As I have to keep telling people there is nothing about atheism which eliminates the possibilitt of all kinds of supernatural forces. Atheism is simply the non-belief in god or gods. You can be an atheist and still believe in reincarnation, ghosts and a whole plethora of other spiritual beliefs. In fact, the nonexclusion of belief in the supernatural as a part of atheism led to the creation of the Brights movement.
"Farmers will build farms wherever the soil and climate are good for farming, just as they always have. And we'll ship that food around the world."
You write about this as if it was an easy thing to do and won't be expensive. All the land we are used to using has been extensively modified for food production. The environment changes lower their productivity with food and money being lost. A lot of food and money, too.
Then
In order to grow food in the areas of Canada, for example, you are going to have to remove thousands of acres of trees and wildlife. When the land is cleared it will have to be flattened and modified for agricultural uses. Infrastructure is going to have to be added. You are going to need roads, power lines, water lines, sewer lines, new towns, new processing plants and other support systems. You are going to have to do this while millions(billions) of people are starving and dying while knocking on the borders trying to immigrate.
Does this sound like an easy and simple thing to you? It doesn't to me and it is going to be expensive as hell.
The Commodore 64 was the first computer I ever had.
I convinced my mother and grandmother I just had to have a computer. I got to pick it out at K-mart and they took it home and wrapped it up. I, of course, couldn't wait. I offered to clean the living room. While all the stuff was loaded into the bedroom I opened the box, unpacked the computer, put bricks in the box, sealed it up and put it back under the tree. I kept it in my room and took it out after everyone was asleep. I repeated the living room cleaning routine and reversed the process. I was so excited to be able to finally play with my computer on Christmas Day. I was amazingly good for someone who had never actually used a computer.
He still signed it. This is the way to get things you like passed in America. You simply attach it to a military spending package and Republicans will fall all over themselves to sign it and the Democrats will go along. The bloated military gets more money. The companies which make military equipment and bribe politicians with campaign contributions get more money. The piece you want signed, but don't want people to know you want signed gets passed. Hey, but Obama wrote a letter saying he didn't like it so that makes it OK. It still got passed didn't it.
No, the actual crux is whether that law is ethical or not. The simple fact that something is a law does not mean that the law is ethical or moral. Dogmatic following of the law is no different than dogmatic following of a religious mandate. If they were to suddenly make privacy illegal would you go along because the law said so. Would you have insisted that Rosa Parks go to the back of the bus because the law said so.
but saying "even if they are homeschooled, you MUST perform this medical procedure on your child" crosses a line.
Only if you are willing to keep them at home all the time. No trips to the mall, or the grocery store or the playground. All of which are vectors for infection.
However, the truth of the matter is that they only people they threaten are people who agree with them. What the government should do is provide free vaccinations for everyone that wants them. This removes it from the argument of rich versus poor. If the vaccinations are available across the board and participation in certain areas (public schools) requires vaccinations the only people who are going to get sick and die are the ones without immunization. Of course removing them from the gene pool might not be the worst idea.
Spock may be imaginary, but the philosophical statement is not. It is from the Utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill. The intent must be viewed through the window of human rights or it becomes a mechanism where the tyranny of the masses overwhelms human rights.
I, personally, never liked the statement because it compares needs. A more correct statement would be "the needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few."
On the other hand, there is the Petition Project (easy enough to find) that has signatures from over 30,000 people from the US alone, all with advanced degrees, 9,000 of them PhDs... and all of whom put their names to a petition saying that AGW is probably nonsense.
Incorrect. The Petition Project has been dismantled multiple times. Many of the signatories aren't scientist at all and some of them were even dead at the time they supposedly signed it. Having an advanced degree doesn't prove anything if the degree is in a field different from the area of research. I don't ask my local veterinarian for input in my engineering projects because he doesn't have a clue about engineering. In the same vein, I don't ask the local veterinarian about global warming. I ask the climate scientists. Simply having an expertise in one area does not give you automatic validity in another area.
A really amazing example of irrationality overwhelming rationality. You would refuse to shake hands with a person who has a prosthetic hand when you know they have a prosthetic hand simply because they have a prosthetic hand.
Wave wasn't supposed to be a chat program. I think too many people think like you did. If you used it as a chat program then you misused it and shouldn't be suprised that it failed as a chat program. It was supposed to give people a way to collaborate on documents and projects. The ability to talk at the same time was just a bonus
Slashdot Mirror
As I have to keep telling people there is nothing about atheism which eliminates the possibilitt of all kinds of supernatural forces. Atheism is simply the non-belief in god or gods. You can be an atheist and still believe in reincarnation, ghosts and a whole plethora of other spiritual beliefs. In fact, the nonexclusion of belief in the supernatural as a part of atheism led to the creation of the Brights movement.
"Farmers will build farms wherever the soil and climate are good for farming, just as they always have. And we'll ship that food around the world."
You write about this as if it was an easy thing to do and won't be expensive. All the land we are used to using has been extensively modified for food production. The environment changes lower their productivity with food and money being lost. A lot of food and money, too.
Then
In order to grow food in the areas of Canada, for example, you are going to have to remove thousands of acres of trees and wildlife. When the land is cleared it will have to be flattened and modified for agricultural uses. Infrastructure is going to have to be added. You are going to need roads, power lines, water lines, sewer lines, new towns, new processing plants and other support systems. You are going to have to do this while millions(billions) of people are starving and dying while knocking on the borders trying to immigrate.
Does this sound like an easy and simple thing to you? It doesn't to me and it is going to be expensive as hell.
Is anybody else missing the old days of the BBS. Maybe its time to take a small step backward to ensure our freedom.
from what I hear.
This certainlly settles it for me. You "heard" peopl are being shunned. Who did you hear it from? Curious minds want to know.
The Commodore 64 was the first computer I ever had. I convinced my mother and grandmother I just had to have a computer. I got to pick it out at K-mart and they took it home and wrapped it up. I, of course, couldn't wait. I offered to clean the living room. While all the stuff was loaded into the bedroom I opened the box, unpacked the computer, put bricks in the box, sealed it up and put it back under the tree. I kept it in my room and took it out after everyone was asleep. I repeated the living room cleaning routine and reversed the process. I was so excited to be able to finally play with my computer on Christmas Day. I was amazingly good for someone who had never actually used a computer.
He still signed it. This is the way to get things you like passed in America. You simply attach it to a military spending package and Republicans will fall all over themselves to sign it and the Democrats will go along. The bloated military gets more money. The companies which make military equipment and bribe politicians with campaign contributions get more money. The piece you want signed, but don't want people to know you want signed gets passed. Hey, but Obama wrote a letter saying he didn't like it so that makes it OK. It still got passed didn't it.
No, the actual crux is the rule of law.
No, the actual crux is whether that law is ethical or not. The simple fact that something is a law does not mean that the law is ethical or moral. Dogmatic following of the law is no different than dogmatic following of a religious mandate. If they were to suddenly make privacy illegal would you go along because the law said so. Would you have insisted that Rosa Parks go to the back of the bus because the law said so.
but saying "even if they are homeschooled, you MUST perform this medical procedure on your child" crosses a line.
Only if you are willing to keep them at home all the time. No trips to the mall, or the grocery store or the playground. All of which are vectors for infection. However, the truth of the matter is that they only people they threaten are people who agree with them. What the government should do is provide free vaccinations for everyone that wants them. This removes it from the argument of rich versus poor. If the vaccinations are available across the board and participation in certain areas (public schools) requires vaccinations the only people who are going to get sick and die are the ones without immunization. Of course removing them from the gene pool might not be the worst idea.
Spock may be imaginary, but the philosophical statement is not. It is from the Utilitarianism of Bentham and Mill. The intent must be viewed through the window of human rights or it becomes a mechanism where the tyranny of the masses overwhelms human rights. I, personally, never liked the statement because it compares needs. A more correct statement would be "the needs of the many outweigh the wants of the few."
Is anyone else starting to feel like we are living in the Shadowrun universe. Except the magick that is.
Greenland was once GREEN
The denialist keep using this over and over again. It is wrong and has been disproved multiple times. Greenland hasn't been completely green in the last 400,000 years. Sure the Vikings may have found a green spot, but that isn't the same thing.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/greenland-used-to-be-green.htm
http://www.livescience.com/7331-ancient-greenland-green.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_sheet
How about you stop using faulty proofs?
On the other hand, there is the Petition Project (easy enough to find) that has signatures from over 30,000 people from the US alone, all with advanced degrees, 9,000 of them PhDs... and all of whom put their names to a petition saying that AGW is probably nonsense.
Incorrect. The Petition Project has been dismantled multiple times. Many of the signatories aren't scientist at all and some of them were even dead at the time they supposedly signed it. Having an advanced degree doesn't prove anything if the degree is in a field different from the area of research. I don't ask my local veterinarian for input in my engineering projects because he doesn't have a clue about engineering. In the same vein, I don't ask the local veterinarian about global warming. I ask the climate scientists. Simply having an expertise in one area does not give you automatic validity in another area.
A really amazing example of irrationality overwhelming rationality. You would refuse to shake hands with a person who has a prosthetic hand when you know they have a prosthetic hand simply because they have a prosthetic hand.
Wave wasn't supposed to be a chat program. I think too many people think like you did. If you used it as a chat program then you misused it and shouldn't be suprised that it failed as a chat program. It was supposed to give people a way to collaborate on documents and projects. The ability to talk at the same time was just a bonus