I suggest the New Organon by Francis Bacon. This edition seems to be available for the Kindle.
Or how about even Aristotle's Physics? That's a nice book to read if you've never read any Aristotle or even any philosophy before. Bacon in the New Organon was trying to advocate a new method of science against the Aristotelian tradition.
And it probably cannot be called a classic, but Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions would probably be interesting to you. And as a foil to Kuhn's work, Popper's Conjectures and Refutations.
You shouldn't ask for a citation unless it's actually hard to find. I'm making the radical assumption that you have access to Google. This was the fifth result when searching Google for all of: broward county teacher scissors. Note that what the report adds is that the teacher had no previous issues and that her freakout was reportedly a result of an adverse reaction to medication.
"We will be announcing additional things in that area literally very, very soon."
As far as I know, there is no figurative use of "very, very soon". So, there is no need to say that you are using the literal meaning of the term, as that is always the meaning being employed. A possible response to "He bought the farm" might be "Will there be a funeral?" A possible response to "He literally bought the farm" might be "How much did he end up paying for it?" You can see the importance of the "literally" there. What possible use could it be in "We shall do it literally very, very soon"?
Before this spreads unnecessarily, this would be an ideal time to limit air flight in and out of the Americas.
How would you feel about re-phrasing this in the active voice? Who should limit air flight?"
I'm no grammarian, but as far as I can tell, all three verbs in that sentence are in the active voice. I think you've just jumbled the terms: You said "active voice" when you meant "personal". Your point is well taken by me, I just thought I'd point that out. I've continued typing because it's a rainy Saturday afternoon.
spreads = active indicative would be = active subjunctive to limit = active infinitive
There is no (widely used at least)* passive form of "to be", but if you wanted to convert the sentence into something with passive voices as much as possible it would be:
"Before this be spread** unnecessarily, this would be an ideal time for air flight in and out of the Americas to be limited."
Note that what makes it passive is the fact that the verb represents an action of which the grammatical subject is the logical object -- the action is done to the grammatical subject or similar. In the active voice the grammatical subject is the logical subject -- the action is done by the grammatical subject or similar.
* Maybe it occurs in philosophy or theology when contingent versus necessary existence is discussed.
** One may also say "Before this is spread..." depending on dialect. By the way, I don't like the "this" is the main clause, I would go for "that" or even just have nothing it its place. To be really rhetorically effective I would use "that" and then include another sentence after: "And that time is now." Or actually I would turn it into a general statement and let the reader draw the conclusion to the particular: "Not after, but before an epidemic spreads unnecessarily, that would be an ideal time for air flight to be limited." You would probably particularly hate that one!
"If we needed shoes, we would have been born with them. Same as with clothes. Just that we now live in areas where we actually need them."
In response to that: "If we needed food, we would have been born with it!" That example is obviously false. So the condition "if we needed x, we would have been born with x" is obviously invalid. So it serves nothing to advance your position.
Humans evolved from homo erectus. Homo erectus already wore clothes and used tools and passed these advancements on to humans. So clothes and tools have been with humans for their entire history.
Wheat plants, which are dumb, reproduce more than chickens, which are relatively smart. Chickens, which are relatively dumb, reproduce more than humans, which are smart. Is that an "annoying fact of Evo 2.0"? Dumb humans reproduce more than smart humans. Is that really "an annoying fact of Evo 2.0"? No, it's the same feature which produces so many chickens. The powerful humans on top of the social ladder, who tend to be smart, take advantage of a huge pool of cheap labour, just as those at almost every rung of the social ladder take of advantage of the huge pool of cheap food. I won't say it sucks to be a wheat plant, because they don't have a nervous system. But it does suck to be the average chicken, because their lives are terrible. It also sucks to be the average weak human, because their lives are terrible. It's nice to be the average powerful human. If you find that the large numbers of reproducing dumb humans negatively affects you, then maybe you should be looking to move up on the social ladder to where you take advantage of them rather than suffer them. You are smart enough to be there.(Note I'm not saying that luck plays no role in who gets into the powerful group or the exploited group).
A population (in the biology sense of the term) at a higher trophic level always needs a larger pool of suitably-evolved populations in order to live, in terms of prey and/or otherwise. These populations need not always be a different species from the population which uses them. So too do human populations at a higher social level need larger pools of suitably-evolved populations, some of which includes humans at a lower social level.
This is the same reason that you will see those reports come out once and while that the human race will evolve into two different species, where one is a short, stocky, dark, unintelligent in genetics and labouring in society, and the other is a tall, slim, fair, intelligent in genetics and living in the lap of luxury in society. This is not to say that such predictions are at all correct or even reasonable.
"Schools are representative of the district they serve, and as such, generally reflect the values held by that district, for better or for worse. If you send your kids to public school, then they will be taught in accordance to those local values. That is the way that public school works and has worked in the past."
That they are representative: Is that not the whole point of why they blocking those websites? The schools thinks or predicts that the district as a whole wants them blocked, so they are. Have you not reversed your position? First you said that the district should not reflect the values of community but ought to take into consideration of other things, and now you seem to say that that cannot happen, because the kids will be taught in accordance with the local values. How can there be an "ought" without a "can"?
And that they send their kids to public school: I think my point is that they are coerced to send their kids to public school. Because of compulsory education, they have to give their kids something, but they cannot afford the time of homeschooling and they cannot afford the price of private schooling.
"Let the children learn that there are other viewpoints out there. That's what school is supposed to be for."
Of course no one actually follows this, but only says it to allow the viewing of some viewpoints with which others disagree, but not others. They should be allowed to read about advocacy for homosexual lifestyles, but should they be allowed to read about advocacy for white nationalism or holocaust denial?
And then creating reasonable community standards involving society as a whole. How would that work? Where does one society end and another begin? It seems that we increasingly live in one global society, but if you take into account the beliefs of the world as a whole you run into all sorts of problems. Just look at what's happening with this latest UN World Conference Against Racism. Most of the world appears to be in support of the conference proceeding as it is with a stand against blasphemy and zionism, but a handful of countries including the US are boycotting it because of the language against zionism and blasphemy.
"If they feel that their children are being exposed to viewpoints that they don't agree with, let them home school their kids or send them to a private school."
Both of those options can be prohibitively costly.
And what is the English word for the Swedish "krona"? I'm pretty sure it's "crown."
And don't say that "krona" is a proper name and so should not be translated, because "Livrustkammaren" is certainly a proper name too, but you had no problem translating that into "Swedish Royal Armoury".
Unfortunately Facebook, Myspace etc. do not allow pseudonymous identities. It is required that all information be accurate and truthful. Recently a woman in the US was convicted for "unauthorized access" on Myspace because she signed up pretending to be some make-believe boy. There were aggravating factors that led to her investigation and arrest (she trolled some teenage girl who ended up killing herself), but, still, what she was convicted for was just that, computer fraud because of signing up on false pretences, not for harassment or anything like that.
I would have gotten a Facebook account a while ago if they did not have that requirement.
You mean with a force applied endlessly something will accelerate endlessly? Truly that breaks every known law of physics...er, no wait, I lied, it is exactly what classical mechanics would predict!
In actuality the drag would increase as the speed increases which would balance out the propelling force. But if there was no drag, why wouldn't it accelerate for as long as the wind was blowing? Would you expect it to stop accelerating even though there is still an overall force on it?
What you state is true, but, as the other guy said, it doesn't apply in this situation because you're not capturing the energy being used to push you backwards. Remember, the velocity of the water need not be the velocity of the wind; in fact, it almost never is. Also remember the difference between apparent wind and true wind. The apparent wind is what determines the force on the blades or the sail, not the true wind, except where the true wind = apparent wind which would be the case for a wind turbine securely fastened to the ground as for most wind turbines, but not true for one on a moving boat.
I think by your line of thinking, you would think that a sailboat (powered only by the sails) could never go faster than the wind which powers it does. Or even that a sailboat could never travel closer to the wind than a beam reach. Of course both of those false; you just need a properly designed sailboat. That's because the apparent wind can be greater than the true wind. The same idea applies to the wind turbine on the boat; there's no reason it could not travel directly into the wind if the boat was aero- and hyrdodynamic enough.
Okay, I don't want to defend white-nationalism or Stormfront, but I just want to muddy your picture of the issue.
Take this thread. This is the Intro to Stormfrontian(sic) white-nationalism which is affixed second to the top of the forum for anyone who wants to "know more about White Nationalism".
The main point of the OP seems to be conspiracy theory: "the Jews" control the media and the government and are hurting all the non-Jews, especially whites. So they see themselves at the victims of anti-white sentiment among Jews and "useful idiots" among non-Jews. "Also, I should have been more clear that the Jews are using non-White immigration and Blacks to destroy White America and Europe. They want everyone dumbed down and different Gentile races at each other's throats to prevent Whites from coming together against the Jewish threat" he says.
Notice the other poster, H2H: "Study demographic statistics and future racial population projections and you will see just how dangerous the situation has become. Again, it's not about "hate" or "Supremacy," but SURVIVAL and being able to control our own destiny.... Remember we are not a "hate group" but a cultural and racial preservation group. In fact we are the true "Multiculturalists" and genuine believers of cultural and racial diversity. By keeping the different races and people separate the world can enjoy the diversity of the human species.... Although Egypt and most non-white counties have nothing to worry about (except maybe Tibet), it is only White Nations that are invaded and threatened with genocide."
It's seems clear that the general theme on Stormfront is white survival and sovereignty. It does not seem to be fundamentally connected with ruling the entire world as you say. They have this saying the 14 words which is their sometimes motto. I can't remember the exact 14 words, but it's something about securing a future for white children. It doesn't say anything about dominating others. And you're right, you can seem them extolling Nazis and Hitler too. But then you have to remember that they are Holocaust deniers; they just think Hitler was protecting white people from Jewish domination and did not try to exterminate any Jews!
If you go to the forum which the thread was in, the one thread that was above that Intro was about how Barack Obama's church hates whites. Again, there you can see that their focus is on elites being against white people.
The big thread down from there is on the question: "Separatist is NOT supremacist?" Notice that the first answer to the question is from "WhitePowerMom": "We want to be with our own.... I wish no harm to other races, I wish the[m?-ed.] the same purity we strive for. I just want to be surrounded by my tribe. In fact, our way of thinking is probably the most respectful and honorable way possible. We wish to be left alone...and by way of that, to leave others alone."
Anyway, you're right. Stormfront is not like the ADL. I think the poster that compared them did a weird thing. But I don't think white-nationalism is so clearly different from the Zionist, ADL position, as is evidenced by Foxman's comments. That white-nationalists are largely white-supremacists, you're probably right. That white-nationalism is fundamentally white-supremacist, you're probably wrong, as is evidenced by the general opinion on Stormfront about what white-nationalism is.
"Can you be anti-Zionist and not be an anti-Semite? Almost never. Unless you can prove to me you're against nationalism. If you're one of those unique individuals in this world that's opposed to American nationalism, French nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, then you can be opposed to Jewish nationalism. Is it racist? You bet it is. Every nationalism is racist. It sets its laws of citizenship, it sets its own capital... It sets its songs, it sets its values. It is, if you will, exclusive, and you can even call it racist. But if the only nationalism in the world that is racist is Jewish nationalism, then you're an anti-Semite.. I don't want to make any apologies for it."
Notice how what Foxman says is no different from what the Storm-Front members say about white-nationalism They say: "Yeah, white-nationalism is racism. But you can't oppose it unless you oppose nationalism of other groups: Japanese nationalism, Jewish nationalism, Arab nationalism. If the only nationalism in the world that is racist is white nationalism, then you're anti-white."
Let's just go through your post and see where the words came from; whether French or not:
24 and 1/2 of them come from French, of a total of 148 or 149 (depending on whether you count "you're" as 1 or 2 words).
List of origins, whether "French" or "not" (I would have made it neater, but Slashdot has something against "too few characters per line"):
You = not; are = not as = not; wrong = Not; as = Not; you = Not; can = not; be = not; Finnish = not; is = not; an = not; ugro-finnic = not; language = French; meaning = not; its = not; closest = French; relatives = French; are = not; Estonian = not; and = not; far = not; away = not; Hungarian = not; it = not; is = not; not = not; even = not; indo-european = not; english = not; is = not; closer = French; to = not; Sanskrit = not; Russian = not; Farsi = not; than = not; finnish = not; finnish = not; does = not; not = not; have = not; articles = French; has = not; 15 = not; or = not; 16 = not; cases = French; depending = French; on = not; dialect = not; has = not; a = not; completely = French; different = French; set = not; of = not; sounds = French; and = not; sports = French; oddities = (odd = not, -ity suffix = French); such = not (coolest sound English word IMO); as = not; lacking = not; a = not; verb = French; for = not; to = not; have = not; The = not; only = not; thing = not; in = not; common = French; is = not; the = not; Latin = not; alphabet = not; which = not; the = not; Finns = not; use = not; much = not; better = not; than = not; English = not; speakers = not; since = not; their = not; language = not; is = not; much = not; easier = French; to = not; spell = not; the = not; closest = French; language = French; to = not; English = not; is = not; French = not (believe it or not); even = not; though = not; it = not; a = not; germanic = not; language = French; most = not; of = not; the = not; words = not; and = not; spelling = not; horrors = French; in = not; English = not; come = not; from = not; French = not; and = not; English = not; grammar = French; is = not; fairly = not; easy = French; to = not; pick = not; up = not; anyway = not; this = not; means = not; that = not; language = French; proximity = not (comes directly from Latin); is = not; fairly = not; irrelevant = not (comes directly from Latin); when = not; there = not; is = not; no = not; application = French; in = not; study = French; of = not; the = not; language = French;
Re:Sorry, but I have to consider the source
on
UN Attacks Free Speech
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Inciting hatred in Canada just means rendering it at all more likely that someone would be discriminated against or hurt.
So in fact your "criticism" could very well be "hate speech" in Canada, just if it was ruled to increase the chances that a Christian would be discriminated against or hurt.
In fact, there have been fundamentalist types who have been prosecuted for hate speech for simply posting anti-homosexual selections from the Bible. They'll just make a post like this: "Homosexuals should read Book of Whatever verse whatever which says [homosexuality is an abomination whatever, homosexuals will go to hell]."
Mark Steyn was prosecuted for quoting and agreeing with a Norwegian mullah who said that Muslims would eventually take over Europe. He was cleared though, but probably only because of the huge media pressure.
I don't know about the parties in Sweden, but it seems to me that the US is more to the left than Pakistan, which has a state religion and stuff like that. How does favouring the left side over the right side in the international sphere positively impact the left in Sweden?
You can probably store 10 billion stray dogs in Europe without breaking regulations. The average pound keeps 100 dogs, so 1 euro is roughly 100,000,000 Canadian pounds.
I saw this happen in a pool hall believe or not. A cue ball moved at a certain vector and hit a billiard ball and then the cue ball stopped and the billiard ball began moving at a certain vector.
One of the other onlookers assumed that the motion of the cue ball caused the billiard ball to move. To him it was obvious that the two events were linked. I pointed out to him that the two were merely correlated and this says nothing about the one causing the other.
Which one of us was right?
Anyway, he continued, saying that I had a point but that I failed to notice that whenever the cue ball moved and hit another ball then that ball began moving. So he suggested that because this always happens there is causation and not just correlation. So I asked, because there is correlation not just once but correlation every time then there is causation? He agreed. So I asked if then causation is just a lot of constant correlation? Yes, he said. So he seemed to be saying that causation is identical with one type of correlation.
I haven't seen a better definition of causation, and this one seems to say that correlation=causation.
Imagine the whole world was a sphere of eternally edible cheese along with an atmosphere. In the beginning there are two beings on the world who divide up the world into equal halves, 'A' and 'B'. When they eat the cheese they produce and release CO2 pollution into the atmosphere. They reproduce asexually. 'A' has two kids and then dies, leaving half of the world for them. 'B' has 10 kids and then dies and these 10 share half the world of cheese. The As live in luxury and eat a lot and produce a lot of pollution per capita. The Bs live less luxuriously and cannot eat a lot because they have to share and so produce less pollution per capita. Is the A society really at fault here where the B society is somehow victimised by A for not making room for them to consume more per capita? I don't think so, if the Bs are victimised, they are victimised by their parent, not by As.
This is not actually how the world is. I'm just trying to point out that it's not ipso facto a sign of moral decadence in one group of people that they consume a lot. It could just be that, in the past, members of that society foresaw that a high level of consumption would be desirable for future generations and so acted accordingly to make room for that. Obviously in the real world this happened not just through lower birthrates (and even just also technological development), but also through exploitation, etc. But there's no reason to automatically assume that a society should be given as much room as they need ("each according to her needs") to reach a certain standard of living, as this does nothing to stymie the very real threat of expansionism through unsustainable reproduction.
So really, I guess the standard for comparison I'm advocating is, in contrast to "level of consumption or level of pollution per capita", is "level of consumption or level of pollution per unit of land or unit of property justly gained".* Now we just have to sort out what justice is. I'm sure that will go quickly...
* Maybe there's some better characterisation of this.
Slashdot Mirror
I suggest the New Organon by Francis Bacon. This edition seems to be available for the Kindle.
Or how about even Aristotle's Physics? That's a nice book to read if you've never read any Aristotle or even any philosophy before. Bacon in the New Organon was trying to advocate a new method of science against the Aristotelian tradition.
And it probably cannot be called a classic, but Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions would probably be interesting to you. And as a foil to Kuhn's work, Popper's Conjectures and Refutations.
[citation needed]
You shouldn't ask for a citation unless it's actually hard to find. I'm making the radical assumption that you have access to Google. This was the fifth result when searching Google for all of: broward county teacher scissors. Note that what the report adds is that the teacher had no previous issues and that her freakout was reportedly a result of an adverse reaction to medication.
From the summary:
"We will be announcing additional things in that area literally very, very soon."
As far as I know, there is no figurative use of "very, very soon". So, there is no need to say that you are using the literal meaning of the term, as that is always the meaning being employed. A possible response to "He bought the farm" might be "Will there be a funeral?" A possible response to "He literally bought the farm" might be "How much did he end up paying for it?" You can see the importance of the "literally" there. What possible use could it be in "We shall do it literally very, very soon"?
Well good on Merck. I wouldn't want to see some greasy, Hippcratic-oath-swearing quacks get in the way of the market!
Before this spreads unnecessarily, this would be an ideal time to limit air flight in and out of the Americas.
How would you feel about re-phrasing this in the active voice? Who should limit air flight?"
I'm no grammarian, but as far as I can tell, all three verbs in that sentence are in the active voice. I think you've just jumbled the terms: You said "active voice" when you meant "personal". Your point is well taken by me, I just thought I'd point that out. I've continued typing because it's a rainy Saturday afternoon.
spreads = active indicative
would be = active subjunctive
to limit = active infinitive
There is no (widely used at least)* passive form of "to be", but if you wanted to convert the sentence into something with passive voices as much as possible it would be:
"Before this be spread** unnecessarily, this would be an ideal time for air flight in and out of the Americas to be limited."
Note that what makes it passive is the fact that the verb represents an action of which the grammatical subject is the logical object -- the action is done to the grammatical subject or similar. In the active voice the grammatical subject is the logical subject -- the action is done by the grammatical subject or similar.
* Maybe it occurs in philosophy or theology when contingent versus necessary existence is discussed.
** One may also say "Before this is spread..." depending on dialect. By the way, I don't like the "this" is the main clause, I would go for "that" or even just have nothing it its place. To be really rhetorically effective I would use "that" and then include another sentence after: "And that time is now." Or actually I would turn it into a general statement and let the reader draw the conclusion to the particular: "Not after, but before an epidemic spreads unnecessarily, that would be an ideal time for air flight to be limited." You would probably particularly hate that one!
"If we needed shoes, we would have been born with them.
Same as with clothes. Just that we now live in areas where we actually need them."
In response to that: "If we needed food, we would have been born with it!" That example is obviously false. So the condition "if we needed x, we would have been born with x" is obviously invalid. So it serves nothing to advance your position.
Humans evolved from homo erectus. Homo erectus already wore clothes and used tools and passed these advancements on to humans. So clothes and tools have been with humans for their entire history.
Wheat plants, which are dumb, reproduce more than chickens, which are relatively smart. Chickens, which are relatively dumb, reproduce more than humans, which are smart. Is that an "annoying fact of Evo 2.0"? Dumb humans reproduce more than smart humans. Is that really "an annoying fact of Evo 2.0"? No, it's the same feature which produces so many chickens. The powerful humans on top of the social ladder, who tend to be smart, take advantage of a huge pool of cheap labour, just as those at almost every rung of the social ladder take of advantage of the huge pool of cheap food. I won't say it sucks to be a wheat plant, because they don't have a nervous system. But it does suck to be the average chicken, because their lives are terrible. It also sucks to be the average weak human, because their lives are terrible. It's nice to be the average powerful human. If you find that the large numbers of reproducing dumb humans negatively affects you, then maybe you should be looking to move up on the social ladder to where you take advantage of them rather than suffer them. You are smart enough to be there.(Note I'm not saying that luck plays no role in who gets into the powerful group or the exploited group).
A population (in the biology sense of the term) at a higher trophic level always needs a larger pool of suitably-evolved populations in order to live, in terms of prey and/or otherwise. These populations need not always be a different species from the population which uses them. So too do human populations at a higher social level need larger pools of suitably-evolved populations, some of which includes humans at a lower social level.
This is the same reason that you will see those reports come out once and while that the human race will evolve into two different species, where one is a short, stocky, dark, unintelligent in genetics and labouring in society, and the other is a tall, slim, fair, intelligent in genetics and living in the lap of luxury in society. This is not to say that such predictions are at all correct or even reasonable.
"Schools are representative of the district they serve, and as such, generally reflect the values held by that district, for better or for worse. If you send your kids to public school, then they will be taught in accordance to those local values. That is the way that public school works and has worked in the past."
That they are representative: Is that not the whole point of why they blocking those websites? The schools thinks or predicts that the district as a whole wants them blocked, so they are. Have you not reversed your position? First you said that the district should not reflect the values of community but ought to take into consideration of other things, and now you seem to say that that cannot happen, because the kids will be taught in accordance with the local values. How can there be an "ought" without a "can"?
And that they send their kids to public school: I think my point is that they are coerced to send their kids to public school. Because of compulsory education, they have to give their kids something, but they cannot afford the time of homeschooling and they cannot afford the price of private schooling.
"Let the children learn that there are other viewpoints out there. That's what school is supposed to be for."
Of course no one actually follows this, but only says it to allow the viewing of some viewpoints with which others disagree, but not others. They should be allowed to read about advocacy for homosexual lifestyles, but should they be allowed to read about advocacy for white nationalism or holocaust denial?
And then creating reasonable community standards involving society as a whole. How would that work? Where does one society end and another begin? It seems that we increasingly live in one global society, but if you take into account the beliefs of the world as a whole you run into all sorts of problems. Just look at what's happening with this latest UN World Conference Against Racism. Most of the world appears to be in support of the conference proceeding as it is with a stand against blasphemy and zionism, but a handful of countries including the US are boycotting it because of the language against zionism and blasphemy.
"If they feel that their children are being exposed to viewpoints that they don't agree with, let them home school their kids or send them to a private school."
Both of those options can be prohibitively costly.
And what is the English word for the Swedish "krona"? I'm pretty sure it's "crown."
And don't say that "krona" is a proper name and so should not be translated, because "Livrustkammaren" is certainly a proper name too, but you had no problem translating that into "Swedish Royal Armoury".
Unfortunately Facebook, Myspace etc. do not allow pseudonymous identities. It is required that all information be accurate and truthful. Recently a woman in the US was convicted for "unauthorized access" on Myspace because she signed up pretending to be some make-believe boy. There were aggravating factors that led to her investigation and arrest (she trolled some teenage girl who ended up killing herself), but, still, what she was convicted for was just that, computer fraud because of signing up on false pretences, not for harassment or anything like that.
I would have gotten a Facebook account a while ago if they did not have that requirement.
Um, your point being?
You mean with a force applied endlessly something will accelerate endlessly? Truly that breaks every known law of physics...er, no wait, I lied, it is exactly what classical mechanics would predict!
In actuality the drag would increase as the speed increases which would balance out the propelling force. But if there was no drag, why wouldn't it accelerate for as long as the wind was blowing? Would you expect it to stop accelerating even though there is still an overall force on it?
What you state is true, but, as the other guy said, it doesn't apply in this situation because you're not capturing the energy being used to push you backwards. Remember, the velocity of the water need not be the velocity of the wind; in fact, it almost never is. Also remember the difference between apparent wind and true wind. The apparent wind is what determines the force on the blades or the sail, not the true wind, except where the true wind = apparent wind which would be the case for a wind turbine securely fastened to the ground as for most wind turbines, but not true for one on a moving boat.
I think by your line of thinking, you would think that a sailboat (powered only by the sails) could never go faster than the wind which powers it does. Or even that a sailboat could never travel closer to the wind than a beam reach. Of course both of those false; you just need a properly designed sailboat. That's because the apparent wind can be greater than the true wind. The same idea applies to the wind turbine on the boat; there's no reason it could not travel directly into the wind if the boat was aero- and hyrdodynamic enough.
Okay, I don't want to defend white-nationalism or Stormfront, but I just want to muddy your picture of the issue.
Take this thread. This is the Intro to Stormfrontian(sic) white-nationalism which is affixed second to the top of the forum for anyone who wants to "know more about White Nationalism".
The main point of the OP seems to be conspiracy theory: "the Jews" control the media and the government and are hurting all the non-Jews, especially whites. So they see themselves at the victims of anti-white sentiment among Jews and "useful idiots" among non-Jews. "Also, I should have been more clear that the Jews are using non-White immigration and Blacks to destroy White America and Europe. They want everyone dumbed down and different Gentile races at each other's throats to prevent Whites from coming together against the Jewish threat" he says.
Notice the other poster, H2H: "Study demographic statistics and future racial population projections and you will see just how dangerous the situation has become. Again, it's not about "hate" or "Supremacy," but SURVIVAL and being able to control our own destiny. ... Remember we are not a "hate group" but a cultural and racial preservation group. In fact we are the true "Multiculturalists" and genuine believers of cultural and racial diversity. By keeping the different races and people separate the world can enjoy the diversity of the human species. ... Although Egypt and most non-white counties have nothing to worry about (except maybe Tibet), it is only White Nations that are invaded and threatened with genocide."
It's seems clear that the general theme on Stormfront is white survival and sovereignty. It does not seem to be fundamentally connected with ruling the entire world as you say. They have this saying the 14 words which is their sometimes motto. I can't remember the exact 14 words, but it's something about securing a future for white children. It doesn't say anything about dominating others. And you're right, you can seem them extolling Nazis and Hitler too. But then you have to remember that they are Holocaust deniers; they just think Hitler was protecting white people from Jewish domination and did not try to exterminate any Jews!
If you go to the forum which the thread was in, the one thread that was above that Intro was about how Barack Obama's church hates whites. Again, there you can see that their focus is on elites being against white people.
The big thread down from there is on the question: "Separatist is NOT supremacist?" Notice that the first answer to the question is from "WhitePowerMom": "We want to be with our own. ... I wish no harm to other races, I wish the[m?-ed.] the same purity we strive for. I just want to be surrounded by my tribe. In fact, our way of thinking is probably the most respectful and honorable way possible. We wish to be left alone...and by way of that, to leave others alone."
Anyway, you're right. Stormfront is not like the ADL. I think the poster that compared them did a weird thing. But I don't think white-nationalism is so clearly different from the Zionist, ADL position, as is evidenced by Foxman's comments. That white-nationalists are largely white-supremacists, you're probably right. That white-nationalism is fundamentally white-supremacist, you're probably wrong, as is evidenced by the general opinion on Stormfront about what white-nationalism is.
Messed up the link.Should say: This is Abraham Foxman...
This is , who is the head of the ADL:
"Can you be anti-Zionist and not be an anti-Semite? Almost never. Unless you can prove to me you're against nationalism. If you're one of those unique individuals in this world that's opposed to American nationalism, French nationalism, Palestinian nationalism, then you can be opposed to Jewish nationalism. Is it racist? You bet it is. Every nationalism is racist. It sets its laws of citizenship, it sets its own capital... It sets its songs, it sets its values. It is, if you will, exclusive, and you can even call it racist. But if the only nationalism in the world that is racist is Jewish nationalism, then you're an anti-Semite.. I don't want to make any apologies for it."
Notice how what Foxman says is no different from what the Storm-Front members say about white-nationalism They say: "Yeah, white-nationalism is racism. But you can't oppose it unless you oppose nationalism of other groups: Japanese nationalism, Jewish nationalism, Arab nationalism. If the only nationalism in the world that is racist is white nationalism, then you're anti-white."
"People thought your body would fall apart at 50mph 100 years ago.."
People actually thought bodies fell apart at 50 mph?
No one recorded the observations of standing outside in 50mph winds? Or of someone in free fall from a great enough height?
Let's just go through your post and see where the words came from; whether French or not:
24 and 1/2 of them come from French, of a total of 148 or 149 (depending on whether you count "you're" as 1 or 2 words).
List of origins, whether "French" or "not" (I would have made it neater, but Slashdot has something against "too few characters per line"):
You = not; are = not as = not; wrong = Not; as = Not; you = Not; can = not; be = not; Finnish = not; is = not; an = not; ugro-finnic = not; language = French; meaning = not; its = not; closest = French; relatives = French; are = not; Estonian = not; and = not; far = not; away = not; Hungarian = not; it = not; is = not; not = not; even = not; indo-european = not; english = not; is = not; closer = French; to = not; Sanskrit = not; Russian = not; Farsi = not; than = not; finnish = not; finnish = not; does = not; not = not; have = not; articles = French; has = not; 15 = not; or = not; 16 = not; cases = French; depending = French; on = not; dialect = not; has = not; a = not; completely = French; different = French; set = not; of = not; sounds = French; and = not; sports = French; oddities = (odd = not, -ity suffix = French); such = not (coolest sound English word IMO); as = not; lacking = not; a = not; verb = French; for = not; to = not; have = not; The = not; only = not; thing = not; in = not; common = French; is = not; the = not; Latin = not; alphabet = not; which = not; the = not; Finns = not; use = not; much = not; better = not; than = not; English = not; speakers = not; since = not; their = not; language = not; is = not; much = not; easier = French; to = not; spell = not; the = not; closest = French; language = French; to = not; English = not; is = not; French = not (believe it or not); even = not; though = not; it = not; a = not; germanic = not; language = French; most = not; of = not; the = not; words = not; and = not; spelling = not; horrors = French; in = not; English = not; come = not; from = not; French = not; and = not; English = not; grammar = French; is = not; fairly = not; easy = French; to = not; pick = not; up = not; anyway = not; this = not; means = not; that = not; language = French; proximity = not (comes directly from Latin); is = not; fairly = not; irrelevant = not (comes directly from Latin); when = not; there = not; is = not; no = not; application = French; in = not; study = French; of = not; the = not; language = French;
Inciting hatred in Canada just means rendering it at all more likely that someone would be discriminated against or hurt.
So in fact your "criticism" could very well be "hate speech" in Canada, just if it was ruled to increase the chances that a Christian would be discriminated against or hurt.
In fact, there have been fundamentalist types who have been prosecuted for hate speech for simply posting anti-homosexual selections from the Bible. They'll just make a post like this: "Homosexuals should read Book of Whatever verse whatever which says [homosexuality is an abomination whatever, homosexuals will go to hell]."
Mark Steyn was prosecuted for quoting and agreeing with a Norwegian mullah who said that Muslims would eventually take over Europe. He was cleared though, but probably only because of the huge media pressure.
I don't know about the parties in Sweden, but it seems to me that the US is more to the left than Pakistan, which has a state religion and stuff like that. How does favouring the left side over the right side in the international sphere positively impact the left in Sweden?
If the sex drive is second only to the hunger drive, a good chunk of us would have died of hypothermia long ago.
You can probably store 10 billion stray dogs in Europe without breaking regulations. The average pound keeps 100 dogs, so 1 euro is roughly 100,000,000 Canadian pounds.
So take this example.
I saw this happen in a pool hall believe or not.
A cue ball moved at a certain vector and hit a billiard ball and then the cue ball stopped and the billiard ball began moving at a certain vector.
One of the other onlookers assumed that the motion of the cue ball caused the billiard ball to move. To him it was obvious that the two events were linked. I pointed out to him that the two were merely correlated and this says nothing about the one causing the other.
Which one of us was right?
Anyway, he continued, saying that I had a point but that I failed to notice that whenever the cue ball moved and hit another ball then that ball began moving. So he suggested that because this always happens there is causation and not just correlation. So I asked, because there is correlation not just once but correlation every time then there is causation? He agreed. So I asked if then causation is just a lot of constant correlation? Yes, he said. So he seemed to be saying that causation is identical with one type of correlation.
I haven't seen a better definition of causation, and this one seems to say that correlation=causation.
...vewy gweat fwiend in Wome...
Sorry, OCD acting up.
Imagine the whole world was a sphere of eternally edible cheese along with an atmosphere. In the beginning there are two beings on the world who divide up the world into equal halves, 'A' and 'B'. When they eat the cheese they produce and release CO2 pollution into the atmosphere. They reproduce asexually. 'A' has two kids and then dies, leaving half of the world for them. 'B' has 10 kids and then dies and these 10 share half the world of cheese. The As live in luxury and eat a lot and produce a lot of pollution per capita. The Bs live less luxuriously and cannot eat a lot because they have to share and so produce less pollution per capita. Is the A society really at fault here where the B society is somehow victimised by A for not making room for them to consume more per capita? I don't think so, if the Bs are victimised, they are victimised by their parent, not by As.
This is not actually how the world is. I'm just trying to point out that it's not ipso facto a sign of moral decadence in one group of people that they consume a lot. It could just be that, in the past, members of that society foresaw that a high level of consumption would be desirable for future generations and so acted accordingly to make room for that. Obviously in the real world this happened not just through lower birthrates (and even just also technological development), but also through exploitation, etc. But there's no reason to automatically assume that a society should be given as much room as they need ("each according to her needs") to reach a certain standard of living, as this does nothing to stymie the very real threat of expansionism through unsustainable reproduction.
So really, I guess the standard for comparison I'm advocating is, in contrast to "level of consumption or level of pollution per capita", is "level of consumption or level of pollution per unit of land or unit of property justly gained".* Now we just have to sort out what justice is. I'm sure that will go quickly...
* Maybe there's some better characterisation of this.