PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: nddons on March 24, 2021, 10:08:47 PM
-
Sorry Steingar, you won’t find this on CNN.
https://dawsoncountyjournal.com/blog/2021/03/24/did-muslim-suspect-pick-boulder-store-because-it-was-kosher-by-wnd-staff/?amp=1
-
It seems clear this is a case of mental disorder as almost all mass shootings and the news is correctly alluding to that, whatever ideological trappings. Anybody remember how the news handled Tim McVeigh? A mental case or a “right wing terrorist”? Anybody want to guess how the media would describe a Trump supporter gone postal today?
-
It seems clear this is a case of mental disorder as almost all mass shootings and the news is correctly alluding to that, whatever ideological trappings. Anybody remember how the news handled Tim McVeigh? A mental case or a “right wing terrorist”? Anybody want to guess how the media would describe a Trump supporter gone postal today?
Exactly. They are pushing the Mental Illness narrative because he is a Muslim. PERIOD.
-
Muslims have killed more people in our country than AR-15s.
-
Muslims have killed more people in our country than AR-15s.
By far.
-
Muslims have killed more people in our country than AR-15s.
Actually, I'm pretty certain right wing extremists have killed more. Still, this perhaps has the trappings of an Islamist attack, but I'm not seeing any indication of this anywhere other than the OP's link. I'm very careful about sources for this sort of thing. Not CNN, but Fox News, Reuter's or some other national outlet. Sorry, it smells.
We had a fellow stage an attack on my campus, made international headlines too. The guy was Muslim, but he was also a few beers short of a six pack. That wasn't a terror attack, it was a dude who wigged out.
Seems to me if the Boulder shooter was really after Jews he'd have shot up a Synagogue were he in his right mind.
-
Seems to me if the Boulder shooter was really after Jews he'd have shot up a Synagogue were he in his right mind.
If the guy was in his right mind, he wouldn't be after Jews... or anyone else.
-
Actually, I'm pretty certain right wing extremists have killed more.
Let's see where you got that from.
I'll wait.
-
If the guy was in his right mind, he wouldn't be after Jews... or anyone else.
My point is were he an Islamofacist trying to kill Jews to further the world Islamic whatever he'd go shoot up a Synagogue. He'd not be the first. The fact that he shot up a place he saw on TV suggests to me that he wasn't all there. The fact that this story is on a publication I've never heard of and hasn't been repeated nationally anywhere I can find suggests to me I'm right.
-
Let's see where you got that from.
I'll wait.
I got the attached from wikipedia. Sounds like we're both right. More right wing attacks, but the Islamists were better killers.
-
I got the attached from wikipedia. Sounds like we're both right. More right wing attacks, but the Islamists were better killers.
Hahahahahaha.....
Wiki??
Hahahahaha....
-
I got the attached from wikipedia.
Yea, we all know there's no bias with wikipedia........ ::)
Maybe you should fact check it with snopes as well. :o
Also, let's look at all the murders done by the leftist democrat hate groups over the past 150 years.
-
Actually, I'm pretty certain right wing extremists have killed more. Still, this perhaps has the trappings of an Islamist attack, but I'm not seeing any indication of this anywhere other than the OP's link. I'm very careful about sources for this sort of thing. Not CNN, but Fox News, Reuter's or some other national outlet. Sorry, it smells.
We had a fellow stage an attack on my campus, made international headlines too. The guy was Muslim, but he was also a few beers short of a six pack. That wasn't a terror attack, it was a dude who wigged out.
Seems to me if the Boulder shooter was really after Jews he'd have shot up a Synagogue were he in his right mind.
What is Fundamentalist Islam if not extreme right wing?
-
My point is were he an Islamofacist trying to kill Jews to further the world Islamic whatever he'd go shoot up a Synagogue. He'd not be the first. The fact that he shot up a place he saw on TV suggests to me that he wasn't all there. The fact that this story is on a publication I've never heard of and hasn't been repeated nationally anywhere I can find suggests to me I'm right.
I figured that was more-or-less your point. MY point was that is was ludicrioius to label someone shooting up Synagogue as being in his right mind.
-
I got the attached from wikipedia. Sounds like we're both right. More right wing attacks, but the Islamists were better killers.
I guess all the muslims who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 don't count?
-
I guess all the muslims who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 don't count?
'Some people did something': Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota
(https://i.insider.com/5d7e68422e22af00790f2163?width=1000&format=jpeg&auto=webp)
-
I guess all the muslims who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 don't count?
Yea, did you notice that “analysis” was only from 2008-2016? I guess nothing happened from 2000 to 2008.
-
I guess all the muslims who killed thousands of Americans on 9/11 don't count?
Perhaps they count as Right Wing Extremists in this case.
-
I hate the squad. Thalib, Omar, AOC and that other bitch. All anti American scum. They certainly need to be tarred and feathered. >:(
-
Hahahahahaha.....
Wiki??
Hahahahaha....
I say something, you ask me for a source, so I get one. Ohh, that's the wrong source! Has to come from Alex Jones or Breitbart or some such. Or it has to match your. preconceived notions.
Whatever.
-
I say something, you ask me for a source, so I get one. Ohh, that's the wrong source! Has to come from Alex Jones or Breitbart or some such. Or it has to match your. preconceived notions.
Whatever.
Come on. You're an academic. How about an unbiased source? My ass can be a source to pull stuff from, but it's hardly unbiased.
-
Come on. You're an academic.
Let's be clear. Michael is not an academic. He's an activist that has a diploma. Nothing more.
-
Let's be clear. Michael is not an academic. He's an activist that has a diploma. Nothing more.
well, look at the definition of "academic" (I'm on a dictionary role....)
"ac·a·dem·ic | ˌakəˈdemik |
adjective
1 relating to education and scholarship: academic achievement | he had no academic qualifications.
• relating to an educational or scholarly institution or environment: students resplendent in academic dress.
• (of an institution or a course of study) placing a greater emphasis on reading and study than on technical or practical work: an academic high school that prepares students for the best colleges and universities.
• (of a person) interested in or excelling at scholarly pursuits and activities: Ben is not an academic child but he tries hard.
• (of an art form) conventional, especially in an idealized or excessively formal way: academic painting.
2 not of practical relevance; of only theoretical interest: the debate has been largely academic.
noun
a teacher or scholar in a college or institute of higher education: the EU offers grants to academics for research on approved projects."
-
I say something, you ask me for a source, so I get one. Ohh, that's the wrong source! Has to come from Alex Jones or Breitbart or some such. Or it has to match your. preconceived notions.
If you quoted wikipedia for a paper for your work, anyone reviewing it should rightfully ripped it apart. Why? Because wikipedia is not accurate nor is it a scholarly site. It's pop culture at best.
Islamic based terrorism took a dip, which you seem to have cherry picked. It is on the rise again.
Whatever.
-
If you quoted wikipedia for a paper for your work, anyone reviewing it should rightfully ripped it apart. Why? Because wikipedia is not accurate nor is it a scholarly site. It's pop culture at best.
Islamic based terrorism took a dip, which you seem to have cherry picked. It is on the rise again.
Whatever.
Actually, wikipedia is one of the most accurate sites around, moreso than many scientific journals. But whatever. What do you call an unbiased source? If you don't like mine why don't you go get your own?
-
Actually, wikipedia is one of the most accurate sites around, moreso than many scientific journals. But whatever. What do you call an unbiased source? If you don't like mine why don't you go get your own?
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.mrlazyinc.com%2Flawls%2Fmeme_faces%2Fburst_out_laughing_dr_who_cant_hold_it_in.gif&f=1&nofb=1)
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia.giphy.com%2Fmedia%2Fl0GALv875ljhCovL44%2Fgiphy.gif&f=1&nofb=1)
-
I got the attached from wikipedia. Sounds like we're both right. More right wing attacks, but the Islamists were better killers.
I'm not sure why you used an embedded image when a URL and a simple copy-and-paste of the relevant section would have been more appropriate.
For future reference, the Wikipedia page you referenced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_States)
The portion you quoted lists two references:
https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/domestic-terrorism-white-supremacists-islamist-extremists_n_594c46e4e4b0da2c731a84df (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/domestic-terrorism-white-supremacists-islamist-extremists_n_594c46e4e4b0da2c731a84df)
https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2017/06/22/home-hate/ (https://www.typeinvestigations.org/investigation/2017/06/22/home-hate/)
There is a bit of circular referencing and duplication, since the "ultimate" source appears on two different web pages on two different sites:
https://www.typeinvestigations.org/domesticterror/ (https://www.typeinvestigations.org/domesticterror/)
https://apps.revealnews.org/homegrown-terror/ (https://apps.revealnews.org/homegrown-terror/)
They defined what they meant by terrorist incident (https://revealnews.org/blog/how-we-analyzed-domestic-terror-incidents/ (https://revealnews.org/blog/how-we-analyzed-domestic-terror-incidents/) with which I disagree.) The narrow range of dates obviously skewed things. As you note, by excluding the second World Trade Center attack they had to count incidents to skew their point since the number of fatalities by Islamists (90) still exceeded those by the incidents they dubbed right-wing (79). Likewise injuries are not mentioned (E.g. 2013 Boston Marathon bombing killed 3, but injured 183.) It also disregards the fact that Islamist terrorism is an on-going world-wide scourge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks)
When it comes to anything political Wikipedia is not to be trusted.
-
Actually, wikipedia is one of the most accurate sites around, moreso than many scientific journals. But whatever. What do you call an unbiased source? If you don't like mine why don't you go get your own?
Drunk again, I see...
-
Drunk again, I see...
Wikipedia is the LAST source that I would believe to be accurate. Plus it has a huge LEFTIST bias. It sucks.
-
Wikipedia is the LAST source that I would believe to be accurate. Plus it has a huge LEFTIST bias. It sucks.
And it is freely edited anytime, by anyone...
Mikey is just another idiotic drunk, babbling bullshit trying to defend his ignorance.
-
I wonder if POS has a peer-reviewed paper on the accuracy of wikipedia vs scientific journals...
-
I wonder if POS has a peer-reviewed paper on the accuracy of wikipedia vs scientific journals...
Peer review is the biggest joke, because they are all Lock Step Far Left Communists. But don't take their tenure, and pensions away. Oh no. ::)
-
Peer review is the biggest joke, because they are all Lock Step Far Left Communists. But don't take their tenure, and pensions away. Oh no. ::)
See now, that's the thing. Michael is sorta right. These days, scientific papers can be very biased for just the reason you state and "science" has been largely taken over by the academic left, well it's always been in academics, and it's the academics that have become 90+% leftist.
Wikipedia is editable by anyone, and generally tries to be factual, although there is a strong left leaning bias due to the nature of technology, that is, tech nerds tend to live in urban areas and be left leaning, while those who edit wiki tend to be tech nerds, so there you have it. But because the very nature of wiki does not follow a strict protocol, and is open to the general public, not confined to academia, you have a bit more opportunity for truthful objective information to get in.
Being open to all is a double edged sword. Sometimes it works to the advantage for truth, other times it allows the worst liars a platform. But when institutionalized platforms like scientific research becomes heavily weighted in one direction, truth can be hidden completely, for example, journals can pick and choose what studies to even publish.
So yeah I agree with Michael on this one, in a qualified way.
-
but the irony is POS is hot and bothered that we should be paying atttention to peer-reviews
-
When it comes to anything political Wikipedia is not to be trusted.
Precisely. If I want to know about Cro-Magnon man in Europe, I’ll go to Wikipedia and presume it’s fairly accurate for my purpose. Not so when it comes to politics or, as I’ve learned, history.
-
See now, that's the thing. Michael is sorta right. These days, scientific papers can be very biased for just the reason you state and "science" has been largely taken over by the academic left, well it's always been in academics, and it's the academics that have become 90+% leftist.
I agree with you, but it depends on the discipline. I teach, research, and publish in computer science / analytics / AI. It's really hard to have a leftist, or really any political slant in that domain. You can have trouble getting your research published because a particular outlet prefers one research method over another, but there is hardly any politics in there. The professors I work with tend to the right. I suspect this is true also in engineering or the hard sciences. I once thought that politics wouldn't be in any of the professional schools, but a visit to the law school cured me of that opinion.
On the other hand, in my misspent youth I minored in research methods and spent some time taking graduate research methods classes in sociology. WOW do they have their opinions. I've seen this rampant in the other soft sciences. It's entertaining to be in a faculty mixer and gently suggest something that is just slightly right of far far left to an English professor. Great way to start a Marxist rant.
Not all professors are far left. Just the loud ones. And the administration. Can't trust the university administration.
-
I agree with you, but it depends on the discipline. I teach, research, and publish in computer science / analytics / AI. It's really hard to have a leftist, or really any political slant in that domain. You can have trouble getting your research published because a particular outlet prefers one research method over another, but there is hardly any politics in there. The professors I work with tend to the right. I suspect this is true also in engineering or the hard sciences. I once thought that politics wouldn't be in any of the professional schools, but a visit to the law school cured me of that opinion.
On the other hand, in my misspent youth I minored in research methods and spent some time taking graduate research methods classes in sociology. WOW do they have their opinions. I've seen this rampant in the other soft sciences. It's entertaining to be in a faculty mixer and gently suggest something that is just slightly right of far far left to an English professor. Great way to start a Marxist rant.
Not all professors are far left. Just the loud ones. And the administration. Can't trust the university administration.
That’s good news. But it makes sense.
-
From a 2012 survey (https://www.machinedesign.com/news/article/21819513/the-politics-of-engineers (https://www.machinedesign.com/news/article/21819513/the-politics-of-engineers)):
“Engineers tend to view themselves as much less liberal and slightly more conservative than the general public, according to a recent survey of over 1,200 readers of MACHINE DESIGN and Electronic Design magazines. The same survey also found that engineers say they are more likely to be Republican (42.1%) or Independent (33.7%) voters, as opposed to Democrats (14.5%). And although over a third of the engineers think Republicans represent the best interests of the engineering community better than Democrats, a majority of engineers (48.1%) believe neither party is really on the side of engineers.”
A different site uses campaign contributions reported to the FEC to estimate the ratio of Republicans to Democrats in each of their listed occupations or fields: http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/ (http://verdantlabs.com/politics_of_professions/)
Interesting to see pilots tend toward Republicans. Bartenders are heavily Democratic (Hmmm... AOC?) Looks like about 2/3rd chance your surgeon leans Republican but physicians in general are evenly split. But contrary to the article I cite above, it shows engineering as heavily Democratic. Probably due to methodology differences (poll vs those likely to make political contributions) and perhaps engineering sub-field.
So far as I can tell, only two presidents had any formal science or engineering training/degree: Herbert Hoover and Jimmy Carter.
-
I hate it when there's just an infographic and no data about how the survey was conducted or their definition of the various fields. I don't see computer programmers in there and suspect that it's buried under engineering. And the donations of regular people are overwhelmed by donations from the highly liberal Silicon Valley firms. Academia matches my experience. The academics who can get a job in the real world tend to be conservative. Those who can't get a job in the real world tend to be liberal.
And 29 presidents served in the military.
-
I hate it when there's just an infographic and no data about how the survey was conducted or their definition of the various fields. I don't see computer programmers in there and suspect that it's buried under engineering. And the donations of regular people are overwhelmed by donations from the highly liberal Silicon Valley firms. Academia matches my experience. The academics who can get a job in the real world tend to be conservative. Those who can't get a job in the real world tend to be liberal.
And 29 presidents served in the military.
I find it very frightening that people who produce things that keep us alive tend to be one way and people who don’t tend to be the other way and it’s those who don’t who just rigged an election and took power.
-
I find it very frightening that people who produce things that keep us alive tend to be one way and people who don’t tend to be the other way and it’s those who don’t who just rigged an election and took power.
Liberals know how to vote.
They RARELY know how to lead, produce, or give anything of value to society.
I volunteer at homeless shelters and soup kitchens and almost never meet a liberal working alongside those of us do the work.
They often have big mouths and small hearts.
-
Liberals know how to vote.
They RARELY know how to lead, produce, or give anything of value to society.
I volunteer at homeless shelters and soup kitchens and almost never meet a liberal working alongside those of us do the work.
They often have big mouths and small hearts.
They know how to fill in a ballot how their masters tell them to. Real voting is using your brain to understand the people running for office and what the consequences are if they are elected.
-
They know how to fill in a ballot how their masters tell them to. Real voting is using your brain to understand the people running for office and what the consequences are if they are elected.
Also the consequences of the Far Left, FEEL GOOD policy they enact which is always destructive,
-
Never could figure out the political undertones of gastrulation or placental development, but I bet you guys could.
-
Never could figure out the political undertones of gastrulation or placental development, but I bet you guys could.
You can't even figure out the subject you supposedly teach.
Here's a direct quote from one of your students:
AVOID. The molgen department at OSU is terrible in general so don't take the class if you don't have to. Exams are entirely from some random test bank online, often times not at all what you learn in class. Not that it matters. (redacted) is terribly unclear, even admitted to us he didn't know the last module well. Rude to students too. Again, avoid
-
Never could figure out the political undertones of gastrulation or placental development, but I bet you guys could.
I can. The five personality traits tend to align with political beliefs and are at least partially heritable:
Genetically informative research, including twin studies, suggest that heritability and environmental factors both influence all five factors to the same degree.[81] Among four recent twin studies, the mean percentage for heritability was calculated for each personality and it was concluded that heritability influenced the five factors broadly. The self-report measures were as follows: openness to experience was estimated to have a 57% genetic influence, extraversion 54%, conscientiousness 49%, neuroticism 48%, and agreeableness 42%.[82]
The Big Five Personality Model also has applications in the study of political psychology. Studies have been finding links between the big five personality traits and political identification. It has been found by several studies that individuals who score high in Conscientiousness are more likely to possess a right-wing political identification.[195][196][197] On the opposite end of the spectrum, a strong correlation was identified between high scores in Openness to Experience and a left-leaning ideology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits
I guess that explains me, I'm high in both conscientiousness and openness to experience, hence right on some things, left on others.
-
Never could figure out the political undertones of gastrulation or placental development, but I bet you guys could.
Clever. Use the earliest question of life to justify the the inter uterine destruction of a fully formed human being anywhere from the size of my iPhone to a baby 1 second away from birth, and in some quarters like Illinois and Virginia, after the live birth.
Liberalism is a death cult.
-
Clever. Use the earliest question of life to justify the the inter uterine destruction of a fully formed human being anywhere from the size of my iPhone to a baby 1 second away from birth, and in some quarters like Illinois and Virginia, after the live birth.
Liberalism is a death cult.
Actually neither are the "earliest question of life". I think the earliest question is fertilization, which I don't teach. Can't teach everything. That said, fertilization is really nothing more than a bunch of spring loaded chemical reactions. It can be easily reproduced with an ionophore or a pin prick. To me the earliest question of life is when the embryo starts doing things on its own, i.e. the mid blastula transition, when the embryo starts expressing its own genes. In humans that's pretty early, about a week after conception before implantation. Gastrulation does start until a week after that.
To show you rubes just how profoundly ignorant you truly are, you should know that the vast majority of human pregnancies are aborted spontaneously at or after this stage. For reasons I will never understand a lot of our gametes are aneuploid. That is, they have the wrong number of genes. Doesn't occur in any other mammal. Most aneuploidies arrest prior to implantation, just after the mid blastula transition. Hence your big guy upstairs flushes the vast majority of human embryos. How's that for a kicker!
-
You can't even figure out the subject you supposedly teach.
Here's a direct quote from one of your students:
Something that Lucifer will never understand in his whole life is when you do something that affects a lot of people some of them aren't going to like it. Just how it is, can't please everyone. And these days if someone doesn't like something they're going to post it on the internet on a site like what Lucifer found. Of course, to Lucifer that means that whatever that student posted must be the one and only truth, since it agrees with his preconceived notions.
-
Something that Lucifer will never understand in his whole life is when you do something that affects a lot of people some of them aren't going to like it. Just how it is, can't please everyone. And these days if someone doesn't like something they're going to post it on the internet on a site like what Lucifer found. Of course, to Lucifer that means that whatever that student posted must be the one and only truth, since it agrees with his preconceived notions.
Little defensive there aren't we Mikey? Lol.
-
Something that Lucifer will never understand in his whole life is when you do something that affects a lot of people some of them aren't going to like it. Just how it is, can't please everyone. And these days if someone doesn't like something they're going to post it on the internet on a site like what Lucifer found. Of course, to Lucifer that means that whatever that student posted must be the one and only truth, since it agrees with his preconceived notions.
That post, and the many, many more that confirm that proves what you have demonstrated over and over.
You are nothing more than an activist with a diploma masquerading as a teacher.
Can't teach everything.
You couldn't teach someone to pour water out of a bucket even if the instructions were written on the bottom.
-
Actually neither are the "earliest question of life". I think the earliest question is fertilization, which I don't teach. Can't teach everything. That said, fertilization is really nothing more than a bunch of spring loaded chemical reactions. It can be easily reproduced with an ionophore or a pin prick. To me the earliest question of life is when the embryo starts doing things on its own, i.e. the mid blastula transition, when the embryo starts expressing its own genes. In humans that's pretty early, about a week after conception before implantation. Gastrulation does start until a week after that.
To show you rubes just how profoundly ignorant you truly are, you should know that the vast majority of human pregnancies are aborted spontaneously at or after this stage. For reasons I will never understand a lot of our gametes are aneuploid. That is, they have the wrong number of gametes. Doesn't occur in any other mammal. Most aneuploidies arrest prior to implantation, just after the mid blastula transition. Hence your big guy upstairs flushes the vast majority of human embryos. How's that for a kicker!
Honest mikey.... You don't HAVE to continue to try and prove how deeply ignorant and stupid you are.
We already know and ignore the vast majority of your lying, plagiarism, drunken rants and overall idiocy.
-
hmmmm, none so blind...
I wonder if the target of this comment will figure it out...
-
Actually neither are the "earliest question of life". I think the earliest question is fertilization, which I don't teach. Can't teach everything. That said, fertilization is really nothing more than a bunch of spring loaded chemical reactions. It can be easily reproduced with an ionophore or a pin prick. To me the earliest question of life is when the embryo starts doing things on its own, i.e. the mid blastula transition, when the embryo starts expressing its own genes. In humans that's pretty early, about a week after conception before implantation. Gastrulation does start until a week after that.
To show you rubes just how profoundly ignorant you truly are, you should know that the vast majority of human pregnancies are aborted spontaneously at or after this stage. For reasons I will never understand a lot of our gametes are aneuploid. That is, they have the wrong number of gametes. Doesn't occur in any other mammal. Most aneuploidies arrest prior to implantation, just after the mid blastula transition. Hence your big guy upstairs flushes the vast majority of human embryos. How's that for a kicker!
This is correct as far as my memory can tell, I used to be a childbirth educator so know a lot about pregnancy and development.
You are right that fertilization is just a bunch of chemical reactions. On the other hand, every thought and feeling we have are nothing but chemical and electrical reactions inside our brains. We really don’t know exactly what is “life” and if it goes beyond those reactions. We think there is no consciousness before there’s a CNS, but we aren’t entirely completely sure a tree has no conscious awareness.
I’ve always gone by, if it’s got a complete set of human DNA, and it’s not dead, then it’s a living human. By that definition life begins at conception. Yet what you say is true, conception is just molecules bumping into each other and entwining. When the embryo starts expressing its own genes is a reasonable starting point, of a new life. For almost all practical purposes that makes no difference unless you’re talking about the morning after pill.
It is a fact that many, many pregnancies are spontaneously aborted, with the woman believing she just had a late, unusually heavy period. But God killing all those babies doesn’t necessarily mean we should.
-
To show you rubes just how profoundly ignorant you truly are, you should know that the vast majority of human pregnancies are aborted spontaneously at or after this stage. ...
you think that isn't common knowledge?
-
hmmmm, none so blind...
I wonder if the target of this comment will figure it out...
Snowkflake.
-
you think that isn't common knowledge?
Actually, no I don't. Lots of folks claiming that conception is some sort of holy thing. I think it would fry their fritters to know that Odin aborts more babies than we ever have or ever will.
-
Actually, no I don't. Lots of folks claiming that conception is some sort of holy thing. I think it would fry their fritters to know that Odin aborts more babies than we ever have or ever will.
Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler did. That makes what Hitler did OK?
-
Actually, no I don't. Lots of folks claiming that conception is some sort of holy thing. I think it would fry their fritters to know that Odin aborts more babies than we ever have or ever will.
It's too bad your vast intellect can't grasp how God and science can co-exist
-
Honest mikey.... You don't HAVE to continue to try and prove how deeply ignorant and stupid you are.
We already know and ignore the vast majority of your lying, plagiarism, drunken rants and overall idiocy.
Feel free to tell us what exactly I've gotten wrong about early human embryology. I'll wait.
-
Stalin killed more Jews than Hitler did. That makes what Hitler did OK?
They were fairly different things, if my history (of which I am no master) is correct. Stalin kills lots of people period, both by moving them to inhospitable nether regions of the country and by purges of those he thought were his political enemies. I am not aware of his seeking out the death of Jews in particular, though I have little doubt that he was very anti Semitic. Most Russians, indeed most Europeans back then were. So were lots of Americans.
Hitler on the other hand specifically targeted Jews. Yes, his government murdered many. Many were political enemies, many were "undesirables", like the cognitively challenged. But they went after Jews specifically and with a vengeance.
Here's the difference. Both Stalin and Hitler were wrong in killing large numbers of Jews. Jehovah kills way more babies, always has. That's the originator of right and wrong, and he/she/it/Melvin kills babies, lots of them. Last I checked we humans were supposed to be made in his/her/its/Melvin's image.
-
They were fairly different things, if my history (of which I am no master) is correct. Stalin kills lots of people period, both by moving them to inhospitable nether regions of the country and by purges of those he thought were his political enemies. I am not aware of his seeking out the death of Jews in particular, though I have little doubt that he was very anti Semitic. Most Russians, indeed most Europeans back then were. So were lots of Americans.
Hitler on the other hadn't specifically targeted Jews. Yes, his government murdered many. Many were political enemies, many were "undesirables", like the cognitively challenged. But they went after Jews specifically and with a vengeance.
Here's the difference. Both Stalin and Hitler were wrong in killing large numbers of Jews. Jehovah kills way more babies, always has. That's the originator of right and wrong, and he/she/it/Melvin kills babies, lots of them. Last I checked we humans were supposed to be made in his/her/its/Melvin's image.
Your nonsense only shows how deeply delusional you are about almost everything.
-
Your nonsense only shows how deeply delusional you are about almost everything.
How so? Or do you just post stuff from a random insult generator?
-
How so? Or do you just post stuff from a random insult generator?
Read slowly, fuck-nozzle.
Your asinine comparison would justify randomly killing progressives since so many will die someday of old age. But you are far too shallow, stupid, blind and obedient to the communist thought police to see thru your own bullshit.
-
Read slowly, fuck-nozzle.
Your asinine comparison would justify randomly killing progressives since so many will die someday of old age. But you are far too shallow, stupid, blind and obedient to the communist thought police to see thru your own bullshit.
Random insult generator. Got it.
-
Random insult generator. Got it.
Must be, “fuck-nozzle” is a new one on me, LOL! You guys are making me laugh but I do wish there’d be more intelligent debate and less insults but I don’t feel like I can say so because this forum is an unmoderated free for all and I wouldn’t have it any other way, so, carry on.
-
Must be, “fuck-nozzle” is a new one on me, LOL! You guys are making me laugh but I do wish there’d be more intelligent debate and less insults but I don’t feel like I can say so because this forum is an unmoderated free for all and I wouldn’t have it any other way, so, carry on.
Yes, a couple of times here lately, Steingar has called all of us “rubes.” Blanket labels and dismissals like that, from whomever they come, greatly lower the person’s legitimacy to me.
-
... but I do wish there’d be more intelligent debate and less insults but I don’t feel like I can say so because this forum is an unmoderated free for all and I wouldn’t have it any other way, so, carry on.
You absolutely can say so. It is, as you said, an unmoderated forum.
-
Random insult generator. Got it.
Stupid fails to describe your lack of depth, intelligence and mental activity.
Do you ever thing, or just repeat what you're told to think?
-
Stupid fails to describe your lack of depth, intelligence and mental activity.
Do you ever thing, or just repeat what you're told to think?
While history is replete with stupidity, yours surpasses all in your unceasing fatuity. It as if all the stupidity to occur from the dawn of man to today all coalesced into being and made you. There was so much idiocy that you were virgin borne, human sperm has intelligence alleles that could never penetrate the shield of pure stupidtonium weaved around you by the pure stupid of your creation. The Universe seeks balance, so for every genius there must be a rube, and all that foolishness coalesced into you. You are the Idiot Jesus, squirted into the world by unthinking insensibility, determined beyond measure to spread your moronic ministry to anyone sufficiently inane to listen. Your idiocy surpasses any in the cosmos, even God trembles before your all-enveloping feeble-mindedness.
-
and now comes the scavenger hunt to find where ol' POS copied that from...
-
You'll have to forgive him. He drives a Mooney.
-
The drunken fool is plagiarizing again.
-
and now comes the scavenger hunt to find where ol' POS copied that from...
Exactly. I had a twinge of thinking “that should be easy to find” which was quickly overcome by “I don’t give a shit.”
But you’re right, that rant is not original thought.
-
Exactly. I had a twinge of thinking “that should be easy to find” which was quickly overcome by “I don’t give a shit.”
But you’re right, that rant is not original thought.
yup - I had a similar thought wrt my level of interest in finding the source.
-
The drunken fool is plagiarizing again.
And this idiot fool is lying again.
-
Precisely. If I want to know about Cro-Magnon man in Europe, I’ll go to Wikipedia and presume it’s fairly accurate for my purpose. Not so when it comes to politics or, as I’ve learned, history.
I do agree with this.
But back in March 2005 (I remember the month/year because I was listening to the radio while we were packing to move into our new bigger clinic), I heard a guy from Encyclopedia Britannica on PBS (I think). They were interviewing him about the history and future of Encyclopedia Britannica and it's competition. He said Britannica would always be around but Wikipedia wouldn't last 5 years.
Has anyone seen an Encyclopedia Britannica lately? (Yeah, I know; that doesn't mean Wiki is better. I just thought it was interesting).
-
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1377264728368631811/pu/vid/320x568/kQ67W68baFCRwCqx.mp4?tag=12
-
I do agree with this.
But back in March 2005 (I remember the month/year because I was listening to the radio while we were packing to move into our new bigger clinic), I heard a guy from Encyclopedia Britannica on PBS (I think). They were interviewing him about the history and future of Encyclopedia Britannica and it's competition. He said Britannica would always be around but Wikipedia wouldn't last 5 years.
Has anyone seen an Encyclopedia Britannica lately? (Yeah, I know; that doesn't mean Wiki is better. I just thought it was interesting).
Digital is here to stay as long as we have electricity. I still wish I’d bought that “just a fad” thing... Bitcoin when it first came out.
-
https://video.twimg.com/ext_tw_video/1377264728368631811/pu/vid/320x568/kQ67W68baFCRwCqx.mp4?tag=12
Excellent.
-
(https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/070/187/384/original/657f072af3bed298.jpeg)
-
And this idiot fool is lying again.
If you were any dumber the house plant in the corner would be your intellectual equal.
-
If you were any dumber the house plant in the corner would be your intellectual equal.
I don't think that is right.
How many stupid things has that house plant in the corner said or posted lately?
Why do you hate house plants?
-
I don't think that is right.
How many stupid things has that house plant in the corner said or posted lately?
Why do you hate house plants?
You're right.
It was very prejudiced of me to malign house plants by comparing their benign lifestyle to the utter delusional, bullshit of steingar.