I think a state-run media outlet could work if they were mandated by the constitution as a separate branch of government with limited time to cover various topics (IE: no more than 2 hours of politics programming). obviously it would require a lot of work but at least it would convince them to be honest in regards about the other branches of government.
And Barack Obama is "white" in Brazil. "Race" isn't a scientific concept; it has less to do with skin tone or ancestry than it does to culture and identification, and it's clear that Zimmerman was plenty comfortable in the culture and identification of a southern white male--and that other whites are plenty comfortable thinking of him as one.
They are disrupting bird migration. They are also killing off birds and bats.
I know about that. I'm asking for stuff that is worse than what coal and oil do.
and still under investigation they are causing health problems in people.
Well I will be quite surprised when health concerns over wind turbines are greater than the health problems fossil fuel can induce.
umm it is another fusion process along side the new fusion reactor they are trying to build.
Yes it consumes energy just like all forms of electric consume energy in one form or another. it is the ability to harness that energy and making it effiecient.
Well the article was not very good at detailing that but it will be good to see fusion reactors become a reality in the near future.
challenged by who?
all three sources you posted are heavily biased. plants have been closed people have lost their jobs.
Okay so do you have a better source on this than the NRDC? Yes, people will lose their jobs. But it is foolish to think that nobody will get any jobs from wind farms.
The department of energy appears to strongly support wind power as well.
more plants will be closed as the cost to meet these regulations are way more expensive than what the companies wish to put out.
Not to mention the ones that they do upgrade the billions of dollars are going to be passed onto the consumer.
Yes and if wind farms create more jobs than fossil fuels do as the above sources claimed then we will have a net gain in jobs and a cleaner energy source providing it.
1. What are these environmental issues with windpower that are worse than coal/oil?
2. The article you linked on plasma did not detail how this would generate energy. Plasma itself is not a source of energy. In fact, given nothing else, the plasma ring you mentioned would consume energy since you would have to heat something up to become plasma first.
3. The jobs issue is refuted or, at the very least, challenged, by research:
To be fair, Honey Boo-Boo could become a doctor or some other high brow good paying profession when she grows up. Just because her mother is making money off her child, doesnt mean the child will be like the mother.
I thought you were strictly of the opinion that parents should be held fully accountable for the actions of their child. Would that not mean that you would condone the actions of boo-boo's mom if the child turned out better?
the vast majority of the deep web is just helper pages for bigger sites. IE: when you submit a form there could be any number of pages used that you will never see. this is also the case with gigantic URLs that are used to index information for bigger sites. also contains a lot of javascript and flash content etc.
The concept of a God who is both for all people and requires your devotion is uniquely Judeo-Christian.
So then why not just worship an infinitely spiteful god that nobody has yet claimed exists? If such a being existed, then the fact that it leads the followers of other religions astray would be right in line with its personality.
Of all possible gods, one should pick the most heinous and disagreeable one can conceive.
I'm just always surprised by how poor the webdesign is on the websites that purport this sort of thing. It's so freaking consistent.
And when they link you to an article about how Jimmy Carter in league with the Masons invented AIDs in a lab, it does very little for their credibility.
When 12 million americans believe that people in power are lizard-men, it's not hard at all to see slightly more believable BS gets thrown around.
The assumption that because there has been no proof of spirits that spirits don't exist.
I did not make that assumption. In fact, I have in every instance supported the same position as you while on this board. I can give you post references if you wish.
In any case, the argument is not "There is no proof for spirits, therefore, there are no spirits", the argument is:
1. If particles/molecules/what-have-you had the properties you described, these phenomena would have been noticed.
2. We have never witnessed such phenomena.
3. Therefore, it is extremely likely these phenomena do not exist.
If you want to argue that spirits could exist, sure, I can accept that. We have no parameters to measure/know whether or not they exist. However, if you start to claim spirits possess people to start dairy farms in montana, we can very easily check to see whether spirits as defined by your constraints exist.
I have no idea where you got number 2. Its more like:
1. I have searched for evidence of spirits 9 billion times.
2. It is possible that the methods I've used are not effective in identifying something that has properties unknown to modern science.
3. Therefore, my theory of spirits isn't able to be disproved, only evidence can be shown that current scientific methods are unable to identify it.
This argument fails in 3 ways:
1. The original argument described particles as having measurable effects. Not "searching for evidence". If you say "particles would have extended this effect to people" then we can very easily test that. If your argument is "spirits exist" but don't tell us what spirits do, then there is no way anybody could prove you wrong.
2. Okay, but the claim was that the particles had very real and easily testable hypotheses; not properties that would be undetectable with modern instruments.
3. The argument is about whether or not particles/molecules can pass on somebody's personality onto another being via contact. It has nothing to do with spirits unless you want to define spirits that way.
We didn't have proof about dark matter until VERY recently, but it didn't stop theoretical physicists from talking about it, researching it, and altering their methods to identify something that was at one time thought to be unidentifyable.
And we saw discrepancies with what we expected to measure and what we actually measured. For the same reason, if you want to say "spirits do X" but we see no discrepancy between what we would expect and what we measure, then spirits don't exist.
I see the problem here, you're close minded. Because you don't see how there is potential for discovery here, you're going to assume anything I have to say is as fantastic as unicorns and dragons.
No, I am not close minded, I am realistic. In fact, I would say I am probably more open minded than you because I don't latch onto beliefs and accept all possibilities.
That having been said, I am not saying your arguments are akin to "dragons and unicorns"; I used fictional beasts because they are logical constructs that serve the exact same purpose as your "spirits". It IS possible, by the way, for a ball to spontaneously transform into a tyrannosaur and eat everybody on earth. Anybody who says they can be 100% certain that it is not true is a liar or ignorant, and that is a fact.
Scientific advancement and technology is often viewed by unadvanced people as magic. If you were to grab someone from 100 years ago and drop him into our point in time, they would most likely view us as sorcerors using magic.
You are the church, and you are trying to convince Galileo that his idea for a telescope is dumb because it has been scientifically proven that the Earth is the center of the universe.
Not at all. There is absolutely no observation, evidence, etc, to support the hypothesis. That is true. And that doesn't mean the theory is wrong. However, in this case what is claimed goes directly against presented and what we know about the observable world.
You can make whatever claims you want about stuff people could not know and be correct. You cannot make claims about stuff people DO know and pretend that it is equivalent.
Wait a minute, weren't the same MRAs in this thread the ones upset about the congresswoman's "No means no" comment about vaginal ultrasounds because of the connection with that phrase and rape? And these same people are defending "It'll all be over soon"?
I'm not a MRA and I was defending the phrase "It'll all be over soon". The pretenses one must accept in order to find "It'll all be over soon" as overtly sexual are ridiculous.
We can make that assumption, as long as we also assume that the ways in which we observe the world are the only ways in which we can observe it.
What assumption?
We both know that is not true, so to say with certainty that something is not so is dishonest. We can say its unlikely, but it is not any more unlikely than anything else spiritual in nature.
Okay so if the argument is:
1. I have let go of this ball and it hit the ground 9 billion times.
2. It is possible that the 9 billion and 1th time the ball might turn into a tyrannosaur and eat everybody on earth.
3. Therefore, my belief in atomic spirituality is justified.
You may as well just not accept anything since we could be wrong about any number of things. In this scenario, you are essentially suggesting that every single experiment that involves the effects of molecular or smaller objects on macroscopic objects would have had to have been wrong for this to occur.
After all, the atom was given it's name because it was thought to be indivisible, and then we thought that its divisions were indivisible, soon I have no doubt we'll find out more about the bosons and determine that they aren't indivisible as well.
We only know as much as we can see, and if history is anything to learn from, we are perpetually blind.
You are correct that we will likely learn more about the world. But we are not likely to learn something like this. Such a phenomenon would have to be documented because it makes extremely real and easily testable claims. We may learn the means to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity, but we are (most likely) not going to discover that quarks can randomly transform into unicorns.
You do understand the difference between "get better" "you suck" and "Let it happen. It'll be over soon" right?
Do you realize that that sort of thing gets said all the time between people jokingly as was done in the video? I mean, if this is a rape joke, this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUGNVpzB2t0 must be having rape orgies every other day.
It's not like "you suck" was misinterpreted as a rape comment. It was the one that has been explicitly associated with rape events in the past.
So saying "you suck" to somebody in a video game is a rape joke? On what planet is this the case? It appears like "you're a stupid head" will be the only permissible taunt in the coming years.
I'm not saying the outrage is accurate but it certainly has more merit than a lot of people here are giving it credit for. The theme of "stop struggling and it'll be over more quickly" certainly carries more sexual, rape, baggage than "I'm destroying you" or "get better"
You're just looking for sexual content where there is none. "It will be over quickly" is far more clever than "I'm destroying you". I mean, if saying "It will be over quickly" when you're clearly dominating somebody in a game is a rape joke, then just about everything is a rape joke.
If you sexualize everything, obviously you are going to see rape jokes everywhere because everything is a rape joke to you.
And I don't see how "I'm destroying you" could not be interpreted as a rape joke based on what apparently qualifies.
this is no different from two friends joking with each other about "man better tighten up your game" or "you need to start running laps" when playing basketball.
i guess there is just no way to have men and women participate in an activity together without the interpretation being considered sexist by somebody. if he treats her nicely he is being sexist for being too easy on her just for being a girl. if he makes some playful banter about how he is beating her at a game, he is sexist because it is a rape joke. if he is a total ******* the obvious implications will start rolling in.
there is no right answer so long as we have thin-skinned people ready to take offense at something so minor as mock competitive chit-chat.
I know you said you would leave, so don't feel obligated to answer, but what then allows you to reconcile this idea with the fact that there is plenty of evidence to suggest that this doesn't happen and that its occurrence is impossible?
There isn't evidence to suggest that it doesn't happen, only evidence to suggest that the ways in which we observe things are unable to prove that it does happen.
They are mostly similar, but they are not the same. You can't know for a fact that the world is round until you've circumnavigated it.
Evidence of it being impossible is the fact that fundamental particles, atoms, individual molecules, are indistinguishable from each other outside of position/velocity. If there were some method of a person's "personality" being imparted to these objects, it would have to be quantifiable (or else it would not exist) and we would observe its effects.
We have not observed such effects. That is evidence for it not happening. It's different from the following case:
1. There is a body in the woods.
2. We have no evidence that this person was murdered.
3. Therefore, this person was not murdered.
The difference here is that in testable environments we would have detected differences in the behaviors of particles and any ability for them to transfer a person's psyche onto another. When we have performed tests that would have revealed such an effect if it were to exist. In the above statement, no tests have been performed that would help us identify whether or not it was a murder.
And you are correct in saying that we aren't absolutely certain such phenomenon don't exist since we can never be absolutely certain about anything. However, we can accept or reject the hypothesis based on the probability that it is true. If there is a 99.99999% chance that your hypothesis is wrong, it is, to most people, flat out wrong.
i know it's not relevant per se, but it's not as though r/SRS is any better. in my experience they tend to be a bit more vitriolic whereas the people on r/MensRights tend to be a bit too open to what is considered sexism against men.
Wouldn't this make Obama white in America too?
I know about that. I'm asking for stuff that is worse than what coal and oil do.
Well I will be quite surprised when health concerns over wind turbines are greater than the health problems fossil fuel can induce.
Well the article was not very good at detailing that but it will be good to see fusion reactors become a reality in the near future.
Okay so do you have a better source on this than the NRDC? Yes, people will lose their jobs. But it is foolish to think that nobody will get any jobs from wind farms.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/wind/resources.html
The department of energy appears to strongly support wind power as well.
Yes and if wind farms create more jobs than fossil fuels do as the above sources claimed then we will have a net gain in jobs and a cleaner energy source providing it.
1. What are these environmental issues with windpower that are worse than coal/oil?
2. The article you linked on plasma did not detail how this would generate energy. Plasma itself is not a source of energy. In fact, given nothing else, the plasma ring you mentioned would consume energy since you would have to heat something up to become plasma first.
3. The jobs issue is refuted or, at the very least, challenged, by research:
http://www.nrdc.org/energy/renewables/wind.asp
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/29/wind-now-employs-more-peo_n_162277.html
http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/2009/09/14/clean-energy-will-create-more-jobs-than-coal/
I thought you were strictly of the opinion that parents should be held fully accountable for the actions of their child. Would that not mean that you would condone the actions of boo-boo's mom if the child turned out better?
So then why not just worship an infinitely spiteful god that nobody has yet claimed exists? If such a being existed, then the fact that it leads the followers of other religions astray would be right in line with its personality.
Of all possible gods, one should pick the most heinous and disagreeable one can conceive.
When 12 million americans believe that people in power are lizard-men, it's not hard at all to see slightly more believable BS gets thrown around.
lizard people for ****'s sake.
I did not make that assumption. In fact, I have in every instance supported the same position as you while on this board. I can give you post references if you wish.
In any case, the argument is not "There is no proof for spirits, therefore, there are no spirits", the argument is:
1. If particles/molecules/what-have-you had the properties you described, these phenomena would have been noticed.
2. We have never witnessed such phenomena.
3. Therefore, it is extremely likely these phenomena do not exist.
If you want to argue that spirits could exist, sure, I can accept that. We have no parameters to measure/know whether or not they exist. However, if you start to claim spirits possess people to start dairy farms in montana, we can very easily check to see whether spirits as defined by your constraints exist.
This argument fails in 3 ways:
1. The original argument described particles as having measurable effects. Not "searching for evidence". If you say "particles would have extended this effect to people" then we can very easily test that. If your argument is "spirits exist" but don't tell us what spirits do, then there is no way anybody could prove you wrong.
2. Okay, but the claim was that the particles had very real and easily testable hypotheses; not properties that would be undetectable with modern instruments.
3. The argument is about whether or not particles/molecules can pass on somebody's personality onto another being via contact. It has nothing to do with spirits unless you want to define spirits that way.
And we saw discrepancies with what we expected to measure and what we actually measured. For the same reason, if you want to say "spirits do X" but we see no discrepancy between what we would expect and what we measure, then spirits don't exist.
No, I am not close minded, I am realistic. In fact, I would say I am probably more open minded than you because I don't latch onto beliefs and accept all possibilities.
That having been said, I am not saying your arguments are akin to "dragons and unicorns"; I used fictional beasts because they are logical constructs that serve the exact same purpose as your "spirits". It IS possible, by the way, for a ball to spontaneously transform into a tyrannosaur and eat everybody on earth. Anybody who says they can be 100% certain that it is not true is a liar or ignorant, and that is a fact.
Not at all. There is absolutely no observation, evidence, etc, to support the hypothesis. That is true. And that doesn't mean the theory is wrong. However, in this case what is claimed goes directly against presented and what we know about the observable world.
You can make whatever claims you want about stuff people could not know and be correct. You cannot make claims about stuff people DO know and pretend that it is equivalent.
I'm not a MRA and I was defending the phrase "It'll all be over soon". The pretenses one must accept in order to find "It'll all be over soon" as overtly sexual are ridiculous.
What assumption?
Okay so if the argument is:
1. I have let go of this ball and it hit the ground 9 billion times.
2. It is possible that the 9 billion and 1th time the ball might turn into a tyrannosaur and eat everybody on earth.
3. Therefore, my belief in atomic spirituality is justified.
You may as well just not accept anything since we could be wrong about any number of things. In this scenario, you are essentially suggesting that every single experiment that involves the effects of molecular or smaller objects on macroscopic objects would have had to have been wrong for this to occur.
You are correct that we will likely learn more about the world. But we are not likely to learn something like this. Such a phenomenon would have to be documented because it makes extremely real and easily testable claims. We may learn the means to reconcile quantum mechanics and relativity, but we are (most likely) not going to discover that quarks can randomly transform into unicorns.
Do you realize that that sort of thing gets said all the time between people jokingly as was done in the video? I mean, if this is a rape joke, this guy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUGNVpzB2t0 must be having rape orgies every other day.
So saying "you suck" to somebody in a video game is a rape joke? On what planet is this the case? It appears like "you're a stupid head" will be the only permissible taunt in the coming years.
You're just looking for sexual content where there is none. "It will be over quickly" is far more clever than "I'm destroying you". I mean, if saying "It will be over quickly" when you're clearly dominating somebody in a game is a rape joke, then just about everything is a rape joke.
If you sexualize everything, obviously you are going to see rape jokes everywhere because everything is a rape joke to you.
And I don't see how "I'm destroying you" could not be interpreted as a rape joke based on what apparently qualifies.
i guess there is just no way to have men and women participate in an activity together without the interpretation being considered sexist by somebody. if he treats her nicely he is being sexist for being too easy on her just for being a girl. if he makes some playful banter about how he is beating her at a game, he is sexist because it is a rape joke. if he is a total ******* the obvious implications will start rolling in.
there is no right answer so long as we have thin-skinned people ready to take offense at something so minor as mock competitive chit-chat.
Evidence of it being impossible is the fact that fundamental particles, atoms, individual molecules, are indistinguishable from each other outside of position/velocity. If there were some method of a person's "personality" being imparted to these objects, it would have to be quantifiable (or else it would not exist) and we would observe its effects.
We have not observed such effects. That is evidence for it not happening. It's different from the following case:
1. There is a body in the woods.
2. We have no evidence that this person was murdered.
3. Therefore, this person was not murdered.
The difference here is that in testable environments we would have detected differences in the behaviors of particles and any ability for them to transfer a person's psyche onto another. When we have performed tests that would have revealed such an effect if it were to exist. In the above statement, no tests have been performed that would help us identify whether or not it was a murder.
And you are correct in saying that we aren't absolutely certain such phenomenon don't exist since we can never be absolutely certain about anything. However, we can accept or reject the hypothesis based on the probability that it is true. If there is a 99.99999% chance that your hypothesis is wrong, it is, to most people, flat out wrong.