The dumb is strong with this one. Check out the dark ages, and top it off with a list of all the scientists punished or killed by the church for daring to look at the world.
Sorry - the 10 commandments are good rules? The first few are about God being insecure! What the hell do they have to do with laws?
You seem to be confusing vocal atheists with the vast majority (we know they are the minority as otherwise you'd not be able to move for militant atheists). You are also not factoring in the amount of demonisation atheists suffer by various theist groups, who pounce on any atheist voicing his/her opinion and extrapolate that to every single atheist out there.
Your claims of "large movements" etc. are just your opinion - without any facts to back them up they are not particular pertinent to the discussion.
Aaah - I see now. You are simply making things up and letting your hubris elevate your musings to "facthood", then getting all uppity when people call you out on your nonsense.
And I'm sure even a lowly science student could outline an experiment which shows you are incorrect.
In your example, the ignorance and arrogance lies with you: You are ignorant of the fact that it's inherently possible to disprove your claims, and your arrogance is stopping you from realising your own ignorance, automatically assuming you are correct.
You are confusing people's characteristics and why they do things. Those people also wore trousers, but I doubt you're claiming they killed for trousers.
Stalin, Mao, and Pot were the religion. This has been covered thousands of times already, so you not realising this speaks very poorly of how well-though-out your stance is.
He was jailed for bringing in illegal technology. Due to the fact he was being paid by the US government under the auspices of helping overthrow the Cuban government, you'd imagine they'd be a bit upset, and acted the same way the US would in similar circumstances. You can just complain about not knowing who to believe, or you can actually read about it and get a better understanding.
You said it yourself - he was in possession of illegal technology. That's it. Why are you so desperate to condemn Cuba, even to the point of blatantly refusing to accept the very facts you yourself have provided?
Are you kidding?? This whole "too free" nonsense has to stop. Read a history book and see just what the US has done to the countries in question, and then you might understand how ridiculous you sound, and why every time you spout "they hate our freedoms!" people laugh at you, and the global reputation of the US sinks that little bit lower. Pathetic.
Nationalism - is not a good thing. Horrific things have been done in the name of nationalism. It is the "us" in "them vs. us" - the archetypal oversimplification of disputes and diplomacy. Racial bigotry is still rather prominent in the US - just look at all the racist episodes which happened when Obama was elected, the history of race relations in the US (wondered why the Pentagon has so many toilets?), and the fact the country was built on slavery and genocide.
Upward Mobility - this exists everywhere there is money and people who would trade that for goods or services.
Rule of Law - based on English common law, rooted in the Magna Carta of 1215.
Freedom of Religion - not special in any way. This is a common thing found across the world in the vast majority of countries
Capitalism - common to most of the world
Global Economic Interdependence - I don't know how you can claim something which is inherently international as something specifically American. That is just confusing.
So it appears what you think of as "American Culture" is simply a list of things (some bad, some good) which exist in the US and in many other countries, to varying degrees. You might as well have claimed "We mainly have two arms and two legs each" as being part of US culture...
Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of many aspects of the US, but seeing ill-though-out lists like this don't reflect the true awesome aspects of the US (such as its art and scientific endeavours over the years).
I disagree about capitalism vs. socialism when it comes to research and innovation: Capitalism-driven research is only focussed on that which can return a profit in a given time-frame, whereas socialism-driven research can be focussed on whatever, even if the chances of it working are small. Obviously that's not always the case, but it seems to be the predominant alignment. Just look at DARPA in the US - a prime example of public funds being used to research and develop technologies, many of which have found their way to the common good.
That wasn't an ad hominem - it was pertinent to the discussion. If he'd said he had a stupid name or that his liking of Pop Tarts made him a muppet, then you'd be right.
How do you know such a response would have "worked", and how do you define "worked"? Do you think it would have led to the removal of the embargo? And if so, how?
The ruling is simply stating "The public can view digitised copies of material held by libraries" and that libraries "can digitise material and keep it under their own control".
Overthrowing democracies around the world? Systematic genocide? Internment camps for its own citizens? Funding dictators? Nuking civilians? Rampant racism?
Your memory seems to be rather spotty, or you think those things are awesome. It's got to be one of the two.
Scapegoating? That would imply the US's hands are clean, which it seems they probably are not, as the US supported the military coup against a democratically-elected leader, something South & Central America does not take too lightly, given the US's track record of destroying democracy in those regions.
Are you kidding? Being able to criticise the government is the norm, not the exception. Most countries welcome it. Do you really know that little about the world? You do realise it's poorly-though-out posts like yours which bolster the stereotype of the globally-ignorant American, right? You tried to turn the tables on an attack on "your" country, and ended up perpetuating a negative stereotype about it instead. Good jerb!
Why is this +5? Yes, RT.com frequently publishes propaganda, but this story is available on any number of alternative news sites, and is based entirely on a report from the Cuban government itself. Unless you are suggesting RT.com has made the Cuban government write & publish this report, your comment is a fine example of an "ad hominem", and should be ignored as such.
The first two points have been scientifically demonstrated to be true to a staggering degree of certainty, whereas the third point you plucked out of thin air. Classy.
He said "most scientists", and you counter that by claiming there are occasional cases of fraud. I hope you realise the two are not mutually exclusive... You've not hurt his argument what-so-ever, and have pointed out that fraudulent scientists are discovered by other scientists.
With every post of yours I have the good fortune to read, I am imbued with the sense you really don't have a clue what's going on in the world. I'm sure you think you do - you seem to have gathered some things to hold on to and assume they represent reality, but it seems you go no further than that. You are happy with your choices, and will do nothing to challenge them or to even ensure they're correct.
The fact you think you know for sure that ground-breaking physics research will never lead to anything with practical value highlights this point wonderfully.
The new coal plants are replacing older plants, and this was planned before the "Energiewende". The new plants release far less CO2 than the old ones, so it's still a net reduction.
Slashdot Mirror
The dumb is strong with this one. Check out the dark ages, and top it off with a list of all the scientists punished or killed by the church for daring to look at the world.
Sorry - the 10 commandments are good rules? The first few are about God being insecure! What the hell do they have to do with laws?
You seem to be confusing vocal atheists with the vast majority (we know they are the minority as otherwise you'd not be able to move for militant atheists). You are also not factoring in the amount of demonisation atheists suffer by various theist groups, who pounce on any atheist voicing his/her opinion and extrapolate that to every single atheist out there.
Your claims of "large movements" etc. are just your opinion - without any facts to back them up they are not particular pertinent to the discussion.
You need help. You can't simply make stuff up and expect people to believe it without evidence. That is what crazy people do down at the bus station.
Aaah - I see now. You are simply making things up and letting your hubris elevate your musings to "facthood", then getting all uppity when people call you out on your nonsense.
And I'm sure even a lowly science student could outline an experiment which shows you are incorrect.
In your example, the ignorance and arrogance lies with you: You are ignorant of the fact that it's inherently possible to disprove your claims, and your arrogance is stopping you from realising your own ignorance, automatically assuming you are correct.
You are a blind man claiming he can see colours.
You are confusing people's characteristics and why they do things. Those people also wore trousers, but I doubt you're claiming they killed for trousers.
Stalin, Mao, and Pot were the religion. This has been covered thousands of times already, so you not realising this speaks very poorly of how well-though-out your stance is.
"Liberty Cabbage" was the nom-de-nonsensical-nationalism in those days.
He was jailed for bringing in illegal technology. Due to the fact he was being paid by the US government under the auspices of helping overthrow the Cuban government, you'd imagine they'd be a bit upset, and acted the same way the US would in similar circumstances. You can just complain about not knowing who to believe, or you can actually read about it and get a better understanding.
You said it yourself - he was in possession of illegal technology. That's it. Why are you so desperate to condemn Cuba, even to the point of blatantly refusing to accept the very facts you yourself have provided?
Are you kidding?? This whole "too free" nonsense has to stop. Read a history book and see just what the US has done to the countries in question, and then you might understand how ridiculous you sound, and why every time you spout "they hate our freedoms!" people laugh at you, and the global reputation of the US sinks that little bit lower. Pathetic.
Nationalism - is not a good thing. Horrific things have been done in the name of nationalism. It is the "us" in "them vs. us" - the archetypal oversimplification of disputes and diplomacy. Racial bigotry is still rather prominent in the US - just look at all the racist episodes which happened when Obama was elected, the history of race relations in the US (wondered why the Pentagon has so many toilets?), and the fact the country was built on slavery and genocide.
Upward Mobility - this exists everywhere there is money and people who would trade that for goods or services.
Rule of Law - based on English common law, rooted in the Magna Carta of 1215.
Freedom of Religion - not special in any way. This is a common thing found across the world in the vast majority of countries
Capitalism - common to most of the world
Global Economic Interdependence - I don't know how you can claim something which is inherently international as something specifically American. That is just confusing.
So it appears what you think of as "American Culture" is simply a list of things (some bad, some good) which exist in the US and in many other countries, to varying degrees. You might as well have claimed "We mainly have two arms and two legs each" as being part of US culture...
Don't get me wrong - I'm a big fan of many aspects of the US, but seeing ill-though-out lists like this don't reflect the true awesome aspects of the US (such as its art and scientific endeavours over the years).
I disagree about capitalism vs. socialism when it comes to research and innovation: Capitalism-driven research is only focussed on that which can return a profit in a given time-frame, whereas socialism-driven research can be focussed on whatever, even if the chances of it working are small. Obviously that's not always the case, but it seems to be the predominant alignment. Just look at DARPA in the US - a prime example of public funds being used to research and develop technologies, many of which have found their way to the common good.
That wasn't an ad hominem - it was pertinent to the discussion. If he'd said he had a stupid name or that his liking of Pop Tarts made him a muppet, then you'd be right.
How do you know such a response would have "worked", and how do you define "worked"? Do you think it would have led to the removal of the embargo? And if so, how?
You clearly don't want to believe it's true. How weird.
The ruling is simply stating "The public can view digitised copies of material held by libraries" and that libraries "can digitise material and keep it under their own control".
What's so hard to understand?
Overthrowing democracies around the world? Systematic genocide? Internment camps for its own citizens? Funding dictators? Nuking civilians? Rampant racism?
Your memory seems to be rather spotty, or you think those things are awesome. It's got to be one of the two.
Scapegoating? That would imply the US's hands are clean, which it seems they probably are not, as the US supported the military coup against a democratically-elected leader, something South & Central America does not take too lightly, given the US's track record of destroying democracy in those regions.
Are you kidding? Being able to criticise the government is the norm, not the exception. Most countries welcome it. Do you really know that little about the world? You do realise it's poorly-though-out posts like yours which bolster the stereotype of the globally-ignorant American, right? You tried to turn the tables on an attack on "your" country, and ended up perpetuating a negative stereotype about it instead. Good jerb!
Why is this +5? Yes, RT.com frequently publishes propaganda, but this story is available on any number of alternative news sites, and is based entirely on a report from the Cuban government itself. Unless you are suggesting RT.com has made the Cuban government write & publish this report, your comment is a fine example of an "ad hominem", and should be ignored as such.
The first two points have been scientifically demonstrated to be true to a staggering degree of certainty, whereas the third point you plucked out of thin air. Classy.
He said "most scientists", and you counter that by claiming there are occasional cases of fraud. I hope you realise the two are not mutually exclusive... You've not hurt his argument what-so-ever, and have pointed out that fraudulent scientists are discovered by other scientists.
With every post of yours I have the good fortune to read, I am imbued with the sense you really don't have a clue what's going on in the world. I'm sure you think you do - you seem to have gathered some things to hold on to and assume they represent reality, but it seems you go no further than that. You are happy with your choices, and will do nothing to challenge them or to even ensure they're correct.
The fact you think you know for sure that ground-breaking physics research will never lead to anything with practical value highlights this point wonderfully.
The new coal plants are replacing older plants, and this was planned before the "Energiewende". The new plants release far less CO2 than the old ones, so it's still a net reduction.
No, what it shows is:
1. Democrats believe the science
2. Republicans don't believe the science
3. Independents believe themselves over anything else