Children are not the "property" of anyone. They're the *responsibility* of their parents. And the community at large has a legitimate interest in protecting them if their parents make awful choices, such as abusing them or refusing to provide them real medical attention.
The only reason that these quacks publish videos on Amazon instead of making them freely available is because they want to profit off of their quackery. Nobody is censoring anyone by making you pay to see hear their speech. In fact, publishing it in a paid medium versus for free on a website is *restricting* your access to their speech.
And the first is what she did in this case. Saying "we didn't make this movie for white dudes" is not saying they don't want their business - it's saying they're not the primary motivator for the movie being made.
Y'all already love to take ownership of everything minorities make for themselves; why not this, too?
"Placebo effect can also boost or lower natural immunity"? Seriously? No. A boosted or lowered level of immune system function is an autoimmune disorder. Placebos and nocebos have only EVER been shown to affect SUBJECTIVE factors.
Ah, yes, the God of The Gaps. Your argument is identical to the "we don't know how it was done. so God done it" argument of the creationist crowd (whatever they call them selves this week). It's a bad argument, and it should certainly not be used to make drastic, and very, very expensive change.
It's not even remotely the same. His argument is based on evidence and data, not ignorance. He's asking for an alternate hypothesis that has as much explanatory power as his evidence-based model.
Oh, that's cute. Take a graph where a single pixel is millions of years, and use it to assert that historical CO2 levels were higher than current.
There's just one problem, though. See the right-hand edge of the graph? See how it's a thick black line? THAT'S THE CONTINUATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LINE INTO THE LAST SEVERAL MILLION YEARS. All other lines in the graph are *thin* or *dotted* black lines, except for the atmospheric CO2 line.
Increase the resolution on that data so that it's even just one pixel per decade and I'm damn sure that you'd see higher atmospheric CO2 levels in the last 200 years than *ever* before.
Isaac spoke up and said to his father Abraham, "Father?" "Yes, my son?" Abraham replied. "The fire and wood are here," Isaac said, "but where is the lamb for the burnt offering?"
Abraham answered, "God himself will provide the lamb for the burnt offering, my son." And the two of them went on together.
God WILL provide, not God HAS provided. Abraham knew God was not evil and therefore God would not allow Isacc to be killed. Maybe he would resurect him. Maybe the knife wouldn't hurt Isacc. He had no idea how god would resolve the issue, but he knew he would be returning with Isacc.
Okay. So... in essence... what we have is this:
"Daddy, why are you taking me out into the woods with a knife?"
"Well, son, we're going to go sacrifice an animal to God together."
"But daddy, I don't see a sheep or a goat; where's the animal we're going to sacrifice?"
(knowing full well that the plan is to kill his son) "Oh, don't worry about it, kiddo. I'm sure we'll find something we can sacrifice."
This is called "lying to your son so you can obey your god," not having faith that God will provide. There's no evidence at all that Abraham thought God would save Isaac.
TFA says some scientists have done such an experiment and it appeared to indicate the subject actually could detect radio waves.
A couple problems: first, a study with a single test subject is not at all scientific (what were the controls?); second, how many people did they go through with negative results before they hit on one with "positive" results?
That's exactly what I was thinking. Who says that they actually even talked with someone from McAfee, or if they did, that this is what McAfee said? If China's running a massive cyberwar and a security company calls you out for it, what else would they do but claim to have spoken with the security company and gotten a denial? This reeks of Chinese propaganda.
I think I've been pretty clear in saying that the problem is the hypocricy of one side claiming that the scientists they disagree with are unethical because they are paid to do their research while the scientists they agree with are lilly white despite being paid to do their research.
Yeah... you're kind of equating the two. One group of scientists is being paid to do science; the other is being paid to be whores.
Protip: Smokers are in the minority. Any business that pushed for the needs of its smoking customers over its non-smoking customers would take a huge financial hit. Apart from cigar bars and the like, you probably *won't* see businesses clamoring to allow smoking in their bars.
I'd be more concerned if they bothered thinking about whether or not it's possible for non-ionizing radiation of these wavelengths to cause cancer at all. (Hint: it's not. This is a political move.)
There are several major problems with what you just said.
First is the idea that nonbelievers will naturally be more inclined to immorality, or that society can't exist without a "scaffold of morality that is constructed of faith and held together by religion." This is empirically disproved by the examples of nations like Denmark and Sweden where the majority of the nation is secular and they enjoy more stability than most religious nations, including America.
Second is the idea that it's valid to build a moral code around fiction. If there is no God, any theistic moral code is simply an arbitrary construct built around a convenient concept. There's no guarantee that this kind of moral code will provide good moral standards - just a moral standard. Why not just excise the good moral concepts from the supernatural nonsense and the hordes of bad moral concepts (e.g., stoning homosexuals, enslaving foreigners, killing purported witches, etc.)? Not to mention that such a system, based on fiction, would be without grounds to say that dishonesty is immoral, seeing how it would require massive amounts of dishonesty just to assert an absolute source for the moral code.
Third, there is no real-world benefit that a religious moral system can provide that a secular one can't. None. However, there are many damaging things that organized religions have promoted that couldn't be justified by a secular system. The indoctrination of children with incredible amounts of false information, for example, or religiously-motivated bigotry, or holy wars, or any number of other things that spring quickly to mind.
Fourth, you seem to be implying that the solution to intellectual laziness is dishonesty. If people aren't willing to think things through, you're saying it's better to lie to them about the reason something is right or wrong than to give them a reason to think about it.
A moral system based on organized religion, when there is no god, is simply an arbitrary set of rules. Many of these rules would necessarily involve performing the will of a nonexistent being, and lying to the people who are too intellectually lazy to think things through. There are no benefits to such a system that couldn't be gained without the lies.
"both sides are claiming superior "knowledge" while actually relying solely upon faith"? Really? Do you understand the concept of a logical contradiction?
Exactly. There can never be any supporting evidence that bigfoot does not exist, so abigfootists who claim with certainty that there is no bigfoot are first class fools. They go around talking about the null hypothesis and scientific process as if that somehow validates their irrational belief that there is no bigfoot, when in fact the truth of the matter is they just don't know.
TROLL HARDER NEXT TIME
This is utter idiocy. It's like saying that if the world is really 4.6 billion years old, then the people who say the world is 4.7 billion years old are just as wrong as the people who say it's 6,000 years old. You're making absolutely no distinction in the kind of reasoning here.
You're invoking "allowing enough time and research" as a magical solution to the fact that this is something that ONLY WORKS ON THE SUBATOMIC SCALE, and thus scaling it magically upward to the classical scale.
Slashdot Mirror
fOrCeD-vAx NaZi Tryhard dope.
Yeah, the dude you responded to is just trolling. Nearly all of his comments contain the phrase "forced-vax Nazis."
Rather than whine like an idiot about straw men while straw-manning your opponent, why not actually respond to what they said?
Children are not the "property" of anyone. They're the *responsibility* of their parents. And the community at large has a legitimate interest in protecting them if their parents make awful choices, such as abusing them or refusing to provide them real medical attention.
The only reason that these quacks publish videos on Amazon instead of making them freely available is because they want to profit off of their quackery. Nobody is censoring anyone by making you pay to see hear their speech. In fact, publishing it in a paid medium versus for free on a website is *restricting* your access to their speech.
And the first is what she did in this case. Saying "we didn't make this movie for white dudes" is not saying they don't want their business - it's saying they're not the primary motivator for the movie being made. Y'all already love to take ownership of everything minorities make for themselves; why not this, too?
Good god, dude, you need to grow up. Actual adults don't think like this.
"Maybe it was a placebo effect but no matter, it had an effect." ... It had an effect equal to FAKE treatment. That is... not an effect.
"Placebo effect can also boost or lower natural immunity"? Seriously? No. A boosted or lowered level of immune system function is an autoimmune disorder. Placebos and nocebos have only EVER been shown to affect SUBJECTIVE factors.
It's not even remotely the same. His argument is based on evidence and data, not ignorance. He's asking for an alternate hypothesis that has as much explanatory power as his evidence-based model.
Oh, that's cute. Take a graph where a single pixel is millions of years, and use it to assert that historical CO2 levels were higher than current. There's just one problem, though. See the right-hand edge of the graph? See how it's a thick black line? THAT'S THE CONTINUATION OF THE ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LINE INTO THE LAST SEVERAL MILLION YEARS. All other lines in the graph are *thin* or *dotted* black lines, except for the atmospheric CO2 line. Increase the resolution on that data so that it's even just one pixel per decade and I'm damn sure that you'd see higher atmospheric CO2 levels in the last 200 years than *ever* before.
Okay. So... in essence... what we have is this:
"Daddy, why are you taking me out into the woods with a knife?"
"Well, son, we're going to go sacrifice an animal to God together."
"But daddy, I don't see a sheep or a goat; where's the animal we're going to sacrifice?"
(knowing full well that the plan is to kill his son) "Oh, don't worry about it, kiddo. I'm sure we'll find something we can sacrifice."
This is called "lying to your son so you can obey your god," not having faith that God will provide. There's no evidence at all that Abraham thought God would save Isaac.
A couple problems: first, a study with a single test subject is not at all scientific (what were the controls?); second, how many people did they go through with negative results before they hit on one with "positive" results?
That's exactly what I was thinking. Who says that they actually even talked with someone from McAfee, or if they did, that this is what McAfee said? If China's running a massive cyberwar and a security company calls you out for it, what else would they do but claim to have spoken with the security company and gotten a denial? This reeks of Chinese propaganda.
I think I've been pretty clear in saying that the problem is the hypocricy of one side claiming that the scientists they disagree with are unethical because they are paid to do their research while the scientists they agree with are lilly white despite being paid to do their research.
Yeah... you're kind of equating the two. One group of scientists is being paid to do science; the other is being paid to be whores.
Protip: Smokers are in the minority. Any business that pushed for the needs of its smoking customers over its non-smoking customers would take a huge financial hit. Apart from cigar bars and the like, you probably *won't* see businesses clamoring to allow smoking in their bars.
I'd be more concerned if they bothered thinking about whether or not it's possible for non-ionizing radiation of these wavelengths to cause cancer at all. (Hint: it's not. This is a political move.)
There are several major problems with what you just said.
First is the idea that nonbelievers will naturally be more inclined to immorality, or that society can't exist without a "scaffold of morality that is constructed of faith and held together by religion." This is empirically disproved by the examples of nations like Denmark and Sweden where the majority of the nation is secular and they enjoy more stability than most religious nations, including America.
Second is the idea that it's valid to build a moral code around fiction. If there is no God, any theistic moral code is simply an arbitrary construct built around a convenient concept. There's no guarantee that this kind of moral code will provide good moral standards - just a moral standard. Why not just excise the good moral concepts from the supernatural nonsense and the hordes of bad moral concepts (e.g., stoning homosexuals, enslaving foreigners, killing purported witches, etc.)? Not to mention that such a system, based on fiction, would be without grounds to say that dishonesty is immoral, seeing how it would require massive amounts of dishonesty just to assert an absolute source for the moral code.
Third, there is no real-world benefit that a religious moral system can provide that a secular one can't. None. However, there are many damaging things that organized religions have promoted that couldn't be justified by a secular system. The indoctrination of children with incredible amounts of false information, for example, or religiously-motivated bigotry, or holy wars, or any number of other things that spring quickly to mind. Fourth, you seem to be implying that the solution to intellectual laziness is dishonesty. If people aren't willing to think things through, you're saying it's better to lie to them about the reason something is right or wrong than to give them a reason to think about it. A moral system based on organized religion, when there is no god, is simply an arbitrary set of rules. Many of these rules would necessarily involve performing the will of a nonexistent being, and lying to the people who are too intellectually lazy to think things through. There are no benefits to such a system that couldn't be gained without the lies.
"both sides are claiming superior "knowledge" while actually relying solely upon faith"? Really? Do you understand the concept of a logical contradiction?
No, and neither has any god ever answered a prayer.
Exactly. There can never be any supporting evidence that bigfoot does not exist, so abigfootists who claim with certainty that there is no bigfoot are first class fools. They go around talking about the null hypothesis and scientific process as if that somehow validates their irrational belief that there is no bigfoot, when in fact the truth of the matter is they just don't know. TROLL HARDER NEXT TIME
This is utter idiocy. It's like saying that if the world is really 4.6 billion years old, then the people who say the world is 4.7 billion years old are just as wrong as the people who say it's 6,000 years old. You're making absolutely no distinction in the kind of reasoning here.
You just did even more magical hand-waving. Thanks for proving my point.
You're invoking "allowing enough time and research" as a magical solution to the fact that this is something that ONLY WORKS ON THE SUBATOMIC SCALE, and thus scaling it magically upward to the classical scale.
LOL! I love that you think experiments involving subatomic particles TODAY have anything AT ALL to do with something 61 YEARS AGO.