"It deal with coercion in prisons. In fact, in the summary it basically says that rape really does not occur that much, but that "coercion" does. In fact, it mentions a rate of only 1.3 %, which in many states would be considered a low rate. It is losely associated with Rape."
No you fucking abortion, it doesn't. It questions previous results in light of the new results, which you would have see IF YOU'D BOTHERED TO READ PAST THE PART THAT YOU THINK MAKES YOU RIGHT.
For example
"Usable surveys were returned by 1,788 inmates (25%) and 475 staff (25%). Results showed that 21%of the inmates had experienced at least one episode of pressured or forced sexual contact since incarcerated in their state, and 16% reported that an incident had occurred in their current facility. At least 7% of the sample had been raped in their current facility."
I notice you conveniently leave that out.
And this
"You then show a report on male guard abuse of female prisoners. Once again nothing to do with the rates or prisoner-prisoner rape rate"
How colossally stupid are you that you don't understand RAPE IS RETALIATION? What the hell is wrong with you that I have to explain that to you?
If you're not going to read the links (and you didn't obviously, you scanned them briefly without actually reading them) they why am I going to waste time with you?
Now where's the Mea Culpa AC? Or are you just going to run your idiot mouth and fade into the background hoping no one will notice you made a fool of yourself?
"Please do not assume that because you are ignorant of such scales that they do not exist.
Such scales are defined as "anything that animals don't do is human"."
In your previous post, your assertion was that "but we have no framework or usefull scale of measuring such things." and now it "anything that animals don't do is human". Which is it? Do they not exist as you first asserted, or do you simply dismiss them because you disagree with them as you are currently asserting?
"Genie didn't develop language and never learned, even with instruction and therapy, grammar beyond what signing chimpanzees can demonstrate, not that her case is scientific in any way."
NO. Please do not read MY link, then attempt to comment on it as though you knew anything about it. Your previous assertion was that a case such a Genie does not exist, and now that I've shown you it does, you're rewriting your arguments AGAIN in a vain attempt to be right instead of learning you were wrong. Stop doing that.
"There is no standard for measuring intelligence."
We are not now, nor were we ever talking about intelligence. We are talking about language, and your insistence on equating the two is mildly amusing, in a "this guy is making this shit up as he goes along" type of way.
"I find it more amazing that somebody asks for links to the studies that you claim to know about, and you point to a page with nothing."
I posted a link to the APA's psychinfo database. Here's what you do, enter a search term and select from HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of studies. I find it to be a better way of discussing these issues than linking to some crap from google that only supports MY viewpoint, which seems to be SOP here.
"So, please point out the studies or keep your ignorance to yourself."
Kindly follow my previous instructions, select any of the THOUSANDS of studies (I found 3 thousand) that realate to the topic, and read them to educate YOURSELF.
"I know it's a stretch for you kids, but just once can the subject of prison come up without you all coming out with the tired old litany of lame rape jokes please? You Yanks have a fucking obsession with prison rape. Seriously, it's not funny, it's creepy, quit it."
There is evidence to suggest that more rapes occur in prison that outside of it. Think about that for a moment, and ask yourself why you're in such a hurry to ignore it.
"I seriously doubt you can point to any conclusive, scientific language studies on children that really, definitively, show what level of language development a child would develop on it's own, because such a study would be scandalously immoral and unethical."
No need, there is an example that occurred by accident.
"There are plenty of humans that aren't capable of learning grammar without instruction."
Not the point, and completely irrelevant. Grammar is beleived to be inherent in the human brain. The example of Genie, while isolated and unusual, corresponds to data that we have from brian studies of people with different types of aphasia.
"Thats not to say that apes use language or that they are of equivilent intelligence to humans - they clearly do not (at least not to the level we do), but we have no framework or usefull scale of measuring such things."
Please do not assume that because you are ignorant of such scales that they do not exist. As I have already demosntrated, you have much to learn on this subject, so perhaps you could ask questions instead of making incorrect declrations.
"Please post links to some of these studies. The cynic in me says the studies were probably funded by athletic departments."
Of course it does, you don't like the results, so you're looking for any way to discount them that you can find, and that's the easiest.
"As a counterpoint, there was a New York Times Magazine article a year or two ago that analyzed a few big name schools with big time football programs. In summary, the article presented reasonable evidence showing that the programs were in fact losing money for the school and did not benefit other athletic or extracurricular activities."
If you're referring to the article I read (by Selena Roberts, I believe) you'll relaize that was an editorial, and not a study. She drew some... questionable conclusions based on figures that were, well, let's say they were dubious.
I find it interesting that you'd be willing to accept an editorial in the New York Times (magazine, which I understand has slightly better crediblity that the fishwrap) but immediately question the results of studies YOU'VE NEVER SEEN.
"Not all Uni's have switches at the edge of their network yet, ones where sports is more important often neglect the tech/sci to spend multiple millions on chasing sewn together animal skin, aka baseball, volleyball, football, basketball .
Stadiums and Arenas that could house all the US homeless 10 times over are left empty more days than they are full, pathetic."
Study after study after study, mountains of them in fact, show a strong positive correlation between sports activties and positive educational outcomes. You don't like sports, fine, but your opinion about something you've obviously never bothered to learn about isn't really worth much.
Also, as someone else said, MANY schools fund thier extracurricular activities through athletic department dollars.
I have my own problems with college athletics (FOOTBALL! UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE that they get so many scholarships, and other sports get fucked by title IX) but those aren't rants based on ignorance likes yours.
"Well I certainly remember babies getting quite a bit of attention (and I'm pretty sure treats) when they were being taught how to speak (and I do remember having them taught how to speak)."
And that's why we usually discount anecdotal evidence.
Babbling (the act of practicing language) occurs only in humans, and independent of reinforcement.
"But regardless, apes have learnt sign language without being actively taught (just go to the links I provided)."
And here's where this discussion always bogs down. Do the apes use grammar? No, they do not. There is a small amount of evidence that suggests bonobos may be different, but the vast majority of data suggests grammar isn't used, and that most apes aren't even capable of using it.
So while I appreciate that you (and others) beleive they are learning "language" that belief stems from a too loose definition of what language is.
"Do you really think that any woman who expresses an opinion about the way women are portrayed in games is doing so because she's not sufficiently endowed according your standard?"
No, of course not. I'm intelligent enough to realize it's not MY standard their measuring themselves against, it's their own.
You'd think someone like you who takes up the standard for women would actually know something about women. Guess not.
"It just would be nice to have a little variation in the female figures presented in games"
I disagree. What PRACTICAL reason would you give a game developer to reduce his audience and sales by making the female characters "realistic"?
You see, you're expressing a choice. Your choice is in the minority. Sorry, but in business money talks, and I GUARANTEE that if you could increase sales by redesigning female characters the developers would be all over it.
I don't need a moral compass. I certainly don't need someone to tell me that they're looking out for me, then restricting my choice to what they think is realistic, or appropriate, or whatever.
If you dislike the representation of women in games, don't play them , don't buy them, and tell your friends.
But keep your fucking nose out of my business.
And please, your personal insecurities over your unsightly body don't need to be couched in a message of "equality" and "fairness", so stop acting like you give a shit about other people.
"I found it ridiculous and frustrating that even in a golf game there were no realistic female avatars to choose from."
This is like asking to be kicked in the balls, why the hell would you want that?
And tell me, please, what exactly saddlebags, cottage cheese, and an a-cup add to any of the games I've ever played?
See the argument isn't that these women are a "sexist" representation, because whether you like it or not, there are REAL women that look like video game women.
The problem comes from not feeling represented, and even worse, being constantly reminded that your mosquito bites don't do it for most guys.
Please show me where I commented about the morality of the interventions.
I'm pretty sure the entire discussion was about the scope and scale of interventions, and my contention, which has not been refuted in any way, is the the US does not "totally disregard human life" as the OP claimed.
Now, it's pretty clear to me, and to anyone readn gyour post, that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. You seem to have fabricated a moral argument out of the aether.
This subject has clearly gone over your head. Stick to shouting about bush in the games forum like you normally do.
"But Russia and China were both supporting the cong. If we invaded, there was a good chance that it would go hot. But, you just keep BSing about stuff that you have no clue about or perhaps just BSing."
And if we had "total disregard for human life" as OP claimed, we wouldn't have cared. Why do have such a hard time understanding english?
"Iran-Contra affair mean anything to you?"
Was it blind, indiscriminate use of force? No, so how do you think this proves anything?
"Also, I really am starting to think that you are just a kid."
And I'm pretty sure you're illiterate. You're supporting MY point, namely that the US is VERY discriminating in how it uses force. How can you adopt such a superior tone when YOUR argument supports ME?
"We use quiet surgical strikes because the politicians do not want it stepped up. They are afraid of the rest of the world boycotting us (who via bush's policies are setting us up for just that)."
Yes we do. You'll notice, that AGAIN you're supporting MY argument, not the OP's.
"a consumate asshole."
Well, I appreciate that you signed your post, now go figure out why you think you're disagreeing when you've supported all of my points.
"Are you suggesting 3 million dead innocent people is not enough?"
No, I'm suggesting that if we really did have a "total disregard for human life" that 3 million would be a pittance. Nice straw man though, you're good with those.
This
"Do we execute our POW's? No." Er, no. You just kill them by other means."
Support that statement please. What other means? Examples, not spin and more hyperbole (which is your tool of choice apparently).
"Do we blindly and indisciminately use force? No." What the FUCK was the list of countries in my previous post pointing out?"
Your ignorance? That's all any of your other assertions have pointed out. Oh, that and your impressive ability to swallow propaganda regardless of the veracity. It must be nice to live in your world where everything is spelled out for you and thinking isn't required.
So why didn't we knock over North Vietnam then? Why didn't we march into Bolivia, Chile, Nicaragua, etc. with our armed forces and BLINDLY AND INDISCRIMINATELY USE FORCE THERE? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT "BLINDLY" AND "INDISCRIMINATELY" MEAN?
God, I hate you and your kind. You think repeating the same nonsensical crap makes it true, and you intentionally avoid reason because it is incompatible with your position.
You made a statement that you can't support with fact, so you're trying everything else.
So, because I'm such an idiot, explain to me how we're indiscriminately using force when we're placing limits on our forces. Explain how your statement corresponds with reality.
You can't just point to a place where the US has had involvement and extrapolate that to "total disregard for human life". Well, I suppose YOU can, but that makes you stupid in the extreme, or gullible, or both.
You said the US has a total disregard for human life. All you've done repeat that statement, while I have asked questions which you've refused to answer.
We both know why, because the answers invalidate your arguments, so the only thing you can do is resort to name calling and spin.
I'm not your momma, it's your job to educate YOURSELF.
MORE IMPORTANTLY this thread began by me asking someone else for data. Sticking your nose in it, and responding the way you did, was both unnecessary and inflammatory.
Now, this might be different, and I might be helpful if I was the one originally offering information and you asked for a link.
But that isn't what happened. Someone made a claim, I asked for more information. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOUR THOUGHT PROCESSES THAT MAKES YOU THINK I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU ANYTHING?
"The fact you too resorted to using examples with other animals aside"
My example has nothing to do with the animal. It was a response to why I don't trust the results of the Rico study. It was a failure of the researchers, and COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE ANIMAL INVOLVED. GET THAT? FAILURE OF THE RESEARCHERS, AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE ANIMAL INVOLVED.
"The thing I now wonder is if YOU actually know much about the Clever Hans deal. It had nothing to do with tone of voice."
I NEVER SAID IT DID HAVE TO DO WITH TONE OF VOICE. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND WRITTEN TEXT?
WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO YOU THAT YOU MAKE BASELESS ASSUMPTIONS SO EASILY AND PROLIFICALLY?
I used it as an example of misunderstanding animal intelligence. IT IS.
What the fuck is wrong with you that you need to find some way to refute me, EVEN IF IT IS TOTALLY UNRELATED AND IRRELEVANT, or worse, COMPLETELY WRONG?
Do you understand why I don't want to do this anymore? You don't even know enough to raise intelligent objections, and when you do raise an objection, it is based entirely on your misunderstandings.
Slashdot Mirror
"It deal with coercion in prisons. In fact, in the summary it basically says that rape really does not occur that much, but that "coercion" does. In fact, it mentions a rate of only 1.3 %, which in many states would be considered a low rate. It is losely associated with Rape."
No you fucking abortion, it doesn't. It questions previous results in light of the new results, which you would have see IF YOU'D BOTHERED TO READ PAST THE PART THAT YOU THINK MAKES YOU RIGHT.
For example
"Usable surveys were returned by 1,788 inmates (25%) and 475 staff (25%). Results showed that 21%of the inmates had experienced at least one episode of pressured or forced sexual contact since incarcerated in their state, and 16% reported that an incident had occurred in their current facility. At least 7% of the sample had been raped in their current facility."
I notice you conveniently leave that out.
And this
"You then show a report on male guard abuse of female prisoners. Once again nothing to do with the rates or prisoner-prisoner rape rate"
How colossally stupid are you that you don't understand RAPE IS RETALIATION? What the hell is wrong with you that I have to explain that to you?
If you're not going to read the links (and you didn't obviously, you scanned them briefly without actually reading them) they why am I going to waste time with you?
"Its a brave new world full of chickenshit people."
I would add
"... that make baseless allegations, and pawn them off as fact with absolutely NO credible evidence to support them"
I always wonder what's wrong with people like you that your standard of proof is so low.
http://www.spr.org/pdf/struckman.pdf
http://www.spr.org/pdf/struckman.pdf
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/hivpj99.htm
http://www.hrw.org/reports98/women/#TopOfPage
http://www.spr.org/en/factsheetattitudes.html
Now where's the Mea Culpa AC? Or are you just going to run your idiot mouth and fade into the background hoping no one will notice you made a fool of yourself?
"Please do not assume that because you are ignorant of such scales that they do not exist.
Such scales are defined as "anything that animals don't do is human"."
In your previous post, your assertion was that "but we have no framework or usefull scale of measuring such things." and now it "anything that animals don't do is human". Which is it? Do they not exist as you first asserted, or do you simply dismiss them because you disagree with them as you are currently asserting?
"Genie didn't develop language and never learned, even with instruction and therapy, grammar beyond what signing chimpanzees can demonstrate, not that her case is scientific in any way."
NO. Please do not read MY link, then attempt to comment on it as though you knew anything about it. Your previous assertion was that a case such a Genie does not exist, and now that I've shown you it does, you're rewriting your arguments AGAIN in a vain attempt to be right instead of learning you were wrong. Stop doing that.
"There is no standard for measuring intelligence."
We are not now, nor were we ever talking about intelligence. We are talking about language, and your insistence on equating the two is mildly amusing, in a "this guy is making this shit up as he goes along" type of way.
"I find it more amazing that somebody asks for links to the studies that you claim to know about, and you point to a page with nothing."
I posted a link to the APA's psychinfo database. Here's what you do, enter a search term and select from HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of studies. I find it to be a better way of discussing these issues than linking to some crap from google that only supports MY viewpoint, which seems to be SOP here.
"So, please point out the studies or keep your ignorance to yourself."
Kindly follow my previous instructions, select any of the THOUSANDS of studies (I found 3 thousand) that realate to the topic, and read them to educate YOURSELF.
Then choke on a dick and die AC.
"Or how about the CEO being close friends to Dick Cheney and a top republican supporter while his competitors supported both parties instead?"
You're trying to punish this guy for making his allegiances clear, while simultaneously giving kudos to people who don't.
I don't understand this reasoning, and I don't see how intentionally obscuring your motivations is any better than obscuring your code.
"I know it's a stretch for you kids, but just once can the subject of prison come up without you all coming out with the tired old litany of lame rape jokes please? You Yanks have a fucking obsession with prison rape. Seriously, it's not funny, it's creepy, quit it."
There is evidence to suggest that more rapes occur in prison that outside of it. Think about that for a moment, and ask yourself why you're in such a hurry to ignore it.
"I seriously doubt you can point to any conclusive, scientific language studies on children that really, definitively, show what level of language development a child would develop on it's own, because such a study would be scandalously immoral and unethical."
No need, there is an example that occurred by accident.
http://kccesl.tripod.com/genie.html
"There are plenty of humans that aren't capable of learning grammar without instruction."
Not the point, and completely irrelevant. Grammar is beleived to be inherent in the human brain. The example of Genie, while isolated and unusual, corresponds to data that we have from brian studies of people with different types of aphasia.
"Thats not to say that apes use language or that they are of equivilent intelligence to humans - they clearly do not (at least not to the level we do), but we have no framework or usefull scale of measuring such things."
Please do not assume that because you are ignorant of such scales that they do not exist. As I have already demosntrated, you have much to learn on this subject, so perhaps you could ask questions instead of making incorrect declrations.
http://www.apa.org/psycinfo/
There you go.
"Please post links to some of these studies. The cynic in me says the studies were probably funded by athletic departments."
Of course it does, you don't like the results, so you're looking for any way to discount them that you can find, and that's the easiest.
"As a counterpoint, there was a New York Times Magazine article a year or two ago that analyzed a few big name schools with big time football programs. In summary, the article presented reasonable evidence showing that the programs were in fact losing money for the school and did not benefit other athletic or extracurricular activities."
If you're referring to the article I read (by Selena Roberts, I believe) you'll relaize that was an editorial, and not a study. She drew some... questionable conclusions based on figures that were, well, let's say they were dubious.
I find it interesting that you'd be willing to accept an editorial in the New York Times (magazine, which I understand has slightly better crediblity that the fishwrap) but immediately question the results of studies YOU'VE NEVER SEEN.
"Not all Uni's have switches at the edge of their network yet, ones where sports is
."
more important often neglect the tech/sci to spend multiple millions on chasing sewn
together animal skin, aka baseball, volleyball, football, basketball .
Stadiums and Arenas that could house all the US homeless 10 times over are left empty
more days than they are full, pathetic
Study after study after study, mountains of them in fact, show a strong positive correlation between sports activties and positive educational outcomes. You don't like sports, fine, but your opinion about something you've obviously never bothered to learn about isn't really worth much.
Also, as someone else said, MANY schools fund thier extracurricular activities through athletic department dollars.
I have my own problems with college athletics (FOOTBALL! UNFUCKINGBELIEVABLE that they get so many scholarships, and other sports get fucked by title IX) but those aren't rants based on ignorance likes yours.
"Well I certainly remember babies getting quite a bit of attention (and I'm pretty sure treats) when they were being taught how to speak (and I do remember having them taught how to speak)."
And that's why we usually discount anecdotal evidence.
Babbling (the act of practicing language) occurs only in humans, and independent of reinforcement.
"But regardless, apes have learnt sign language without being actively taught (just go to the links I provided)."
And here's where this discussion always bogs down. Do the apes use grammar? No, they do not. There is a small amount of evidence that suggests bonobos may be different, but the vast majority of data suggests grammar isn't used, and that most apes aren't even capable of using it.
So while I appreciate that you (and others) beleive they are learning "language" that belief stems from a too loose definition of what language is.
"I am not a fundamentalist"
Yes you are, you're just afraid of the negative connotations associated with the term.
That being said, fundie or no, you're all the same irrational, delusional whackos, regardless of what you call yourselves.
God is fake. You've been had. You bought a line of crap, and instead of using your mind, you chose to take the easy way and believe lies.
Jesus was just a guy, surrounded by people who embellished his accomplishments. I have no doubt Jesus also embellished his accomplishments.
Which is more likely, cultists revising history to favor themselves, or "miracles"?
Right. You got rooked, deal with it and stop believing in fairy tales.
"Is consciousness an illusion, an emergent property of a sufficiently complex system?"
Yes.
Now, you may not like that answer, but it really doesn't matter what you like.
"William Shockley, who was involved with the development of the bipolar transistor, was from London, England."
He was born there.
His parents, however, were American, and by extension, so was he. Nice try though.
Makes me wonder what other facts you've manipulated to prove a point.
"Do you really think that any woman who expresses an opinion about the way women are portrayed in games is doing so because she's not sufficiently endowed according your standard?"
No, of course not. I'm intelligent enough to realize it's not MY standard their measuring themselves against, it's their own.
You'd think someone like you who takes up the standard for women would actually know something about women. Guess not.
"It just would be nice to have a little variation in the female figures presented in games"
I disagree. What PRACTICAL reason would you give a game developer to reduce his audience and sales by making the female characters "realistic"?
You see, you're expressing a choice. Your choice is in the minority. Sorry, but in business money talks, and I GUARANTEE that if you could increase sales by
redesigning female characters the developers would be all over it.
But they aren't. That should tell you something.
I don't need a moral compass. I certainly don't need someone to tell me that they're looking out for me, then restricting my choice to what they think is realistic, or appropriate, or whatever.
If you dislike the representation of women in games, don't play them , don't buy them, and tell your friends.
But keep your fucking nose out of my business.
And please, your personal insecurities over your unsightly body don't need to be couched in a message of "equality" and "fairness", so stop acting like you give a shit about other people.
It's about their inadequacies, nothing more.
So don't play the games.
Why do people find it necessary to try and force their ideals on the population, even when they are unwelcome?
"And don't get me started on the practicalities of engaging in martial arts while wearing high heels..."
Right, because video games are an exercise in rampant practicality...
Can I steal that and make it my sig?
"I found it ridiculous and frustrating that even in a golf game there were no realistic female avatars to choose from."
This is like asking to be kicked in the balls, why the hell would you want that?
And tell me, please, what exactly saddlebags, cottage cheese, and an a-cup add to any of the games I've ever played?
See the argument isn't that these women are a "sexist" representation, because whether you like it or not, there are REAL women that look like video game women.
The problem comes from not feeling represented, and even worse, being constantly reminded that your mosquito bites don't do it for most guys.
And women wonder why guys lie to them...
It seems the article is setting up a sort of false dichotomy, that women must be either strong, intelligent characters or sex objects.
It is entirely possible to be both, yet that option is rarely discussed.
Please show me where I commented about the morality of the interventions.
I'm pretty sure the entire discussion was about the scope and scale of interventions, and my contention, which has not been refuted in any way, is the the US does not "totally disregard human life" as the OP claimed.
Now, it's pretty clear to me, and to anyone readn gyour post, that reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. You seem to have fabricated a moral argument out of the aether.
This subject has clearly gone over your head. Stick to shouting about bush in the games forum like you normally do.
"But Russia and China were both supporting the cong. If we invaded, there was a good chance that it would go hot.
But, you just keep BSing about stuff that you have no clue about or perhaps just BSing."
And if we had "total disregard for human life" as OP claimed, we wouldn't have cared. Why do have such a hard time understanding english?
"Iran-Contra affair mean anything to you?"
Was it blind, indiscriminate use of force? No, so how do you think this proves anything?
"Also, I really am starting to think that you are just a kid."
And I'm pretty sure you're illiterate. You're supporting MY point, namely that the US is VERY discriminating in how it uses force. How can you adopt such a superior tone when YOUR argument supports ME?
"We use quiet surgical strikes because the politicians do not want it stepped up. They are afraid of the rest of the world boycotting us (who via bush's policies are setting us up for just that)."
Yes we do. You'll notice, that AGAIN you're supporting MY argument, not the OP's.
"a consumate asshole."
Well, I appreciate that you signed your post, now go figure out why you think you're disagreeing when you've supported all of my points.
Thanks for making it so easy.
You managed to completely ignore my post.
"You ever wonder why people find the West so abhorrent?"
Not really.
Do you ever wonder why you're so abhorrent?
So far, I've asked about a half-dozen questions, you've given ZERO answers.
Lots of spin, lots of hot air, zero facts.
Why am I not surprised?
"Are you suggesting 3 million dead innocent people is not enough?"
No, I'm suggesting that if we really did have a "total disregard for human life" that 3 million would be a pittance. Nice straw man though, you're good with those.
This
"Do we execute our POW's? No." Er, no. You just kill them by other means."
Support that statement please. What other means? Examples, not spin and more hyperbole (which is your tool of choice apparently).
"Do we blindly and indisciminately use force? No." What the FUCK was the list of countries in my previous post pointing out?"
Your ignorance? That's all any of your other assertions have pointed out. Oh, that and your impressive ability to swallow propaganda regardless of the veracity. It must be nice to live in your world where everything is spelled out for you and thinking isn't required.
So why didn't we knock over North Vietnam then? Why didn't we march into Bolivia, Chile, Nicaragua, etc. with our armed forces and BLINDLY AND INDISCRIMINATELY USE FORCE THERE? DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT "BLINDLY" AND "INDISCRIMINATELY" MEAN?
God, I hate you and your kind. You think repeating the same nonsensical crap makes it true, and you intentionally avoid reason because it is incompatible with your position.
You made a statement that you can't support with fact, so you're trying everything else.
So, because I'm such an idiot, explain to me how we're indiscriminately using force when we're placing limits on our forces. Explain how your statement corresponds with reality.
You can't just point to a place where the US has had involvement and extrapolate that to "total disregard for human life". Well, I suppose YOU can, but that makes you stupid in the extreme, or gullible, or both.
You said the US has a total disregard for human life. All you've done repeat that statement, while I have asked questions which you've refused to answer.
We both know why, because the answers invalidate your arguments, so the only thing you can do is resort to name calling and spin.
How long til you run for office?
"We're done."
That means I've dismissed you.
I'm not your momma, it's your job to educate YOURSELF.
MORE IMPORTANTLY this thread began by me asking someone else for data. Sticking your nose in it, and responding the way you did, was both unnecessary and inflammatory.
Now, this might be different, and I might be helpful if I was the one originally offering information and you asked for a link.
But that isn't what happened. Someone made a claim, I asked for more information. WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOUR THOUGHT PROCESSES THAT MAKES YOU THINK I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU ANYTHING?
"The fact you too resorted to using examples with other animals aside"
My example has nothing to do with the animal. It was a response to why I don't trust the results of the Rico study. It was a failure of the researchers, and COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE ANIMAL INVOLVED. GET THAT? FAILURE OF THE RESEARCHERS, AND COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO THE ANIMAL INVOLVED.
"The thing I now wonder is if YOU actually know much about the Clever Hans deal. It had nothing to do with tone of voice."
I NEVER SAID IT DID HAVE TO DO WITH TONE OF VOICE. WHY CAN'T YOU UNDERSTAND WRITTEN TEXT?
WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED TO YOU THAT YOU MAKE BASELESS ASSUMPTIONS SO EASILY AND PROLIFICALLY?
I used it as an example of misunderstanding animal intelligence. IT IS.
What the fuck is wrong with you that you need to find some way to refute me, EVEN IF IT IS TOTALLY UNRELATED AND IRRELEVANT, or worse, COMPLETELY WRONG?
Do you understand why I don't want to do this anymore? You don't even know enough to raise intelligent objections, and when you do raise an objection, it is based entirely on your misunderstandings.