jackattack

I actually know plenty of christians that don't eat pork at all, conservative as they may be, it doesn't seem like that rare of a phenomenon. Not all christians have a slice of bacon & eggs at breakfast while sipping coffee and reading New York Times. But the point stands, average christians don't usually adhere to anything in the Old Testament or even belittle it, so why pick pieces of it that suit their targets of hatred such as gays? Average Christians don't hate gays.

It shows that gun control isn't what makes the difference it's the area. It's not all blacks just inner city blacks. That's were crime and murder are concentrated. It's the area not the laws. Gun control in D.C. hasn't really helped while right to carry laws in many states have brought crime down. This isn't a Clint Eastwood movie. Nobody really wears a gun on their hip. People will only know if you run around screaming "HEY EVERYONE I'VE GOT A GUN!".

They printed a correction in Science about the search terms. You need some kind of login to get on the ISI. It was Benny Peiser who analyzed it. http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/Scienceletter.htm I still am not sure that I get what your saying in the end. Is it that his conclusion should not mention the media? If that is what your saying he mentions it because that is what affects patients.

That is very true. I remember reading some article in the paper that most robberies committed in San Francisco are by people coming from East Oakland. If your talking CRIME rate than Europe is way higher than the U.S. The uk CRIME rate is more than double. The MURDER rate is lower. And it's not people who carry legal guns over here who commit murders. Look at the statistic I showed earlier. Where the state of Florida has only revoked a very tiny number of concealed carry permits. Our homicide rate has fallen to almost half what it was in the 1980's. Something like 40 states have passed right to carry laws since then. It's not a law abiding citizen who files for and gets a permit to carry who's the problem. He's likely never even going to draw his weapon let alone discharge it. It's criminals who don't bother to follow the laws. And anyways comparing countries is pointless. Theres are huge differences in between States. http://www.tinyvital.com/BlogArchives/000220.html

I don't know if all the fat old guys would make up for all the hot girls. Car Crashes?

The neutral papers don't disagree with the consensus. The just don't agree with it either. There were 25% that were neutral in Oreskes paper. Oreskes did lie about her method. In the original article in Science she said she typed the words 'Climate Change' into the ISI database. Typing that in yields something like 12,000 papers. She then said she typed in 'Global climate change'. That excludes 90% of papers. And she said she analyzed 928 abstracts when there were only 905. I wouldn't say that completely invalidates her work but it does raise some questions. What he was studying was if there was a basis in the media for the distress patients are feeling from agw alarmism.

That seems pretty normal except for going through your stuff. My parents are pretty chill but I remember getting like 50 questions every time I went out. :roll: But they did let me go out so I don't really have any complaints.

It's been unacceptable since long before the gun ban. The point I'm making is people should not feel they have a right to hold a weapon on them, especially in public, in order to feel safe. Guns included. How would it be unacceptable? Theres a reason it's called a concealed weapon. No one else would know. Anyway look at the states with right to carry laws. People aren't gunning each other down over minor disagreements like the gun control lobby said they would. In fact crime has gone down. It's more unacceptable to carry a firearm in Montana or North Dakota than in Chicago or D.C.

The attitude that carrying a weapon in public is entirely unacceptable has everything to do with levels of violent assaults. If the culture you live in strongly opposes the use or possession of weaponry, you are less likely to use one yourself as an adult if you are attached to that culture. It stands to reason. Conversely, if the very constitution you live under justifies the possession of a weapon as lethal as a handgun, you feel more justified and able to use one. I'm not saying the constitution justified the use of guns in an offensive way, but it does have a psychological effect, in that it seems to be less unacceptable to use a weapon. Thus, the rate of violent crime will be higher. I repeat the statistic from before in this thread of how homicide rates (not total numbers) are lower in England and Wales than the US. By lower, I'm talking a third of the US rate. Quite clearly, we are doing something right that you are not, and the whole 'self-defence' thing is proven to be flawed. But the U.K. is a less dangerous place than the U.S. with or without guns. The murder rate in the U.K. was already lower before the gun ban. Look at states in the U.S. Most rural states have a low murder rate, even if they have extremely lax gun laws. The states that enacted right to carry laws had less crime.

That has about nothing to do with anything. Over here if you have a problem with someone you use words too. It's not like people pull out guns over someone cutting in front of them in a line. Thats the same argument the gun control lobby used when states were considering right to carry laws. They said people would be gunning each other down over car accidents. That didn't happen. http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=18 The gun culture? No the problem is criminals. How can you say it's a need to seek vengeance? You seem to think everyone who keeps a gun for self protection would shoot someone in the back if they were walking away with their t.v. Those cases are few and far in between.

You don't have to type "THIS PAPER ENDORSES THE CONSENSUS" at the top of the paper to accept it. If the neutral papers accepted it they would have been in the implicit category. Whats more interesting than those neutral papers are the ones who disagree with the consensus. Schulte used the same method as Oreskes and I remember the first time we got into this you had no problem using her paper. Despite the fact that she lied about her method, she found no papers that disagreed. If that has gone from 0% to 6% that shows that the consensus position is shrinking. He's saying that there is no basis for what they say in scientific literature. He brings it in because that is what feeds the anxiety of patients.

Put that into context, for the love of sanity. In a country of 300,000,000, that really isn't high at all. There were around 8,000 murders using guns in 2005. Put that into context.

It doesn't say they deny that humans have an impact on the climate, just that they disagree with or don't endorse the consensus view. Thats a pretty major blow to the consensus claim. Even with a weak definition of what the consensus says. The most interesting thing is that only one of the studies mentions catastrophic climate change. This study was done with the same method as the one by Naomi Oreskes. Everyone seemed to love hers. No it hasn't. http://www.spacecenter.dk/publications/ ... 3.pdf/view And for the love of God please stop putting the same website over and over.

Not amongst scientists (see Myth 3: http://environment.newscientist.com/cha ... th/dn11462 ) Even oil companies accept it (hear the Chief Scientist at BP talking about how we need to quadruple energy efficiency: http://webcast.berkeley.edu/event_detai ... 1&ipp=1000 - the 90 minute talk contains a nice overview of the whole climate change area, based on numbers and from a source that many climate deniers will find acceptable, so I recommend it) In fact, the only debate seems to be amongst lay people. The podcast that I linked above contains some talk about why this might be the case. Basically, people can't see it happening, so they don't understand it. The real question is what can be done about climate change. Which is what this topic is about. I wouldn't say that. http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Th ... le8641.htm

True, in Germany he canceled his visit with injured troops. Romney is infinitely smarter than Joe Biden. On anything except foreign relations he would beat Biden on in a debate, and only because thats Biden's committee. Think about where that puts you. Not only does Dennis Kucinich look like some kind of woodland creature, but has a 20 year old sex slave, and has probably one of the top 20 most annoying voices I've ever heard. edit:took out the brother thing. Kind of a cheap shot.

Barack Obama world tour '08. Sold out crowds in Germany but not injured troops. And Joe Biden would not beat Romney in a debate. Romney was probably the smartest out of all candidates. Except for maybe...[hide=][/hide]

^^ Hitting a lion in the face=not smart

Actually there are other animals who would survive better then cockroaches. Meet the waterbear. It can live in suspended animation for like 200 years, survive extreme cold, heat, and radiation, even the vacuum of space. [hide=][/hide]

Library?

^^ I guess your right, it is a little deeper than just the blood. Still pretty unappealing though.

The both of you exemplify exactly what I disagree with. You're both preoccupied on the blood and the emotional reaction from it. Yes, she is using it for attention and it's obviously working, but people here have almost zero ability to segregate the art from the fluid until you confront them on it. I did the complete opposite to most people here - I judged the art on what it looks like aesthetically, not what it's made of. Even considering that it's made of menstrual blood, I don't care and obviously have no where near the reaction of some people to it. It's blood from the wall of a uterus. Who can tell me why that matters other than appealing to emotion or the fact that it's unique? I hate this nonsense reaction that something is yucky therefore Ill completely focus on that and not the actual subject. The point of this isn't what it looks like, its the blood.

It is disgusting. The reason most people think of the blood is because thats the point of the whole painting. Without the blood its just another of a million paintings. I'm not big on art and the painting doesn't look that bad to me, but the paintings not the point, the blood is.

The police can go out with guns (they don't usually) over here. They do in France as well. I've no problems with a policeman having a gun - they are enforcing the law. Your average citizen, even with training, is not going to use a gun responsibly How can you say that an average citizen wouldn't use a gun responsibly? There are something like 70 million gun owners in America. The huge majority of them are responsible.

I forget what it's called but where some people who can legally buy a gun either buys a gun for someone who can't, or buys a lot of guns. Of the small number of guns that are bought legally and used in a crime some huge number all come from a small number of gun stores where people do that.

I think that the one handgun a month law is a good one though. Not a limit on how many you can have but how many you can buy.