Question 1: Do you hold at least a BS degree in one or more of climatology, meteorology, physics or chemistry?
If not: shut up. You are not worthy to speak.
No.
Question 2: Have you read at least one textbook on climatology?
If not: shut up. You are not worthy to speak.
No.
Question 3: Have you read the latest IPCC scientific assessment?
If not: shut up. You are not worthy to speak.
No.
Question 4: Have you read the latest IPCC report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters?
If not: shut up. You are not worthy to speak.
No.
At that point, maybe, you will be worthy of the privilege of expressing an opinion.
Free speech is a privilege now, is it?
...you are not worth to speak. You haven't earned that right.
Rights aren't "earned." They're considered inherent. You can agree or disagree with opinions, you can listen to them or not, but you can't silence them by virtue of them coming from someone who didn't waste a hundred grand on a college degree.
No one owns the movie beyond copies.....that's the only form of "property" in play. Beyond that, it's just the expression of an idea that someone holds (not "owns") the copyright on. That isn't property.
I don't care if there are 10,000 more terrorist attacks; our rights are not negotiable. Only a coward would sell out his principles for the sake of safety.
It definitely proves he has no valid concept of the Constitution. The rights enshrined in the Constitution are said to be recognized as inalienable...it's the American view that all people all over the world have those rights, not just Americans or people on American soil.
Oh, brother. I guess you run up to anyone who says X-Files, stomp your feet, and say "It's THE X-Files, you black-oil infested member of the Consortium!"
You don't see European blogs writing "The US, where the silly imperial system is still standard." in every article, do you?
Yes. Yes you do. Brits in particular take pot-shots at the US over every little thing.
Furthermore, simply stating that freedom of the press is more codified in law in the US than the UK isn't just empty jingoism or xenophobic bashing, it's basically established as fact, and relevant to the article at hand.
Re: Reducing the level of ignorance in the discussion
Question 1: Do you hold at least a BS degree in one or more of climatology, meteorology, physics or chemistry?
If not: shut up. You are not worthy to speak.
No.
Question 2: Have you read at least one textbook on climatology?
If not: shut up. You are not worthy to speak.
No.
Question 3: Have you read the latest IPCC scientific assessment?
If not: shut up. You are not worthy to speak.
No.
Question 4: Have you read the latest IPCC report on managing the risks of extreme events and disasters?
If not: shut up. You are not worthy to speak.
No.
At that point, maybe, you will be worthy of the privilege of expressing an opinion.
Free speech is a privilege now, is it?
...you are not worth to speak. You haven't earned that right.
Rights aren't "earned." They're considered inherent. You can agree or disagree with opinions, you can listen to them or not, but you can't silence them by virtue of them coming from someone who didn't waste a hundred grand on a college degree.
Are we clear?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The difference...
Had I said "Anyone who tries to shut out any form of debate with self-righteous ad-hominem is a moron," then yes, hopefully I would see the irony.
But since I didn't say that, no, I don't really see any irony in what I said at all.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The difference...
Anyone who tries to shut out any form of debate with self-righteous ad-hominem has nothing worthwhile to say.
(untitled comment)
This Keurig shit is whack. Folgers Crystals 4 lyfe, f00l.
Re:
...bad parody gone wrong.
As opposed to a bad parody gone right?
(untitled comment)
Chaka mad! Chaka REAL mad.
Re:
I'd prefer it if some shooter gangbangs them.
Re:
No one owns the movie beyond copies.....that's the only form of "property" in play. Beyond that, it's just the expression of an idea that someone holds (not "owns") the copyright on. That isn't property.
(untitled comment)
I can't help but notice that in comment totals, nasch got "leet" comments.
(untitled comment)
I'm guessing this was sent in as a joke.
(untitled comment)
I don't care if there are 10,000 more terrorist attacks; our rights are not negotiable. Only a coward would sell out his principles for the sake of safety.
Re:
It definitely proves he has no valid concept of the Constitution. The rights enshrined in the Constitution are said to be recognized as inalienable...it's the American view that all people all over the world have those rights, not just Americans or people on American soil.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where's the incentive?
You wrote the plot to a Holmes book? I hope you paid the estate the licensing fees!
(untitled comment)
"You see these fists? They are getting ready to fuck you up."
You know, no matter how many times I read that, I'm not reading a *conditional* threat. That's an *imminent* threat.
Re:
Oh, brother. I guess you run up to anyone who says X-Files, stomp your feet, and say "It's THE X-Files, you black-oil infested member of the Consortium!"
Re:
....
BUT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY!!!
Re:
He's probably always been one. That sort of doucheness doesn't just happen overnight.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
Says the guy who just said that belief in evolution "requires" a belief in abiogenesis? You're contradicting yourself.
Re:
You don't see European blogs writing "The US, where the silly imperial system is still standard." in every article, do you?
Yes. Yes you do. Brits in particular take pot-shots at the US over every little thing.
Furthermore, simply stating that freedom of the press is more codified in law in the US than the UK isn't just empty jingoism or xenophobic bashing, it's basically established as fact, and relevant to the article at hand.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Laws against gravity
And finally, yes, evolution absolutely requires abiogenesis in order for it to work, otherwise the entire theory is aimless.
In what way? Why exactly can't a person believe that the world was created by an intelligence, but not also believe that organisms evolve over time?