Funny, all I saw was your troll that sated "Change Ayatollah for Bush, and you've made my point for me. Cheers. And chill out dude. Those kids on your lawn? Much more important." and have yet to see your "answers".
That's because you didn't answer the questions, aren't capable of answering them, and are in fact lying. Which is incredibly sad, but totally obvious.
"Weak troll attempt."
Don't be so hard on yourself, your reply to me wasn't that bad.
Answer the questions, we can check your posting history and confirm you haven't, so stop lying and dodging trolling and answer the man's questions or admit you can't.
"Right, the millions of people who supported the Bush in 1979, the millions who supported the mass executions of hundreds of thousands of people in the months following and the millions of people who openly and fervently supported the mass human wave attacks of a million unarmed children against the Iraqi army in the 1980's all applaud your liberal guilt and mindless cheering of the common man.
Moreover the the fact that the police in Iran openly execute up to 10 people a day for the crime of 'being gay' or 'getting raped', or simply talking back and they do this with the full faith and support of a majority of the population there only drives the point home more.
If some huge percentage of the populace were against the regime, why is it that it's still around and barely 25% of the population of Iran has any living memory of a country BEFORE the Islamic Revolution? Why is that, oh ye of hand wringing Che T-shirt wearing fucking stupidity?
Why is that?"
Ok, I did what you suggested, and it seems your point is that you're afraid/unable to answer his question.
"Apparently you've got your head so far up God's ass that you've missed the several legal rulings that have essentially discredited ID for everyone but those most pie-eyed individuals for whom there's no hope of grasping true logic or reason (apparently yourself included)."
I see reading isn't your strong suit.
I asked why teaching ID and then explaining where it adheres and does not adhere to scientific method is a violation of the law (knowing full wel it isn't). Your reply was akin to the type of AC rants we see in support of ID, only this time directed at me, someone who clearly does not support ID at all and never said anything that would make anyone with a shred of intelligence believe I did.
My point, which you were in too much of a rush to notice, is that even when something does not adhere to scientific method, it can be used as a teaching example. One example of how is "Please compare and contrast ID vs. evolution based on how the scientific method can be used to test them". That fact is, quite frankly, irrefutable.
That you are incapable of comprehending said fact speaks more to your ignorance than anything else, AC.
Now, at the risk of losing karma, I'd like to say, please shut the fuck up. Many of us are trying to have an intelligent conversation and people like you who don't even try to comprehend what they're responding to only make things less intelligent.
"So if you have kids, and they are taught intelligent design in this school system, then sue. You'll win."
No, actually, you'd lose. Badly.
"There's a simple, unambiguous test anyone can apply to objectively determine whether a theory is scientific..."
You go on to explain how something can be checked to see if it follows scientific method. Now explain why you think scientific= scientific method exclusively.
If I teach ID, and then ask my class where it does and does not adhere to scientific method, how am I breaking the law? I'm not.
So no, don't sue. That's a stupid suggestion on its face in most cases, but in this case you'd be wasting money your kids need for school and, you'd probably lose.
"I might observe that absence of evidence is not proof of the non-existence of such evidence, much less proof of the non-occurrence of the event itself; if it were, many evolutionary transitional processes would be disproved."
I might observe that I don't care about your observations, only the proof I asked for.
I might also observe your failure to provide said proof is a tacit (twice) admission you have none. And I'd be right.
"There is evidence"
Then post in, instead of bloviating about its existence.
"Those on one side are claiming merely to censure / block / deny tenure to / reject the incompetent. Those on the other side observe that the claims of incompetence arose suddenly and coincidently with the revelation of the applicant's / candidate's / professor's doubts about evolutionary process."
This is, AGAIN, an unsubstantiated opinion, not fact. Are you capable of discerning the difference?
I really couldn't care less about what you think, only if you have reputable sources for your opinions. Post them or admit you can't.
""Why isn't "I need it for work" a good enough reason for me and my SUV? Or everyone else?" isn't a factual question, dumbass."
You're right, it's a rhetorical question.
I know you're not smart enough to know what that means, so look it up, then when you realize why you're wrong, you can fuck off.
the best part about this is that you can't stop yourself from replying to someone who has crushed every stupid post you make and still doesn't give a fuck what you think.
"Most sane companies do not deliberately engage in monopolist practices in order to cheat and delude their customers."
It's amusing to see this level of naivety get modded to +5.
They don't do it because they can't, not because they don't want to. Make no mistake, most of them would if the market conditions allowed it. And no, exclaiming otherwise repeatedly wont change history, which shows quite clearly that you are wrong.
I asked for evidence of it happening, not a regurgitated and still unsupported opinion.
Restating your ignorance regarding the PhD process and assumptions you make based on how it occurs is not proof, it's a restatement of an ignorant opinion.
"Your freedom to leave? To speak freely? Those certainly are taken away."
No, they aren't.
They are relinquished not taken away.
Your inability to grasp the difference does not negate the difference.
"Yes, the piece of paper..."
It has nothing to do with any paper and everything to do with the difference between relinquishing something of your free will and having it taken by force.
Most people are capable of understanding the difference.
"The only rights you have are those described in the Declaration of Independence as being rights."
Ok, I understand now. You simply have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
In case you're wondering, nothing you said in your post is accurate or true. You're wrong on every single point you make, so wrong in fact, that it makes me wonder if you actually have the reading comprehension necessary to understand what you're discussing.
"China, on the other hand, has one of the lowest crime rates in the world."
I would say it's
"China, on the other hand, has one of the lowest REPORTED crime rates in the world."
They are not the same thing.
"If you were able to take off your rose-colored freedom glasses"
Ah I see, you're an asshole. Please tell me where I did ANYTHING but suggest that a comparison with two lawless countries may not make the point it was intended to?
Slashdot Mirror
"Open your eyes just a little wider..."
I've read every reply from you in this thread.
All you have to do to shut me up is post the answers, a link to them, or an admission that you're a coward and won't answer.
Trite replies are fun, but all they do is reinforce your failure to answer the questions you're afraid of.
"God, I really wish you would already."
I have and you're a liar, you never answered his questions.
"For heavens sakes, do you think they actually have a choice in the matter?"
They do, regardless of whether I say so or not.
"If you're facing up against a regime that doesn't respect basic human rights, you need more than mere smarts or a kick-ass attitude."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution
They seem to have dealt with exactly those issues not too long ago.
"Perhaps if you were one of those citizens in the middle of this mess, you might think differently."
Nope. I've always believed freedom sometimes requires bloodshed. I'm not you, I have convictions that don't change with the wind or what's convenient.
"Us americans have a choice."
So do Iranians, they can take up arms and overthrow their government.
Oh wait, they'd never do that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_revolution
"You're in a flamewar on Slashdot"
No, a flamewar implies that there are two sides.
This is just me kicking your ass. What's happening now is that you still don't realize it.
"I think it's pretty well established you're a loser by that alone."
Hmm, what does that say about you then chief?
Fail again, damn you make it easy to make you look stupid.
"I did answer them."
Funny, all I saw was your troll that sated "Change Ayatollah for Bush, and you've made my point for me. Cheers. And chill out dude. Those kids on your lawn? Much more important." and have yet to see your "answers".
That's because you didn't answer the questions, aren't capable of answering them, and are in fact lying. Which is incredibly sad, but totally obvious.
"Weak troll attempt."
Don't be so hard on yourself, your reply to me wasn't that bad.
Answer the questions, we can check your posting history and confirm you haven't, so stop lying and dodging trolling and answer the man's questions or admit you can't.
"Took you the whole weekend to think of that one, eh?"
You honestly think I check Slashdot over the weekend? What kind of moron are you that you think non-losers do that?
Fail x3, god damn you're dumb.
I simply don't care about your "point", and only referenced it because you obviously didn't do anything to further it in your previous reply.
Do try to understand what you're replying to.
Now, about those questions you're still afraid to answer...
"Right, the millions of people who supported the Bush in 1979, the millions who supported the mass executions of hundreds of thousands of people in the months following and the millions of people who openly and fervently supported the mass human wave attacks of a million unarmed children against the Iraqi army in the 1980's all applaud your liberal guilt and mindless cheering of the common man.
Moreover the the fact that the police in Iran openly execute up to 10 people a day for the crime of 'being gay' or 'getting raped', or simply talking back and they do this with the full faith and support of a majority of the population there only drives the point home more.
If some huge percentage of the populace were against the regime, why is it that it's still around and barely 25% of the population of Iran has any living memory of a country BEFORE the Islamic Revolution? Why is that, oh ye of hand wringing Che T-shirt wearing fucking stupidity?
Why is that?"
Ok, I did what you suggested, and it seems your point is that you're afraid/unable to answer his question.
"Apparently you've got your head so far up God's ass that you've missed the several legal rulings that have essentially discredited ID for everyone but those most pie-eyed individuals for whom there's no hope of grasping true logic or reason (apparently yourself included)."
I see reading isn't your strong suit.
I asked why teaching ID and then explaining where it adheres and does not adhere to scientific method is a violation of the law (knowing full wel it isn't). Your reply was akin to the type of AC rants we see in support of ID, only this time directed at me, someone who clearly does not support ID at all and never said anything that would make anyone with a shred of intelligence believe I did.
My point, which you were in too much of a rush to notice, is that even when something does not adhere to scientific method, it can be used as a teaching example. One example of how is "Please compare and contrast ID vs. evolution based on how the scientific method can be used to test them". That fact is, quite frankly, irrefutable.
That you are incapable of comprehending said fact speaks more to your ignorance than anything else, AC.
Now, at the risk of losing karma, I'd like to say, please shut the fuck up. Many of us are trying to have an intelligent conversation and people like you who don't even try to comprehend what they're responding to only make things less intelligent.
"that doesn't mean you can't have a little sympathy for the people who are allowing themselves to be fucked over."
I fixed your post to make it accurately reflect reality.
Disingenuously painting someone as a victim when they fail to help themselves doesn't do much for my willingness to have sympathy for them.
"So if you have kids, and they are taught intelligent design in this school system, then sue. You'll win."
No, actually, you'd lose. Badly.
"There's a simple, unambiguous test anyone can apply to objectively determine whether a theory is scientific..."
You go on to explain how something can be checked to see if it follows scientific method. Now explain why you think scientific= scientific method exclusively.
If I teach ID, and then ask my class where it does and does not adhere to scientific method, how am I breaking the law? I'm not.
So no, don't sue. That's a stupid suggestion on its face in most cases, but in this case you'd be wasting money your kids need for school and, you'd probably lose.
Look up "not mutually exclusive".
You fail again, something it appears you're used to.
"People can be drafted into the army."
Not currently, so why include an impossibility in your attempt to refute me?
Oh right, because you're wrong and you know it.
"People who join the army are stuck there."
No they aren't liar, it's just difficult to get out. You can get out however, so stop lying.
"You're now in the army and will be shot if you try to leave"
Again, a lie. It's telling that your entire post is based on half-truths and outright lies.
"If a country can't survive without the draft, it deserves to fall."
Well, seeing as we don't have a draft, I don't know why you'd be so stupid as to pretend this point has anything to do with the discussion.
"the armed forces routinely lies to people about the posting and duty they'll get"
And you lie repeatedly in your post, so you are no better, and a hypocrite besides.
"But I really have to ask: can you name some that have?"
I'll be happy to respond to your request as soon as you respond to mine.
So about that source...
"I wasn't complaining"
...
"Then why the fuck did you even ask me"
You fail.
"I might observe that absence of evidence is not proof of the non-existence of such evidence, much less proof of the non-occurrence of the event itself; if it were, many evolutionary transitional processes would be disproved."
I might observe that I don't care about your observations, only the proof I asked for.
I might also observe your failure to provide said proof is a tacit (twice) admission you have none. And I'd be right.
"There is evidence"
Then post in, instead of bloviating about its existence.
"Those on one side are claiming merely to censure / block / deny tenure to / reject the incompetent. Those on the other side observe that the claims of incompetence arose suddenly and coincidently with the revelation of the applicant's / candidate's / professor's doubts about evolutionary process."
This is, AGAIN, an unsubstantiated opinion, not fact. Are you capable of discerning the difference?
I really couldn't care less about what you think, only if you have reputable sources for your opinions. Post them or admit you can't.
"Yeah, I have nothing against feeding trolls when they're so untalented at it that they only make themselves look bad."
Funny, then why were you complaining like a little bitch earlier?
Oh right, because you're a liar.
""Why isn't "I need it for work" a good enough reason for me and my SUV? Or everyone else?" isn't a factual question, dumbass."
You're right, it's a rhetorical question.
I know you're not smart enough to know what that means, so look it up, then when you realize why you're wrong, you can fuck off.
the best part about this is that you can't stop yourself from replying to someone who has crushed every stupid post you make and still doesn't give a fuck what you think.
Why should I have to?
And why are you incapable of reading well enough to understand what I wanted instead of giving your worthless opinion instead?
"Companies that do that typically do not do well in the long run."
Finally, a claim I can make you source. So, any evidence, or just more chest thumping and exclamations?
"Most sane companies do not deliberately engage in monopolist practices in order to cheat and delude their customers."
It's amusing to see this level of naivety get modded to +5.
They don't do it because they can't, not because they don't want to. Make no mistake, most of them would if the market conditions allowed it. And no, exclaiming otherwise repeatedly wont change history, which shows quite clearly that you are wrong.
I guess I was clear enough
I don't care what you think.
"Then why the fuck did you even ask me, asshole?"
Why can't you tell the difference between what I asked for (factual information) and your opinion, which I DON'T CARE ABOUT?
I asked for evidence of it happening, not a regurgitated and still unsupported opinion.
Restating your ignorance regarding the PhD process and assumptions you make based on how it occurs is not proof, it's a restatement of an ignorant opinion.
"Your freedom to leave? To speak freely? Those certainly are taken away."
No, they aren't.
They are relinquished not taken away.
Your inability to grasp the difference does not negate the difference.
"Yes, the piece of paper..."
It has nothing to do with any paper and everything to do with the difference between relinquishing something of your free will and having it taken by force.
Most people are capable of understanding the difference.
"The only rights you have are those described in the Declaration of Independence as being rights."
Ok, I understand now. You simply have no idea what the fuck you're talking about.
In case you're wondering, nothing you said in your post is accurate or true. You're wrong on every single point you make, so wrong in fact, that it makes me wonder if you actually have the reading comprehension necessary to understand what you're discussing.
You say it's
"China, on the other hand, has one of the lowest crime rates in the world."
I would say it's
"China, on the other hand, has one of the lowest REPORTED crime rates in the world."
They are not the same thing.
"If you were able to take off your rose-colored freedom glasses"
Ah I see, you're an asshole. Please tell me where I did ANYTHING but suggest that a comparison with two lawless countries may not make the point it was intended to?
I didn't. I'll await your apology.