Leaderboard

Sexual harassment is against the law. Sexual assault is a crime. So let's dispense with the fiction that unlawful behavior is not in play here. We've talked to our daughters for generations. Maybe we should be talking to our sons, since they are the ones exhibiting the objectionable behavior. Women get talked to about how to avoid putting themselves in vulnerable situations, but men do not get the same institutional dialogue on not assaulting or harassing women. You are painting this with a very broad brush. Have you considered that women who seek out power (in your terms) are not the ones coming forth with harassment claims? Have you considered that the reason some women might go to some lengths to improve their appearance is because that's the only way they can advance with men in power? Because they have no power to do so on merit alone? Do you really think men kept their hands to themselves back when "women wore hats"? Far more many women have been assaulted and/or harassed. The straw man here is couching this as "playing the victim" which implies that there was no inappropriate behavior in the first place. Anyone who has been harassed or assaulted is not "playing the victim". The situations under discussion are not treated the same way as most other crimes. If someone is burgled, the reaction of bystanders is not "Why do you own such fancy stuff? You were asking for it to be taken!" The police generally do not dissuade you from trying to press charges. People don't rush to the defense of the burglar, saying how he's such a nice guy, and why are you trying to ruin his reputation? So this is not so simple as "innocent until proven guilty" and should not be cast as such.

No his and our and the DNC's actions speak louder than the words. Its never a bad time to do the right thing. Well I hope so it resonates highly with me and I doubt I am alone in this. However me and many others see the DNC as corrupt and it will take a lot more than this to change that perception. Also the DNC did drag their feet early on and it does look as if their decisions were guided more by public opinion and less by internal virtue. Forcing these resignations is a good first step. But it will take many of these steps for me to see them as reformed. BTW the GOP needs to do the same thing.

Obviously, we won't believe unsupported, assertive garbage. Don't act lik the victim here. Poor you, people are asking for evidence for a scientific claim. You are basically being bullied here. And then you go on to cite your own unproven ''data'' as evidence to prove your own ''data'' in some weird paradox. This is getting ridiculous.

Evolution/Abiogenesis isn't about it happening by chance or accident. What doesn't reproduce or replicate dies out. You end up something that is really really good at it. You can obviously duplicate the spaghetti code the process spat out. Why nobody really finds it ironic here. I'll find it cooler once they do it from scratch, but we're getting there. There are issues with making a genome smaller(JCVI-syn3.0). Additional length provides a degree of redundancy and a repository for the future evolution. Main issue with the 'designer idea" is that there are many cases where things could be better done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design#Fatal_flaws You could make a point that the bad design is deliberate or stems from ineptitude, but that doesn't exactly inspire me to worship this being.

If there's a mistake in your reasoning, it's probably here. I know there are many compounds found in fruit that aren't easy to get in vegetables, like lycopene and hesperidin, and I'm sure it goes the same way in reverse. Biologically, fruits and vegetables are completely different parts of the plant. I think it's a mistake to suggest they're the same except for the sugar content.

Couple of recent interesting articles related to this: https://www.quantamagazine.org/how-bacteria-help-regulate-blood-pressure-20171130/ https://www.quantamagazine.org/what-bacteria-can-tell-us-about-human-evolution-20171205/

No. waitforufo trolls from the fringe. He got the boot for it, no guts to defend it. Quit with the outright lies, already. I stand in the middle and I see right through your obsession to paint me as though I'm not. Besides that to invoke your self proclaimed authority, WTF does that have to do with Al Franken? Pfft.

Good medical ethics has no frontiers. Besides, cancer can be caused by ones actions/inaction/excess. Is the smoker, cirrhotic alcoholic or obese person totally blameless if they get cancer? Having a sex life can get you papilloma virus and cause cancer...are you to blame? it is not productive to have a judgemental agenda like yours.

It's the whole narrative thing. A conservative troll writes the OP to give the impression liberals need to sweep the floor and clean house. Then MigL jumps in and tell us what broom to use and what stokes to take. Meanwhile the conservative house is caked in shit and no one lifts a finger.

Well... it was predictably posted in the political section of this forum, by a hyper-partisan contributor who earned a little holiday right around that time. Republican or Democrat has everything to do with OP and their agenda. It has everything to do with practicing what is preached (or the pervasive lack of same) I agree wholeheartedly, you are correct in the sense it shouldn't be about politics, do you need a notarized letter from my lawyer or a biplane to tow it across the sky of your town? Yet made it about politics nonetheless. This after telling me I can't raise political parties in a political thread about a politician on a board you don't moderate.Does that seem a little authoritarian in your view? Okay some rules, your rules. With that, I have to ask the authoritarian thingy question, again.

It is very convenient for you not to consider any IQ test as valid since it will never invalidate your theory by default. When your ''theory'' gets compared to a real test statistic and fails, you can just say that those tests aren't accurate. It frustrates me how illogical you're making this. out to be. You refuse to compare your (worthless) results with real data and instead choose to cite your own ''theories'' as evidence. Do you understand how dumb this is? You made up a theory (unfounded in anything) that people born on certain dates must have some arbitrary IQ. Then you go on to place people's IQs based on your completely unfounded wild guess as if it were proven. First you need evidence for such a claim, not your keen observations made on half a dozen people. It's like if I made a claim that all Russian people are geniuses, then when someone asked me ''how do you know this Russian person is genius'', I said ''well, because he is Russian and therefore genius according to my theory.'' This is exactly what you're doing. I'm surprised how you don't understand why people aren't taking you seriously. Well, yes, but it depends on how exactly you define intelligence. You could be completely right or completely wrong.

That’s a... how do I put this charitably?... an “uncommon” position. Happy to agree with you on the nutter comment, but find your suggestion of Trump being a religious man to be misguided, at best. Seems painfully obvious to me he’s simply stoking tribalism and using religion to magnify social wedges while in parallel conning and hoodwinking the theists in his base, but YMMV. Again, we agree here.

Kevin Myers (born 30 March 1947) is an Irish journalist and writer. He writes for the Irish edition of the Sunday Times, having previously been a columnist for the Irish Independent and a former contributor to The Irish Times, where he wrote the "An Irishman's Diary" opinion column several times weekly. Until 2005, he wrote for the UK Sunday Telegraph. His articles criticise left-wing opinion and the "liberal consensus", sometimes incorporating hyperbole, sarcasm and parody. This essay appeared in The Irish Independent: Somalia is not a humanitarian disaster; it is an evolutionary disaster. The current drought is not the worst in 50 years, as the BBC and all the aid organisations claim. It is nothing compared to the droughts in 1960/61 or 73/74. And there are continuing droughts every 5 years or so. It's just that there are now four times the population; having been kept alive by famine relief, supplied by aid organisations, over the past 50 years. So, of course, the effects of any drought now, is a famine. They cannot even feed themselves in a normal rainfall year. ... Does any one have an opinion on this article they would like to share or discuss??? It is a controversial view that I had not come across before.

The resources of the middle east belong to the middle east to do with as they see fit. What if in view of Trump upsetting the Palestinians the whole of the oil producing countries in the middle east, decide not to sell as much oil? Who would that benefit ? Which other countries have oil that they can sell on the world market ? Who on this planet might benefit financially from causing a restriction in oil supply globally? My ancestors whilst trying to be decent human beings doing what they could to survive, rarely got rich, and had little to do with political decision making. Palestine has no natural resource I am aware off which has been stolen to improve the wealth of myself or any of my ancestors. I also suspect you would be hard pressed to find any increase in wealth globally because of the problems caused in Palestine by international interference, unless of course you are involved in selling weapons, which I doubt. Ps the thread is about trump and palestine not me

My post was regarding heroin as a painkiller, CharonY. And there are numerous studies as to its effectiveness. I really don't think its legal anywhere that I know of. Correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think I'm being judgemental at all Stringy. You could live the healthiest life and make all the right choices but still eventually die of cancer. It is a built in genetic failure mechanism. Eventually your cells stop reproducing perfectly and anomalies develop in their reproduction; these anomalies or abnormal cells are, by definition, cancer. Malignant ones reproduce quickly and spread. The addict on the other hand, is all about choice. And if you re-read, I don't wish to deny the addicts either. I just want cancer sufferers taken care of too ( or better yet, first )