You wrote so much and said so little. You phrasing your opinion as if perfect fact doesn't make it so. "European-style civilization is the imposition of the views of elites on the people" - abject nonsense. It's about support and getting the most for society's money. If you want a good demonstration, look at healthcare on both sides of the Atlantic. If what you say is true, healthcare in Europe should be fantastic for the wealthy and terrible for the poor, and in the US it should be great for everyone. As it is, the actual situation is the complete reverse of that. But you've already made up your mind, as for you to admit that the US has some serious shortcomings would make you feel bad, as it seems so much of your own self-identity is based on brainlessly loving the flag flying over the ground you were accidentally born in. Strange.
You say there is a difference between murder and "justified execution", but many people would disagree, claiming that there is no way to justify an execution, as someone in prison is just as dangerous to society as a dead person, so killing them is no an exercise in safety or justice, but simple animal retribution.
Attitudes like yours, when held by those in power, are why people the world over detest the US. Seriously. It's that lazy attitude which allows the US to fuck over people without a second thought, and then act all surprised when those fucked-over people come looking to reduce the fucking-over by doing some of their own fucking-over. When normal people like you hold such opinions, they only serve to make the American populace look selfish as fuck, like an angry toddler not interested in what his playmates think when he takes their toys.
Riiiight, because those end with people being executed. Idiot. It seems you don't mind making absurd claims if they appear to help your argument, regardless of whether they make you look like a dribbling fool in the process or not.
It was some scientists saying stuff similar to what you claimed they did, but with qualifying statements like "might", "could", etc. You constantly misrepresenting that is making you look desperate, ill-informed, ignorant, or some toxic mix of all three.
You missed all the qualifying words off those quotes, which is twisting what they were actually claiming. I know you want to make a point, but is lying the best way to do it? Are we supposed to respect what you're saying if it's demonstrable nonsense?
You were failed by your educators and your society if you think it's appropriate to gauge the accuracy of scientific principles by looking at politicians' habits. Seriously. And you proudly posted that online as if it's nothing to be embarrassed of... Bizarre.
The solutions are worse according to you. According to the people who actually study this, they are not. But seeing as this information is freely available, and yet you either deny its existence or veracity (without letting on), you are clearly not interested in engaging in a discussion where you might learn something. You've closed your ears, and you seem happy about it. Weird.
But you're advocating some sorts of music over others, namely the stuff you like over the stuff you don't, which seems to be the precise thing you are railing against...
You are using lots of the right words to sound like you know what you're talking about, but your description of mercury (as if it's the same mercury as in the vaccines) shows you really have no idea. So little it's dangerous, in fact.
Even though you are categorically wrong and launching a strange attack on things completely removed from this discussion, you still have a +3 interesting score. Weird.
Then you are denying the rights of those parents who don't want their kids infected by religious kids. Someone's rights are going to be impinged, so should they the rights of those who have no choice or of those who have chosen religion?
One pays taxes for schools so one can live in a society in which most people are educated. One pays tuition for a specific child to go to a specific school. To complain about that system is to admit not understanding why people pay taxes.
You don't pay for public education so you can be educated, you pay for it so your society gets educated. That's why people who didn't go to school and have no kids are still asked to pay it - they benefit from being surrounded by people who have had a basic education. It seems your basic education was lacking if you can't understand this simple concept.
According to you, maybe. According to the actual scientists who are studying AGW, you are incorrect. Seeing as you have no evidence for your position (and those counter to you have lots of evidence), to believe you would seem to be a terrible idea.
The evidence you seek is out there, but unless you actually care to learn it, you will remain ignorant. You only have yourself to blame for your ignorance.
You don't understand the difference between ice on the sea and on the land, so why should anyone listen to you about anything related to this topic? You clearly like the idea of fighting against accepting climate change more than learning anything about it.
Slashdot Mirror
You wrote so much and said so little. You phrasing your opinion as if perfect fact doesn't make it so. "European-style civilization is the imposition of the views of elites on the people" - abject nonsense. It's about support and getting the most for society's money. If you want a good demonstration, look at healthcare on both sides of the Atlantic. If what you say is true, healthcare in Europe should be fantastic for the wealthy and terrible for the poor, and in the US it should be great for everyone. As it is, the actual situation is the complete reverse of that. But you've already made up your mind, as for you to admit that the US has some serious shortcomings would make you feel bad, as it seems so much of your own self-identity is based on brainlessly loving the flag flying over the ground you were accidentally born in. Strange.
You're clearly not too good at reading or logic...
You say there is a difference between murder and "justified execution", but many people would disagree, claiming that there is no way to justify an execution, as someone in prison is just as dangerous to society as a dead person, so killing them is no an exercise in safety or justice, but simple animal retribution.
Attitudes like yours, when held by those in power, are why people the world over detest the US. Seriously. It's that lazy attitude which allows the US to fuck over people without a second thought, and then act all surprised when those fucked-over people come looking to reduce the fucking-over by doing some of their own fucking-over. When normal people like you hold such opinions, they only serve to make the American populace look selfish as fuck, like an angry toddler not interested in what his playmates think when he takes their toys.
Riiiight, because those end with people being executed. Idiot. It seems you don't mind making absurd claims if they appear to help your argument, regardless of whether they make you look like a dribbling fool in the process or not.
It was some scientists saying stuff similar to what you claimed they did, but with qualifying statements like "might", "could", etc. You constantly misrepresenting that is making you look desperate, ill-informed, ignorant, or some toxic mix of all three.
You missed all the qualifying words off those quotes, which is twisting what they were actually claiming. I know you want to make a point, but is lying the best way to do it? Are we supposed to respect what you're saying if it's demonstrable nonsense?
You were failed by your educators and your society if you think it's appropriate to gauge the accuracy of scientific principles by looking at politicians' habits. Seriously. And you proudly posted that online as if it's nothing to be embarrassed of... Bizarre.
The solutions are worse according to you. According to the people who actually study this, they are not. But seeing as this information is freely available, and yet you either deny its existence or veracity (without letting on), you are clearly not interested in engaging in a discussion where you might learn something. You've closed your ears, and you seem happy about it. Weird.
But you're advocating some sorts of music over others, namely the stuff you like over the stuff you don't, which seems to be the precise thing you are railing against...
It's not, and it doesn't. Maybe to you, but then you are you and not everyone else.
Hahaha! Stereotypes are funny! Isn't that right, Mr. obese geographically-challenged backwards American? :)
You are using lots of the right words to sound like you know what you're talking about, but your description of mercury (as if it's the same mercury as in the vaccines) shows you really have no idea. So little it's dangerous, in fact.
Even though you are categorically wrong and launching a strange attack on things completely removed from this discussion, you still have a +3 interesting score. Weird.
I think you have that backwards - an argument based on religion is weak at best.
Then you are denying the rights of those parents who don't want their kids infected by religious kids. Someone's rights are going to be impinged, so should they the rights of those who have no choice or of those who have chosen religion?
One pays taxes for schools so one can live in a society in which most people are educated. One pays tuition for a specific child to go to a specific school. To complain about that system is to admit not understanding why people pay taxes.
You don't pay for public education so you can be educated, you pay for it so your society gets educated. That's why people who didn't go to school and have no kids are still asked to pay it - they benefit from being surrounded by people who have had a basic education. It seems your basic education was lacking if you can't understand this simple concept.
But what about 18 years 4 months or 17 years 5 months? If you cherry pick your data, your opponents always have the last laugh.
According to you, maybe. According to the actual scientists who are studying AGW, you are incorrect. Seeing as you have no evidence for your position (and those counter to you have lots of evidence), to believe you would seem to be a terrible idea.
The evidence you seek is out there, but unless you actually care to learn it, you will remain ignorant. You only have yourself to blame for your ignorance.
You don't understand the difference between ice on the sea and on the land, so why should anyone listen to you about anything related to this topic? You clearly like the idea of fighting against accepting climate change more than learning anything about it.
First things first. You understand how that works, right? Right?
Translation: "I don't know about the climate but fuck you I'm stupid and I love it that way."
So you don't know much about markets or climate science, yet here you are, espousing how the former can fix problems with the latter. Incredible.