You know, everything I've heard from the protesters is to stay peaceful. They would be against burning anyone alive. (Obviously they can't restrain a lunatic fringe or agents provocateur.)
I'm puzzled why the right is so willing to genuflect to Christians every time they claim something is "sacred" to them. They regularly pillory Native American religions when they make a claim to some custom or place being sacred. Seriously, people are protesting antidiscrimination laws as attacks on religious liberty, and a lot of Christians seem to be convinced they're the persecuted minority. I argued with one and wound up saying that the best way for them to have religious liberty is to favor it for everyone.
It's publicity, and I've been seeing a lot more stuff about how to donate to the cause. Checking in does little besides provide a bit of moral support, but providing money isn't slacktivism.
I think you're projecting your own motivations onto the protesters. They're not protesting the pipeline in general, only where it's going. If the pipeline ran near Bismarck, as was originally planned, the Native Americans would have been fine with it. The reroute is because most people in North Dakota don't care about the Native Americans.
Pipelines are generally safer than other ways of moving oil, but it's reasonable to be for pipelines in general and against a specific pipeline. They aren't perfectly safe, so you really don't want to put one where a sizable oil leak would be a disaster. At least not for anyone you care about.
In this case, a leak could endanger the water supply for lots of Native Americans, which is why they're calling the protesters "Water Protectors". It also apparently destroys burial grounds and sacred sites, which is a very good reason for them to protest.
They do have a reasonable argument that it's their land by treaty, and that they have a perfect right to be there.
Snopes relies on the media, as far as I can tell. They will try to contact individuals involved in what they're reporting on, if they can, but other than that they don't do their own ground-up investigations. I'd think that the media just didn't cover what you were at, and Snopes was either unable to find anyone involved from their sources or couldn't get a response.
This doesn't mean Snopes was lying, but they are dependent on their sources.
Clinton had to give her client the best defense possible. At that time, it meant doing whatever she could do to discredit the victim's testimony to the point where there was reasonable doubt, no matter what it said about the victim. Now, the best defense possible doesn't include quite so savage attacks on the victim, so if Clinton were doing it now she'd give her client the best defense possible within current rules. The current rules are not a perversion of justice; indeed, I think they lead to more justice. Following the current rules back then would have meant not giving the client the best possible defense, and would have been a perversion of the justice system.
Your quotation speculates that Clinton lied, and therefore might have been unethical. That's not evidence of anything except that there's someone who doesn't like Clinton.
Law enforcement has used social media before, and also infiltrated peaceful left-wing groups before, It's very reasonable to speculate that law enforcement would use Facebook check-ins to see who they had to deal with. It's not happening in this case, but it could happen in others.
I believe you're not taking into account how much oil is needed for X vs. how much water is needed. We're not talking about supplying inland oceans of oil, after all. Moving all that water around is going to take a lot of energy, so the extra CO2 released might well cause more problems than the lakes and seas would solve.
Some science is settled, and is just assumed to be true by other scientists. The difference between settled truth in science and settled truth in (say) theology, is that what's settled truth in science today may be unsettled tomorrow.
Those weren't ad hominems. He wasn't arguing that people are idiots and therefore they're wrong; he was arguing that people who are so willfully wrong are stupid morons.
What we're seeing is a case of data being re-examined and found to have been faulty, which is probably going to mess up the models, which were constructed around smaller rises in sea level.
Global temperature changes are normal, and there isn't one "right" temperature. However, temperature changes like we're seeing now are much faster than what has apparently went on in the past, and it's moving the global temperature enough to create effects that are not good for our civilization, which developed in mostly more stable temperatures.
I'm going to nominate some Republican Presidents for toilet use. Typically, in my lifetime, Republicans have made major increases in the deficit, and Democrats have reduced it.
There's no good objective argument for the existence of God, so atheism is a perfectly consistent belief or lack of same. It's not necessary to explain away any scientific evidence to become an atheist. To be a denialist, it's necessary to explain away tons of data and other science, typically by believing that climate scientists are almost all part of a global conspiracy. It's more like creationism.
Think of the proposals. What arguments are you going to make for your anti-AGW research project? Unless it's got some ingenious new explanation for things, it's going to be going against the evidence. If you use similarly thin arguments for your pro-AGW project, it won't get funded either.
"Computer Numeric Control" was what I was told about nine years ago when I started working with CNC machines. It made sense to me because the gcode the mills used was a Turing-complete specialized computer language.
Vasectomies are generally permanent. After not being connected for a while, the testes tend to shut down sperm production, so vasectomy reversals are unreliable. They're not good for the "I don't want a kid right now" phase, only the "I never want another kid" phase.
You may want to plot a flat, smooth drive from the doctor's office to home. You may also want to check your doctor's sense of humor beforehand. You will want to limit some physical activities for a week or so. Other than that, no problems for me.
Penis-in-vagina sex is the only way to get pregnant from the act (as opposed to later), but it's not the only way to make love. Lots of people don't find it attractive, and much prefer alternatives. I'm not going to say that nobody who's doing oral or anal isn't having sex.
Slashdot Mirror
You know, everything I've heard from the protesters is to stay peaceful. They would be against burning anyone alive. (Obviously they can't restrain a lunatic fringe or agents provocateur.)
I'm puzzled why the right is so willing to genuflect to Christians every time they claim something is "sacred" to them. They regularly pillory Native American religions when they make a claim to some custom or place being sacred. Seriously, people are protesting antidiscrimination laws as attacks on religious liberty, and a lot of Christians seem to be convinced they're the persecuted minority. I argued with one and wound up saying that the best way for them to have religious liberty is to favor it for everyone.
You could look up what the protesters are saying. Then you have two sides of an issue, which is more balanced than what you've got now.
It's publicity, and I've been seeing a lot more stuff about how to donate to the cause. Checking in does little besides provide a bit of moral support, but providing money isn't slacktivism.
I think you're projecting your own motivations onto the protesters. They're not protesting the pipeline in general, only where it's going. If the pipeline ran near Bismarck, as was originally planned, the Native Americans would have been fine with it. The reroute is because most people in North Dakota don't care about the Native Americans.
And, given what's going on, the Native Americans should trust the pipeline company to carefully maintain the pipeline and respond quickly to leaks?
Pipelines are generally safer than other ways of moving oil, but it's reasonable to be for pipelines in general and against a specific pipeline. They aren't perfectly safe, so you really don't want to put one where a sizable oil leak would be a disaster. At least not for anyone you care about.
In this case, a leak could endanger the water supply for lots of Native Americans, which is why they're calling the protesters "Water Protectors". It also apparently destroys burial grounds and sacred sites, which is a very good reason for them to protest.
They do have a reasonable argument that it's their land by treaty, and that they have a perfect right to be there.
Yeah, but the easiest way to get out of here is by air.
Snopes relies on the media, as far as I can tell. They will try to contact individuals involved in what they're reporting on, if they can, but other than that they don't do their own ground-up investigations. I'd think that the media just didn't cover what you were at, and Snopes was either unable to find anyone involved from their sources or couldn't get a response.
This doesn't mean Snopes was lying, but they are dependent on their sources.
Clinton had to give her client the best defense possible. At that time, it meant doing whatever she could do to discredit the victim's testimony to the point where there was reasonable doubt, no matter what it said about the victim. Now, the best defense possible doesn't include quite so savage attacks on the victim, so if Clinton were doing it now she'd give her client the best defense possible within current rules. The current rules are not a perversion of justice; indeed, I think they lead to more justice. Following the current rules back then would have meant not giving the client the best possible defense, and would have been a perversion of the justice system.
Your quotation speculates that Clinton lied, and therefore might have been unethical. That's not evidence of anything except that there's someone who doesn't like Clinton.
Law enforcement has used social media before, and also infiltrated peaceful left-wing groups before, It's very reasonable to speculate that law enforcement would use Facebook check-ins to see who they had to deal with. It's not happening in this case, but it could happen in others.
I believe you're not taking into account how much oil is needed for X vs. how much water is needed. We're not talking about supplying inland oceans of oil, after all. Moving all that water around is going to take a lot of energy, so the extra CO2 released might well cause more problems than the lakes and seas would solve.
Some science is settled, and is just assumed to be true by other scientists. The difference between settled truth in science and settled truth in (say) theology, is that what's settled truth in science today may be unsettled tomorrow.
Those weren't ad hominems. He wasn't arguing that people are idiots and therefore they're wrong; he was arguing that people who are so willfully wrong are stupid morons.
What we're seeing is a case of data being re-examined and found to have been faulty, which is probably going to mess up the models, which were constructed around smaller rises in sea level.
Global temperature changes are normal, and there isn't one "right" temperature. However, temperature changes like we're seeing now are much faster than what has apparently went on in the past, and it's moving the global temperature enough to create effects that are not good for our civilization, which developed in mostly more stable temperatures.
I'm going to nominate some Republican Presidents for toilet use. Typically, in my lifetime, Republicans have made major increases in the deficit, and Democrats have reduced it.
The deficit was close to zero near the end of Bill Clinton's Presidency, much less than it has been since.
There's no good objective argument for the existence of God, so atheism is a perfectly consistent belief or lack of same. It's not necessary to explain away any scientific evidence to become an atheist. To be a denialist, it's necessary to explain away tons of data and other science, typically by believing that climate scientists are almost all part of a global conspiracy. It's more like creationism.
Think of the proposals. What arguments are you going to make for your anti-AGW research project? Unless it's got some ingenious new explanation for things, it's going to be going against the evidence. If you use similarly thin arguments for your pro-AGW project, it won't get funded either.
"Computer Numeric Control" was what I was told about nine years ago when I started working with CNC machines. It made sense to me because the gcode the mills used was a Turing-complete specialized computer language.
Vasectomies are generally permanent. After not being connected for a while, the testes tend to shut down sperm production, so vasectomy reversals are unreliable. They're not good for the "I don't want a kid right now" phase, only the "I never want another kid" phase.
You may want to plot a flat, smooth drive from the doctor's office to home. You may also want to check your doctor's sense of humor beforehand. You will want to limit some physical activities for a week or so. Other than that, no problems for me.
If you're talking about vasectomies, you may want to find out ahead of time about your surgeon's sense of humor. Trust me on this, guys.
Penis-in-vagina sex is the only way to get pregnant from the act (as opposed to later), but it's not the only way to make love. Lots of people don't find it attractive, and much prefer alternatives. I'm not going to say that nobody who's doing oral or anal isn't having sex.