If global warming is caused by the Sun heating up you would expect the stratosphere to heat up but if it's caused by increased greenhouse gases you expect the stratosphere to cool some. And in fact observations have shown that the stratosphere has cooled some.
See! The stratosphere is COOLING! That proves Global warming is a hoax and a fraud!
CAUTION: This post may contain high levels of mockery. People with an insensitivity to sarcasm may also have a genetic inability to process mockery. Also, this post was written in a facility that processes peanuts.
Correct. The existence of atoms is merely a theory, one supported by enormous quantities of evidence.
it is only through questioning and skepticism that science can progress.
Correct. If and when contradictory evidence is found and some other theory better explains all of that evidence, then science will throw out atom theory.
The standard in science is basically the same standard used in the courtroom... sufficient evidence to establish a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Anyone who doubts the existence of atoms, evolution, or global warming, is at best grossly uninformed, and most likely indoctrinated into some ideology distorting and blinding their perceptions to the point they lose contact with rational objective reality.
Trying to convince them that we need to properly employ the scientific method
Yeah right.... the Republican Presidential candidates and Tea Partiers and Creationists and Fox News anchors should teach scientists how to properly employ the scientific method.... because they obviously have far more experience and expertise in the the scientific method than.... you know.... actual scientists.
Nope. The bill you're thinking of excludes using federal funds for abortions.
No, I'm not. I'm well familiar with that. I am talking about batshit insane anti-abortion Republican legislators in both US Congress and in state legislators who have deliberately excluded health-of-the-mother exceptions in multiple pieces of legislation. Not leaving it out by accident or oversight, but specifically battling against all efforts to amend the bills to add an exception to permit life-saving procedures. I'm pretty sure at least one such bill passed (perhaps it was one of the state level laws) and had to be struck down by the courts.
One of the batshit insane legislators is Rick Santorum: "When I was leading the charge on partial birth abortion, several members came forward and said, 'Why don't we just ban all abortions?'Tom Daschle was one of them, if you remember. And Susan Collins, and others. They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective."
And just to drive up the batshit-insane fucktard hypocrite factor, Santorum's own wife had one of those "uberevil" late-term abortions where they vaginally deliver the still-living-fetus abortions. Without it she would have died.
ban them, which we know is virtually impossible with RvW hanging over us.
Yeah, much like the difficulty banning interracial marriages with LvV hanging over us.
Damn those pesky activist judges. Constantly striking down all sorts of laws passed by state legislatures and the US Congress.
I agree what he wrote came out quite badly. However I suspect it wasn't meant the way it sounded. I think he was awkwardly referring to the fact that non-white babies with health issues are particularly difficult to place into adoption. Families looking to adopt are generally skewed to the upper half of incomes (and thus skewed white), and families willing and prepared to adopt babies with health issues are even more heavily skewed to upper incomes (and thus even more heavily skewed white). It is unfortunate but factual that there just aren't enough families willing and prepared to take on the double challenge of cross-racial adoption of a baby with health issues. It is unfortunate but factual that such babies are at high risk of winding up trapped in the governmental care system... often with painfully poor outcomes.
Based on the article and linked court document, Moryath comment that he didn't know the mother appears to be unfounded as far as I could find. There is no indication either way. However your original comment pnewhook, bashing the guy involved and calling it the most "most ridiculous biased articles I've ever read on Fox" is at least as wrong. Setting aside the question whether he even know the mother or not, your original criticism was:
You cannot be there one minute playing daddy, then decide it is not working out an claim there is no need of support cause 'dem brats aint mine'. If you decide to enter a relationship with children, then you are taking on the responsibility
The court documents states he "has always denied paternity and has no relationship with the boys".
So no, he was never there playing daddy. No, he never decided to enter any relationship with the children.
I'd say it was one of the LEAST biased articles on FOX News. A woman was required to fill in a "father's name" in order to get state aid, and she filled in the name of a man who was not the actual father and who had no relationship (father figure or otherwise) with the boys. And then the state proceeded to persecute this man and steal his money to avoid supplying welfare aid itself, and persisted in persecuting him and trying to steal his money even when they knew for a fact that there were going after the wrong man. The government had the unbelievable gall to use bureaucratic red tape as the sole justification to argue in court to continue seizing substantial sums of money from from a random innocent man and handing that money over to a woman who filed a false statement naming him as the father.
Seriously, how do you possibly justify calling it a biased article and proceed to condemn the guy involved? If anything I would fault the article for failing to raise even more holy-hell over the gross travesty of the government knowing they were screwing over a random uninvolved guy and fighting him though court and appellate court to continue draining his bank account with argument that yeah the government was wrong and know it was wrong but notification and correction of that mistake didn't make it through their bureaucratic red tape quickly enough therefore... holy-fuck... they should deliberately continue making that mistake.
If there are any republicans who don't believe in that exception, they are exceedingly few and thus, it's probably unfair to characterize the entire party by a few extremists.
You apparently have been following the abortion issue even less than I have. I know of multiple Republican-written bills have specifically excluded the safety-of-the-mother exception, and the Republicans specifically battled to prevent the bills from being amended to correct it. I could be mistaken, but I think one or more bills were in fact passed into law without safety-of-the-mother exception. I believe "activist judges" had to step in to strike it down.
Its certainly true that not all Republicans have one identical position. However not only have many Republicans opposed the safety-of-the-mother exception, there have many cases of actual elected Republicans writing legislation specifically excluding it.
It may be a generalization of Republicans, however it can hardly be dismissed as a strawman when there are very real very relevant very dangerous bills being seriously fought over containing that language. I may be mistaken, but I think multiple bills have in fact been passed into law in the last few years containing such language, but if so I believe so far have been struck down by "activist judges".
I would be most fascinated if you could establish the existence of even a single opponent who in fact supports "post-birth abortion".
Should I start from the beginning with the story about the walking-talking-snake and the magic-fruit? Or is it ok if I start with something more important like the Ten Commandments... the first of which has God declaring Himself to be a "jealous" bastard who promises to spitefully inflict punishment upon innocent children if the parent pisses Him off?
That Jesus guy generally seems to be a pretty Righteous Dude, but that God guy is an extremely evil fucker. He seems to spend a couple of chapters ordering armies around to various cities to slaughter the men, women, and boys.... while authorizing the rape of the captured girls. At various times it uses euphemisms for rape such as taking the girls as "wives", but Deuteronomy 21 makes it explicit that such captives are not willing wives, and and that these unwilling "wives" may be raped and discarded at will:
you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.
As for "give her her freedom", the other Deuteronomy verses detail how her "husband" just slaughtered her mother and father and brothers, how he just burned her former home to the ground, how he stole all of her family's animals and goods. So after forcibly "marrying" and raping her, if he "loses his liking" for her then he should to toss her on the street at will, penniless. I'll assume she gets to keep the clothes she's wearing.
Many times God is directly quoted giving these orders, and when it's not God speaking directly it is generally Moses speaking with authority of God.
Like I said, Jesus is generally a pretty good guy. But there's no excusing that evil wrathful jealous fucker God.
Paul has said that when God told us what he wanted from us (by means of the Old Testament Law), mankind as a whole rejected it and did our own thing.
Have you ever read Old testament Law? Any person with half a brain or a scrap of morals would reject it and do "their own thing". Stoning your own children to death? Forbidden to wear mixed fiber clothes? Seriously? The level of immorality in there is only rivaled by the level of stupidity.
Please do not say that Republicans or conservatives are against stem cell research. Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research.
Lets accept for the sake of argument that destruction of an embryo is indeed capital-E Evil. In fact lets explicitly equate it to the Evil of slavery. They are still idiots and their crusade is still idiotic.
Fighting to end slavery makes sense. Tacitly accepting slavery itself while battling specifically to prohibit slaves from going to medical school is totally idiotic. Targeting the "best" of a bad situation while ignoring the "evil" itself is dumb.
99.99% of the embryos that are destroyed are thrown in the trash as fertility treatment waste products.
If they believe the destruction of embryos is evil, then they should be trying to outlaw the destruction of embryos. That would primarily affect the legality of fertility treatments.... that it would also effect stem cell research is almost not worth mentioning in comparison.
There are various subjects where I respect the other side as having a reasonable rational position with which I disagree. However these embryonic-stemcell crusaders are blindly fighting a nonsensical battle. It's neither reasonable nor rational.
Ah yes, now I remember. Jesus' teachings go something like "Love your enemies and do not curse them" "Feed my sheep" "Boil the heretics alive and take all their lands for the church's holdings". I always forget about the last one.
Yes, it's funny how Christians are often so "forgetful" of the various ugly passages in the Bible. God doesn't say "burn the heretics alive", but He does order them slaughtered.... but that's not even the gruesome part. No, the gruesome part is how the young girls are to be kept for rape. There are several sections of the Bible I could cite, but for a bit of Black Comedy I'll cite Numbers 31 where 32,000 girl captives are to be divided up and God Speaks explicitly claiming 3,232 of the girls as Tribute unto Himself. Of course God doesn't show up in person to take possession of those girls... 32 of the Lord's Tribute girls are given to Priest Eleazar and the other 3200 given over to the rest of the priest class. It find it most than slightly reminiscent of Warren Jeffs, and how he was the only one who got to hear God Speak and pass those words on to the congregation.... and how God's Words conveniently directed dozens of young girls into his bedroom.
Of course, the the Bible is far worse than Warren Jeffs. Numbers 31 has God explicitly ordering an army out to slaughter people and God explicitly turning over 32 traumatized captive girls to the head priest. At least God's words coming through Warren Jeffs didn't involve murder, and only directed semi-willing girls from his own congregation into his bed.
Modern Christianity often works hard to advertise God as a God of goodness and love, which requires an extremely selective rewriting of the bible. The very first commandment states "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God", and continues stating He will inflict punishment upon innocent children, innocent grandchildren, and great innocent grandchildren, if the father provokes that jealousy. The Bible uses "wrath" to describe God and His actions so many times that I gave up even trying to count them. There are many places where the Bible shows God as cruel, perverse, or downright evil. Jesus says Love They Neighbor, but God himself says he's a jealous fuck who will kill or torture your children if you piss him off.
Anywho, that's all drifting off topic from the original point...
My point? Devout Christians are like Mother Theresa: compassionate, humble, sacrificing. Insane and/or fake Christians are like the Inquisitors.
I know lots of Christians. Good kind reasonable rational intelligent people. But they are anything but devout. They celebrate Easter and Christmas and whatnot, they go to church once in a while, but for the most part "being Christian" is a holiday-hobby with basically no bearing on their day-to-day real lives.
As I was saying, it's the real Believers that are dangerous and who commit atrocities. Such as parents who physical and mentally abuse their gay/lesbian children in the name of "helping" save them from hell.
A parent who doesn't care is bad... a parent who is evil and selfish is bad.... but the point I was making is that there's nothing so dangerous as someone devoutly helping you. That's the parent who physically and mentally abuses their gay/lesbian child to the point of suicide. Because the parent wants the child not to go to hell.
Of course I'm not saying all devout people commit atrocities. What I said was that there was no one more dangerous. Evil or uncaring people may harm you, but nothing is as dangerous and harmful and unrelenting as a person who believes they are doing right and good while inflicting their "help" upon unwilling victims.
Your earlier post:
And they are telling you and me that we are going to Hell.
Only because they don't want you to. Otherwise, they'd say nothing at all.
They are the dangerous ones. They aren't just the the ones wh
There is nothing more dangerous than a devout person trying to "help" you.
When some selfishly harms you, they will generally just steal your stuff and leave you alone. Or maybe whack you in the head, steal your stuff, and leave you alone. Or generally at worst, quickly killing you, stealing your stuff, and leaving you alone. Because they don't care about you.
It takes someone of deep faith that they are "helping" you to commit the worst atrocities. Because they have faith that what they are doing to you is right and good and for your own benefit. They will persistently and endlessly inflict harm, believing they are doing good.
The Inquisition only wanted to help keep people from going to hell, and it often took months for their torture victims to finally die.
This makes a good case for IPV6 so every site/device will have their own IP instead of sharing one IP for a million blogs.
I disagree. I'd say it makes a weak case against IPV6. Making censorship easier and more efficient and less noticeable and less objectionable is not good.
But as I said, it's a weak case. There are many other strong reasons why we do need to replace IPv4.
Dude, this was not censorship. The blocked websites had private emails
It's amazing how so many people always imagine "I agree with X therefore X is not censorship".
Imagine someone said "Bob's arm wasn't amputated, it was removed because it was cancerous". Ok.... cancer could be a very good motivation for removing an arm. However I assume you'd agree that the "Bob's arm wasn't amputated" part was wrong and ridiculous.
The motivation for removing the arm does not change whether or not it's an act of amputation. The motivation for blocking the website doesn't change whether or not it is an act of censorship.
If you want to make the case that it was justified and right under these circumstances, that's a very credible and reasonable position. However saying "it's not censorship" is not only wrong, it's dangerous. Basically everyone in history who has engaged in any sort censorship believed they had a good reason for it, considered it right and good, and virtually all of them have uttered the line "it's not censorship". The attitude "It's not censorship because it should be done, because it's a bad thing being blocked, because I'm the good guy with a good reason". Essentially "It's not censorship when I want to do it".
If you think it's right and justified in this case, then go ahead and defend it as right and justified. Don't do the "I agree with it therefore it's not censorship" garbage.
No, science is reliable. That is a very different thing than "perfect".
but one new fact could totally change everything scientifically
Correct. That is the very foundation of science, and that why it is so reliable. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists constantly checking the existing evidence against established science, and constantly searching for new evidence to further support or challenge established science, and when necessary updating established science to reflect that new evidence.
If there is a rape&murder case, if there is DNA evidence, if the suspect's fingerprints are all over the murder weapon, if there are a hundred other pieces of evidence all confirming the suspect committed the crime, then any sane jury unanimously convicts. The legal standard, the only sane standard, is evidence "beyond any reasonable doubt". The suspect's parents may not want to believe it's true, they can certainly say (as you did) "one new fact could totally change everything" . However a strong desire that something is wrong and the statement that new evidence could some day could prove it wrong doesn't make it reasonable or rational to believe something actually is wrong. Not when an entire planet-worth of evidence all establishes that it's true, far far beyond any reasonable doubt.
Why don't we focus on the flaws in science as well? Mainly that hugely complex organisms like humans were created from totally random chaotic interactions which favor chaos instead of order. Thus it is far more likely to not have an organism "evolve" than for it to evolve.
You are not discussing a flaw in science, your are discussing your flawed conclusion or incomplete understanding of the science.
I assume you agree that the complex beauty of snowflakes are far more ordered than the random distribution of water atoms in liquid water or water vapor, or even a regular block of ice.
Sunlight shines down on the earth evaporating water, which then cools and radiates that energy out into space, and that water vapor then often falls down to earth as snowflakes.
When there is an energy flow, it is not only possible, but common for the laws of physics to spontaneously transform disorder into increasing order and complexity. The very fact of snowflakes demonstrates that your argument is false. When there is an energy flow, order can and does increase in the matter that the energy passes through.
When the sun shines on the earth, there is a 100% probability that some of the disordered water will be undergo an increase in order into the beautiful complexity of snowflakes.
And for the exact same reason, the flow of energy through living things powers the 100% probability of those living things evolving "upwards". The laws of the universe make it not only possible but inevitable for evolution to happen.
It seems to me that you are grossly selling God short. The laws of the universe give us nuclear fusion in the sun, making it not only possible but certain for the sun to shine warmth and sunlight for the earth. The laws of the universe make rainbows not only possible but inevitable. The laws of the universe give us chemistry which makes up out bodies and makes them function and fuels in the form of food. The laws of the universe give us evolution which not only makes it possible but inevitable for a single living thing to evolve into all the wondrous diversity and complexity of life we see today.
Are you going to deny the existence of God, or denigrate God, just because you dislike how the universe is run?
Proposition 1: This triangle is blue. Proposition 2: All blue things have three corners. Conclusion: This triangle therefore has three corners.
Proposition A: Proposition 2 is false. Proposition B:
deductive logic if properly followed means that if all the propositions are true, the conclusion MUST be true, if any of the propositions is false the conclusion MUST also be false.
Conclusion: The triangle therefore does NOT have three corners.:D -
On top of that, you're considering not paying the interest on the money you borrowed from the rest of the world.
Just to clarify the situation, no... if our politicians continue with their radicalized ideology partisan politics shit the plan is strictly to shoot ourselves in the face, with each political party hoping the self-inflicted-wound will mostly injure the opposing political party.
The debt payments are only about 6% of the total budget. If there is no deal.... if the "default" we are talking about happens... the government's cash inflow will be about 60% of what they need to cover all government expenses. The plan is that the first priority is to cover that 6% interest payments in full.
The lower priority is things like medical care, food stamps to feed children in poverty, law enforcement, court systems, safety, maintaining/repairing infrastructure, military paychecks, monthly checks for retired senior citizens, and a variety of other government services. Those things will get about half the money they need, although it's unclear exactly how that money will be divided up. Some things might be fully funded but only by slashing or zeroing out other things in the list. Medical care, senior citizens, and the military are the three biggies, so either they all get half-payments or at least one gets basically zero.
So for those of you outside the U.S., don't worry you're being paid in full. This is a purely a situation of domestic terrorism, with some politicians saying "I'm going to shoot us in the face if my ideological demands aren't met".
The only way this will may impact you outside the U.S. is indirectly... if millions of senior citizens or soldiers or others get half (or zero) their monthly income it could very easily kick our economy into a second Great Depression. Unfortunately that would inevitably drag down the global economy.
But heay, don't worry if a U.S. economic collapse drags down your economy. Any billionaires in your countries wise enough to have millions invested in U.S. debt are the U.S. top priority, and giving them their interest profits is the U.S. top priority. So don't worry, you too can reap the wondrous rewards of Trickle Down economics. (Snark).
Yes, for most kinds of problems a normal computer can quickly verify whether a quantum result is correct. However I don't think a normal computer can verify certain kinds of "non-existence" or "optimum" results. For example if you plug in a problem and the quantum computer says no solution exists, a normal computer can't confirm that. Or if you plug in a traveling salesman problem asking for the shortest route and it gives you a short-route answer, a normal computer can obviously calculate the length of that route, but the normal computer generally can't verify that no shorter route exists.
If man evolved from apes, then why do we still have apes?
You had grandparents, and for the moment lets assume you have a cousin. Let's label your grandparents all "doctors" and we'll also label your cousin a "doctor", and we'll label you a "cardiologist".
Now, the question you asked is.... if you evolved from doctors, why does your cousin exist?
And just to make the picture even more clear, just because you generally refer to yourself as a "cardiologist" does not change the fact that you are still in fact a "doctor". Just because you generally refer to yourself as "human" does not change the fact that you are still an "ape" and that you are still a "mammal".
Humans and dogs and lions and horses and whales are all mammals. We all evolved from the same mammal ancestor.
Why didn't all species evolve like man supposedly did?
That's like asking why all species didn't evolve like horses. All species did evolve. They live in different places or eating different things or surviving in different ways, and they all evolve to get better at their specialty.
Humans, horses, hippos, lions, whales, and chimpanzees are all mammals. At one time there was just a single mammal species. Those mammals had lots of children, and over generations they spread out to live in many different places in many different ways and eating many different things. Over time some mammals lived on grasslands eating grass, and evolved the ability to run really fast and really far to escape predators. Those mammals evolved into the horses we see today. Some of those mammals specialized in living in and near water, and they evolved into the hippos we see today. Some mammals survived by hunting, and they specialized into the lions and other carnivores we see today. Some mammals started out living in and near water like hippos, but further adapted to an entirely aquatic lifestyle.... those are the mammal whales we see today.
And some mammals adapted to a certain style of forest life, evolving into chimpanzees (and other "apes") we see today.
And along the way, some of those forest-dwelling primates moved out onto the grasslands and standing upright. And this freed up our hands to be able to make and use tools. To specialize in making and using tools.
When whales moved into the water, when they evolved to specialize in living in water, the land mammals kept evolving too. Land mammals continued to evolve to be better at living in the place (and way) they lived. Carnivores evolved into better carnivores while whales adapted to aquatic life.
Some primates were living in the forest and some primates moved out onto the grasslands... the ones that kept living in the forest evolved to be even better at living in the forest while the ones on the grasslands evolved to stand upright and specialize in using our hands to make and use tools... to specialize in bigger brains.
Everything is always evolving. It's just that a single species spreads out to live in different places or different ways, and then splits into separate groups that evolve in different directions getting better at different specialties.
Asking why gorillas didn't evolve the same size brain as us is like asking why hippos can't run as fast as horses. Hippos are protected against lions by swimming into (and under) the water, and horses are protected against lions by their speed and endurance at running.
Chimpanzees got better at climbing through the trees. We got better at standing up and swinging a treebranch as a club or throwing a rock.... and eventually at sharpening that branch into a spear and chipping that rock to a point. Other primates kept on evolving while we evolved.
And don't underestimate how difficult and expensive it was for us to evolve our modern brains. Your brain accounts for only about 2% of your body mass, but you burn over over 30% of your food just to fuel it. Humans require a continuous and ridiculously high energy diet to fu
Slashdot Mirror
If global warming is caused by the Sun heating up you would expect the stratosphere to heat up but if it's caused by increased greenhouse gases you expect the stratosphere to cool some. And in fact observations have shown that the stratosphere has cooled some.
See! The stratosphere is COOLING! That proves Global warming is a hoax and a fraud!
CAUTION: This post may contain high levels of mockery. People with an insensitivity to sarcasm may also have a genetic inability to process mockery. Also, this post was written in a facility that processes peanuts.
-
Science is NEVER settled
Correct.
The existence of atoms is merely a theory, one supported by enormous quantities of evidence.
it is only through questioning and skepticism that science can progress.
Correct. If and when contradictory evidence is found and some other theory better explains all of that evidence, then science will throw out atom theory.
The standard in science is basically the same standard used in the courtroom... sufficient evidence to establish a case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Anyone who doubts the existence of atoms, evolution, or global warming, is at best grossly uninformed, and most likely indoctrinated into some ideology distorting and blinding their perceptions to the point they lose contact with rational objective reality.
Trying to convince them that we need to properly employ the scientific method
Yeah right.... the Republican Presidential candidates and Tea Partiers and Creationists and Fox News anchors should teach scientists how to properly employ the scientific method.... because they obviously have far more experience and expertise in the the scientific method than.... you know.... actual scientists.
-
I have no idea, and I already asked about that.
As far as I can tell both of you are just making shit up. LOL
-
Nope. The bill you're thinking of excludes using federal funds for abortions.
No, I'm not. I'm well familiar with that. I am talking about batshit insane anti-abortion Republican legislators in both US Congress and in state legislators who have deliberately excluded health-of-the-mother exceptions in multiple pieces of legislation. Not leaving it out by accident or oversight, but specifically battling against all efforts to amend the bills to add an exception to permit life-saving procedures. I'm pretty sure at least one such bill passed (perhaps it was one of the state level laws) and had to be struck down by the courts.
One of the batshit insane legislators is Rick Santorum: "When I was leading the charge on partial birth abortion, several members came forward and said, 'Why don't we just ban all abortions?'Tom Daschle was one of them, if you remember. And Susan Collins, and others. They wanted a health exception, which of course is a phony exception which would make the ban ineffective."
And just to drive up the batshit-insane fucktard hypocrite factor, Santorum's own wife had one of those "uberevil" late-term abortions where they vaginally deliver the still-living-fetus abortions. Without it she would have died.
ban them, which we know is virtually impossible with RvW hanging over us.
Yeah, much like the difficulty banning interracial marriages with LvV hanging over us.
Damn those pesky activist judges. Constantly striking down all sorts of laws passed by state legislatures and the US Congress.
-
I agree what he wrote came out quite badly. However I suspect it wasn't meant the way it sounded. I think he was awkwardly referring to the fact that non-white babies with health issues are particularly difficult to place into adoption. Families looking to adopt are generally skewed to the upper half of incomes (and thus skewed white), and families willing and prepared to adopt babies with health issues are even more heavily skewed to upper incomes (and thus even more heavily skewed white). It is unfortunate but factual that there just aren't enough families willing and prepared to take on the double challenge of cross-racial adoption of a baby with health issues. It is unfortunate but factual that such babies are at high risk of winding up trapped in the governmental care system... often with painfully poor outcomes.
-
He doesn't *currently* have a relationship with the boys, but he did when he was with the mother.
According to this article "Navarro had never met the children."
Why are you insisting he did?
-
Based on the article and linked court document, Moryath comment that he didn't know the mother appears to be unfounded as far as I could find. There is no indication either way. However your original comment pnewhook, bashing the guy involved and calling it the most "most ridiculous biased articles I've ever read on Fox" is at least as wrong. Setting aside the question whether he even know the mother or not, your original criticism was:
You cannot be there one minute playing daddy, then decide it is not working out an claim there is no need of support cause 'dem brats aint mine'. If you decide to enter a relationship with children, then you are taking on the responsibility
The court documents states he "has always denied paternity and has no relationship with the boys".
So no, he was never there playing daddy. No, he never decided to enter any relationship with the children.
I'd say it was one of the LEAST biased articles on FOX News. A woman was required to fill in a "father's name" in order to get state aid, and she filled in the name of a man who was not the actual father and who had no relationship (father figure or otherwise) with the boys. And then the state proceeded to persecute this man and steal his money to avoid supplying welfare aid itself, and persisted in persecuting him and trying to steal his money even when they knew for a fact that there were going after the wrong man. The government had the unbelievable gall to use bureaucratic red tape as the sole justification to argue in court to continue seizing substantial sums of money from from a random innocent man and handing that money over to a woman who filed a false statement naming him as the father.
Seriously, how do you possibly justify calling it a biased article and proceed to condemn the guy involved? If anything I would fault the article for failing to raise even more holy-hell over the gross travesty of the government knowing they were screwing over a random uninvolved guy and fighting him though court and appellate court to continue draining his bank account with argument that yeah the government was wrong and know it was wrong but notification and correction of that mistake didn't make it through their bureaucratic red tape quickly enough therefore ... holy-fuck... they should deliberately continue making that mistake.
-
If there are any republicans who don't believe in that exception, they are exceedingly few and thus, it's probably unfair to characterize the entire party by a few extremists.
You apparently have been following the abortion issue even less than I have. I know of multiple Republican-written bills have specifically excluded the safety-of-the-mother exception, and the Republicans specifically battled to prevent the bills from being amended to correct it. I could be mistaken, but I think one or more bills were in fact passed into law without safety-of-the-mother exception. I believe "activist judges" had to step in to strike it down.
-
Its certainly true that not all Republicans have one identical position. However not only have many Republicans opposed the safety-of-the-mother exception, there have many cases of actual elected Republicans writing legislation specifically excluding it.
It may be a generalization of Republicans, however it can hardly be dismissed as a strawman when there are very real very relevant very dangerous bills being seriously fought over containing that language. I may be mistaken, but I think multiple bills have in fact been passed into law in the last few years containing such language, but if so I believe so far have been struck down by "activist judges".
I would be most fascinated if you could establish the existence of even a single opponent who in fact supports "post-birth abortion".
-
Read it in context. Preferably the whole book.
Should I start from the beginning with the story about the walking-talking-snake and the magic-fruit? Or is it ok if I start with something more important like the Ten Commandments... the first of which has God declaring Himself to be a "jealous" bastard who promises to spitefully inflict punishment upon innocent children if the parent pisses Him off?
That Jesus guy generally seems to be a pretty Righteous Dude, but that God guy is an extremely evil fucker. He seems to spend a couple of chapters ordering armies around to various cities to slaughter the men, women, and boys.... while authorizing the rape of the captured girls. At various times it uses euphemisms for rape such as taking the girls as "wives", but Deuteronomy 21 makes it explicit that such captives are not willing wives, and and that these unwilling "wives" may be raped and discarded at will:
you may have relations with her, and you shall be her husband and she shall be your wife. However, if later on you lose your liking for her, you shall give her her freedom, if she wishes it; but you shall not sell her or enslave her, since she was married to you under compulsion.
As for "give her her freedom", the other Deuteronomy verses detail how her "husband" just slaughtered her mother and father and brothers, how he just burned her former home to the ground, how he stole all of her family's animals and goods. So after forcibly "marrying" and raping her, if he "loses his liking" for her then he should to toss her on the street at will, penniless. I'll assume she gets to keep the clothes she's wearing.
Many times God is directly quoted giving these orders, and when it's not God speaking directly it is generally Moses speaking with authority of God.
Like I said, Jesus is generally a pretty good guy. But there's no excusing that evil wrathful jealous fucker God.
Paul has said that when God told us what he wanted from us (by means of the Old Testament Law), mankind as a whole rejected it and did our own thing.
Have you ever read Old testament Law? Any person with half a brain or a scrap of morals would reject it and do "their own thing". Stoning your own children to death? Forbidden to wear mixed fiber clothes? Seriously? The level of immorality in there is only rivaled by the level of stupidity.
-
Please do not say that Republicans or conservatives are against stem cell research. Conservatives are against the destruction of an embryo for the purposes of scientific research.
Lets accept for the sake of argument that destruction of an embryo is indeed capital-E Evil. In fact lets explicitly equate it to the Evil of slavery. They are still idiots and their crusade is still idiotic.
Fighting to end slavery makes sense. Tacitly accepting slavery itself while battling specifically to prohibit slaves from going to medical school is totally idiotic. Targeting the "best" of a bad situation while ignoring the "evil" itself is dumb.
99.99% of the embryos that are destroyed are thrown in the trash as fertility treatment waste products.
If they believe the destruction of embryos is evil, then they should be trying to outlaw the destruction of embryos. That would primarily affect the legality of fertility treatments.... that it would also effect stem cell research is almost not worth mentioning in comparison.
There are various subjects where I respect the other side as having a reasonable rational position with which I disagree. However these embryonic-stemcell crusaders are blindly fighting a nonsensical battle. It's neither reasonable nor rational.
-
Ah yes, now I remember. Jesus' teachings go something like "Love your enemies and do not curse them" "Feed my sheep" "Boil the heretics alive and take all their lands for the church's holdings". I always forget about the last one.
Yes, it's funny how Christians are often so "forgetful" of the various ugly passages in the Bible. God doesn't say "burn the heretics alive", but He does order them slaughtered.... but that's not even the gruesome part. No, the gruesome part is how the young girls are to be kept for rape. There are several sections of the Bible I could cite, but for a bit of Black Comedy I'll cite Numbers 31 where 32,000 girl captives are to be divided up and God Speaks explicitly claiming 3,232 of the girls as Tribute unto Himself. Of course God doesn't show up in person to take possession of those girls... 32 of the Lord's Tribute girls are given to Priest Eleazar and the other 3200 given over to the rest of the priest class. It find it most than slightly reminiscent of Warren Jeffs, and how he was the only one who got to hear God Speak and pass those words on to the congregation.... and how God's Words conveniently directed dozens of young girls into his bedroom.
Of course, the the Bible is far worse than Warren Jeffs. Numbers 31 has God explicitly ordering an army out to slaughter people and God explicitly turning over 32 traumatized captive girls to the head priest. At least God's words coming through Warren Jeffs didn't involve murder, and only directed semi-willing girls from his own congregation into his bed.
Modern Christianity often works hard to advertise God as a God of goodness and love, which requires an extremely selective rewriting of the bible. The very first commandment states "I the LORD thy God am a jealous God", and continues stating He will inflict punishment upon innocent children, innocent grandchildren, and great innocent grandchildren, if the father provokes that jealousy. The Bible uses "wrath" to describe God and His actions so many times that I gave up even trying to count them. There are many places where the Bible shows God as cruel, perverse, or downright evil. Jesus says Love They Neighbor, but God himself says he's a jealous fuck who will kill or torture your children if you piss him off.
Anywho, that's all drifting off topic from the original point...
My point? Devout Christians are like Mother Theresa: compassionate, humble, sacrificing. Insane and/or fake Christians are like the Inquisitors.
I know lots of Christians. Good kind reasonable rational intelligent people. But they are anything but devout. They celebrate Easter and Christmas and whatnot, they go to church once in a while, but for the most part "being Christian" is a holiday-hobby with basically no bearing on their day-to-day real lives.
As I was saying, it's the real Believers that are dangerous and who commit atrocities. Such as parents who physical and mentally abuse their gay/lesbian children in the name of "helping" save them from hell.
A parent who doesn't care is bad... a parent who is evil and selfish is bad.... but the point I was making is that there's nothing so dangerous as someone devoutly helping you. That's the parent who physically and mentally abuses their gay/lesbian child to the point of suicide. Because the parent wants the child not to go to hell.
Of course I'm not saying all devout people commit atrocities. What I said was that there was no one more dangerous. Evil or uncaring people may harm you, but nothing is as dangerous and harmful and unrelenting as a person who believes they are doing right and good while inflicting their "help" upon unwilling victims.
Your earlier post:
And they are telling you and me that we are going to Hell.
Only because they don't want you to. Otherwise, they'd say nothing at all.
They are the dangerous ones. They aren't just the the ones wh
There is nothing more dangerous than a devout person trying to "help" you.
When some selfishly harms you, they will generally just steal your stuff and leave you alone. Or maybe whack you in the head, steal your stuff, and leave you alone. Or generally at worst, quickly killing you, stealing your stuff, and leaving you alone. Because they don't care about you.
It takes someone of deep faith that they are "helping" you to commit the worst atrocities. Because they have faith that what they are doing to you is right and good and for your own benefit. They will persistently and endlessly inflict harm, believing they are doing good.
The Inquisition only wanted to help keep people from going to hell, and it often took months for their torture victims to finally die.
-
This makes a good case for IPV6 so every site/device will have their own IP instead of sharing one IP for a million blogs.
I disagree. I'd say it makes a weak case against IPV6. Making censorship easier and more efficient and less noticeable and less objectionable is not good.
But as I said, it's a weak case. There are many other strong reasons why we do need to replace IPv4.
-
Dude, this was not censorship. The blocked websites had private emails
It's amazing how so many people always imagine "I agree with X therefore X is not censorship".
Imagine someone said "Bob's arm wasn't amputated, it was removed because it was cancerous". Ok.... cancer could be a very good motivation for removing an arm. However I assume you'd agree that the "Bob's arm wasn't amputated" part was wrong and ridiculous.
The motivation for removing the arm does not change whether or not it's an act of amputation. The motivation for blocking the website doesn't change whether or not it is an act of censorship.
If you want to make the case that it was justified and right under these circumstances, that's a very credible and reasonable position. However saying "it's not censorship" is not only wrong, it's dangerous. Basically everyone in history who has engaged in any sort censorship believed they had a good reason for it, considered it right and good, and virtually all of them have uttered the line "it's not censorship". The attitude "It's not censorship because it should be done, because it's a bad thing being blocked, because I'm the good guy with a good reason". Essentially "It's not censorship when I want to do it".
If you think it's right and justified in this case, then go ahead and defend it as right and justified. Don't do the "I agree with it therefore it's not censorship" garbage.
-
People act like science is perfect
No, science is reliable. That is a very different thing than "perfect".
but one new fact could totally change everything scientifically
Correct. That is the very foundation of science, and that why it is so reliable. There are hundreds of thousands of scientists constantly checking the existing evidence against established science, and constantly searching for new evidence to further support or challenge established science, and when necessary updating established science to reflect that new evidence.
If there is a rape&murder case, if there is DNA evidence, if the suspect's fingerprints are all over the murder weapon, if there are a hundred other pieces of evidence all confirming the suspect committed the crime, then any sane jury unanimously convicts. The legal standard, the only sane standard, is evidence "beyond any reasonable doubt". The suspect's parents may not want to believe it's true, they can certainly say (as you did) "one new fact could totally change everything" . However a strong desire that something is wrong and the statement that new evidence could some day could prove it wrong doesn't make it reasonable or rational to believe something actually is wrong. Not when an entire planet-worth of evidence all establishes that it's true, far far beyond any reasonable doubt.
Why don't we focus on the flaws in science as well? Mainly that hugely complex organisms like humans were created from totally random chaotic interactions which favor chaos instead of order. Thus it is far more likely to not have an organism "evolve" than for it to evolve.
You are not discussing a flaw in science, your are discussing your flawed conclusion or incomplete understanding of the science.
I assume you agree that the complex beauty of snowflakes are far more ordered than the random distribution of water atoms in liquid water or water vapor, or even a regular block of ice.
Sunlight shines down on the earth evaporating water, which then cools and radiates that energy out into space, and that water vapor then often falls down to earth as snowflakes.
When there is an energy flow, it is not only possible, but common for the laws of physics to spontaneously transform disorder into increasing order and complexity. The very fact of snowflakes demonstrates that your argument is false. When there is an energy flow, order can and does increase in the matter that the energy passes through.
When the sun shines on the earth, there is a 100% probability that some of the disordered water will be undergo an increase in order into the beautiful complexity of snowflakes.
And for the exact same reason, the flow of energy through living things powers the 100% probability of those living things evolving "upwards". The laws of the universe make it not only possible but inevitable for evolution to happen.
It seems to me that you are grossly selling God short. The laws of the universe give us nuclear fusion in the sun, making it not only possible but certain for the sun to shine warmth and sunlight for the earth. The laws of the universe make rainbows not only possible but inevitable. The laws of the universe give us chemistry which makes up out bodies and makes them function and fuels in the form of food. The laws of the universe give us evolution which not only makes it possible but inevitable for a single living thing to evolve into all the wondrous diversity and complexity of life we see today.
Are you going to deny the existence of God, or denigrate God, just because you dislike how the universe is run?
-
not allow closed form solutions for polynomials of degree more than 3
Perhaps that's was a typo, but you're off by one there. 4th degree polynomials do have a closed form solution. It can be found here.
It's 5th degree and above where there's no closed form solution. It's the Abel-Ruffini theorem.
-
I was surprised to find that there was no article for Santology in wikipedia!
There is now!
(Just kidding)
-
Proposition 1: This triangle is blue.
Proposition 2: All blue things have three corners.
Conclusion: This triangle therefore has three corners.
Proposition A: Proposition 2 is false.
Proposition B:
deductive logic if properly followed means that if all the propositions are true, the conclusion MUST be true, if any of the propositions is false the conclusion MUST also be false.
Conclusion: The triangle therefore does NOT have three corners. :D
-
By any unit of measure, even Windows 1.0 and Clippy are more valuable than gold.
-
(If you don't get it search for 'Firefox' on imdb.com)
Some of us prefer Chrome and Opera, you insensitive clod!
-
On top of that, you're considering not paying the interest on the money you borrowed from the rest of the world.
Just to clarify the situation, no... if our politicians continue with their radicalized ideology partisan politics shit the plan is strictly to shoot ourselves in the face, with each political party hoping the self-inflicted-wound will mostly injure the opposing political party.
The debt payments are only about 6% of the total budget. If there is no deal.... if the "default" we are talking about happens... the government's cash inflow will be about 60% of what they need to cover all government expenses. The plan is that the first priority is to cover that 6% interest payments in full.
The lower priority is things like medical care, food stamps to feed children in poverty, law enforcement, court systems, safety, maintaining/repairing infrastructure, military paychecks, monthly checks for retired senior citizens, and a variety of other government services. Those things will get about half the money they need, although it's unclear exactly how that money will be divided up. Some things might be fully funded but only by slashing or zeroing out other things in the list. Medical care, senior citizens, and the military are the three biggies, so either they all get half-payments or at least one gets basically zero.
So for those of you outside the U.S., don't worry you're being paid in full. This is a purely a situation of domestic terrorism, with some politicians saying "I'm going to shoot us in the face if my ideological demands aren't met".
The only way this will may impact you outside the U.S. is indirectly... if millions of senior citizens or soldiers or others get half (or zero) their monthly income it could very easily kick our economy into a second Great Depression. Unfortunately that would inevitably drag down the global economy.
But heay, don't worry if a U.S. economic collapse drags down your economy. Any billionaires in your countries wise enough to have millions invested in U.S. debt are the U.S. top priority, and giving them their interest profits is the U.S. top priority. So don't worry, you too can reap the wondrous rewards of Trickle Down economics. (Snark).
-
Yes, for most kinds of problems a normal computer can quickly verify whether a quantum result is correct. However I don't think a normal computer can verify certain kinds of "non-existence" or "optimum" results. For example if you plug in a problem and the quantum computer says no solution exists, a normal computer can't confirm that. Or if you plug in a traveling salesman problem asking for the shortest route and it gives you a short-route answer, a normal computer can obviously calculate the length of that route, but the normal computer generally can't verify that no shorter route exists.
-
If man evolved from apes, then why do we still have apes?
You had grandparents, and for the moment lets assume you have a cousin. Let's label your grandparents all "doctors" and we'll also label your cousin a "doctor", and we'll label you a "cardiologist".
Now, the question you asked is.... if you evolved from doctors, why does your cousin exist?
And just to make the picture even more clear, just because you generally refer to yourself as a "cardiologist" does not change the fact that you are still in fact a "doctor". Just because you generally refer to yourself as "human" does not change the fact that you are still an "ape" and that you are still a "mammal".
Humans and dogs and lions and horses and whales are all mammals. We all evolved from the same mammal ancestor.
Why didn't all species evolve like man supposedly did?
That's like asking why all species didn't evolve like horses. All species did evolve. They live in different places or eating different things or surviving in different ways, and they all evolve to get better at their specialty.
Humans, horses, hippos, lions, whales, and chimpanzees are all mammals. At one time there was just a single mammal species. Those mammals had lots of children, and over generations they spread out to live in many different places in many different ways and eating many different things. Over time some mammals lived on grasslands eating grass, and evolved the ability to run really fast and really far to escape predators. Those mammals evolved into the horses we see today. Some of those mammals specialized in living in and near water, and they evolved into the hippos we see today. Some mammals survived by hunting, and they specialized into the lions and other carnivores we see today. Some mammals started out living in and near water like hippos, but further adapted to an entirely aquatic lifestyle.... those are the mammal whales we see today.
And some mammals adapted to a certain style of forest life, evolving into chimpanzees (and other "apes") we see today.
And along the way, some of those forest-dwelling primates moved out onto the grasslands and standing upright. And this freed up our hands to be able to make and use tools. To specialize in making and using tools.
When whales moved into the water, when they evolved to specialize in living in water, the land mammals kept evolving too. Land mammals continued to evolve to be better at living in the place (and way) they lived. Carnivores evolved into better carnivores while whales adapted to aquatic life.
Some primates were living in the forest and some primates moved out onto the grasslands... the ones that kept living in the forest evolved to be even better at living in the forest while the ones on the grasslands evolved to stand upright and specialize in using our hands to make and use tools... to specialize in bigger brains.
Everything is always evolving. It's just that a single species spreads out to live in different places or different ways, and then splits into separate groups that evolve in different directions getting better at different specialties.
Asking why gorillas didn't evolve the same size brain as us is like asking why hippos can't run as fast as horses. Hippos are protected against lions by swimming into (and under) the water, and horses are protected against lions by their speed and endurance at running.
Chimpanzees got better at climbing through the trees. We got better at standing up and swinging a treebranch as a club or throwing a rock.... and eventually at sharpening that branch into a spear and chipping that rock to a point. Other primates kept on evolving while we evolved.
And don't underestimate how difficult and expensive it was for us to evolve our modern brains. Your brain accounts for only about 2% of your body mass, but you burn over over 30% of your food just to fuel it. Humans require a continuous and ridiculously high energy diet to fu
Quantum link to goatse... you don't know if you saw it or not, but you're absolutely certain that you don't want to know.
-