As luck would have it, Curiosity states "... you MAY draw a card", so you can end the combo any time you wish - unless your opponent's death won't end it for you.
If a security officer at a checkpoint tells you to stop, you stop. People who do not have the common sense to do so, can hardly be trusted to serve in Congress.
Man simply is incapable of devising a way to split the atom.
Marie Curie devises a way to split the atom. History runs its prescribed course. The end. (sorry, I know I'm being a smartass, but this was too good to pass)
What if the atom couldn't be split? The Manhattan Project fails, subsequent attempts by the USSR, UK, etc fail. Man simply is incapable of devising a way to split the atom.
Obviously no nuclear weapons and no nuclear power. But what else? How would the world be different right now in the year 2006?
And has anyone ever heard of a book on this subject?
Atom cannot be split. Big Bang does not occur. Universe does not exist. End of alternate history.
If the government would not release the tapes, then how do you know the tapes constitute a proof? That's a clear logical fallacy. The mere fact of the tapes non-release proves nothing, since, as the poster above you says, governments withhold info all the time.
I will grant you the passport thingie, which is in fact one of the few pro-conspiracy arguments that are actually worth the paper they are printed on. Anything else?
Ironically, there's also a little thingie in that same sticky thread warning against ad hominem attacks. It means you should attack the argument, not the person. Physician, heal thyself.
There is no argument. If there was one, I would attack it. People just go "obviously there is a conspiracy, we only need to debate its extent". However, having said that, sorry if I violated, uhm, anything.
Quote from Tanthalas »
I'm sure the US government probably have been covering something up. Any sensible person would try and cover up their shortcomings; and whatever you say, to allow a previously unsuccessful terrorist group to launch such a successful attack there must have been some failures at some level. Still, I very much doubt a cover-up is of anything over than their own failings.
Yes.
Bunch of guys in high places telling lies and half-truths to their supervisors and/or the press in a completely uncoordinated way is something that existed since the dawn of time. That does not a conspiracy make.
Some people here may want to read the sticky thread "Debate Rules". More specifically, the little thingie called "Burden of Proof".
There is absolutely no credible proof of a coverup. Any attempt to "prove" anything usually ends up with the same whiny overtones as the above-mentioned video - "He got insurance! Can't you see the truth through the government lies? The man had insurance, this cannot but mean something ominous!". And that's only the misrepresentation of facts I'm talking about, I haven't even started on the cases where they brought wrong facts outright.
Many people would like there to be a coverup, but cannot prove it, thus causing little outbursts of sophistry such as several of the posts above me.
PS: A house on the next street recently burned down. The owner had fire insurance. Clearly, scum.
This video is discredited as misleading and full of outright lies by the very people trying to convince everyone that the government caused 9/11. Conspiracy theorists all over are criticising it because the "facts" that it uses are so false that it discredits their point of view.
Search Google for the name of the video. You will find several hardcore conspiracy sites explaining why Loose change is ridiculous and purposefully misleading.
I stopped waching at the point they used as a "proof" of conspiracy the fact that the owner of the buildings got a huge insurance policy to cover himself against terror attacks.
The owner of a building that was previously attacked by terrorists gets an anti-terror insurance. And that's supposed to prove something conspiratory. Pathetic.
It's not a question of self-preservation. If a single man wants to martyr himself, then I'll be the first to wave goodbye. This is about a parent's responsibility to take care of his or her children.
Whatever the question was, I believe I answered it in my previous post, as much as such vagueness can even be answered. If self-preservation is not an ideal that trumps all, than certainly neither is a parent's responsibility to his children. It's all a case-by-case thingie...
How you would feel if one of your parents had a chance to save his or her own life while you were a child and chose not to?
I would feel sad. However, I think you actually mean "would you feel he had done the right thing".
That depends on what the alternative was. Self-preservation is not an ideal that trumps all. Depending on the exact circumstances, a person that has the option to save his life but doesn't may be branded anything between hero and lunatic. Your question is too vague to actually have an answer.
A school is not a suitable place for a teacher to exercise "free speech", because said speech is anything but free. A teacher is in a position of authority over his students. He has control over their grades, and indirectly, over their success in life. Therefor, inside the classroom, his "free speech" and "free thought" are worth more than theirs.
I would have no problem with the teacher had he chosen a different forum for expressing his political views. Had he done any of the following:
- write a letter to a newspaper editor
- call a radio station to complain on-air
- hand out flyers on the street
- give a public speech while standing on a soapbox
that would have been fine.
However, using his power as a figure of authority to give his political opinions extra weight is wrong. The school didn't hire him to give his political opinions extra weight, he was hired to educate. Since he preferred the former over the latter, he failed in his job and should be fired. A case of abuse of power, plain and simple.
I watched Paradise Now; what can I say... the film deals with a charged and griping subject matter, but it just wasn't good moviemaking. I appreciate the fact that a more-or-less-professionally-done movie could come out of such a wartorn place as the Palestinian Territories, but Oscar?
The very fact it was nominated is the result of a phenomena known as The Singing Dog (people are so amazed at a dog being able to sing that none bother to ask themselves whether he's singing well). Again, I don't want to take sides in the Israel/Palestine thing, it's great they made that movie, the subject is an important one, but to bestow an Oscar on it would be an insult to anything that is good filmmaking. The dog just didn't sing that well.
Marie Curie devises a way to split the atom. History runs its prescribed course. The end.
(sorry, I know I'm being a smartass, but this was too good to pass)
Atom cannot be split. Big Bang does not occur. Universe does not exist. End of alternate history.
I will grant you the passport thingie, which is in fact one of the few pro-conspiracy arguments that are actually worth the paper they are printed on. Anything else?
There is no argument. If there was one, I would attack it. People just go "obviously there is a conspiracy, we only need to debate its extent". However, having said that, sorry if I violated, uhm, anything.
Yes.
Bunch of guys in high places telling lies and half-truths to their supervisors and/or the press in a completely uncoordinated way is something that existed since the dawn of time. That does not a conspiracy make.
There is absolutely no credible proof of a coverup. Any attempt to "prove" anything usually ends up with the same whiny overtones as the above-mentioned video - "He got insurance! Can't you see the truth through the government lies? The man had insurance, this cannot but mean something ominous!". And that's only the misrepresentation of facts I'm talking about, I haven't even started on the cases where they brought wrong facts outright.
Many people would like there to be a coverup, but cannot prove it, thus causing little outbursts of sophistry such as several of the posts above me.
PS: A house on the next street recently burned down. The owner had fire insurance. Clearly, scum.
I stopped waching at the point they used as a "proof" of conspiracy the fact that the owner of the buildings got a huge insurance policy to cover himself against terror attacks.
The owner of a building that was previously attacked by terrorists gets an anti-terror insurance. And that's supposed to prove something conspiratory. Pathetic.
Whatever the question was, I believe I answered it in my previous post, as much as such vagueness can even be answered. If self-preservation is not an ideal that trumps all, than certainly neither is a parent's responsibility to his children. It's all a case-by-case thingie...
I would feel sad. However, I think you actually mean "would you feel he had done the right thing".
That depends on what the alternative was. Self-preservation is not an ideal that trumps all. Depending on the exact circumstances, a person that has the option to save his life but doesn't may be branded anything between hero and lunatic. Your question is too vague to actually have an answer.
Moral, in all 3 cases.
Atheist.
I would have no problem with the teacher had he chosen a different forum for expressing his political views. Had he done any of the following:
- write a letter to a newspaper editor
- call a radio station to complain on-air
- hand out flyers on the street
- give a public speech while standing on a soapbox
that would have been fine.
However, using his power as a figure of authority to give his political opinions extra weight is wrong. The school didn't hire him to give his political opinions extra weight, he was hired to educate. Since he preferred the former over the latter, he failed in his job and should be fired. A case of abuse of power, plain and simple.
The very fact it was nominated is the result of a phenomena known as The Singing Dog (people are so amazed at a dog being able to sing that none bother to ask themselves whether he's singing well). Again, I don't want to take sides in the Israel/Palestine thing, it's great they made that movie, the subject is an important one, but to bestow an Oscar on it would be an insult to anything that is good filmmaking. The dog just didn't sing that well.