I have several agnostic friends and none of them believe in a higher power, but are careful to say the current scientific evidence is not sufficient enough to confidently rule it out.
That's a pretty stupid caveat. Scientific evidence can never "confidently rule out" the existence of pretty much anything which you want to believe. Doesn't matter if it's god, fairies, unicorns, big foot, magic, or n-rays. All that scientific evidence lets us say is "we looked in these places, and we didn't see it".
The problem with your friends is that they're completely reversing the burden of proof and then pretending that a claim made with no evidence needs science to disprove it. That's not how rational people think.
Second, human cannibalism is about as much of a taboo as pedophilia; I foresee the kind of response to lab-grown 'long pig' that we've already had toward small sex dolls made to look like children
The argument against the sex dolls primarily hinges on the idea that they would normalise adult-child sex and therefore lead to more children being abused. I disagree with that assessment but it is at least superficially plausible.
I can't see any similar argument being made against lab-grown human meat. What's the concern? Would anyone seriously think that the availability of such meat would actually lead to more people killing and cannibalising their neighbours? That seems completely absurd.
Too bad that the Shroud of Turin is a fake; if it were real you might be able to get some DNA and put together a real body-and-blood-of-christ production line. Would certainly liven up the Sunday Mass.
Except it doesn't really, since the majority of antibiotics used in farm animals are different than those used in humans. Some antibiotics are used in both, but they tend to be the ones to which many bacteria have already developed resistance, such as penicillin. Certainly nobody is giving cutting-edge clinical antibiotics to farm animals.
In addition to that, the diseases which infect livestock tend not to have much overlap with diseases which infect humans, so it doesn't much matter if they develop resistence. For the remaining subset which DO affect both livestock and humans... well, I would think that eliminating them from our food supply would be a GOOD thing. How do you propose we do that without antibiotics?
The "antibiotic resistance" argument is an old hippie trope, but it isn't really much of an issue in reality. Certainly, if we are worried about antibiotic resistance, overuse of antibiotics in human populations is a far bigger concern than therapeutic use in farm animals.
You can want whatever you want. That doesn't mean that anyone has to provide you with it. If you want to know the name, birth date, and social media rating of the kid in China who packaged your graphics card, you totally have the right to want that. And we have the right to laugh at you. And the manufacturer has the right to tell you to piss off.
Heating is *much* cheaper, and easier, than cooling.
That may or may not be true, but it also has no relevance to what humans actually require. It is far cheaper to cool down a house in the middle of summer on the equator than it is to heat the same house in the middle of winter in the north.
That's because the temperature differences are massive. The hottest place on earth has a record high of around 57 degrees, which you would need to cool down by about 33 to make it comfortable. The coldest temperature recorded in Toronto was -33 degrees, which you would need to heat up by 51 to make it comfortable. And Toronto is far from being the coldest place in Canada, let alone the world.
It's not human *life* that is not sustainable the direction that we are going, it is the developed country life-*style* that is not sustainable.
Oh, that's also quite sustainable; it's simply not sustainable with the current size of the global population. You could implement China's one-child policy on a global level and fix the problem in a couple generations... but since that seems unlikely, we will probably fix it the way we usually do: through war and mass starvation.
If they were really that smart they would have put their money and energy into geoengineering research instead of screaming about carbon taxes. Since we all apparently agree that we will eventually need geoengineering to deal with natural climate change anywa, it is utterly idiotic to ignore it for now and just focus on curbing emissions.
That's how you know that AGW is an ideological battle rather than any kind of rational discussion. One side wants to ignore it completely, while the other side wants to ignore the best solution because it takes away their opportunity to play holier-than-thou.
He does not have a right to force a woman to take risks she does not want to take. And guess what? Pregnancy is risky. So until the fetus can be transferred to his body, she wins any conflict.
About the only "paternity" thing should be he gets to disclaim it, but only if the mother consents and/or can afford to raise the child without support.
He doesn't get to make her do things she doesn't want to do, but she gets to make him do things he doesn't want to do.
Cute. Go look under the couch to see if you can locate your balls, then try again.
We absolutely did blame the Jews for Israeli terrorism, and the Muslims for anti-israeli terrorism. But it great that you've managed to pat yourself on the back for whatever point it is that you think you made.
Great comment overall; too bad you had to ruin it with this horseshit:
Syria or Afghanistan or Iraq or another county suffering from the USA's war on terror
It's hilarious how regreasives have managed to convince themselves that it's not ok to blame Islam, so you blame the US instead. Just amazes me the kind of shit people can make themselves believe when it suits their ideology.
You're not going to get a useful amount of explosive on a hobby drone. Even if you could, you would be better off aiming for the cockpit than an engine. If you hit the engine, you destroy the fan and maybe some of the compressor section, and nothing much happens. If you hit the cockpit there's at least a chance you'll blind the pilots with shrapnel, or maybe destroy enough of the control systems to cause a crash.
Either way, not a particularly good strategy. You could try to get a larger drone, of course, but the amount you would need to scale up in order to ensure a "kill" would be significant. May as well just get a kamikazi in a cesna to cause a midair crash.
The ones I'm aware of all did it unintentionally. I can't think of any example of a US company intentionally violating sanctions, and actively working to try and hide it.
Which charges would those be? The charge of a Chinese citizen in China not complying with a unilateral declaration of "sanctions" by the USA which isn't even recognized by the UN? That's not a charge, it's a farce and a pretext. US law stops 12 miles offshore. Chinese citizens can do whatever they want under Chinese law while in China.
Your UID tells me you're probably senile, so I'll try to be gentle:
1. The UN doesn't need to recognize US law. As a general rule, the UN does not get involved with the laws of ANY country, though they will occasionally criticise ones which infringe on basic human rights.
2. You have no clue if her crime was commited while she was in China; you're just assuming it. This may be a revelation to you, but Chinese people do actually leave China once in a while. They even travel to the USA now and then.
3. Even if she had never left China, that doesn't mean she couldn't have broken a US law. Canada exports a lot of Canola to China. If I were to contaminate one of those shipments with ricin, I would very much be breaking Chinese law. If I were to then travel to (or through) a country which has an extradition treaty with China, the Chinese would be fully within their rights to demand that I be extradited on the charge of murder.
I can't wait for Saudis to start grabbing American tourists for extradition from Dubai for consuming alcohol, fornication and blasphemy while in the US.
The Saudis do not have laws against US citizens consuming alcohol while in the US. If they did then yes, they absolutely could do that; and the US would advize it's citizens not to travel to Saudi Arabia.
So am I. Prior to this comment she almost certainly would have been. Now it's a whole new ballgame. I can absolutely see a judge deciding that Trumps comments indicate that the US is looking to hold her for political reasons.
Funny enough, while checking google for Canadian extradition policies just now I stumbled on this article:
There is precedent (loads of it) for exchange prisoners during a war, since the laws in play are completely different. There's also some precedent for exchanging captured spies for other captured spies, which is again a rather unique situation. There is zero precedent for releasing prisoners convicted of any type of crimes in exchange for trade agreements. If you start doing that you may as well admit that your laws mean nothing.
If he understood power politics he would have never made this announcement. He may have just thrown away any chance that Canada will actually agree to extradite her. This is incompetence politics.
Slashdot Mirror
which by definition is an admission that it isn't actually sustainable in the first place.
Duh. Nothing is sustainable as long as the population continues to grow.
I have several agnostic friends and none of them believe in a higher power, but are careful to say the current scientific evidence is not sufficient enough to confidently rule it out.
That's a pretty stupid caveat. Scientific evidence can never "confidently rule out" the existence of pretty much anything which you want to believe. Doesn't matter if it's god, fairies, unicorns, big foot, magic, or n-rays. All that scientific evidence lets us say is "we looked in these places, and we didn't see it".
The problem with your friends is that they're completely reversing the burden of proof and then pretending that a claim made with no evidence needs science to disprove it. That's not how rational people think.
Second, human cannibalism is about as much of a taboo as pedophilia; I foresee the kind of response to lab-grown 'long pig' that we've already had toward small sex dolls made to look like children
The argument against the sex dolls primarily hinges on the idea that they would normalise adult-child sex and therefore lead to more children being abused. I disagree with that assessment but it is at least superficially plausible.
I can't see any similar argument being made against lab-grown human meat. What's the concern? Would anyone seriously think that the availability of such meat would actually lead to more people killing and cannibalising their neighbours? That seems completely absurd.
Too bad that the Shroud of Turin is a fake; if it were real you might be able to get some DNA and put together a real body-and-blood-of-christ production line. Would certainly liven up the Sunday Mass.
I dearly love when athiests pretend atheiesm is not a religion.
Atheism is a religion the way celibacy is a sexual position.
The consumer is paying the bill, so they can base their decision on any damn thing they choose.
Put a label on it.
The producer is selling the product so they can base their label decisions on any damn thing they choose.
Put a sock in it.
Except it doesn't really, since the majority of antibiotics used in farm animals are different than those used in humans. Some antibiotics are used in both, but they tend to be the ones to which many bacteria have already developed resistance, such as penicillin. Certainly nobody is giving cutting-edge clinical antibiotics to farm animals.
In addition to that, the diseases which infect livestock tend not to have much overlap with diseases which infect humans, so it doesn't much matter if they develop resistence. For the remaining subset which DO affect both livestock and humans ... well, I would think that eliminating them from our food supply would be a GOOD thing. How do you propose we do that without antibiotics?
The "antibiotic resistance" argument is an old hippie trope, but it isn't really much of an issue in reality. Certainly, if we are worried about antibiotic resistance, overuse of antibiotics in human populations is a far bigger concern than therapeutic use in farm animals.
You can want whatever you want. That doesn't mean that anyone has to provide you with it. If you want to know the name, birth date, and social media rating of the kid in China who packaged your graphics card, you totally have the right to want that. And we have the right to laugh at you. And the manufacturer has the right to tell you to piss off.
Heating is *much* cheaper, and easier, than cooling.
That may or may not be true, but it also has no relevance to what humans actually require. It is far cheaper to cool down a house in the middle of summer on the equator than it is to heat the same house in the middle of winter in the north.
That's because the temperature differences are massive. The hottest place on earth has a record high of around 57 degrees, which you would need to cool down by about 33 to make it comfortable. The coldest temperature recorded in Toronto was -33 degrees, which you would need to heat up by 51 to make it comfortable. And Toronto is far from being the coldest place in Canada, let alone the world.
It's not human *life* that is not sustainable the direction that we are going, it is the developed country life-*style* that is not sustainable.
Oh, that's also quite sustainable; it's simply not sustainable with the current size of the global population. You could implement China's one-child policy on a global level and fix the problem in a couple generations ... but since that seems unlikely, we will probably fix it the way we usually do: through war and mass starvation.
If they were really that smart they would have put their money and energy into geoengineering research instead of screaming about carbon taxes. Since we all apparently agree that we will eventually need geoengineering to deal with natural climate change anywa, it is utterly idiotic to ignore it for now and just focus on curbing emissions.
That's how you know that AGW is an ideological battle rather than any kind of rational discussion. One side wants to ignore it completely, while the other side wants to ignore the best solution because it takes away their opportunity to play holier-than-thou.
He does not have a right to force a woman to take risks she does not want to take. And guess what? Pregnancy is risky. So until the fetus can be transferred to his body, she wins any conflict.
About the only "paternity" thing should be he gets to disclaim it, but only if the mother consents and/or can afford to raise the child without support.
He doesn't get to make her do things she doesn't want to do, but she gets to make him do things he doesn't want to do.
Cute. Go look under the couch to see if you can locate your balls, then try again.
I like the part where that one guy says to him "I'm sure you have a great deal of valuable knowledge".
Hilarious!
We absolutely did blame the Jews for Israeli terrorism, and the Muslims for anti-israeli terrorism. But it great that you've managed to pat yourself on the back for whatever point it is that you think you made.
Don't forget that he's a heretic and a blasphemer also. YouTube should excommunicate him.
She is the last time that a business caved to right wing protesters?
Great comment overall; too bad you had to ruin it with this horseshit:
Syria or Afghanistan or Iraq or another county suffering from the USA's war on terror
It's hilarious how regreasives have managed to convince themselves that it's not ok to blame Islam, so you blame the US instead. Just amazes me the kind of shit people can make themselves believe when it suits their ideology.
They are under fire for annoying Huffpoo
FTFY
You're not going to get a useful amount of explosive on a hobby drone. Even if you could, you would be better off aiming for the cockpit than an engine. If you hit the engine, you destroy the fan and maybe some of the compressor section, and nothing much happens. If you hit the cockpit there's at least a chance you'll blind the pilots with shrapnel, or maybe destroy enough of the control systems to cause a crash.
Either way, not a particularly good strategy. You could try to get a larger drone, of course, but the amount you would need to scale up in order to ensure a "kill" would be significant. May as well just get a kamikazi in a cesna to cause a midair crash.
Didn't this happen way back when NASA started paying the Russians to fly astronauts to the International Space Station?
No, I would think it first happened in 1983 when the ESA sent a German up on the space shuttle.
Or did they just bum a ride for free? Can't find much info on whether they paid or not.
The ones I'm aware of all did it unintentionally. I can't think of any example of a US company intentionally violating sanctions, and actively working to try and hide it.
Which charges would those be? The charge of a Chinese citizen in China not complying with a unilateral declaration of "sanctions" by the USA which isn't even recognized by the UN? That's not a charge, it's a farce and a pretext. US law stops 12 miles offshore. Chinese citizens can do whatever they want under Chinese law while in China.
Your UID tells me you're probably senile, so I'll try to be gentle:
1. The UN doesn't need to recognize US law. As a general rule, the UN does not get involved with the laws of ANY country, though they will occasionally criticise ones which infringe on basic human rights.
2. You have no clue if her crime was commited while she was in China; you're just assuming it. This may be a revelation to you, but Chinese people do actually leave China once in a while. They even travel to the USA now and then.
3. Even if she had never left China, that doesn't mean she couldn't have broken a US law. Canada exports a lot of Canola to China. If I were to contaminate one of those shipments with ricin, I would very much be breaking Chinese law. If I were to then travel to (or through) a country which has an extradition treaty with China, the Chinese would be fully within their rights to demand that I be extradited on the charge of murder.
I can't wait for Saudis to start grabbing American tourists for extradition from Dubai for consuming alcohol, fornication and blasphemy while in the US.
The Saudis do not have laws against US citizens consuming alcohol while in the US. If they did then yes, they absolutely could do that; and the US would advize it's citizens not to travel to Saudi Arabia.
So am I. Prior to this comment she almost certainly would have been. Now it's a whole new ballgame. I can absolutely see a judge deciding that Trumps comments indicate that the US is looking to hold her for political reasons.
Funny enough, while checking google for Canadian extradition policies just now I stumbled on this article:
https://globalnews.ca/news/475...
Looks like the Canadian government has taken his comments in the same light as I have, and they've already made a public response.
There is precedent (loads of it) for exchange prisoners during a war, since the laws in play are completely different. There's also some precedent for exchanging captured spies for other captured spies, which is again a rather unique situation. There is zero precedent for releasing prisoners convicted of any type of crimes in exchange for trade agreements. If you start doing that you may as well admit that your laws mean nothing.
If he understood power politics he would have never made this announcement. He may have just thrown away any chance that Canada will actually agree to extradite her. This is incompetence politics.