong and disagreer dubious.