"Meaning the reduction in cattle would be offset by an increase in buffalo, wild oxen, yak, deer (elk, moose), wild goats, etc. And aside from agricultural runoff and antibiotics, the net environmental impact of the change would be zero."...yet you have the nerve to say that the study suffers from a common mistake. At least if didn't suffer from your uncommonly stupid mistake.
Well if Mexicans and Canadians don't get upset then that settles it right? No others left in the Americas. Good thing they approved you to speak for them so that this could get cleared up so quickly.
"No other country I know of in this hemisphere also wants to be called America."
Have you asked any of them? How do you know? Which is it, the people or the countries?
You may try a little harder to avoid exposing your ignorance. It is, in fact, well known that the bulk of both continents fully recognize the hubris of the US in identifying only themselves as "Americans" when "America" refers to the continent(s). No, others don't want to be called "America", but the US isn't called "America" either, its the United States of America, acknowledging that "America" is not the country but the continent.
Batteries aren't the issue. There isn't really an issue, it's made up, but if there were it would not be the battery. There's this thing called an alternator that provides power. The battery is used for starting.
If you are looking at aspartame, why use a toxicity threshold for Sucralose? Aspartame's minimum concentration was 4 ml/ml, making your argument even stronger.
Absurdity is not defined by whether something is more or less absurd than something else that is absurd.
1 mg/ml is vastly higher than would actually be used. Furthermore, it was the minimum threshold for a positive response for only one of the tested sweeteners. All other required higher concentrations still, including neotame which is at least 10x stronger than Sucralose (the one with a response at 1mg/ml). With neotame, the concentrations required would be 100 - 1000 times stronger than what would be typically used. Sounds pretty absurd.
Except, Jane, you're "dead" wrong. "became dead" appears nowhere in the article, neither does "dead" appear nor is there any claim that "toxic" means death. Furthermore, the article states "bacteria growth rates were also affected" which is a bit hard to understand if the bacteria were "dead". "Toxic" refers to a positive response with one or more toxicity indicators, that is all. Try to get it straight next time.
There were egregious errors, though. First, it wasn't "bacteria found in the digestive system" that "became toxic", it was genetically modified bacteria that showed a toxic response. Second, only one sweetener caused this response at 1 mg/ml. None of the others did.
Furthermore, "only" 1 mg/ml is a lot. These sweeteners are much stronger than sugar and these concentrations would not exist in actual applications. Lower concentrations did not demonstrate a toxic response in the study.
Isn't it curious that so many artificial sweeteners all cause this "calamity" as shown in a single study? I wonder what special interest group would have interest in an outcome like this, particularly considering the gross misrepresentation of the results.
You know what known to be toxic? Sugar. Not toxic merely to gut bacteria, toxic to you.
"Claiming that all Christians do this, or that even a significant number, is just trolling."
And that is a straw man argument.
Opposition to HPV has its origin in religion, ignorance, sexism and misogyny, the later three justified by the former; that that could spill over into specific examples of other groups means nothing. There are no atheists organizing to oppose vaccination even if there are specific ones fooled by nonsense. Only the religious are organized by their very belief system to push such garbage on others.
Also, I am appalled at the assertion that "the kind of evangelicalism I'm talking about is unique to the United States." Sure, Protestant evangelicals are a major problem in the US, but the Catholic Church is a huge problem worldwide. This kind of comment represents massive ignorance of the issue.
So you're claiming that the government asserts that not having an abortion serves the greater good just like vaccination serves the greater good? What "case" is this?
The argument that the government can mandate vaccination is clear. That argument is irrelevant to abortion.
Not really. They are about only their own interests. They enthusiastically punish gay men even more than women and joyously persecute minorities. Women aren't special, they just aren't straight white men.
So sure, women suffer but they don't get lynched for having a vagina. The reason HPV vaccination was for girls only is the denial that gay men exist. HPV causes oral an anal cancers (in both sexes) as well but those were never discussed with the introduction of the vaccine because of the sensitivities of the audience---the belief that boys don't need it because they are the f*ckers, not the f*ckees. The opposition to the vaccination for girls is reprehensible but pales in comparison to opposition for boys which would do much more good.
Why do you assume that the problem identified is with the woman or with the payment? Why not with the reason for the payment or with the hypocrisy of the evangelicals?
Again, why do individual Christians think that their personal positions are proof that no problem exists?
Also, the fact that not all Christians are a problem does not mean that Christians aren't a problem. There are good and bad people, the religious are no different but they use special entitlement to impose their awfulness on others. That entitlement needs to go.
It's also not just Christians either, it's all religion. The failure of US politics is not recognizing that freedom of religion also requires freedom from religion. Separation of church and state must go both ways, religion must not grant immunity from compliance with rules that benefit society. Any reasoning that starts with "my faith" must be rejected with prejudice.
HPV also causes cancers in men including, potentially, your son. One can argue that vaccinating boys is even more important than girls since a penis plays a greater role in the spread of HPV than a cervix/vagina. Men absolutely benefit from the vaccine so you can take comfort in knowing that you only did what's really important---serve your own interests.
Perhaps you should not only pay for your son's but for those who "can not" afford it as well. You are not only ignorant but selfish as well.
"Nope. Its saying that only straight wide dudes were being properly prepared."
So a person's "merit" is based on what others have done to "properly prepare" him? If that is so, then it would seem the solution needs to be broader still.
Your take is bigoted and insulting as it discounts the efforts of those who are discriminated against.
Can't imagine why this would be modded as anything other than off-topic. There is utterly no constructive point to be made here.
Why anyone would protest a pride parade who is part of the "community" is surprising, but that they have an axe to grind with "trans activism" is not. All you need to do is pay attention---trans topics dominate LGBT now to such an extent that trans and LGBT are often equated. You can be supportive of trans people while resenting that your interests are being preempted by theirs.
What caught my eye was:
'These sentiments were echoed by LGBT Labour, which described the actions as “disgraceful” and said “these people should never be allowed to march at pride again”. '
For a community found on inclusiveness, this is depressing and, frankly, entirely the point---to divide LGBT people. There is more here than meets the eye, LGBT people are the opposite of this.
Nothing about the OP's comments or the article he referenced implies bigotry. That seems to be your problem, and the problem of another one of your accounts as well?
Slashdot Mirror
"Meaning the reduction in cattle would be offset by an increase in buffalo, wild oxen, yak, deer (elk, moose), wild goats, etc. And aside from agricultural runoff and antibiotics, the net environmental impact of the change would be zero." ...yet you have the nerve to say that the study suffers from a common mistake. At least if didn't suffer from your uncommonly stupid mistake.
which not only supports the claim that it's a poor notebook, but it also testifies to how bad Apple's support of the desktop is.
Well if Mexicans and Canadians don't get upset then that settles it right? No others left in the Americas. Good thing they approved you to speak for them so that this could get cleared up so quickly.
"No other country I know of in this hemisphere also wants to be called America."
Have you asked any of them? How do you know? Which is it, the people or the countries?
You may try a little harder to avoid exposing your ignorance. It is, in fact, well known that the bulk of both continents fully recognize the hubris of the US in identifying only themselves as "Americans" when "America" refers to the continent(s). No, others don't want to be called "America", but the US isn't called "America" either, its the United States of America, acknowledging that "America" is not the country but the continent.
Batteries aren't the issue. There isn't really an issue, it's made up, but if there were it would not be the battery. There's this thing called an alternator that provides power. The battery is used for starting.
If you are looking at aspartame, why use a toxicity threshold for Sucralose? Aspartame's minimum concentration was 4 ml/ml, making your argument even stronger.
Citations please? Making sh*t up I see.
Also, Diet Coke uses aspartame which required a minimum of 4mg/ml in the test.
Absurdity is not defined by whether something is more or less absurd than something else that is absurd.
1 mg/ml is vastly higher than would actually be used. Furthermore, it was the minimum threshold for a positive response for only one of the tested sweeteners. All other required higher concentrations still, including neotame which is at least 10x stronger than Sucralose (the one with a response at 1mg/ml). With neotame, the concentrations required would be 100 - 1000 times stronger than what would be typically used. Sounds pretty absurd.
Not just pretty pointless, but pointless, condescending, and outright wrong.
Except, Jane, you're "dead" wrong. "became dead" appears nowhere in the article, neither does "dead" appear nor is there any claim that "toxic" means death. Furthermore, the article states "bacteria growth rates were also affected" which is a bit hard to understand if the bacteria were "dead". "Toxic" refers to a positive response with one or more toxicity indicators, that is all. Try to get it straight next time.
There were egregious errors, though. First, it wasn't "bacteria found in the digestive system" that "became toxic", it was genetically modified bacteria that showed a toxic response. Second, only one sweetener caused this response at 1 mg/ml. None of the others did.
Furthermore, "only" 1 mg/ml is a lot. These sweeteners are much stronger than sugar and these concentrations would not exist in actual applications. Lower concentrations did not demonstrate a toxic response in the study.
Isn't it curious that so many artificial sweeteners all cause this "calamity" as shown in a single study? I wonder what special interest group would have interest in an outcome like this, particularly considering the gross misrepresentation of the results.
You know what known to be toxic? Sugar. Not toxic merely to gut bacteria, toxic to you.
"Claiming that all Christians do this, or that even a significant number, is just trolling."
And that is a straw man argument.
Opposition to HPV has its origin in religion, ignorance, sexism and misogyny, the later three justified by the former; that that could spill over into specific examples of other groups means nothing. There are no atheists organizing to oppose vaccination even if there are specific ones fooled by nonsense. Only the religious are organized by their very belief system to push such garbage on others.
Also, I am appalled at the assertion that "the kind of evangelicalism I'm talking about is unique to the United States." Sure, Protestant evangelicals are a major problem in the US, but the Catholic Church is a huge problem worldwide. This kind of comment represents massive ignorance of the issue.
What a load of crap.
So you're claiming that the government asserts that not having an abortion serves the greater good just like vaccination serves the greater good? What "case" is this?
The argument that the government can mandate vaccination is clear. That argument is irrelevant to abortion.
"These people are all about punishing women."
Not really. They are about only their own interests. They enthusiastically punish gay men even more than women and joyously persecute minorities. Women aren't special, they just aren't straight white men.
So sure, women suffer but they don't get lynched for having a vagina. The reason HPV vaccination was for girls only is the denial that gay men exist. HPV causes oral an anal cancers (in both sexes) as well but those were never discussed with the introduction of the vaccine because of the sensitivities of the audience---the belief that boys don't need it because they are the f*ckers, not the f*ckees. The opposition to the vaccination for girls is reprehensible but pales in comparison to opposition for boys which would do much more good.
Why do you assume that the problem identified is with the woman or with the payment? Why not with the reason for the payment or with the hypocrisy of the evangelicals?
Again, why do individual Christians think that their personal positions are proof that no problem exists?
Also, the fact that not all Christians are a problem does not mean that Christians aren't a problem. There are good and bad people, the religious are no different but they use special entitlement to impose their awfulness on others. That entitlement needs to go.
It's also not just Christians either, it's all religion. The failure of US politics is not recognizing that freedom of religion also requires freedom from religion. Separation of church and state must go both ways, religion must not grant immunity from compliance with rules that benefit society. Any reasoning that starts with "my faith" must be rejected with prejudice.
...or BF or husband. Or preventing him from getting cancer from HPV given to him from his GF or wife...or BF or husband.
It should be obvious by now that this whole topic is rooted in sexism. The arguments for vaccinating boys are at least as strong as for girls.
"not quite"? Men get cancers from HPV as well. Men also suffer when family members get cancer. The OP is a fool.
HPV also causes cancers in men including, potentially, your son. One can argue that vaccinating boys is even more important than girls since a penis plays a greater role in the spread of HPV than a cervix/vagina. Men absolutely benefit from the vaccine so you can take comfort in knowing that you only did what's really important---serve your own interests.
Perhaps you should not only pay for your son's but for those who "can not" afford it as well. You are not only ignorant but selfish as well.
"Am I the only one thoroughly enjoying the fracturing that is happening in this movement?"
No you are not, but the fact you have company doesn't say anything good about you.
"Nope. Its saying that only straight wide dudes were being properly prepared."
So a person's "merit" is based on what others have done to "properly prepare" him? If that is so, then it would seem the solution needs to be broader still.
Your take is bigoted and insulting as it discounts the efforts of those who are discriminated against.
"The success of asians shows that there is no inherent discrimination by whites against minorities..."
No it does not, it doesn't even show "that there is no inherent discrimination by whites against" asians.
Can't imagine why this would be modded as anything other than off-topic. There is utterly no constructive point to be made here.
Why anyone would protest a pride parade who is part of the "community" is surprising, but that they have an axe to grind with "trans activism" is not. All you need to do is pay attention---trans topics dominate LGBT now to such an extent that trans and LGBT are often equated. You can be supportive of trans people while resenting that your interests are being preempted by theirs.
What caught my eye was:
'These sentiments were echoed by LGBT Labour, which described the actions as “disgraceful” and said “these people should never be allowed to march at pride again”. '
For a community found on inclusiveness, this is depressing and, frankly, entirely the point---to divide LGBT people. There is more here than meets the eye, LGBT people are the opposite of this.
Two posts with the same conspicuous error. Wonder where the bigotry really lies here.
Nothing about the OP's comments or the article he referenced implies bigotry. That seems to be your problem, and the problem of another one of your accounts as well?