"Labeling is not an issue I take a position on, actually, except to say that the subject is not itself scientific. "
so you do take a position, which is clear since every statement in this post exerts a position against labeling. (if not outright against it, then maligning it in someway).
let's just agree to ignore both of you and find the facts out for ourselves... the only real way to ever deal with this type of discussion that brings out the shills on both sides.
Modern wheat has much lower protein content than it would be possible with a healthy genome. Also, modern wheat plants are little Frankenstein monsters with highly polyploid genomes riddled with mobile elements. Turns out that higher protein content can be achieved by fixing some of the problems caused by inbreeding during selection: http://www.researchgate.net/pu... [researchgate.net] "
i'm not sure what your point is, but from a cooking standpoint there are reasons for using flour with lower protein amounts, e.g. cakes and sweat breads, a higher protein level makes for a denser more elastic bread/dough... it sounds like you think when it comes to flour the higher the protein the better...?
"Thousands of dollars of productivity every day now go up in smoke to support people that provide nothing more into the system than they did the day before the minimum wage went up."
I think you meant:
"Thousands of dollars being paid to minimum wage earners will now be spent in the same system where nothing was able to be spent before the minimum wage was increased"
"According to this cite: http://www.epi.org/publication... [epi.org] The average minimum wage earner *is* the primary wage earner.
No where in your citation does it say that."
yes it does. maybe you don't comprehend English well? If you mean word for word then you would be technically accurate, meaning you are also technically splitting hairs to be correct, which usually means you position is very weak.. oh look it is weak.. well that explains it...
"So you're right... it isn't a complete fucking disaster yet that has claimed 100 million lives.
So automatically we should just french kiss people with the disease and then cough in the face of every new person we meet. Because this isn't something that should be taken seriously."
Over reacting and being a dick is definitely the way to get your point across and people to listen to you.
"The problem is that, being online, there are no longer limits. If you're a woman gamer, and you don't respond to certain male gamers they way they want you to, you will get death threats, rape threats and doxxing. And it goes from 0-60 in nothing flat. Playing online games all day has left many of these young men completely without any sort of self-governance of their id. And people end up getting hurt. Sometimes in very real-world ways."
maybe the problem is that girl gamers should take this as the way people are period..it's not about misogyny, it's the detachment a game world gives to those who would otherwise control their emotions, no (perceived) repercussions and anonymously engaging others seems to breed this behavior.
It happens all the time to me and the friends i play with as well as girls i play with (my daughter is 19 and plays l4d2 with me so i see it firsthand) maybe it's just easier to trigger people who have a chip on their shoulder to begin with...?
"This makes me think you havent read the book. I cannot off the top of my head think of a single thing that would make aliens problematic, whether taken literally, metaphorically, or otherwise. It simply doesnt speak on the topic."
as one who has read the book thoroughly let me explain why this would be problematic, since jesus was born on this earth through the lineage of adam, as the sacrifical lamb slain for our sins, caused by the first of humans, how could he possibly be the sacrifice for a life form on a different planet?
are those beings bound by sin because of something done by someone not of their lineage?
best case scenario is that this has played out multiple times on the differing planets (each planet's race having their own jesus), otherwise the whole religion is a lie.
if the best case scenario is true then christianity is STILL a lie since Jesus supposedly was the creator of everything (thru him god did creation) and is the sole savior... which doesn't work with the best case scenario.
aka, if there is life on other planets (humanoid life, intelligent, sentient, knowing guilt from "sin" aka right and wrong) then the bible is a lie.
"Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! "
Most people don't understand the passages in the bible and since understanding is given by god, it's hard to know what you know... that's why it's better to worry about your own plank than try to solve the specks of others...
the judging not passage has more to do with mercy than telling people not to judge, as mercy triumphs over judgement, so you can judge (how would you live life without making judgements?!?) but be warned, if you are going to judge others by a strict interpretation of biblical theology, you are held to the same standard.. and you will fail just as those you judge fail
if you need to figure out who is "christianly" because you want to avoid "false christians" jesus goes on (from that luke excerpt) to talk about the things people do, not what they say:
Luke 6:43 “For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, 44for each tree is known by its own fruit."
"While there were Christians who fought slavery, the idea that slavery is immoral is not based on the Jewish nor Christian sacred texts which explain in detail who can be a slave, and how to treat slaves. 10 commandments, none of them even hint that slavery is bad."
Maybe you haven't read it in detail but in these texts were the first ever commandments that slaves be given rights, and eventually freed as well as punishmnets for mistreatment of slaves.
if that's what you mean by "how to treat slaves" then i apologize but it seems a gross oversimplification of the fact that before the old testament and foundation of judiasm, slaves had no rights and would never be free.
" Gay rights? Nope." In texts that propose that sexual perversion is evil and evil is bad, no i don't think it would champion "gay rights".
"Women's equality? Nope." the old testament gave women rights above what had existed previously, the new testament elevated women to equality with men in the eyes of god...
Religious freedom? "Religious freedom", wow ok, maybe the old testament but definitely not the new... the new testament forbids anything other than loving your neighbor so i don't see how anyone could associate anything else with christianity without blatantly overlooking the stated intent of it's founder.
Freedom of speech? wtf? i'm not even sure what you're talking about.. grasping at straws i guess...
"If you mean in some magical sense where the universe or reality at its core cares one way or another, no values are better than other values. But I assure you, some values lead to more flourishing and some values lead to more suffering."
the one value the universe holds which is pretty self evident, is one of balance, which is pretty much the core value of the old/new testament too.. so.. if i had to guess you hate anything religious and this attests to the slant and bias your post is full of...
"but once you have 80 billion dollars, they can't do much to take that money away from you. They can only take new money that you earn using that money."
Where do you keep it? In a bank? accounts are only insured to 100k per account?
"The book that says that they must kill non believers."
the book doesnt say this to christians, to jews yes, and in the quran to muslims yes... there is no commandment whatsoever to kill anyone as a christian.
this guy's position is one of misunderstanding and fallacy, he takes a superior moral stance to god (lol) and it's all based on not knowing or caring what the word of god actually says...funny.
"Obviously, the existence of a god is a complex notion and hence cannot be the the default, but is something that must be demonstrated, i.e. must have supporting proof to be accepted."
Like water turning to blood, raising people from the dead, turning water to wine, etc, or like God speaking from a mountain, food falling from heaven, a fire in the sky at night and a cloud during the day?
The problem with continually asking for proof is that 2000 yrs down the line another guy is sitting there demanding proof from a god that has given more than enough already.
god then has two choices.. sit there at your side for constant proof which no one would choose sin, or well i guess one choice since atheists won't be happy otherwise.
If you want proof, there is a book that god wrote that gives many many examples as well as ways to test his promises and existence.. but you have to be willing to try......don't listen to any other man's interpretation of this book go read it yourself.. find the promises and examples yourself and test them for your own knowledge.. if you don't but yet still spout this self serving tripe.. well then i assume you're like every other atheist i've ever met or heard talk about god.
" I imagine your position would suddenly reverse if government assets were used to promote a hate group that targeted [biblegateway.com] you. [biblegateway.com]"
Nope, as a christian (who i'm guessing your throwing this assertion towards) we are told to turn the other cheek, to be allow persecution for our beliefs gladly.
It's the highest glory/honor to be murdered by someone because i'm a christian... just like christ. Fuck yah, bring it!!!
" then you are an evil person at heart, merely constrained by religion."
muslim/judaism/christianity (pretty much all religions as well?) say people are evil at heart.. that anyone born to this world is of the evil inherent in the world, and the teachings of those religions are a path to free yourself from that evil.
the carrot and stick is not an approach or constraint of evil (as any atheist loves to point out) as evil abounds in even those who profess to be religious, but a guarantee of justice professed by all three. hell is not the reason to find salvation, the path to salvation is there for those who would choose it because they prefer it over evil. it's a choice.
I had a truck try to split an over pass embankment and end up rolling 4 times across 5 lanes of traffic while next to me, only because my wife yelled out when she saw this happening was i able to speed forward and avoid being crushed/part of the accident.
The driver had been texting, i knew this because before we got on the on ramp i was behind him at the light before the on ramp which he did not notice change and which caused me to "beep" slightly to get his attention (i watched him look up, etc.. and saw the phone), he did something similar two times before actually getting on the road.
"Why on earth would you ever encourage ANYONE to line up for work in a coal mine?"
Do you hear anyone complaining that girls are under-represented in coal mines like they do about high paying low physical exertion jobs?
I'm pretty sure that's the analogy here. do you not understand analogies? it's used to compare two things that are similar but different so to maximize the point in the comparison that they both share but might be overlooked. In this case it's feminists demanding partial equality in jobs but masquerading their complaint as demanding full equality in jobs.
Weird, taking a second and googling "fracking poisoning groundwater", the top hit was this:
http://www.scientificamerican.... " Records from disparate corners of the United States show that wells drilled to bury this waste deep beneath the ground have repeatedly leaked, sending dangerous chemicals and waste gurgling to the surface or, on occasion, seeping into shallow aquifers that store a significant portion of the nation's drinking water.
In 2010, contaminants from such a well bubbled up in a west Los Angeles dog park....."
the second hit was this: "...How can drinking poisoned water be safe? Numerous scientific studies have concluded that fracking poisons the local water supply by adding carcinogens and radioactive materials. According to Dr.Sandra Stenigraber, Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Ithaca College and Science Advisor to Breast Cancer Action, there have been over 1,000 different cases of water contamination near fracking sites."
So um where exactly do you get this bit of logic? oh from the oil/natural gas companies you shill for? that would be my guess.
Slashdot Mirror
"Labeling is not an issue I take a position on, actually, except to say that the subject is not itself scientific. "
so you do take a position, which is clear since every statement in this post exerts a position against labeling. (if not outright against it, then maligning it in someway).
let's just agree to ignore both of you and find the facts out for ourselves... the only real way to ever deal with this type of discussion that brings out the shills on both sides.
Modern wheat has much lower protein content than it would be possible with a healthy genome. Also, modern wheat plants are little Frankenstein monsters with highly polyploid genomes riddled with mobile elements. Turns out that higher protein content can be achieved by fixing some of the problems caused by inbreeding during selection: http://www.researchgate.net/pu... [researchgate.net] "
i'm not sure what your point is, but from a cooking standpoint there are reasons for using flour with lower protein amounts, e.g. cakes and sweat breads, a higher protein level makes for a denser more elastic bread/dough... it sounds like you think when it comes to flour the higher the protein the better...?
adjusted for inflation 2009? or the same salary as back then?
I'm making about the same as 2007 but it buys a whole lost less.
"Thousands of dollars of productivity every day now go up in smoke to support people that provide nothing more into the system than they did the day before the minimum wage went up."
I think you meant:
"Thousands of dollars being paid to minimum wage earners will now be spent in the same system where nothing was able to be spent before the minimum wage was increased"
"According to this cite: http://www.epi.org/publication... [epi.org] The average minimum wage earner *is* the primary wage earner.
No where in your citation does it say that."
yes it does. maybe you don't comprehend English well? If you mean word for word then you would be technically accurate, meaning you are also technically splitting hairs to be correct, which usually means you position is very weak.. oh look it is weak.. well that explains it...
"So you're right... it isn't a complete fucking disaster yet that has claimed 100 million lives.
So automatically we should just french kiss people with the disease and then cough in the face of every new person we meet. Because this isn't something that should be taken seriously."
Over reacting and being a dick is definitely the way to get your point across and people to listen to you.
" people are taught to over simplify things especially when political talking points echo chamber their minions into all towing a very simple line."
Like characterizing a discussion as "talking points" and using terms like "echo chamber", "minions" "towing the line".
gotcha.
" This keep calm and carry on nonsense"
Exactly!!! the one thing i have learned in all of my travels is that you always want to remember:
PANIC!!!!!!! OMFG PANIC SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT SHIT!!!!!!!!
"Do you think he prefers his son's murder to go unsolved?"
unsolved? probably. Unrequited? no.
"The problem is that, being online, there are no longer limits. If you're a woman gamer, and you don't respond to certain male gamers they way they want you to, you will get death threats, rape threats and doxxing. And it goes from 0-60 in nothing flat. Playing online games all day has left many of these young men completely without any sort of self-governance of their id. And people end up getting hurt. Sometimes in very real-world ways."
maybe the problem is that girl gamers should take this as the way people are period..it's not about misogyny, it's the detachment a game world gives to those who would otherwise control their emotions, no (perceived) repercussions and anonymously engaging others seems to breed this behavior.
It happens all the time to me and the friends i play with as well as girls i play with (my daughter is 19 and plays l4d2 with me so i see it firsthand) maybe it's just easier to trigger people who have a chip on their shoulder to begin with...?
"This makes me think you havent read the book. I cannot off the top of my head think of a single thing that would make aliens problematic, whether taken literally, metaphorically, or otherwise. It simply doesnt speak on the topic."
as one who has read the book thoroughly let me explain why this would be problematic, since jesus was born on this earth through the lineage of adam, as the sacrifical lamb slain for our sins, caused by the first of humans, how could he possibly be the sacrifice for a life form on a different planet?
are those beings bound by sin because of something done by someone not of their lineage?
best case scenario is that this has played out multiple times on the differing planets (each planet's race having their own jesus), otherwise the whole religion is a lie.
if the best case scenario is true then christianity is STILL a lie since Jesus supposedly was the creator of everything (thru him god did creation) and is the sole savior... which doesn't work with the best case scenario.
aka, if there is life on other planets (humanoid life, intelligent, sentient, knowing guilt from "sin" aka right and wrong) then the bible is a lie.
so.. that's the issue.
um yes you can?
"Christianity and it's doctrines are not all from the Bible. Catholicism says this out right."
maybe you shouldn't combine catholicism and christianity? they are two different things.
"There's a joke among my sect. We are called Latter Day Saints (LDS)"
so you are a mormon?
I see your luke and raise you a
1Corinthians 6:2
"Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! "
Most people don't understand the passages in the bible and since understanding is given by god, it's hard to know what you know... that's why it's better to worry about your own plank than try to solve the specks of others...
the judging not passage has more to do with mercy than telling people not to judge, as mercy triumphs over judgement, so you can judge (how would you live life without making judgements?!?) but be warned, if you are going to judge others by a strict interpretation of biblical theology, you are held to the same standard.. and you will fail just as those you judge fail
if you need to figure out who is "christianly" because you want to avoid "false christians" jesus goes on (from that luke excerpt) to talk about the things people do, not what they say:
Luke 6:43
“For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, 44for each tree is known by its own fruit."
"While there were Christians who fought slavery, the idea that slavery is immoral is not based on the Jewish nor Christian sacred texts which explain in detail who can be a slave, and how to treat slaves. 10 commandments, none of them even hint that slavery is bad."
Maybe you haven't read it in detail but in these texts were the first ever commandments that slaves be given rights, and eventually freed as well as punishmnets for mistreatment of slaves.
if that's what you mean by "how to treat slaves" then i apologize but it seems a gross oversimplification of the fact that before the old testament and foundation of judiasm, slaves had no rights and would never be free.
" Gay rights? Nope."
In texts that propose that sexual perversion is evil and evil is bad, no i don't think it would champion "gay rights".
"Women's equality? Nope."
the old testament gave women rights above what had existed previously, the new testament elevated women to equality with men in the eyes of god...
Religious freedom?
"Religious freedom", wow ok, maybe the old testament but definitely not the new... the new testament forbids anything other than loving your neighbor so i don't see how anyone could associate anything else with christianity without blatantly overlooking the stated intent of it's founder.
Freedom of speech?
wtf? i'm not even sure what you're talking about.. grasping at straws i guess...
"If you mean in some magical sense where the universe or reality at its core cares one way or another, no values are better than other values. But I assure you, some values lead to more flourishing and some values lead to more suffering."
the one value the universe holds which is pretty self evident, is one of balance, which is pretty much the core value of the old/new testament too.. so.. if i had to guess you hate anything religious and this attests to the slant and bias your post is full of...
"but once you have 80 billion dollars, they can't do much to take that money away from you. They can only take new money that you earn using that money."
Where do you keep it? In a bank? accounts are only insured to 100k per account?
invest in stock market? crashes, overseas accounts? nationalized, property? Values fluctuate.
I'm not sure how you would maintain that wealth but maybe because i don't have it.. but i'd be interested to know...
"The book that says that they must kill non believers."
the book doesnt say this to christians, to jews yes, and in the quran to muslims yes... there is no commandment whatsoever to kill anyone as a christian.
this guy's position is one of misunderstanding and fallacy, he takes a superior moral stance to god (lol) and it's all based on not knowing or caring what the word of god actually says...funny.
"Obviously, the existence of a god is a complex notion and hence cannot be the the default, but is something that must be demonstrated, i.e. must have supporting proof to be accepted."
Like water turning to blood, raising people from the dead, turning water to wine, etc, or like God speaking from a mountain, food falling from heaven, a fire in the sky at night and a cloud during the day?
The problem with continually asking for proof is that 2000 yrs down the line another guy is sitting there demanding proof from a god that has given more than enough already.
god then has two choices.. sit there at your side for constant proof which no one would choose sin, or well i guess one choice since atheists won't be happy otherwise.
If you want proof, there is a book that god wrote that gives many many examples as well as ways to test his promises and existence.. but you have to be willing to try......don't listen to any other man's interpretation of this book go read it yourself.. find the promises and examples yourself and test them for your own knowledge.. if you don't but yet still spout this self serving tripe.. well then i assume you're like every other atheist i've ever met or heard talk about god.
" I imagine your position would suddenly reverse if government assets were used to promote a hate group that targeted [biblegateway.com] you. [biblegateway.com]"
Nope, as a christian (who i'm guessing your throwing this assertion towards) we are told to turn the other cheek, to be allow persecution for our beliefs gladly.
It's the highest glory/honor to be murdered by someone because i'm a christian... just like christ. Fuck yah, bring it!!!
" then you are an evil person at heart, merely constrained by religion."
muslim/judaism/christianity (pretty much all religions as well?) say people are evil at heart.. that anyone born to this world is of the evil inherent in the world, and the teachings of those religions are a path to free yourself from that evil.
the carrot and stick is not an approach or constraint of evil (as any atheist loves to point out) as evil abounds in even those who profess to be religious, but a guarantee of justice professed by all three. hell is not the reason to find salvation, the path to salvation is there for those who would choose it because they prefer it over evil. it's a choice.
I had a truck try to split an over pass embankment and end up rolling 4 times across 5 lanes of traffic while next to me, only because my wife yelled out when she saw this happening was i able to speed forward and avoid being crushed/part of the accident.
The driver had been texting, i knew this because before we got on the on ramp i was behind him at the light before the on ramp which he did not notice change and which caused me to "beep" slightly to get his attention (i watched him look up, etc.. and saw the phone), he did something similar two times before actually getting on the road.
FWIW
"Why on earth would you ever encourage ANYONE to line up for work in a coal mine?"
Do you hear anyone complaining that girls are under-represented in coal mines like they do about high paying low physical exertion jobs?
I'm pretty sure that's the analogy here. do you not understand analogies? it's used to compare two things that are similar but different so to maximize the point in the comparison that they both share but might be overlooked. In this case it's feminists demanding partial equality in jobs but masquerading their complaint as demanding full equality in jobs.
you said:
"Fracking doesn't poison ground water".
Weird, taking a second and googling "fracking poisoning groundwater", the top hit was this:
http://www.scientificamerican....
" Records from disparate corners of the United States show that wells drilled to bury this waste deep beneath the ground have repeatedly leaked, sending dangerous chemicals and waste gurgling to the surface or, on occasion, seeping into shallow aquifers that store a significant portion of the nation's drinking water.
In 2010, contaminants from such a well bubbled up in a west Los Angeles dog park....."
the second hit was this:
"...How can drinking poisoned water be safe? Numerous scientific studies have concluded that fracking poisons the local water supply by adding carcinogens and radioactive materials. According to Dr.Sandra Stenigraber, Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Ithaca College and Science Advisor to Breast Cancer Action, there have been over 1,000 different cases of water contamination near fracking sites."
So um where exactly do you get this bit of logic? oh from the oil/natural gas companies you shill for? that would be my guess.