All four of those are about selfishness. They are about hoarding resources for the born while denying them to the unborn. They are encouraged by our wealthy masters in order to reduce the population of the poor so that they can keep more wealth for themselves.
Thus, they can't be described as "live and let live", but more "I've got mine and the rest of you can just die".
I don't have ADHD, but I do have High Functioning Autism, and I had the same problem in college, even though I wasn't diagnosed yet (and wouldn't be for another 10 years).
The two solutions for me: A white noise generator to drown out the sound next door, and a "mix tape" of my most boring songs for when I couldn't stand the white noise anymore. Would be a playlist without shuffle now, of course, but MP3 players didn't exist when I was in college. Once your brain gets used to the order of songs, say about the 100th repetition or so, you can tune them out.
Another equally good option today that did not exist when I was in college is noise-canceling headphones.
It is when you consider the bigger political picture- and the fact that the media is *entirely* on the side of transferring more wealth from the many to the few, even if that means the wholesale slaughter of the many.
The current global warming proposals, which are all for trying to reduce the warming, are more about wealth transfer from the poor to the rich than anything else. Global Warming is just a convenient topic for the Mathusian Eugenicists to say "More white babies in Chicago and New York City, fewer brown babies born in the third world", because we all know industrialization of primitive peoples causes global warming, right?
Otherwise, we'd be taking advantage of this rise in atmospheric carbon to defeat the political problem of hunger- merely by planting food EVERYWHERE instead of continuing to transfer control of plant life on this planet to the few corporations that have been picked to make money at it.
Global Warming is a HUGE opportunity to create a food surplus that would easily feed several times our current population, and with our current technology, store that food for a quarter century or more- and they want to STOP IT? Of course they do- because that would loosen the oligarchy that controls the food supply, and thus, controls the world.
There's plenty of money to be made- and where there is money to be made, conspiracy isn't fringe anymore- it becomes inevitable. The amount of money the first world will make by throwing Big Oil to the hurricanes is many, many times what big oil will make in a future where oil is a dwindling resource.
You mean, kind of like the atheists did? Oh yeah, Turing was buggering children long before it became fashionable for Popes to do so, and yet the British Government was evil for removing him from his post.
That's funny, because those four rights are specifically about "I want to live but want to make sure I have no responsibility to let the next generation live".
"My question to you is how could climate scientists expect to get away with falsifying their science?"
Simple. By coming to conclusions that are not supported by the real data.
"Any science that is based on the physical characteristics of nature as climate science is is subject to verification by other scientists. If what they are saying is politically motivated then sooner or later their deception will be found out and their scientific reputations trashed."
And some 12% of scientists do dissent on their data.
" I can't believe in the 25 years since the IPCC was formed that among all of the scientists around the world who are studying climate there aren't any who aren't willing and able to call them out on it if they found something fundamentally wrong."
There have been plenty. But of course, since they are in the minority and climate science is a democracy, it is THEIR reputations that get trashed.
" I know there are some contrarians like Lindzen and Spencer but they mostly just nibble around the edges and haven't produced anything that would overturn the fundamental findings of the mainstream."
Or rather, what they have found, has been utterly ignored and their reputations have been trashed for producing it.
" In the end any scientist worthy of the title has to follow where the evidence leads regardless of their own biases or they will lose their career."
The only way a scientist loses his career is by going against what those who fund the grants want to hear.
" Name one significant religion (i.e. not one you just made up) that you think has no superstitions. "
Roman Catholicism
"Handy hint - if any of them have any concept of an afterlife, or of a creator, any five-year-old could probably identify a superstition they cling too. "
I reject your definition of a superstition, and find it to be superstitious in and of itself. The lack of a concept of an afterlife, and lack of a concept of a creator, is far more superstitious than any religion on the planet. Proof is your dogmatic clinging to a lack of a concept of an afterlife as being superstitious.
"Right, that explains a lot. You don't even know what a superstition is. Save up your pocket money, and go buy yourself a dictionary."
Dictionaries are often biased in support of their authors, and are thus worthless.
"Only to complete idiots. However, I'm glad my beliefs offend you, as I find your stupidity offensive too. You have a mental illness, and to be perfectly honest, I can't even feel pity for you; I simply look down on you as being feeble-minded."
As do I you, in your mental illness that can't even be bothered to grant another human being dignity. It must be awful lonely in your little universe of one.
"There's a huge difference. Rational religion does not exist, irrational religion is practically everywhere"
A good example of a superstition that fails to live up to the facts. Your own example is a superstition, and an irrational stereotype no less offensive than "all homosexuals are child molesters".
The first set, never saw vindication in their lifetimes. The second set were immensely popular. NEITHER fits your "an unpopular genius with an unpopular theory can still find success", because arguably the first set never found success and the second set were immensely popular.
Rational religions embrace empiricism, and in fact, are founded on both the axiom "God exists" AND "We can know the mind of God by observing his creation better than we can know the mind of God by slavishly following our interpretation of what we think our ancient ancestors wrote".
To bring this full circle back to Dr. Bakker's original point- St. Augustine said that where observation and scripture conflict, observation is the truth.
Too bad it took secularists another 1300 years to invent empiricism.
Planting enough rain forests (increasing the number of plants) will increase carbon absorption and end the hunger problem once and for all. The only reason you don't like it is because you aren't a scientist, you're a politician.
It is taking the rational view on condom use, as opposed to the irrational marketing of the condom manufacturers that you are using instead of actual objective data.
I see what you did there. But of course, most "knowledgeable climate scientists" all seem to be politicians, not scientists. Their data is cherry picked to fit their prejudicial conclusions.
I think the problem with your original is your obvious anti-human prejudice in this statement: "How is it that you dig up these fossils of massive beasts easily more impressive than humans in every feature save the brain "
So tell me, where did Doctor Who dig up your colony of Silurians?
Slashdot Mirror
I most certainly was and still am- but at least I've got the ability to learn from my betters in history, unlike most modernists.
"(Woman's Rights, Abortion, Gay Marriage, Contraceptives)"
All four of those are about selfishness. They are about hoarding resources for the born while denying them to the unborn. They are encouraged by our wealthy masters in order to reduce the population of the poor so that they can keep more wealth for themselves.
Thus, they can't be described as "live and let live", but more "I've got mine and the rest of you can just die".
I don't have ADHD, but I do have High Functioning Autism, and I had the same problem in college, even though I wasn't diagnosed yet (and wouldn't be for another 10 years).
The two solutions for me: A white noise generator to drown out the sound next door, and a "mix tape" of my most boring songs for when I couldn't stand the white noise anymore. Would be a playlist without shuffle now, of course, but MP3 players didn't exist when I was in college. Once your brain gets used to the order of songs, say about the 100th repetition or so, you can tune them out.
Another equally good option today that did not exist when I was in college is noise-canceling headphones.
XP is your issue, not flash. Upgrade to a linux distro.
Your average homeless shelter could make good use of these machines- if only to use them as resume and internet job search machines.
It is when you consider the bigger political picture- and the fact that the media is *entirely* on the side of transferring more wealth from the many to the few, even if that means the wholesale slaughter of the many.
The current global warming proposals, which are all for trying to reduce the warming, are more about wealth transfer from the poor to the rich than anything else. Global Warming is just a convenient topic for the Mathusian Eugenicists to say "More white babies in Chicago and New York City, fewer brown babies born in the third world", because we all know industrialization of primitive peoples causes global warming, right?
Otherwise, we'd be taking advantage of this rise in atmospheric carbon to defeat the political problem of hunger- merely by planting food EVERYWHERE instead of continuing to transfer control of plant life on this planet to the few corporations that have been picked to make money at it.
Global Warming is a HUGE opportunity to create a food surplus that would easily feed several times our current population, and with our current technology, store that food for a quarter century or more- and they want to STOP IT? Of course they do- because that would loosen the oligarchy that controls the food supply, and thus, controls the world.
There's plenty of money to be made- and where there is money to be made, conspiracy isn't fringe anymore- it becomes inevitable. The amount of money the first world will make by throwing Big Oil to the hurricanes is many, many times what big oil will make in a future where oil is a dwindling resource.
You mean, kind of like the atheists did? Oh yeah, Turing was buggering children long before it became fashionable for Popes to do so, and yet the British Government was evil for removing him from his post.
As well they shouldn't. What if homosexuality is a mistake?
Eight out of ten men are sane
On is a genius
The other is crazy.
I hesitate to call myself a genius
That leaves only one choice.
And thank God for that, since young men are universally idiots.
That's funny, because those four rights are specifically about "I want to live but want to make sure I have no responsibility to let the next generation live".
Change 5 to 40, and you've got the genocide of the unborn.
"My question to you is how could climate scientists expect to get away with falsifying their science?"
Simple. By coming to conclusions that are not supported by the real data.
"Any science that is based on the physical characteristics of nature as climate science is is subject to verification by other scientists. If what they are saying is politically motivated then sooner or later their deception will be found out and their scientific reputations trashed."
And some 12% of scientists do dissent on their data.
" I can't believe in the 25 years since the IPCC was formed that among all of the scientists around the world who are studying climate there aren't any who aren't willing and able to call them out on it if they found something fundamentally wrong."
There have been plenty. But of course, since they are in the minority and climate science is a democracy, it is THEIR reputations that get trashed.
" I know there are some contrarians like Lindzen and Spencer but they mostly just nibble around the edges and haven't produced anything that would overturn the fundamental findings of the mainstream."
Or rather, what they have found, has been utterly ignored and their reputations have been trashed for producing it.
" In the end any scientist worthy of the title has to follow where the evidence leads regardless of their own biases or they will lose their career."
The only way a scientist loses his career is by going against what those who fund the grants want to hear.
You are the one confused. Anything observed is empirically true- REGARDLESS of other evidence. Observation, not stupid ideology, should rule.
"can (possibly) demonstrate"
do you know anybody who is dead who is able to demonstrate anything?
"they demonstrated that their theories gave correct predictions. If they'd failed to do so, I wouldn't have provided that reference."
The point wasn't that the second set was able to demonstrate their theories- the point is that they were POPULAR, and thus also don't fit.
3 clauses to make khashim's statement true.
1. Unpopular person
2. Unpopular theory
3. Able to demonstrate
You gave me two that didn't fit the data set.
Only because you are a bigot and a fraud.
" Name one significant religion (i.e. not one you just made up) that you think has no superstitions. "
Roman Catholicism
"Handy hint - if any of them have any concept of an afterlife, or of a creator, any five-year-old could probably identify a superstition they cling too. "
I reject your definition of a superstition, and find it to be superstitious in and of itself. The lack of a concept of an afterlife, and lack of a concept of a creator, is far more superstitious than any religion on the planet. Proof is your dogmatic clinging to a lack of a concept of an afterlife as being superstitious.
"Right, that explains a lot. You don't even know what a superstition is. Save up your pocket money, and go buy yourself a dictionary."
Dictionaries are often biased in support of their authors, and are thus worthless.
"Only to complete idiots. However, I'm glad my beliefs offend you, as I find your stupidity offensive too. You have a mental illness, and to be perfectly honest, I can't even feel pity for you; I simply look down on you as being feeble-minded."
As do I you, in your mental illness that can't even be bothered to grant another human being dignity. It must be awful lonely in your little universe of one.
"I'm not sure that believing something that need inherently be unprovable can ever be rational."
Who said that God needs to inherently be unprovable? Or that empirical data is limited to the repeatible?
"Where can one find one of these mystical rational religions?"
One right now is "proving" that God exists by trying to pick a leader without politics.
"There's a huge difference. Rational religion does not exist, irrational religion is practically everywhere"
A good example of a superstition that fails to live up to the facts. Your own example is a superstition, and an irrational stereotype no less offensive than "all homosexuals are child molesters".
The first set, never saw vindication in their lifetimes. The second set were immensely popular. NEITHER fits your "an unpopular genius with an unpopular theory can still find success", because arguably the first set never found success and the second set were immensely popular.
Haven't you ever studied boolean logic?
Rational religions embrace empiricism, and in fact, are founded on both the axiom "God exists" AND "We can know the mind of God by observing his creation better than we can know the mind of God by slavishly following our interpretation of what we think our ancient ancestors wrote".
To bring this full circle back to Dr. Bakker's original point- St. Augustine said that where observation and scripture conflict, observation is the truth.
Too bad it took secularists another 1300 years to invent empiricism.
Planting enough rain forests (increasing the number of plants) will increase carbon absorption and end the hunger problem once and for all. The only reason you don't like it is because you aren't a scientist, you're a politician.
It is taking the rational view on condom use, as opposed to the irrational marketing of the condom manufacturers that you are using instead of actual objective data.
I see what you did there. But of course, most "knowledgeable climate scientists" all seem to be politicians, not scientists. Their data is cherry picked to fit their prejudicial conclusions.
I think the problem with your original is your obvious anti-human prejudice in this statement:
"How is it that you dig up these fossils of massive beasts easily more impressive than humans in every feature save the brain "
So tell me, where did Doctor Who dig up your colony of Silurians?