zapatos

It would have been easier to just say "No, I am not going to provide a citation." I really don't need a lecture about my nefarious motivations or the lack of quality in my questions. I simply asked a question about a claim you made that seemed like it could benefit from some supporting documentation. Very simple. This is a science site after all. If you won't deign to answer my question until I pass a worthiness test from you, I'll just move on. i'm not in the mood to take any crap from you.

In the US you don't need any 'right' to buy a house.

No, I'm afraid not.

Okay. So can you please provide a citation that states E coli and similar species have feelings or desires (seems a better word than 'wants')? I don't think it is reasonable to say a magnet 'wants' to attract a paper clip. That seems a personification of magnets.

Can you please provide a citation that states E coli and similar species have emotions?

An example of what?

Complete opposite. Law is a limit on anarchy. I have no idea what that means. A right defines something you can do, it is not something that limits you. Freedom of religion is not a 'limit'. It doesn't say you can only practice 'certain' religions.

Those are not rights in the US. Those are examples of laws that reflect societal values, and are an acknowledgment of the potential for conflict and a desire to limit that conflict.

🤣

Hate to ruin all the fun you are having making fun of DEI, but the purpose of the mission is not to 'put a woman on the mood because it's never been done before'. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good lie.

I am having a hard time finding your quote in the Wikipedia link you provided. Is it me or your link?

Yes, but I saw no footnote saying 'except for those animals in the water or air or whatever would be kind of silly'. Although I guess it is just possible that we were not meant to take the story literally.

In all the photographs I've seen of Noah loading the ark, I don't ever remember seeing them loading aquariums, fish, whales, etc.

I liked it better when it was in a language I could not read.

https://fhafnb.com/blog/cultured-milk/

Can you please post this dangerous agenda you refer to? I'm interested in reading it and knowing who developed it.

First, if there are MRIs and EEGs, aren't doctors already involved? Second, is it reasonable to have a medical diagnosis without doctors being involved?

"Number" is a word. A noun specifically.

You completely dodged the question. That's a very dishonest way to debate.

I find that people often get confused about time because they think time is some deep, complex, mystical thing. It's not. It's a measurement. When we look around we feel the need to measure things. How big is that flatscreen tv and will it fit in my living room? How bright should the lightbulb be that I put in my bedroom? How long does it take to drive to the grocery store? How hot is it outside today? What current do I need to install so that I can run my new electric stove? They are just measurements we use to describe our world. As @swansont pointed out, time is simply another measurement, just like length is a measurement. Try not to make it more complex than it needs to be. If you are not confused by temperature, you shouldn't be confused by time either.

I mean, as I said, that meat tastes great to many people, despite your claim that "It doesn't, actually." Pretending that you've proven your point by saying 'meat needs to be cooked first' is a bit ridiculous. That is similar to responding to a claim that one can travel to a friend's house by car by saying "You can't, actually. A car needs to have petrol added first to run", expecting us to believe that you've proven a car cannot transport you anywhere.

You mean it's no longer meat when cooked and seasoned?

Making assumptions about why someone uses the DV is prone to error. I mean, how do you know what someone is thinking when they push that button? Some surly rabbit may have objected to Peterkin's very first sentence where he told LuckyR without any qualification whatsoever that they were wrong about what they liked. It turns out that something tasting good is not an individual preference but a universal constant. LuckyR has just learned his whole life was a fraud because while he THOUGHT meat tasted good, Peterkin just informed him that in reality, meat does NOT taste good. How is LuckyR to deal with that? He's going to have to reexamine all his likes and dislikes. Does he actually hate ice cream? Was kale really a tasty snack all along? And what about the rest of us? Was I mistaken when I thought smoked chicken wings were a gift from god? Did I waste my money when on my wedding anniversary I ordered a filet mignon? Oh, the humanity...

Mine too. And my chickens.

That may be what you meant, but again, your language is saying something else. Since one cannot distinguish between what you say and what you mean your arguments don't offer much of value.