first time some attack (even 9/11 was utterly minor in terms of life vs, say, annual car accidents) happens, you have these dumb sheep throw the Constitution out the window and yell 'Murica while going full tilt behind a nearly decade long attack on a country that had nothing to do with it.
Dead is dead; what difference does the manner of death make, is that it? On the average day, 89 people die in automobile accidents. If that suddenly jumped to 3000 per day, you can bet your "dumb sheep" would react pretty much the same way.
The circular argument is actually pretty revealing. What it says is, "People don't want to learn anything they aren't good at". Since most everyone is best at things they know the most about, eventually no one will try to learn anything new at all.
It isn't nonsensical. It's idiom. Sort of like "head over heels" (which started life in the 14th century as "heels over head") or "the exception that proves the rule" (depends on an archaic definition of the word, "prove", meaning "test"; we see the remnants of that today in terms such as "proof mass"). By the way, English is in no way unique in having illogical idiomatic expressions.
Everyone in America at this point knows if it says Apple, don't get into it in the first place. It's like a black hole. Once you're inside, you're stuck and that's that.
Which type of fallacy is this? Where you ways "everyone knows" when no such thing is true.
You're right, of course. He really should have said, "Everyone in America who's been paying attention knows...". Much smaller number than "Everyone".
Well, actually it only has to support what passes for creators to the extent required to make their business model work. As long as there is a sufficient market for the products they're churning out, the status quo will remain.
Thanks. From what I have read, the majority of weight-maintenance failures occur because the individuals didn't find a diet that was satisfying in the long term. Breaking habits is very difficult. I guess I'm fortunate in that I seem to have settled into a healthy eating pattern that I find satisfying. It's been quite a while since I had to make a conscious effort to choose the right foods (as in thinking, "Well, I'd really rather have this, but I guess I'd better have that instead." As for the long run, time will tell.
You must think I'm a very unusual person then, having lost over 40 pounds in 6 months, just by cutting out high-calorie foods and between-meal snacks. No muscle loss, no feeling starved. And I've maintained the loss for 8 more months without feeling deprived.
I know a few people who have obtained similar results, so I don't think I'm unique at all.
Most overweight people who are otherwise mostly healthy can reduce their caloric intake significantly without feeling like they're "starving all the time."
But they CANNOT simply reduce their caloric intake enough to BOTH lose weight AND not feeling like they are starving all the time.
Of course they can. You don't have to cut your intake to starvation levels in order to lose weight. In order to maintain an obese weight, an average otherwise healthy individual must consume at least 500 calories per day above their normal weight maintenance consumption level. Cutting 500 calories per day from an obese maintenance diet does not result in a person feeling like they're starving all the time, and it doesn't result in the body going into muscle consumption mode. It's a large order of french fries, or a quarter of a 14" pizza, for God's sake. Of course, all this assumes that the person doesn't confuse "I'm not uncomfortably full" or "I miss eating a burrito larger than my forearm every day" with "I feel like I'm starving." What it results in is a steady weight loss on the order of 1 to 2 pounds per week, which is perfectly sustainable until the person's weight drops to the level where the lower consumption balances the calories burned, at which weight levels off.
There is a simple solution to obesity: feel like you're starving all the time.
FTFY. I'm sure you're totally man over nature, showing the third most powerful driver of all life who's boss. (after sleep and thirst, and usually before sex)
Most overweight people who are otherwise mostly healthy can reduce their caloric intake significantly without feeling like they're "starving all the time." Have a salad for lunch instead of that pizza or burrito. Stop eating crap between meals. Drink some water before you start eating. Stop wolfing down your meals, and stop when you start feeling full.
Indeed. Those arrested had explosives and/or poison gas in their posession. Nice sensationalism. And predictable responses from a gang that would rather be outraged than look beneath the surface for something of substance.
Recent events indicate that conspiring to commit an act of terrorism, despite not being "an immediate breach of the peace", will get you arrested if you are noticed doing it.
Free speech doesn't mean that you can offend anything/anyone!
Yes, it does, actually. I'm willing to make free speech exceptions for libel, fraud, and maybe government secrets. Offending someone doesn't rate.
The Supreme Court seems to have disagreed with you regarding offending someone. See, for example, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, in which the Court ruled that "fighting words" ('speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".').
The president is part of the EXECUTIVE branch, EXECUTIVE orders can only tell the EXECUTIVE branch what to do. He has absolutely no power to directly tell the JUSTICE department how to operate.
Brilliant point, except that the JUSTICE department is part of the EXECUTIVE branch. Did you sleep through high school civics?
Using teams, such as Obamacare, as part of a justification for an argument shows the way someone leans. Rather than use that, use the Actual name, it makes reading the statement a better view, than seeing it as nothing but a Flamebait comment. So regardless of his INTENT, he showed his disdain for Obama and the democratic party..... Just saying.
The AC asked about people killed "in the name of Christianity", not people killed by Christians. Of the ten incidents in the list you linked to, you can scratch #10 (Timothy McVeigh), #9 (The murder of Alan Berg), #8 (Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas), #3 (Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting), and #1 (Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre). These were acts committed by people who were presumably Christian, but who did not tie their acts to their religious beliefs.
As for the others on the list -- OK, point made. On the other hand, I don't recall mass rallies in Christian cities praising the perpetrators.
(Today the USA emits about 14 tons per person, compared to China's 7 tons.)
So yeah, you're right, that is some powerful negotiation right there as China is making a much bigger sacrifice...
Are you sure tons per capita is the appropriate metric? Stats from 2010: Trinidad and Tobago (38 tons per capita), Aruba (22.8), Luxembourg (21.4). AGW evil-doers, or bit players in the greater scheme of things? And no, I'm not proposing that the USA is a bit player.
China has a population 4.3x greater than the USA, in a land area slightly smaller (3.7 million sq mi vs 3.8 million sq. mi). Looking at tons of carbon per square mile, China is currently emitting carbon at over twice the rate of the USA.
The fact that liberals finally caved and accepted it as a compromise solution since they are never going to get socialized medicine in this country doesn't mean conservatives get to disown their own plan.
Caved? To whom?? Are you talking about special considerations given to Democratic legislators and labor unions? Passed by reconciliation without a trace of Republican support != compromise.
Slashdot Mirror
Earth's moon has a proper name: Luna.
Or Selene, if you prefer Greek mythology to Roman.
So you like taking it up the ass from Comcast....good for you....
I guess we can hope that the government will use a better lubricant.
Weapons, entertainment, and food are pretty much the bulk of American exports.
Actually, no. In 2013, the US was the second largest exporter of arms ($6.2 billion), after Russia ($8.3 billion). And because you probably won't read the linked article, I should mention that these numbers include the estimated value of arms given as foreign aid. But those numbers are dwarfed by the real heavyweights.
Top ten US exports in 2013:
first time some attack (even 9/11 was utterly minor in terms of life vs, say, annual car accidents) happens, you have these dumb sheep throw the Constitution out the window and yell 'Murica while going full tilt behind a nearly decade long attack on a country that had nothing to do with it.
Dead is dead; what difference does the manner of death make, is that it? On the average day, 89 people die in automobile accidents. If that suddenly jumped to 3000 per day, you can bet your "dumb sheep" would react pretty much the same way.
Greece is going to try to give away electricity for free to extremely poor people. People who aren't extremely poor will get to pay for it.
The circular argument is actually pretty revealing. What it says is, "People don't want to learn anything they aren't good at". Since most everyone is best at things they know the most about, eventually no one will try to learn anything new at all.
or even the more nonsensical "I could care less."
It isn't nonsensical. It's idiom. Sort of like "head over heels" (which started life in the 14th century as "heels over head") or "the exception that proves the rule" (depends on an archaic definition of the word, "prove", meaning "test"; we see the remnants of that today in terms such as "proof mass"). By the way, English is in no way unique in having illogical idiomatic expressions.
Everyone in America at this point knows if it says Apple, don't get into it in the first place. It's like a black hole. Once you're inside, you're stuck and that's that.
Which type of fallacy is this? Where you ways "everyone knows" when no such thing is true.
You're right, of course. He really should have said, "Everyone in America who's been paying attention knows ...". Much smaller number than "Everyone".
Ostensibly it has to support the creators
Well, actually it only has to support what passes for creators to the extent required to make their business model work. As long as there is a sufficient market for the products they're churning out, the status quo will remain.
You mean like this?
A mini drone can fly around the hill in a manner an artillery shell or mortar cant and into your tent with soft squishy humans in it then explode.
Sort of like this.
Thanks. From what I have read, the majority of weight-maintenance failures occur because the individuals didn't find a diet that was satisfying in the long term. Breaking habits is very difficult. I guess I'm fortunate in that I seem to have settled into a healthy eating pattern that I find satisfying. It's been quite a while since I had to make a conscious effort to choose the right foods (as in thinking, "Well, I'd really rather have this, but I guess I'd better have that instead." As for the long run, time will tell.
You must think I'm a very unusual person then, having lost over 40 pounds in 6 months, just by cutting out high-calorie foods and between-meal snacks. No muscle loss, no feeling starved. And I've maintained the loss for 8 more months without feeling deprived.
I know a few people who have obtained similar results, so I don't think I'm unique at all.
Most overweight people who are otherwise mostly healthy can reduce their caloric intake significantly without feeling like they're "starving all the time."
But they CANNOT simply reduce their caloric intake enough to BOTH lose weight AND not feeling like they are starving all the time.
Of course they can. You don't have to cut your intake to starvation levels in order to lose weight. In order to maintain an obese weight, an average otherwise healthy individual must consume at least 500 calories per day above their normal weight maintenance consumption level. Cutting 500 calories per day from an obese maintenance diet does not result in a person feeling like they're starving all the time, and it doesn't result in the body going into muscle consumption mode. It's a large order of french fries, or a quarter of a 14" pizza, for God's sake. Of course, all this assumes that the person doesn't confuse "I'm not uncomfortably full" or "I miss eating a burrito larger than my forearm every day" with "I feel like I'm starving." What it results in is a steady weight loss on the order of 1 to 2 pounds per week, which is perfectly sustainable until the person's weight drops to the level where the lower consumption balances the calories burned, at which weight levels off.
There is a simple solution to obesity: feel like you're starving all the time.
FTFY. I'm sure you're totally man over nature, showing the third most powerful driver of all life who's boss. (after sleep and thirst, and usually before sex)
Most overweight people who are otherwise mostly healthy can reduce their caloric intake significantly without feeling like they're "starving all the time." Have a salad for lunch instead of that pizza or burrito. Stop eating crap between meals. Drink some water before you start eating. Stop wolfing down your meals, and stop when you start feeling full.
Yup, click-bait
Indeed. Those arrested had explosives and/or poison gas in their posession. Nice sensationalism. And predictable responses from a gang that would rather be outraged than look beneath the surface for something of substance.
Recent events indicate that conspiring to commit an act of terrorism, despite not being "an immediate breach of the peace", will get you arrested if you are noticed doing it.
Yes, it does, actually. I'm willing to make free speech exceptions for libel, fraud, and maybe government secrets. Offending someone doesn't rate.
The Supreme Court seems to have disagreed with you regarding offending someone. See, for example, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, in which the Court ruled that "fighting words" ('speech that "tend[s] to incite an immediate breach of the peace" by provoking a fight, so long as it is a "personally abusive [word] which, when addressed to the ordinary citizen, is, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction".').
The president is part of the EXECUTIVE branch, EXECUTIVE orders can only tell the EXECUTIVE branch what to do. He has absolutely no power to directly tell the JUSTICE department how to operate.
Brilliant point, except that the JUSTICE department is part of the EXECUTIVE branch. Did you sleep through high school civics?
Using teams, such as Obamacare, as part of a justification for an argument shows the way someone leans. Rather than use that, use the Actual name, it makes reading the statement a better view, than seeing it as nothing but a Flamebait comment. So regardless of his INTENT, he showed his disdain for Obama and the democratic party..... Just saying.
Or, maybe not.
These are not the virgins you are looking for.
The AC asked about people killed "in the name of Christianity", not people killed by Christians. Of the ten incidents in the list you linked to, you can scratch #10 (Timothy McVeigh), #9 (The murder of Alan Berg), #8 (Suicide attack on IRS building in Austin, Texas), #3 (Knoxville Unitarian Universalist Church shooting), and #1 (Wisconsin Sikh Temple massacre). These were acts committed by people who were presumably Christian, but who did not tie their acts to their religious beliefs.
As for the others on the list -- OK, point made. On the other hand, I don't recall mass rallies in Christian cities praising the perpetrators.
When I was a kid, I thought "Silent Night" telling me to "sleep in heavenly peas".
Then there was the hymn "Gladly the Cross I'd Bear", which I thought was about Gladly, the cross-eyed bear.
(Today the USA emits about 14 tons per person, compared to China's 7 tons.)
So yeah, you're right, that is some powerful negotiation right there as China is making a much bigger sacrifice...
Are you sure tons per capita is the appropriate metric? Stats from 2010: Trinidad and Tobago (38 tons per capita), Aruba (22.8), Luxembourg (21.4). AGW evil-doers, or bit players in the greater scheme of things? And no, I'm not proposing that the USA is a bit player.
China has a population 4.3x greater than the USA, in a land area slightly smaller (3.7 million sq mi vs 3.8 million sq. mi). Looking at tons of carbon per square mile, China is currently emitting carbon at over twice the rate of the USA.
The fact that liberals finally caved and accepted it as a compromise solution since they are never going to get socialized medicine in this country doesn't mean conservatives get to disown their own plan.
Caved? To whom?? Are you talking about special considerations given to Democratic legislators and labor unions? Passed by reconciliation without a trace of Republican support != compromise.