This should be interesting. I wonder if we'll find out one of the Native American Tribes was heavily interbred with some vikings. The first hint were the indians with blue eyes mentoined by the early colonists and the Viking settlements discovered on the american northern atlantic coasts.
"I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this until more data comes in." Then change the subject. So you defer until "tomorrow" the argument that you don't want to have today.
But they'll be back, they'll go to their pastor, get another bullshit "data" argument fed to them, and they'll bring it back, with an air of "haha! I got you now" about them.
Most Anthropomorphic Climate Change (ACC) deniers I've heard don't argue the observations of average temperature increases, but argue the root causes and/or significance of these observations.
That's the latest strategy. At first they argued the data was wrong, and many still do. Then when the data became overwhelming they moved the goalpost to "you can't prove I did it, nobody saw me do it". Then they added a new front in the form of "what if it's a good thing, warm weather is nice!".
The only constant is the hardline "no, we will not change the way we make money".
If it's science, it should ALWAYS be open for reinterpretation as more data is collected and as analysis techniques improve or are replaced with better procedures. IMHO, an open mind should be, well, open. Actually, I've observed that many (including not a few scientists) defending evolutionary theory tend to be more dogmatic and less open to discussion If they are defending, it means they are attacked. When your door is open and you are attacked, you close the door.
That's because they are being pestered by people with closed minds who try to force things that are NOT SCIENCE into their science. Open minded scientists are obviously not interested in discussions with close minded obscurantists. That doesn't mean the scientists aren't open minded, that means they aren't dupes to sheepskin labcoats worn over the shoulders of lupine evangelists.
In science, no matter how well supported by observations, a theory is a theory until proven by repeatable experiments. See, just like that nonsense. A theory is still a theory after proven by experiments. DUH! Open minded scientists are not interested in discussions with people who don't even understand something so simple, yet want to argue something much more complex.
Well, primitive tribes _were_ extremely aggressive, and did fight all the time. Some. But look at the ones left, they mostly want to live their lives in peace.
Eugenics is the process of sterilizing "lesser" peoples NO!
That is one method used for the purpose of eugenics, NOT the definition of eugenics. STOP confusing a method amongst many with the common purpose of the many methods. This is really, really bad. I'm holding back insulting words here, because I abhor that intellectual pitfall you're mired in.
Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.
Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral. Historically, a minority of eugenics advocates have used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust.
True enough, although remember that Canada does not have the history of oppressed minorities that the US does. Massacred indians, concentration camps for japs, forcing continental nomads in a sendentary life on a small island, etc.
Why is this such a big deal for law enforcement? They should have to get a court order to view this information, and I don't see that being a big deal if they're actively pursuing an investigation. It's a big deal because they have to get up and go to court, instead of sitting there and clicking their WHOIS button.
And when they'll get back all the good donuts will be gone!
The US is not having a good decade (ok, that's an understatement) but at least we are free from the coercive power of a government that insists on furthering multiculturalism agenda by force Affirmative action in the United States is intended to promote access to education, employment, or housing among certain designated groups (typically, minorities or women). The stated motivation for affirmative action policies is to redress the effects of past discrimination and to encourage public institutions such as universities, hospitals and police forces to be more representative of the population. It is commonly achieved through targeted recruitment programs, by preferential treatment given to applicants from designated groups, and in some cases through the use of quotas.
I understand your point. Just so we're all clear, though; Phoenix sits on legs, not wheels, so there will be no 'puttering around' the pole. It could drag itself around pathetically with its one little arm... inch by inch...
You mean choose the "fresh" fruit with all its diseases and bugs and parasites, or the "treated" fruit with some artificial chemicals that may or may not be good for you after 50 years of eating said fruit to the exclusion of all else. Hmm... pass the chemically treated fruit this way. Wash your damn food. Even raccoons know to do it.
IMO, pesticides are easier to wash off than bacteria/fungi/etc. Take the relatively recent e coli outbreak in organic spinach for instance. In pre-washed packages, that people bought because they're too lazy to wash their own food.
The chemical lobby sure managed to make that sound as if organic was dangerous, and not laziness so great you'll forgo basic hygiene.
Make an effort to parse it, they mean man-made chemicals. Oh I parse it just fine, the point I'm trying to make is that what innocently and with good intentions And then it paved the road to hell. Applies to chemicals, and a zillion other things.
That was how I ended up having my lick-on tatoos banned when I was a kid, people innocently and with good intentions believing they could have LSD in 'em. For no reason discernible to intelligent beings.
For those who have hellish hay fever, can they get flowering plants banned during the summer, or sue those who grow them? Grasses and trees pollinate too, you can't ban all plants.
But there used to be a bylaw regarding ragweed around here, until someone sued the city because they weren't removing the ragweed from their land... long story short, the city repealed the ragweed bylaw, it was just cheaper that way.
You'll hear your mother or someone from the older generation talk about the dangers of chemicals. What a completely abstract and misinformed outlook to have. What is a chemical? EVERYTHING. Water is a chemical. Make an effort to parse it, they mean man-made chemicals.
Still, all-natural cobra venom will kill you dead, but if you have to choose between fresh organically-certified fruit and fruit with added chemicals, I'd go with the first option.
First of all, the Soviets had their own state religion: The cult of personality devoted to their glorious leader. His statues, his pictures, his words were revered.
The state was officially atheist. We were talking about religion, not gods.
I'll certainly defend your right to keep your real property, but information isn't property, never was, and never will be. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
'Wearable' (adj.) description of any garment that allows the wearer to wander through a crowded London pub without starting a fight on a Friday night. Well now I'm not so sure. I figure if you can wander through a crowd at 75mph, you shouldn't have to worry much about anyone starting a fight with you. You're pretty much starting a fight with everyone you meet. Fortunatly, you have a helmet, and they don't, so you'll win... until you meet a fatty.
I suppose then it would be fair to judge a modern day practitioners of non-religion (i.e. atheism) by the actions of Soviet Russia, and the millions of Christians slain? First of all, the Soviets had their own state religion: The cult of personality devoted to their glorious leader. His statues, his pictures, his words were revered.
Secondly, how the HELL do you "practice non-religion"? Talk about your weak, weak attempt of lumping "not Christian" in along with "soviet totalitarian". You should be ashamed
Slashdot Mirror
But they'll be back, they'll go to their pastor, get another bullshit "data" argument fed to them, and they'll bring it back, with an air of "haha! I got you now" about them.
Most Anthropomorphic Climate Change (ACC) deniers I've heard don't argue the observations of average temperature increases, but argue the root causes and/or significance of these observations.
That's the latest strategy. At first they argued the data was wrong, and many still do.Then when the data became overwhelming they moved the goalpost to "you can't prove I did it, nobody saw me do it".
Then they added a new front in the form of "what if it's a good thing, warm weather is nice!".
The only constant is the hardline "no, we will not change the way we make money".
IMHO, an open mind should be, well, open. Actually, I've observed that many (including not a few scientists) defending evolutionary theory tend to be more dogmatic and less open to discussion If they are defending, it means they are attacked. When your door is open and you are attacked, you close the door.
That's because they are being pestered by people with closed minds who try to force things that are NOT SCIENCE into their science.
Open minded scientists are obviously not interested in discussions with close minded obscurantists. That doesn't mean the scientists aren't open minded, that means they aren't dupes to sheepskin labcoats worn over the shoulders of lupine evangelists. In science, no matter how well supported by observations, a theory is a theory until proven by repeatable experiments. See, just like that nonsense. A theory is still a theory after proven by experiments. DUH!
Open minded scientists are not interested in discussions with people who don't even understand something so simple, yet want to argue something much more complex.
That is one method used for the purpose of eugenics, NOT the definition of eugenics.
STOP confusing a method amongst many with the common purpose of the many methods. This is really, really bad. I'm holding back insulting words here, because I abhor that intellectual pitfall you're mired in.
Eugenics is a social philosophy which advocates the improvement of human hereditary traits through various forms of intervention.[1] Throughout history, eugenics has been regarded by its various advocates as a social responsibility, an altruistic stance of a society, meant to create healthier and more intelligent people, to save resources, and lessen human suffering.
Earlier proposed means of achieving these goals focused on selective breeding, while modern ones focus on prenatal testing and screening, genetic counseling, birth control, in vitro fertilization, and genetic engineering. Opponents argue that eugenics is immoral. Historically, a minority of eugenics advocates have used it as a justification for state-sponsored discrimination, forced sterilization of persons deemed genetically defective, and the killing of institutionalized populations. Eugenics was also used to rationalize certain aspects of the Holocaust.
But Canada has made more progress.
And when they'll get back all the good donuts will be gone!
The chemical lobby sure managed to make that sound as if organic was dangerous, and not laziness so great you'll forgo basic hygiene.
Applies to chemicals, and a zillion other things.
That was how I ended up having my lick-on tatoos banned when I was a kid, people innocently and with good intentions believing they could have LSD in 'em. For no reason discernible to intelligent beings.
But there used to be a bylaw regarding ragweed around here, until someone sued the city because they weren't removing the ragweed from their land... long story short, the city repealed the ragweed bylaw, it was just cheaper that way.
Still, all-natural cobra venom will kill you dead, but if you have to choose between fresh organically-certified fruit and fruit with added chemicals, I'd go with the first option.
His statues, his pictures, his words were revered.
The state was officially atheist. We were talking about religion, not gods.
Fortunatly, you have a helmet, and they don't, so you'll win... until you meet a fatty.
His statues, his pictures, his words were revered.
Secondly, how the HELL do you "practice non-religion"? Talk about your weak, weak attempt of lumping "not Christian" in along with "soviet totalitarian". You should be ashamed