Memorize, wanna know what you and Stalin have in common? You're both non-Muslims. He killed all of those millions of people just because he was the same kind of non-Muslim as you. Shouldn't you kind of apologize for Stalin and your common interest of not being a Muslim? Or do you perhaps see why it's stupid to lump people together based on what they AREN'T, including not being a theist?

At 11/25/09 05:32 PM, LynxPuppet wrote: No, actually I gave her that account and she told me about this thread and what was going on and wanted to know my opinion.

Interesting, you referred to her as "that guy" in your post above, pretending you didn't know who she was. Now suddenly you're good friends with her? You got caught red-handed, and now you're just saying the dog ate your homework.

I think AVGN should do a review on Real Life.

What kind of a sadistic asshole designed this!? What were they smoking crack up their ass?

At 11/23/09 01:16 PM, Al6200 wrote: Anyway, from Steve McIntyre I have the picture of what Mike's nature trick does.

Why don't you look at the actual published paper about 'Mike's trick', instead of taking the word of someone who's likely to misrepresent it. By the way, it's not "Mike's nature trick" with a lower case n, it's Mike's trick that was published in the scientific journal called Nature.

Socialists and neo-liberals are bad, mmkay.

At 11/22/09 07:40 PM, Al6200 wrote: Hiding a decline in temperature (which fits public email records, remember that these guys publish results)

They didn't specifically mention hiding a decline in temperature in that e-mail. This is your own addition. The meaning of the word "hide" is explained here (see Gavin's response). To be honest, I don't understand much of it, but at least it provides a context for the use of the word.

Here is another explanation.

Because they're in denial. Deep down they know that when you're dead, you're gone forever.

At 11/22/09 05:59 AM, JohnnyWang wrote: Also, someone remind me why we are taking all this messages at face value; considering they were allegedly obtained illegally by an anonymous ringer.

Phil Jones confirmed that they are authentic, at least those of them that they've seen in the media. There was so much data published that it's difficult to check if they're all real.

How is this achieved?

Here's a blog entry about the hack by a NASA scientist called Gavin Schmidt.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc hives/2009/11/the-cru-hack/

These were the most interesting parts in my opinion:

More interesting is what is not contained in the emails. There is no evidence of any worldwide conspiracy, no mention of George Soros nefariously funding climate research, no grand plan to 'get rid of the MWP', no admission that global warming is a hoax, no evidence of the falsifying of data, and no 'marching orders' from our socialist/communist/vegetarian overlords. The truly paranoid will put this down to the hackers also being in on the plot though.

--

No doubt, instances of cherry-picked and poorly-worded "gotcha" phrases will be pulled out of context. One example is worth mentioning quickly. Phil Jones in discussing the presentation of temperature reconstructions stated that "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." The paper in question is the Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998) Nature paper on the original multiproxy temperature reconstruction, and the 'trick' is just to plot the instrumental records along with reconstruction so that the context of the recent warming is clear. Scientists often use the term "trick" to refer to a "a good way to deal with a problem", rather than something that is "secret", and so there is nothing problematic in this at all.

At 11/21/09 01:14 PM, Memorize wrote: Of course, I find it kind of funny that the EPA would label CO2 a pollutant when it's required for life...

Wow, that IS crazy. Next they will be warning us about a mysterious phenomenon called "drowning" despite the well known fact that water is required for life...

I wonder if one day there will be too much oxygen and if they'll label that a pollutant.

If the atmosphere consisted of 100% oxygen, virtually everything would be highly inflammable. The test crew of Apollo 1 died in a fire, because pure oxygen leaked into the command module.

At 11/21/09 01:40 PM, Ericho wrote: That's a gross exaggeration. Evolution is supported by 98% of the population

98% of what population? :O

Am I the only one who notices that people don't age in cartoons? How long have Huey, Dewey, and Louie been school children?

At 11/20/09 08:00 PM, snarfherder wrote: Dinosaurs are also not birds, how would that work? Birds have feathers.

So did at least dozens of species of dinosaurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_d inosaurs

Velociraptor is probably the best-known example of a feathered dinosaur.

Saeed?

Social liberal apparently

"You want government out of people's personal lives, but you appear to desire some continued government control over people's economic activities. There is no political party that represents your views. The Green Party does run many candidates with similar views, but the overall Green Party platform is much more socialistic than you are. You would need a mix of Democratic, Green, and Libertarian politicians in office to get the balance of freedom and social justice you desire. The ratio between these depends on how high up your dot is on the chart."

At 11/20/09 03:35 PM, Elfer wrote: I'm going to check wikileaks for the full data

It doesn't look like it's on Wikileaks yet, but there's a torrent of these files on the Pirate Bay:
http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/5171206

I heard this earlier. It's certainly disgraceful and embarrassing to the scientific community, but it doesn't prove that global warming is a "hoax". It actually doesn't prove anything at all, other than that there are bad apples in every occupation.

This thread is fucking ridiculous. The man Obama bowed to was the Emperor of Japan. China hasn't had an emperor since 1916. Obama didn't bow to a "communist" but to a purely ceremonial figurehead of a closely allied liberal democratic country. Of course, Obama's bow to the king of Saudi Arabia is much more difficult to defend and worthy of legitimate criticism, but bowing and handshakes are hard to avoid in diplomacy, and diplomacy sometimes extends to less likable nations.

As for the bow itself, yes, as you can see, it was rather deep. However, if the president is to take part in any traditions, ceremonies or rituals, one should expect that the president does it properly.

Oh please. If you're going to start a new religion, make it include something you normally couldn't get away with, something illegal or something frowned upon that people have to respect because it's a doctrine of your faith.

For instance, members of the União do Vegetal cult are legally allowed to consume a hallucinogenic drug called DMT. Or you could for instance claim that your religion allows you to work only one hour a day, all the other hours are sacred. Then you could demand that your boss pay you full salary, and if he refuses, you can call him intolerant and sue him for disrespecting your religion. Things like that.

At 11/17/09 01:45 PM, lapis wrote: But when Ahmadinejad was elected the first time, that happened democratically.

Not quite, considering that all the candidates must be pre-approved by the Guardian Council (a council of jurists appointed by the supreme leader) before the elections. A number of candidates were rejected in the 2005 election when Ahmadinejad won the first time. According to the Guardian Council's interpretation of the Iranian constitution, female candidates aren't allowed either. Thus, even when the government isn't obviously cheating, Iranians have no true possibility to choose their own rulers without an intervention by the theocrats.

And what the hell is with those huge eyeballs in anime? Are they trying to make fun of us white people and our large, wide eyes that take up half the face's surface?

At 11/15/09 02:27 PM, Ericho wrote: I think a better argument would be "Evil exists because it is the abscence of God", similar to how darkness is the abscence of light.

That means God is not omnipresent. "Absence of God" implies that there are places where he can't or won't reach.

At 11/14/09 10:11 AM, zoolrule wrote: YOU ACTUALLY COMPARE ISRAEL TO THESE ISLAMOFASCIST TERROR ORGANIZATION? WHAT IS FUCKING GOING ON WITH YOU? ISRAEL IS A BIGGER JERK? WHAT THE HELL.

Finally, i thought you might like to see this. Just wonder what would you do if that was in Israel. ISRAELI SOLDIERS COMMIT GENOCIDE AND MURDER INNOCENT CHILDREN.
Hypocrites.

You might have made a decent point with your post, but you let yourself get carried away with unnecessary emotion and flaming, effectively destroying any real attempt at communication. And how the hell did you get the impression that JohnnyWang is British? Your accusation of hypocrisy is stupid and misses it mark, because generally people who are critical of Israel also condemn other acts of war, especially those undertaken by western nations like UK or USA. Nor do the atrocities of other countries make the excessive use of Israeli force any more acceptable.

It's all fine and dandy to talk about the respect for Palestinian civilians, but it's things like this that make me wonder whether Israel has any more consideration and respect for the lives of Palestinian civilians than the Hamas has. I can see why the gruesomeness of war makes some soldiers fight dirty, especially in a region where the Hamas and Hezbollah are just the thin edge of a wedge of groups that want to wipe Israel off the map. But the state of Israel is without excuse if it doesn't court martial these soldiers and just tries to sweep these kinds of things under the rug. Instead, as gumOnShoe pointed out, it punishes soldiers that actually try to protect the civilians.

Libertarians believe that the state should be absolutely minimal, for instance like a night watchman state. Anarchists believe that the state should be completely abolished.

It's about time it happened! This took place in the UK at the end of last month. Originally, a radical Islamist organization called Islam4UK had planned a march for that day, calling for the full implementation of the Sharia law (presumably this would mean amputation/stoning punishments and all sorts of other nice things). However, another Muslim organization called British Muslims for Secular Democracy decided to hold a counter-demonstration to support democratic values. They didn't want to allow the extremists to create the impression that they somehow represent all Muslims in Britain. Eventually, the extremists cancelled their rally and the pro-democracy demonstration was all that remained.

But more important than the actual protest is the sheer brilliance of how it was done, by making a parody of the extremist protest from a few years ago. Here's a couple of videos related to the event:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpSC4I8Nj o4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITq7rLG64 Lc

At 11/11/09 12:22 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: but on hentai there's no way to prove that >.<

Those hentai rules are the most ridiculous fucking thing. It proves that they're punishing for the thought and not for the actual abuse.

At 11/10/09 06:15 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Has not, evolution is a theory which several parts of have been falsified but sadly not removed, if you don't believe me then too bad cuz I don't give a shit.

Which parts exactly? I'll believe you if you can show me.

At 11/9/09 07:24 PM, TakeTheBait wrote: some religions just need to chill the fuck out and preach love, community, and morality, like most do anyway.

Why? Those are the source of the problems in the first place. Any qualified, sincere educator would encourage things like freedom, independence, responsibility, critical thinking, skepticism, thirst for knowledge etc. When the clergy just impose their values and morals on the public, nothing good ever results from it. Love, community and morality are good things within reason and moderation. The problem is, as an official religious dogma they never stay in moderation. "Love" or "fidelity" may eventually mean that condoms are evil and adultery should be punishable by death. Excessive emphasis on "community" at the cost of the individual justifies honor killings among other things. And whenever you hear the word "morality" in a religious context, you won't have to wait for long to find the rampant homophobia or some other form of bigotry that consists of condemning other people's lifestyles.

That's exactly why the Jesus camp teachers didn't like Harry Potter. Because it's "morally" evil.

At 11/9/09 07:09 PM, ToddM wrote: Why do you care about this? It does not affect me and I continue on with my life by not paying attention to them.

These children are the voters of the future. They get to decide who is control of the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons and the most potent army in the world.

At 11/9/09 05:16 PM, Ericho wrote: Okay, poxpower, if you really want to know about someone who at least believes in Jesus as an historical figure, you can look at Richard Dawkins.

You really don't understand. The issue is not who says Jesus is real but how they know he's real. Richard Dawkins is not a historian either, he's a biologist. It's entirely plausible that he's taken the word of the mainstream interpretation of history just for the sake of convenience. In his book The God Delusion, Dawkins writes that Jesus "probably existed", but no one on Earth considers Dawkins to be an infallible prophet, especially in a field that is not his own. What would be the point of atheism if we have to rely on the word of high-profile atheist figures? That's what religions with their popes and ayatollahs do. In atheism, we want to find things out by ourselves and no one's word is worth shit unless they have evidence or logic to back it up.