Good grief! You are a string of factual distortion in this thread. Bin Laden was not the whole of Al Qada, and the US could have had him in prison in 2001 simply by providing facts to Al Qada leadership.
FACT: Bush publicly declared that he wanted Al Qada to hand over Bin Laden immediately.
FACT: Al Qada leaders (Religious and Military) stated that if Bush could present them facts showing Bin Laden's guilt in terrorist activity, they would hand him over immediately.
FACT: Bush denied the request for proof and invaded Afghanistan.
Those are not disputable facts, each event is still in history. The theme above should seem eerily similar to what we are seeing played out in Syria to you.
I have been on the Earth for quite a while now. Ever since the Shah was overthrown, I keep hearing about how bad Iran is and how they plan to rule the world. I have seen the US, UK, and Israel bully them. On more than one occasion Israel has bombed Iran. I saw Iraq instigated into war with Iran by the US and UK, the US arm Iraq, and offer intelligence so that Iranians could be killed. I saw the US sit silent while they knew that Saddam had used Sarin, Cyanide, and Mustard gas on his own people as well as the Iranian soldiers.
All of this time, the CFR and their puppets have been claiming that "Iran is Evil".
What I have not seen in this time is Iran retaliate, start a war, or massacre their allegedly sworn enemies.
The story line is played out, and so full of false information that I really don't know whether to laugh or cry when people like you repeat propaganda without doing any fact checking. Worse, this does not require much in the way of fact checking. Just open your eyes and ask some basic questions.
By the way, I've got a question for you. I don't think that the collapse of the World Trade Center from the 9/11 attacks in New York, crushing thousands of people to death, resulted in the "Tree of Liberty" growing any stronger from the blood shed. Do you? Do you think they were just not "patriotic enough" to make a difference?
Building seven called, there is something wrong with the party line. Architects and Engineers have additional questions. Of course you may not want facts to get in the way of your absurd level of delusion. Either that or your masters will be mad if you look at facts (I'm not so sure after reading many of your posts)
Is there any point where you think too much American blood can be shed in slaughter instead of battle? Or is every American killed at work or shopping by terrorists another tick mark toward "liberty" to you - the more Americans murdered the "freer" you feel?
Last time I checked, more people die from accidental slip and falls in the bathtub than die by terrorism. You repeat an appeal to emotion argument handed down to sheep, goodie for you. Many people understand what was meant when we were told "Those that give up Liberty for a bit of temporary security deserve and get neither." In fact there are a tremendous amount of similar anecdotes from Jews in Germany prior to a tyrannical take over by Hitler, many more from Russia before Lenin, many more in China before Mao, etc... Perhaps you have somehow convinced yourself that human nature does not exist in the USA or that some magic shield protects you from tyranny. Either way, you are delusional.
Okay, third comment in the thread along the same line. Are you a government puppet?
Your statement does not present facts, it states what we already knew. "Chemical Weapons were used." It does determine who used them, and you provided no facts to even begin to make an implication. Cameron could not convince the British he had any evidence which is why their parliament voted "NO" on military action.
Yes it does matter who used them. Bombing Assad (in reality thousands of innocent citizens) if the rebels used the weapons is like the police burning down your property because your neighbors lawn mower caught fire. It is an unjust act.
Our Government has presented no evidence for who used the CWs either. John Kerry stated last week that it did not matter who used them, Assad must be punished. Read above for my thoughts on whether or not that is justice.
Big on the propaganda? From wiki.org: In August, September and November 1981, the Brotherhood carried out three car-bomb attacks against government and military targets in Damascus, killing hundreds of people, according to the official press. On 2 February 1982, the Brotherhood led a major insurrection in Hama, rapidly taking control of the city; the military responded by bombing Hama (whose population was about 250,000) throughout the rest of the month, killing between 10,000 and 30,000 people. The tragedy of Hama marked the defeat of the Brotherhood, and the militant Islamic movement in general, as a political force in Syria. (Carré 1983, 159; ICG 11 February 2004, 4)
The article of course presents the Muslim brotherhood as innocent victims, and falsely claims that Assad's forces wiped out a whole city and gassed them to death.
I'm not claiming that both sides are correct, I'm claiming that presenting biased and factually incorrect information makes you appear to be a puppet.
Funny that you quote the CFR as a source of reliable information regarding foreign policy. I'm guessing that you should study up on who the CFR is, and what they are about before you believe that they have the USA in their best interests.
Remember that most criminals will not tell you that they are criminals. When you have money and are a criminal, you get to pay people to never see you in the spotlight and make bad stories disappear.
I believe we agree much more than I initially suspected. My point being that while our physical bodies are combined natural organisms, what makes us "human" is not our physical bodies. "Part != Whole" and all that. I am pretty sure that you are saying something very similar.
I don't agree that we are simply machines. Humans have incredible capacity for learning and emotion. Our psychological behavior has very little to do with the mechanics, and everything to do with what we learn and see in society as well as our social standing. We can learn that learning is fun, or we can learn that learning is horrible. We can learn courtesy, or learn to be barbaric. We can learn that lies are good, or learn that lies are bad (and this is complex, because we learn loads of grey area in that one).
To claim that we like people only because a mechanic is denying what makes us human.
First, look at the source. I'm sure that the US intelligence agencies will all run to the Wall Street Journal with leaked information. Next, there have been no facts presented for anything else they have been banging a war drum on. Not just for this, but for decades. Are we really supposed to keep trusting known liars and a corrupt media system?
Not only do I not trust a corrupt media and politicians, I want them out of our country. Maybe a good first step in war is to start parachuting politicians into these foreign countries where they clamor for war?
Primarily, I am claiming that making psychological determinations by reviewing our DNA is a ludicrous prospect. Secondarily, claiming that we are 98% the same as chimpanzees is an absurd correlation used to dehumanize people, considering the length of DNA.
While we can figure out certain mechanics, human behavior and knowledge are trained. They are not in our DNA.
Personally, I think this is patently absurd and that there is no way this could influence personality or human behaviour. It seems to me to be more likely that the linoleic acid genes either have some wildly obscure indirect effect on personality that we can detect, or that they're simply inherited by chance with something that does.
I agree, and this paper to me continues a trend of portraying humans as nothing more than organic machines. Emotions and morality are often portrayed by the same publishers as malfunctions in the organic machine which must be mended by science (I did not detect that in TFA, just pointing out that it is a regular occurrence).
It should be obvious that we are not simply machines. Appeals to intellect are used to convince people that rational thought is incorrect.
I'll meet you in the middle, I believe it's both. I have seen obvious shills marked as +5 insightful as often as I have seen valid positions being marked as trolls and flame bait.
By your logic, everyone is a child since everyone had parents. The fact that you can not grasp such simple rational thinking, and insist on repeating a fallacy, leaves me completely stumped.
I'm sure that a few will claim "no, you are just anti-science" or some such but lets check a simple fact. 2000 genes were used in this study. What percentage of the human genome is this? Not only would this mean that "correlation == causation", but that correlation of 8.024e-6 (yes, that is a very small number) is the "normal".
Most of my optimism comes from teaching people and seeing results. I also see groups gaining membership, such as the "Young Libertarians". In the last month, I have had the pleasure of convincing 3 people to start reading Plato's "The Republic" and start to have dialogue with me. In that same month, I have convinced 9 to start reading Gary Allen's "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" and again begin dialogue. Other people I previously worked on have begun to open doors of their own.
At times, it's frustrating to get people to even look at a piece of literature. It's rewarding to see success.
My success would not be possible if people felt things were going well. Nobody in their right mind thinks we are on the right track in the USA today. The right piece of information nudges them toward the door of the cave. If you are awake, you need to keep showing people various pieces of light and drafts air. Eventually, they will open the door and look outside.
You are as delusional as the person I responded to, and repeating the same fallacy. I would agree that at 19 he was not "wise" since wisdom requires knowledge. He may not have been fully mature, because maturity comes with wisdom. Neither of those things make him a child. Painting him as a child is delusion. If you fell for the same delusion with Trayvon Martin, shame on you for being unable to spot and defend yourself against fallacy.
Repeating a fallacy over and over will never make the argument rational or logical.
He was not a "child", please save the "for the children" appeals to emotion. He was also not a victim, so save that line of fallacy also. It was an adult who made some poor decisions. Worse, it appears from the article that he had parents that knew and did not discourage those decisions.
Now if this was a child, and someone drove the RC into that child, there would probably be less humor in the story. Since those first two things are not what happened, you are simply being delusional in your rant against humor.
Jokes about this kid getting hurt are about as funny as jokes about the Shuttle Columbia's last re-entry.
Humor is a method of learning, in addition to being a wonderful coping mechanism. While I am not a fan of certain types of jokes, I personally see nothing wrong with the jokes in this thread. Perhaps you prefer racial jokes, or find something else humorous that others have difficulty with. If you find no humor in anything, you are not really human.
I am finding that people are getting smarter than you imply. Bombing costs money, and we have a Government that has ensured that the next 22 generations of Americans are paying back current debt. In other words, this is not just a matter of your kid going and getting shot. It's about your children not being able to afford to eat.
Slashdot Mirror
Good grief! You are a string of factual distortion in this thread. Bin Laden was not the whole of Al Qada, and the US could have had him in prison in 2001 simply by providing facts to Al Qada leadership.
FACT: Bush publicly declared that he wanted Al Qada to hand over Bin Laden immediately.
FACT: Al Qada leaders (Religious and Military) stated that if Bush could present them facts showing Bin Laden's guilt in terrorist activity, they would hand him over immediately.
FACT: Bush denied the request for proof and invaded Afghanistan.
Those are not disputable facts, each event is still in history. The theme above should seem eerily similar to what we are seeing played out in Syria to you.
I have been on the Earth for quite a while now. Ever since the Shah was overthrown, I keep hearing about how bad Iran is and how they plan to rule the world. I have seen the US, UK, and Israel bully them. On more than one occasion Israel has bombed Iran. I saw Iraq instigated into war with Iran by the US and UK, the US arm Iraq, and offer intelligence so that Iranians could be killed. I saw the US sit silent while they knew that Saddam had used Sarin, Cyanide, and Mustard gas on his own people as well as the Iranian soldiers.
All of this time, the CFR and their puppets have been claiming that "Iran is Evil".
What I have not seen in this time is Iran retaliate, start a war, or massacre their allegedly sworn enemies.
The story line is played out, and so full of false information that I really don't know whether to laugh or cry when people like you repeat propaganda without doing any fact checking. Worse, this does not require much in the way of fact checking. Just open your eyes and ask some basic questions.
By the way, I've got a question for you. I don't think that the collapse of the World Trade Center from the 9/11 attacks in New York, crushing thousands of people to death, resulted in the "Tree of Liberty" growing any stronger from the blood shed. Do you? Do you think they were just not "patriotic enough" to make a difference?
Building seven called, there is something wrong with the party line. Architects and Engineers have additional questions. Of course you may not want facts to get in the way of your absurd level of delusion. Either that or your masters will be mad if you look at facts (I'm not so sure after reading many of your posts)
Is there any point where you think too much American blood can be shed in slaughter instead of battle? Or is every American killed at work or shopping by terrorists another tick mark toward "liberty" to you - the more Americans murdered the "freer" you feel?
Last time I checked, more people die from accidental slip and falls in the bathtub than die by terrorism. You repeat an appeal to emotion argument handed down to sheep, goodie for you. Many people understand what was meant when we were told "Those that give up Liberty for a bit of temporary security deserve and get neither." In fact there are a tremendous amount of similar anecdotes from Jews in Germany prior to a tyrannical take over by Hitler, many more from Russia before Lenin, many more in China before Mao, etc... Perhaps you have somehow convinced yourself that human nature does not exist in the USA or that some magic shield protects you from tyranny. Either way, you are delusional.
We all know that company owners have no say-so with their own companies right?
Okay, third comment in the thread along the same line. Are you a government puppet?
Your statement does not present facts, it states what we already knew. "Chemical Weapons were used." It does determine who used them, and you provided no facts to even begin to make an implication. Cameron could not convince the British he had any evidence which is why their parliament voted "NO" on military action.
Yes it does matter who used them. Bombing Assad (in reality thousands of innocent citizens) if the rebels used the weapons is like the police burning down your property because your neighbors lawn mower caught fire. It is an unjust act.
Our Government has presented no evidence for who used the CWs either. John Kerry stated last week that it did not matter who used them, Assad must be punished. Read above for my thoughts on whether or not that is justice.
Big on the propaganda? From wiki.org: In August, September and November 1981, the Brotherhood carried out three car-bomb attacks against government and military targets in Damascus, killing hundreds of people, according to the official press. On 2 February 1982, the Brotherhood led a major insurrection in Hama, rapidly taking control of the city; the military responded by bombing Hama (whose population was about 250,000) throughout the rest of the month, killing between 10,000 and 30,000 people. The tragedy of Hama marked the defeat of the Brotherhood, and the militant Islamic movement in general, as a political force in Syria. (Carré 1983, 159; ICG 11 February 2004, 4)
The article of course presents the Muslim brotherhood as innocent victims, and falsely claims that Assad's forces wiped out a whole city and gassed them to death.
I'm not claiming that both sides are correct, I'm claiming that presenting biased and factually incorrect information makes you appear to be a puppet.
Funny that you quote the CFR as a source of reliable information regarding foreign policy. I'm guessing that you should study up on who the CFR is, and what they are about before you believe that they have the USA in their best interests.
Remember that most criminals will not tell you that they are criminals. When you have money and are a criminal, you get to pay people to never see you in the spotlight and make bad stories disappear.
I believe we agree much more than I initially suspected. My point being that while our physical bodies are combined natural organisms, what makes us "human" is not our physical bodies. "Part != Whole" and all that. I am pretty sure that you are saying something very similar.
I don't agree that we are simply machines. Humans have incredible capacity for learning and emotion. Our psychological behavior has very little to do with the mechanics, and everything to do with what we learn and see in society as well as our social standing. We can learn that learning is fun, or we can learn that learning is horrible. We can learn courtesy, or learn to be barbaric. We can learn that lies are good, or learn that lies are bad (and this is complex, because we learn loads of grey area in that one).
To claim that we like people only because a mechanic is denying what makes us human.
First, look at the source. I'm sure that the US intelligence agencies will all run to the Wall Street Journal with leaked information. Next, there have been no facts presented for anything else they have been banging a war drum on. Not just for this, but for decades. Are we really supposed to keep trusting known liars and a corrupt media system?
We also have this one.
Not only do I not trust a corrupt media and politicians, I want them out of our country. Maybe a good first step in war is to start parachuting politicians into these foreign countries where they clamor for war?
The correct math is: (DNA sample size) / (Total DNA length). Not (number of people sampled) / (DNA sample size).
Primarily, I am claiming that making psychological determinations by reviewing our DNA is a ludicrous prospect. Secondarily, claiming that we are 98% the same as chimpanzees is an absurd correlation used to dehumanize people, considering the length of DNA.
While we can figure out certain mechanics, human behavior and knowledge are trained. They are not in our DNA.
Personally, I think this is patently absurd and that there is no way this could influence personality or human behaviour. It seems to me to be more likely that the linoleic acid genes either have some wildly obscure indirect effect on personality that we can detect, or that they're simply inherited by chance with something that does.
I agree, and this paper to me continues a trend of portraying humans as nothing more than organic machines. Emotions and morality are often portrayed by the same publishers as malfunctions in the organic machine which must be mended by science (I did not detect that in TFA, just pointing out that it is a regular occurrence).
It should be obvious that we are not simply machines. Appeals to intellect are used to convince people that rational thought is incorrect.
Thanks for the correction. This makes the analysis on 8.024e-5 which is still a very small percentage of our genes.
I'll meet you in the middle, I believe it's both. I have seen obvious shills marked as +5 insightful as often as I have seen valid positions being marked as trolls and flame bait.
I noticed, and if I had mod points I would surely correct. The problem here is that idiots get mod points as often as intelligent people.
By your logic, everyone is a child since everyone had parents. The fact that you can not grasp such simple rational thinking, and insist on repeating a fallacy, leaves me completely stumped.
Nothing to see here, move along.
I'm sure that a few will claim "no, you are just anti-science" or some such but lets check a simple fact. 2000 genes were used in this study. What percentage of the human genome is this? Not only would this mean that "correlation == causation", but that correlation of 8.024e-6 (yes, that is a very small number) is the "normal".
Most of my optimism comes from teaching people and seeing results. I also see groups gaining membership, such as the "Young Libertarians". In the last month, I have had the pleasure of convincing 3 people to start reading Plato's "The Republic" and start to have dialogue with me. In that same month, I have convinced 9 to start reading Gary Allen's "None Dare Call it Conspiracy" and again begin dialogue. Other people I previously worked on have begun to open doors of their own.
At times, it's frustrating to get people to even look at a piece of literature. It's rewarding to see success.
My success would not be possible if people felt things were going well. Nobody in their right mind thinks we are on the right track in the USA today. The right piece of information nudges them toward the door of the cave. If you are awake, you need to keep showing people various pieces of light and drafts air. Eventually, they will open the door and look outside.
You are as delusional as the person I responded to, and repeating the same fallacy. I would agree that at 19 he was not "wise" since wisdom requires knowledge. He may not have been fully mature, because maturity comes with wisdom. Neither of those things make him a child. Painting him as a child is delusion. If you fell for the same delusion with Trayvon Martin, shame on you for being unable to spot and defend yourself against fallacy.
Repeating a fallacy over and over will never make the argument rational or logical.
He was a head banger in addition to being an RC enthusiast?
He was not a "child", please save the "for the children" appeals to emotion. He was also not a victim, so save that line of fallacy also. It was an adult who made some poor decisions. Worse, it appears from the article that he had parents that knew and did not discourage those decisions.
Now if this was a child, and someone drove the RC into that child, there would probably be less humor in the story. Since those first two things are not what happened, you are simply being delusional in your rant against humor.
Jokes about this kid getting hurt are about as funny as jokes about the Shuttle Columbia's last re-entry.
Humor is a method of learning, in addition to being a wonderful coping mechanism. While I am not a fan of certain types of jokes, I personally see nothing wrong with the jokes in this thread. Perhaps you prefer racial jokes, or find something else humorous that others have difficulty with. If you find no humor in anything, you are not really human.
I am finding that people are getting smarter than you imply. Bombing costs money, and we have a Government that has ensured that the next 22 generations of Americans are paying back current debt. In other words, this is not just a matter of your kid going and getting shot. It's about your children not being able to afford to eat.
This! Nothing in politics or media happens on accident. It's also never just about money or fame, there are always additional motives.