One comment on the homophobia of psychiatry: I don’t think it was that the field disliked gays, but rather the behavior was understood to be outside the realm of “normal.” I think the change came when Kinsey and his group actually study sexual preferences and found that there exists a continuum, rather than a mutually exclusive preference.
It is true that IN THE US, there is a conservative/liberal division over climate change, because the two parties and their affiliates have used it as a political tool. But that is only in the US.
In Britain, Margaret Thatcher (their equivalent to Reagan) called for swift action on climate change. The British Conservative Party is the historical environmental leader, and calls for action to stop global warming.
On the other hand, there most certainly IS an expert consensus on global warming. The vast majority of scientists say that global warming is real, manmade, and a serious problem.
Yet they have a vested interest to NOT say so! Corporations and the government have worked to hide the evidence for climate change, for it would be bad for profit. Yet the scientists continue to agree that it is real, manmade, and dangerous.
Kinda implies that the science must be pretty compelling.
There was never an expert consensus that Iraq had WMD. In fact, the experts actually sent to investigate it (Hans Blix and his lot) said that there was no evidence of WMD.
I am unaware that there was ever a consensus on the issues of blacks being inferior or gays being disordered. But even if there was, ’tis clear that the scientists at the time had a vested interest in proving those claims (to justify their racism and homophobia).
That would be extremely unwise of them if they did.
Seriously throw off their diplomatic balance with other countries. Right now they need the delicate thread that allies them with Russia. Launching the first nuclear strike would universally vilify them, even amoung their own people seeing as Israel is littered with holy shrines to Islam and a nuke would probably destroy a good number. It would also most certainly justify every remotely pro-Israel nation in the world to blow them to hell.
Israel has guarded their status in regards to nuclear weapons very closely. I have no doubt that they HAVE them, but even that is unconfirmed. It should probably remain that way. Declaring they have no nuclear weapons or their range is very short might make them look weak to their enemies and declaring they have long range, even ICBMs, would make them look like bullies to their detractors.
That said, yes. The Jihads (and Crusades) of modern era are far more dangerous than those of the middle ages. Just like all wars. One only has to cross compare the conflicts to realize that…
But really, the five most bloody conflicts (in terms of both soldier and civilian death) of all time go in this order: WWII, Taiping Rebellion (mid 19th century), Genghis Khan’s conquest of Asia, WWI, and the Thirty Year War. Yeah, that blew my mind too.
You don’t believe they have nuclear weapons? Iran got its nuclear technology from Pakistan. How many Russian, American, French, British (so on and so forth) nukes are unaccounted for and probably floating around on the black market.
I remember after 9-11 people speaking of Osama Bin Laden possibly having several small nuclear bombs, no bigger than a brief case.
Jihadists are insane. But there are limits to their insanity. Using a nuke would justify nuclear retaliation. They know that.
jumped to an insane, extreme hair brained conclusion based on your own presumptions and calling me a racist insults me grievously. Being racist would infer that I believe one race to be superior to another and I clearly do not. Now the question I have to ask is are you any where near moral enough to admit you were wrong and apologize?
Oh, I know, the internet is ‘serious business’, but hey, if you want to be an intellectual here this comes with the territory.
And again, I am -not- a racist. I went to PAINSTAKING degrees to make this abundantly clear to you. I simply said that different races hold different biological traits, which you apparently agree with. Taxonomic ranks would go like this, Life, Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Infraclass, Order, Family, Genus, Specie, Sub-Specie, Race, Sub-race. There are subtle differences in lime trees, we refer to the different lime trees as different RACES of lime trees. Now, the way I see it is that you (cont
Racists are not racist because of any scientific support for their beliefs. I can’t presume to explain where individuals latent racism comes from. What racists do is cherry-pick scientific data to support beliefs that they hold for other reasons.
I never denied that there are different traits endemic to different races. What I refuse to do is discuss them without the rigorous context of science. Give a racist an inch of science, he’ll take it to a mile of extremism.
And the reason Jihadism is more dangerous is technology. Technology brings a lot of good things, but it also multiplies the evil that can be done.
It used to be that Crusades had to go by foot everywhere carrying their swords and what not. Now, Jihadist get a hold of a bomb, and kill a lot of people instantaneously.
It would be a tragedy if they get a hold of a nuclear weapon..
A terrible irony did just occur to me. Because Africans store more fat than other races they have better insulation and better cushioning for their skeletons and muscles, and can store more potential energy in the form of fat cells.
Despite being Cherokee/Irish I am apparently a black supremacist for pointing that out and littlebier is right! Who knew?
But to digress the differences are still as subtle as that of a German Shepard and a Siberian Husky. But differences are differences.
That’s exactly what it is, though just from a nit pick position the Crusades were more around 1000 AD and the Inquisitions were more around 1400 AD. Not that that is terribly relevant to the point.
Islam might revolutionize themselves, they might not. Only time will tell.
There’s no credible evidence to deny them either. It’s like the existence of God. Based more on faith than reason, and while certainly you can say I don’t buy the existence of an invisible sky magician, to deny any remote possibility of its existence is a bit foolish.
I find the idea that politicians and bureaucrats are prone to lying more credible than the idea of God, for the record. And that scientists will lie and tell officials what they want to hear to get government funding.
So I am racist because I am pointing out my cheekbones, as a Cherokee Indian, are higher than yours as a (presumably) white person? Or that Africans have higher fat deposits in their extremities? Oh yeah, that totally makes one of those races superior to the other.
Interesting denial of actual physical traits! You are a fucking idiot.
Well the reason I don’t buy conspiracy theories is because there’s no credible evidence to back them up. What happens is that conspiracy theorists reference other conspiracy theories..
The only thing I doubt here is Al Gore and his global warming machine.
Now I don’t think CIA are liars. I think tho that the argument for the Iraq war could be made even without the WMD’s, however, the CIA saw evidence to support that Saddam has them, or is developing them (and he refused to cooperate).
{ 25 comments… read them below or add one }
One comment on the homophobia of psychiatry: I don’t think it was that the field disliked gays, but rather the behavior was understood to be outside the realm of “normal.” I think the change came when Kinsey and his group actually study sexual preferences and found that there exists a continuum, rather than a mutually exclusive preference.
Nicolas Sarkozy, the center-right French president, wants to reduce CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050.
It is true that IN THE US, there is a conservative/liberal division over climate change, because the two parties and their affiliates have used it as a political tool. But that is only in the US.
In Britain, Margaret Thatcher (their equivalent to Reagan) called for swift action on climate change. The British Conservative Party is the historical environmental leader, and calls for action to stop global warming.
On the other hand, there most certainly IS an expert consensus on global warming. The vast majority of scientists say that global warming is real, manmade, and a serious problem.
Yet they have a vested interest to NOT say so! Corporations and the government have worked to hide the evidence for climate change, for it would be bad for profit. Yet the scientists continue to agree that it is real, manmade, and dangerous.
Kinda implies that the science must be pretty compelling.
There was never an expert consensus that Iraq had WMD. In fact, the experts actually sent to investigate it (Hans Blix and his lot) said that there was no evidence of WMD.
I am unaware that there was ever a consensus on the issues of blacks being inferior or gays being disordered. But even if there was, ’tis clear that the scientists at the time had a vested interest in proving those claims (to justify their racism and homophobia).
You are right about a lot of this but you made one mistake. Darwin’s book was not racist.
recruitJackHunter? dotttt Commm
That would be extremely unwise of them if they did.
Seriously throw off their diplomatic balance with other countries. Right now they need the delicate thread that allies them with Russia. Launching the first nuclear strike would universally vilify them, even amoung their own people seeing as Israel is littered with holy shrines to Islam and a nuke would probably destroy a good number. It would also most certainly justify every remotely pro-Israel nation in the world to blow them to hell.
oh, we know that Israel has the nuclear capability.. I was not sure about Iran, but maybe Iran might be able to launch something to Israel.
Israel has guarded their status in regards to nuclear weapons very closely. I have no doubt that they HAVE them, but even that is unconfirmed. It should probably remain that way. Declaring they have no nuclear weapons or their range is very short might make them look weak to their enemies and declaring they have long range, even ICBMs, would make them look like bullies to their detractors.
Iran is not capable of launching a nuclear weapon to America. I don’t know about Israel though..
That said, yes. The Jihads (and Crusades) of modern era are far more dangerous than those of the middle ages. Just like all wars. One only has to cross compare the conflicts to realize that…
But really, the five most bloody conflicts (in terms of both soldier and civilian death) of all time go in this order: WWII, Taiping Rebellion (mid 19th century), Genghis Khan’s conquest of Asia, WWI, and the Thirty Year War. Yeah, that blew my mind too.
You don’t believe they have nuclear weapons? Iran got its nuclear technology from Pakistan. How many Russian, American, French, British (so on and so forth) nukes are unaccounted for and probably floating around on the black market.
I remember after 9-11 people speaking of Osama Bin Laden possibly having several small nuclear bombs, no bigger than a brief case.
Jihadists are insane. But there are limits to their insanity. Using a nuke would justify nuclear retaliation. They know that.
Switzerland wasn’t involved in World War II. They claimed neutrality and both the Axis and Allies respected that.
jumped to an insane, extreme hair brained conclusion based on your own presumptions and calling me a racist insults me grievously. Being racist would infer that I believe one race to be superior to another and I clearly do not. Now the question I have to ask is are you any where near moral enough to admit you were wrong and apologize?
Oh, I know, the internet is ‘serious business’, but hey, if you want to be an intellectual here this comes with the territory.
And again, I am -not- a racist. I went to PAINSTAKING degrees to make this abundantly clear to you. I simply said that different races hold different biological traits, which you apparently agree with. Taxonomic ranks would go like this, Life, Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Infraclass, Order, Family, Genus, Specie, Sub-Specie, Race, Sub-race. There are subtle differences in lime trees, we refer to the different lime trees as different RACES of lime trees. Now, the way I see it is that you (cont
Racists are not racist because of any scientific support for their beliefs. I can’t presume to explain where individuals latent racism comes from. What racists do is cherry-pick scientific data to support beliefs that they hold for other reasons.
I never denied that there are different traits endemic to different races. What I refuse to do is discuss them without the rigorous context of science. Give a racist an inch of science, he’ll take it to a mile of extremism.
“You are a fucking idiot.”
And the reason Jihadism is more dangerous is technology. Technology brings a lot of good things, but it also multiplies the evil that can be done.
It used to be that Crusades had to go by foot everywhere carrying their swords and what not. Now, Jihadist get a hold of a bomb, and kill a lot of people instantaneously.
It would be a tragedy if they get a hold of a nuclear weapon..
The evidence to disprove them is solid. Conspiracy theories are mostly written by outsiders wanting to cash in on a paranoia.
A terrible irony did just occur to me. Because Africans store more fat than other races they have better insulation and better cushioning for their skeletons and muscles, and can store more potential energy in the form of fat cells.
Despite being Cherokee/Irish I am apparently a black supremacist for pointing that out and littlebier is right! Who knew?
But to digress the differences are still as subtle as that of a German Shepard and a Siberian Husky. But differences are differences.
That’s exactly what it is, though just from a nit pick position the Crusades were more around 1000 AD and the Inquisitions were more around 1400 AD. Not that that is terribly relevant to the point.
Islam might revolutionize themselves, they might not. Only time will tell.
There’s no credible evidence to deny them either. It’s like the existence of God. Based more on faith than reason, and while certainly you can say I don’t buy the existence of an invisible sky magician, to deny any remote possibility of its existence is a bit foolish.
I find the idea that politicians and bureaucrats are prone to lying more credible than the idea of God, for the record. And that scientists will lie and tell officials what they want to hear to get government funding.
So I am racist because I am pointing out my cheekbones, as a Cherokee Indian, are higher than yours as a (presumably) white person? Or that Africans have higher fat deposits in their extremities? Oh yeah, that totally makes one of those races superior to the other.
Interesting denial of actual physical traits! You are a fucking idiot.
Yeah it’s like Islam is where Christianity was with their crusades and inquisition 500 years ago.
Well the reason I don’t buy conspiracy theories is because there’s no credible evidence to back them up. What happens is that conspiracy theorists reference other conspiracy theories..
The only thing I doubt here is Al Gore and his global warming machine.
Now I don’t think CIA are liars. I think tho that the argument for the Iraq war could be made even without the WMD’s, however, the CIA saw evidence to support that Saddam has them, or is developing them (and he refused to cooperate).