Cleggy got on loads better with Cameron; a working relationship with Brown would've been much more of a ball ache for him. He kept the Labour option 'open' as a means of leverage with Cameron & co, as as long as Labour was an option, Tories would do more to win the LibDems vote. After 5 days Brown had decided he wasn't going to play that game, and so forced their hand by asking The Queen to accept his resignation. At which point, LibDems lost any additional leverage. Cleggy tried to keep Brown in position for a bit longer to get more from the deal, but Brown wanted out, unfortunate in many ways, but understandable also.
There was no deal for labour backbenchers to sabotage, labour had nothing, they had no plan, no deal, no proposals, and no interest out of the LibDems.
"if they had something important to say they wouldn't be anonymous"
Citation needed.
What?! I'm tired of arguing, so I thought I'd just give a non-argument, rudely... show off the fact that I've read wikipedia, but haven't learnt to string whole sentences together yet. What wrong that?? Personal validation needed!!!!
An alergy is simply something that causes you little to no direct threat (it doesn't destroy tissue or organs or block neural pathways etc) BUT your body misrecognises it as something that does, and triggers for example an immuno-response like closing your airways to stop the threat. The problem is the response, not the substance.
Things aren't "a poison" or "not a poison", things are "poisonous" at different amounts... some things are more "poisonous" than other things. I don't think there has to be a line.
Okay I got stuck on the very first thing you said... sexual attraction is the very thing that makes us reproduce... I get sexually attracted to a girl, we do "stuff", and she ends up pregnant... you think that sexual attraction results in no reproduction??? In what world??
"someone who consciously makes the decision, especially if it was because of a bad situation like sexual abuse"
You do know you're talking absolute crap don't you? A conscious decision? Do you have any experience of the world and people in it??
So you do think sexual attraction is the result of evolution?
My brain certainly seems to be wired up to respond to certain thoughts or images in a certain way and has been since I've been able to keep my memories (ie, around age 3). Attraction to females has been there since at least then (I obviously cannot speak of before). We know that we all basically start off the same (which is why dudes have nips etc) and it's not til we create our hormone flooding organs that our bodies start to morph one way or another. We know this because it's not unheard of for somebody to be male, but resistent to (or inaffected by) testosterone, and so develop the body and mind of a female... while still having testicles rather than ovaries.
Now I certainly have met females who have gone at least bi-Q after experiencing sexual abuse especially during the early teen years, but the level of attraction is just not the same as in somebody who is "born that way". So while I'm not disregarding non-genetic causes, I don't think their existence rules out the possibility of genetic causes, whether there's any truth to things like Xq28 results, correlations with left-handed people, cochnia structures in lesbians, ridges on the fingers of homo/hetrosexual males, INAH-3 neuron counts, or whether they're just coincidences depending on the sample, which is hardly surprising, considering that genes do different things in the presence or absence of others. I've certainly seen no evidence to suggest that sexuality is learned, yet all experience and external evidence I've seen supports the idea that it's built in... which means genetic.
I still don't see it as being a defect, many homosexual people go on to have children, in a "monkey see, monkey do" kinda way, but may perhaps only ever be as happy with their partner as anybody else who has "settled". Being homosexual doesn't stop you from wanting children, and doesn't stop you from doing what it takes have children, so no, I still don't see how you can justify calling it a 'defect' either.
You think a teacher would be a credable source for information on genetics??? The only friends I've had who're teachers are generally pretty mental, so no I hold somewhat higher standards what for what I consider a "credable source" than a teacher.
"You essentially said you heard it somewhere but can't reproduce where"
I read it in a publication some 2-3 years ago, so no, I can't produce it here. Sorry, but if it was that important, you should have asked me 2-3 years ago when I had my hands on it.
"genetic defects"
Why do you think it must be a 'defect' for there to be genetic causes behind favouring an attraction to one gender over another? Do you think sexual attraction is not a result of evolution?
"This is probably the only time I think a Citation needed is warranted"
Well I think a "citation needed" is warranted by that statement, so... what can ya do, ay? Just disregard it if it's a problem for you, I don't catalog every bit of information I retain, I try to ensure that I only retain things from credable sources at the point of the retention to avoid such need. I tend to be a trustworthy source of information for such reason but mistakes will be made. It has a slight 'new scientist' and 'genome project' feel to it, but I'm sure a quick google will give you a better insight into the state of the art in understanding of the subject than I will as it's not an active interest of mine, and my memory is vague because it goes back a few years.
"will med-care and insurance pay up for letting gay couple procreate"
Well, America's only 4.5% of the world population anyway. In much of the rest of the world, IVF treatment is available for couples who cannot reproduce for a number of reasons, either due to illness or because they are both the same sex. Otherwise, interesting question. Genetic markers have been found which switch circuitry between "attracted to males" and "attracted to females". I don't know whether it's hereditary though, it could also just come about through interactions between other genes of the mother and father, so there's probably no strong reason to believe it would evolve-out even given the chance. I like the question though.
Yes I also feel a lot safer knowing that if my hdd fails destroying all the data on it, at least I can get the drive replaced for free, that why I only ever use drives within their warrenty too. I also completely ignore the bell curve failure of drives that shows greater risk involved with a brand new drive than a drive that has lasted a few years with no signs of problems.
haha there's something about how the council's spokesperson says "street art" that just seems to be like someone trying to sound cool to people half their age but coming across really awkward like Ann Widdecombe trying to say "booyakasha" on HIGNFY... I don't know why because it's just letters on a webpage, but that's what I got from it anyway *lol*
"There's no viruses/malware on the Iphone. That only applies to people who have jailbroken their phones by running the viruses/malware that's available on the iphone"
But hey, at least children can't run educational intro-to-programming software on it.
There's nothing about speculation that requires it to be false, uneducated, or unprecidented. It's still speculation though, as much as you wish to refuse to call it that, it really is!
"But don't get smug thinking you've proved anything to the contrary"
I'm not the one trying to prove anything. I recognise speculation, I know that it's not proof of anything. I don't need for something to be "proof". I'm completely fine with downgrading a statement to include "I wouldn't be surprised if" or "it seems like" or even "I bet that...", I'm really completely fine with that. I don't understand why this has to be a problem for so many people.
If you can measure the direction two entangled particles are travelling, and you know they travelled in a straight line from the point they were entangled and went their seperate ways... can you triangulate? "Or something", ya know, if you have two readings, maybe you can infer a third using geometry?
Newton didn't say "these rules can never ever be broken, even if travelling at the speed of light".
Einstein didn't say "These rules of relativity apply to absolutely everything no matter how big or small and you can never ever find anything that behaves differently"... I'm pretty sure he was quite open to the idea that relativity wasn't encompassing everything.
Heisenburg DID say that you CANNOT know these things, that they CANNOT be measured, that it actually kinda seems like you CAN.
This is the difference. Newton/Einstein weren't really ruling anything out. Heisenburg kinda was. That changes how wrong they can be.
That's just ignorant... take for example, on one website, I put that I was 'male' interested in 'females', BUT what I didn't know was that I was being SPIED ON and this information was being made available to selecting which adverts were being displayed, so when they show me 'dating' adverts, they show me pics of cute girls instead of guys!!! OMG!! Invasion of my privacy or WHAT?!! I've never felt so violated!! *violently throws up for two whole minutes* now excuse me while I go sit in the shower, sobbing and hugging my knees:'-(
I thought the private modes disable things like cookies? So in private mode, you couldn't stay logged into any websites... sounds like a way for customer satisfaction to go down rather than up.
I mean, in other browsers that have 'private' browsing modes (like Chrome's 'incognito' mode) don't you turn it on each time you launch it? What's different about IE here?
Likewise, so if there is some company memo you can point me to where Haliburton execs say "it's okay, we'll be paid in oil that will mysteriously fall of the back of a truck" I will even go as far as to apologise:-) I do know the whole "they're evil" thing, but that doesn't mean they're prophetic... it doesn't mean that they *didn't* know either, sure, but without evidence that they *did* know, you must admit, that is speculation.
"The money, at this point, has disappeared. It is missing. No one can account for it."
That's the bit that I was taking as the fact. You really can't see anything else in your post that's speculation? I'd say you're "reading comprehension problems" are somewhat more serious if you can't even read what you've written yourself.
You're not making a good case for your ability to tell the difference between fact and speculation. Dressing speculation up as fact, no matter how convinced *you* are, demonstrates only that you are unable to tell the difference between the two, which means that you are an unstrustworthy, unreliable source of information. If you wish to be taken seriously by learned folk, you may wish to research how the difference between fact and speculation can be expressed. If you don't wish to be taken seriously... success!
Slashdot Mirror
Cleggy got on loads better with Cameron; a working relationship with Brown would've been much more of a ball ache for him. He kept the Labour option 'open' as a means of leverage with Cameron & co, as as long as Labour was an option, Tories would do more to win the LibDems vote. After 5 days Brown had decided he wasn't going to play that game, and so forced their hand by asking The Queen to accept his resignation. At which point, LibDems lost any additional leverage. Cleggy tried to keep Brown in position for a bit longer to get more from the deal, but Brown wanted out, unfortunate in many ways, but understandable also.
There was no deal for labour backbenchers to sabotage, labour had nothing, they had no plan, no deal, no proposals, and no interest out of the LibDems.
"if they had something important to say they wouldn't be anonymous"
Citation needed.
What?! I'm tired of arguing, so I thought I'd just give a non-argument, rudely... show off the fact that I've read wikipedia, but haven't learnt to string whole sentences together yet. What wrong that?? Personal validation needed!!!!
An alergy is simply something that causes you little to no direct threat (it doesn't destroy tissue or organs or block neural pathways etc) BUT your body misrecognises it as something that does, and triggers for example an immuno-response like closing your airways to stop the threat. The problem is the response, not the substance.
Things aren't "a poison" or "not a poison", things are "poisonous" at different amounts... some things are more "poisonous" than other things. I don't think there has to be a line.
Okay I got stuck on the very first thing you said... sexual attraction is the very thing that makes us reproduce... I get sexually attracted to a girl, we do "stuff", and she ends up pregnant... you think that sexual attraction results in no reproduction??? In what world??
"someone who consciously makes the decision, especially if it was because of a bad situation like sexual abuse"
You do know you're talking absolute crap don't you? A conscious decision? Do you have any experience of the world and people in it??
So you do think sexual attraction is the result of evolution?
My brain certainly seems to be wired up to respond to certain thoughts or images in a certain way and has been since I've been able to keep my memories (ie, around age 3). Attraction to females has been there since at least then (I obviously cannot speak of before). We know that we all basically start off the same (which is why dudes have nips etc) and it's not til we create our hormone flooding organs that our bodies start to morph one way or another. We know this because it's not unheard of for somebody to be male, but resistent to (or inaffected by) testosterone, and so develop the body and mind of a female... while still having testicles rather than ovaries.
Now I certainly have met females who have gone at least bi-Q after experiencing sexual abuse especially during the early teen years, but the level of attraction is just not the same as in somebody who is "born that way". So while I'm not disregarding non-genetic causes, I don't think their existence rules out the possibility of genetic causes, whether there's any truth to things like Xq28 results, correlations with left-handed people, cochnia structures in lesbians, ridges on the fingers of homo/hetrosexual males, INAH-3 neuron counts, or whether they're just coincidences depending on the sample, which is hardly surprising, considering that genes do different things in the presence or absence of others. I've certainly seen no evidence to suggest that sexuality is learned, yet all experience and external evidence I've seen supports the idea that it's built in... which means genetic.
I still don't see it as being a defect, many homosexual people go on to have children, in a "monkey see, monkey do" kinda way, but may perhaps only ever be as happy with their partner as anybody else who has "settled". Being homosexual doesn't stop you from wanting children, and doesn't stop you from doing what it takes have children, so no, I still don't see how you can justify calling it a 'defect' either.
You think a teacher would be a credable source for information on genetics??? The only friends I've had who're teachers are generally pretty mental, so no I hold somewhat higher standards what for what I consider a "credable source" than a teacher.
"You essentially said you heard it somewhere but can't reproduce where"
I read it in a publication some 2-3 years ago, so no, I can't produce it here. Sorry, but if it was that important, you should have asked me 2-3 years ago when I had my hands on it.
"genetic defects"
Why do you think it must be a 'defect' for there to be genetic causes behind favouring an attraction to one gender over another? Do you think sexual attraction is not a result of evolution?
"So in other words, the idea that attraction is genetic is simply an idea at this state right?"
Wow, how did you get that from what I said?
"This is probably the only time I think a Citation needed is warranted"
Well I think a "citation needed" is warranted by that statement, so... what can ya do, ay? Just disregard it if it's a problem for you, I don't catalog every bit of information I retain, I try to ensure that I only retain things from credable sources at the point of the retention to avoid such need. I tend to be a trustworthy source of information for such reason but mistakes will be made. It has a slight 'new scientist' and 'genome project' feel to it, but I'm sure a quick google will give you a better insight into the state of the art in understanding of the subject than I will as it's not an active interest of mine, and my memory is vague because it goes back a few years.
There's nothing in the bible about comments about UFOs, that means that comments about UFOs don't exist! :-p
"will med-care and insurance pay up for letting gay couple procreate"
Well, America's only 4.5% of the world population anyway. In much of the rest of the world, IVF treatment is available for couples who cannot reproduce for a number of reasons, either due to illness or because they are both the same sex. Otherwise, interesting question. Genetic markers have been found which switch circuitry between "attracted to males" and "attracted to females". I don't know whether it's hereditary though, it could also just come about through interactions between other genes of the mother and father, so there's probably no strong reason to believe it would evolve-out even given the chance. I like the question though.
Oh I can answer that easily. They'd say "those goddamn muslims, they're all the same".
Nah, you just feel more threatened by an atheists disbelief than a theists belief so it seems that way to you.
"I have yet to experience a Vegan knocking on my door asking me to join"
That's just because vegans can't knock very hard, so you just never actually hear them.
"...after the warrenty runs out"
Yes I also feel a lot safer knowing that if my hdd fails destroying all the data on it, at least I can get the drive replaced for free, that why I only ever use drives within their warrenty too. I also completely ignore the bell curve failure of drives that shows greater risk involved with a brand new drive than a drive that has lasted a few years with no signs of problems.
haha there's something about how the council's spokesperson says "street art" that just seems to be like someone trying to sound cool to people half their age but coming across really awkward like Ann Widdecombe trying to say "booyakasha" on HIGNFY... I don't know why because it's just letters on a webpage, but that's what I got from it anyway *lol*
You missed a bit:
"There's no viruses/malware on the Iphone. That only applies to people who have jailbroken their phones by running the viruses/malware that's available on the iphone"
But hey, at least children can't run educational intro-to-programming software on it.
There's nothing about speculation that requires it to be false, uneducated, or unprecidented. It's still speculation though, as much as you wish to refuse to call it that, it really is!
"But don't get smug thinking you've proved anything to the contrary"
I'm not the one trying to prove anything. I recognise speculation, I know that it's not proof of anything. I don't need for something to be "proof". I'm completely fine with downgrading a statement to include "I wouldn't be surprised if" or "it seems like" or even "I bet that...", I'm really completely fine with that. I don't understand why this has to be a problem for so many people.
If you can measure the direction two entangled particles are travelling, and you know they travelled in a straight line from the point they were entangled and went their seperate ways... can you triangulate? "Or something", ya know, if you have two readings, maybe you can infer a third using geometry?
Newton didn't say "these rules can never ever be broken, even if travelling at the speed of light".
Einstein didn't say "These rules of relativity apply to absolutely everything no matter how big or small and you can never ever find anything that behaves differently" ... I'm pretty sure he was quite open to the idea that relativity wasn't encompassing everything.
Heisenburg DID say that you CANNOT know these things, that they CANNOT be measured, that it actually kinda seems like you CAN.
This is the difference. Newton/Einstein weren't really ruling anything out. Heisenburg kinda was. That changes how wrong they can be.
That's just ignorant... take for example, on one website, I put that I was 'male' interested in 'females', BUT what I didn't know was that I was being SPIED ON and this information was being made available to selecting which adverts were being displayed, so when they show me 'dating' adverts, they show me pics of cute girls instead of guys!!! OMG!! Invasion of my privacy or WHAT?!! I've never felt so violated!! *violently throws up for two whole minutes* now excuse me while I go sit in the shower, sobbing and hugging my knees :'-(
I thought the private modes disable things like cookies? So in private mode, you couldn't stay logged into any websites... sounds like a way for customer satisfaction to go down rather than up.
IT'S A TRAP!!!
I mean, in other browsers that have 'private' browsing modes (like Chrome's 'incognito' mode) don't you turn it on each time you launch it? What's different about IE here?
The bit about what Haliburton "knew".
"but when definitively proved wrong, I admit it"
Likewise, so if there is some company memo you can point me to where Haliburton execs say "it's okay, we'll be paid in oil that will mysteriously fall of the back of a truck" I will even go as far as to apologise :-) I do know the whole "they're evil" thing, but that doesn't mean they're prophetic... it doesn't mean that they *didn't* know either, sure, but without evidence that they *did* know, you must admit, that is speculation.
"The money, at this point, has disappeared. It is missing. No one can account for it."
That's the bit that I was taking as the fact. You really can't see anything else in your post that's speculation? I'd say you're "reading comprehension problems" are somewhat more serious if you can't even read what you've written yourself.
You're not making a good case for your ability to tell the difference between fact and speculation. Dressing speculation up as fact, no matter how convinced *you* are, demonstrates only that you are unable to tell the difference between the two, which means that you are an unstrustworthy, unreliable source of information. If you wish to be taken seriously by learned folk, you may wish to research how the difference between fact and speculation can be expressed. If you don't wish to be taken seriously... success!