Quote

BILL MAHER:
Cultural relativism is nonsense. It's the 21st century.

I don't disagree with the overall sentiment, but if cultural relativism is nonsense, then you can't condemn a behavior of a culture by what another culture is doing at a certain period in time.

I think there's more than a little bit of irony in noting that scientific authorities are hardly authoritative and can (and are) refuted as research progresses, and then using the quotes of various philosophers to ground your arguments. It's completely reasonable and justified to do so, though, I just found it funny.

I do love Feynman and his criticism of cargo cult science, and I'm glad you referenced it. I think pop-science has resulted in a large cult following of pseudo-science mixed with entertaining fantasy, and many people would reject the non-authority of science. Science, you are right to point out, is merely a methodology, not an archive of greybeards and concrete answers to all of life's mysteries.

Overall it's a great essay with well-reasoned arguments that follow a logical order, but I was a bit confused by how you used semicolons in the second paragraph.

I thought it needed more sex scenes.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 29, 2015, 03:28:04 PM

Can we get a word bank to choose from?

You can put together an adjective and a noun in a political way, can't you?

I'm just not big on labels.

Classical Liberal Constitutionalist.

Modern day translation: bleeding-heart social libertarian and a hard fiscal conservative.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 29, 2015, 03:25:06 PM

So they weren't flying in British airspace, and the disruption came from the British Typhoons flying through commercial airspace to reach the Bears, which were escorted the entire time?

Is this a clickbait article, or are we supposed to be upset at something?

Well this isn't the first time its happened, its just another incident to add to the pile and admittedly your right this one is no where near as bad as the others especially the example I put below the article.

The articles title is definitely click bait though mentioning summoning the ambassador as if this was a major diplomatic emergency.

For sure there have been many instances of Russia measuring NATO's dick against its own, but this case seems pretty harmless.

So they weren't flying in British airspace, and the disruption came from the British Typhoons flying through commercial airspace to reach the Bears, which were escorted the entire time?

Is this a clickbait article, or are we supposed to be upset at something?

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 29, 2015, 02:51:17 PM

Would your parents be paying for the dorm?

lolno
Everything will be covered by government student finances of which I'll pay back through the tax system after I graduate.

So you got a grant or state scholarship? Can't you just pocket that money if you live at home?

Would your parents be paying for the dorm?

Quote from: Kinder Graham on January 29, 2015, 08:08:22 AM

Climate change has been happening before humans even industrialized. Ever hear of the Medieval Warm Age and Little Ice Age?

Climate change has always happened. The question is whether or not humans have sped up the process.

It shouldn't even be a question. The consensus is that, regardless of whatever cycle we are in right now, anthropogenic warming is a reality.

Fork in the right, knife in the left, put the knife between the tines of the fork to cut stuff. Anything else is sheer pompousness.

Secret 2: Sociopaths sustain eye contact
Have you ever met someone that unflinchingly maintains eye contact with you? That no matter how many times you look away or glance down, they sustain direct eye contact with you? M.E. Thomas describes this as a ‘predator stare’ and states that most sociopaths exhibit this trait.
Often this stare can make the sociopath come across as arrogant, aggressive or seductive. Realistically however, this is an unintentional behavior and while it might unnerve others is not something they do deliberately. It’s just how they interact. Perhaps because their emotional cues aren’t as developed or because they simply don’t care about making others feel uncomfortable, this sustained eye contact quickly becomes one of their calling cards.

I used to be pretty bad at keeping eye contact, so eventually I just forced myself to look people in the eye for the entirety of a conversation. As for politicians, eye contact shows someone that you're listening and are comfortable with what they're saying; it's a sign of attention and respect. I find that sociopath conclusion to be pretty damn shaky.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 28, 2015, 05:32:05 PM

Quote from: Numb Digger on January 28, 2015, 05:22:59 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 28, 2015, 05:21:57 PM

Quote from: Numb Digger on January 28, 2015, 05:21:31 PM

I am finding contradiction here;

Quote

Studies have found a dangerous connection between aspartame consumption and the development of brain tumors. When aspartame breaks down it produces a substance called DKP. As your stomach digests DKP, it produces a chemical that induces the growth of brain tumors.

Can't address it without a citation.

http://www.rense.com/general35/evid.htm

The amount of DKP absorbed from the breakdown of a serving of aspartame is negligible. In addition, DKP has been found to be useful in the drug industry because it can actually be used to break down tumors:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16317287

Quote

Altogether, our data show that NPI-2358 [a synthetic form of DPK] is a potent anti-tumor agent which is active in MDR tumor cell lines, and is able to rapidly induce tubulin depolymerization and monolayer permeability in HUVECs. These data warrant further evaluation of NPI-2358 as a vascular-disrupting agent in vivo. Currently, NPI-2358 is in preclinical development for the treatment of cancer.

I wonder why there are so many contradicting studies. This is like fats all over again.

There aren't many contradicting studies, there are one or two poorly-run and biased experiments from fringe scientists that are repeated ad-nauseam on blogs by people that think they're part of a secret crusade to save people from the evil government.

I am finding contradiction here;

Quote

Studies have found a dangerous connection between aspartame consumption and the development of brain tumors. When aspartame breaks down it produces a substance called DKP. As your stomach digests DKP, it produces a chemical that induces the growth of brain tumors.

Can't address it without a citation.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 28, 2015, 04:58:52 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on January 28, 2015, 04:50:54 PM

It doesn't make you fat, it gives you cancer, Parkinson's, and countless other diseases.

There is literally zero proof of this, and mountains of evidence to the contrary.

As with all artificial sweeteners, it still triggers the production of insulin, which leads to fat storage.

Nah, this is a myth too. Certain sweeteners may elicit a very minor insulin response, but artificial sweeteners are so much more concentrated than sugar that there just isn't enough of the stuff to do anything significant. Except for giving you a bit of a sweet-tooth, artificial sweeteners really are harmless.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 28, 2015, 04:58:52 PM

Quote from: SecondClass on January 28, 2015, 04:50:54 PM

It doesn't make you fat, it gives you cancer, Parkinson's, and countless other diseases.

There is literally zero proof of this, and mountains of evidence to the contrary.

How much wool do you produce per year? Is your pasture nice?

Post proof. In a scientific world, we don't throw petty insults around like toddlers, we present evidence and defend our positions. If you want to talk like a grown-up, back your claims up.

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on January 28, 2015, 04:40:20 PM

The consensus among scientists and all the data from numerous studies conclude the aspartame is in no way harmful for you except in unrealistically extreme proportions (100+ cans of soda per day for months). There is literally no evidence that it is carcinogenic.

The only harmful aspect is that it gets your body accustomed to eating sweet things, which can result in cravings for sweet things. If you have an ounce of self control in your diet it poses zero risk.

Fucking bullshit. There's no sense even arguing with brainwashed idiots like you. The government wants aspartame to be accepted, and you're a fool if you think studies can't be bought.

So this is just a catch-all response to any science-backed refutation. You're welcome to live in a fantasy world where the government can just buy-out hundreds of independent studies just for the sake of convincing people that something with zero calories can magically make you fat. That sounds like a reasonable, logical conclusion.