too-open-minded

Shoulda just checked the snopes http://www.snopes.com/photos/supernatural/strangesounds.asp

I haven't been able to find anything on this recently, nor have I heard the noise. Anybody care to discuss this and looking back at it did we have more geological activity? I hadn't heard about it until just now. http://www.sott.net/article/240863-Strange-Sounds-in-Sky-Explained-by-Scientists

I don't agree with people blaming everything that happened to their kids on vaccines, but if it's within a day after it should raise a red flag. Just because I can't prove it, doesn't mean I'm not entitled to raise the argument. You say it's unlikely because the statistics say so, thus it's not true or connected. Yes the statistical data says that, I've yet to see the studies done to attain statistical data, which is what I requested. Tell me, which death rate exactly are you referring to? Other than whooping cough for infants, I'm not sure of what you could be referring to? CDC website, oh you mean this? - http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm "Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million doses) Several other severe problems have been reported after DTaP vaccine. These include: Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness Permanent brain damage. These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine." Part of the problem our few but substantial amount of friends are having with this, is the refusal of anybody to look into it. I dismiss anything that doesn't happen to a child directly after getting their shots. So all I'm saying is the data yielded may not be sufficient enough to encompass everyone.

Here's some things that has really bothered me, besides the immature name calling. Accusing me of using a straw man argument. I have in no way, built up an argument that you might agree with that's not regarding to current topic and then attempt to defeat that argument. Or accusing me of any other such arguments, as circular reasoning, cause for cause, or B happened after A so A must cause B. Here is a picture book in case you're confused - https://bookofbadarguments.com/?view=allpages Now listen, please just read this and think. A majority of vaccine injury cases are entirely bullshit and there is no correlation. However when something goes wrong in a 12 or 24 hour period after the vaccine was injected, it's not a crazy notion. Unless the parents we've talked to are making it up, I believe it was the vaccines. I'm willing to bet that it is very unlikely yet somewhat more likely than currently made out to be. I'm sure that the vaccine reactions are related to immunodiciencies or other health issues. I also understand the importance of vaccines, not only does it lower the chances of someone contracting a disease. It also eliminates the breeding grounds for the virus, viruses mutate fairly fast. Which is scary when you know it's breeding at a phenomenal rate. It's the scarier part to me than a single person contracting the virus itself. This is a matter of public safety. From an unbiased standpoint, most of these viruses will not be lethal if there are no other underlying health issues such as immune system hazards like HIV. Which is arguably why you see the really high death rates. Sanitation did not eliminate the presence of viruses, vaccines did. I hate that argument. Just wanted to clarify those things and my stance on the topic. I have a question, maybe someone here can help. I've seen the statistics about how unlikely an injury is. Yet I can't find the studies that yields these statistics? I have a statement. We are going to continue to vaccinate our son. We are going to test for immunodeficiencies before we continue with his vaccinations and delay some of them until he's a little older. Like I said we are going to vaccinate. Not with the help of any of you, the belittling, name calling, and bashing actually pushed me away from pro-vax side of the argument. Please, if you ever wish to communicate with anyone in the future refrain from doing that.

If you wanna talk statistics, I know my son is more likely to get measles, mumps, other viruses if he isn't vaccinated. I'm not saying "Hey everybody, don't vaccinate because it's bad." In my opinion it's a pick your poison kind of deal. I'm not the one living in fallacy, bad reactions to vaccines are very real and they do happen. You're all hypocrites if you say otherwise. http://www.immunizationinfo.org/science/measles-mumps-vaccination-and-hearing-loss http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9521728/Rogue-strain-of-MMR-vaccine-caused-deafness.html I've personally spoken to someone who has a child who went deaf likely within a 24 hour period, they can't say for sure 24 hours however it was noticed within 2 days after. Not that easy to notice if a 12 month old is deaf or not. http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2011/06/01/vaccines-and-brain-inflammation/ I've spoken to someone who's baby had seizures and started foaming at the mouth and needed to be resuscitated. 12 hours after receiving the vaccine. Had she not co-slept her baby likely would have died. She tried suing and they said it's not provably related. Look I know vaccines do good things. However I'm not some delusional idiot who is paranoid that there's a conspiracy to kill my kids with vaccines either. Vaccines can do bad things, they have, and I will not inject something into my sons bloodstream and risk an injury from that. He's been vaccinated for whooping cough, hep B, Dtap, and rotavirus. He received all his 6 month vaccines because I pushed the argument. Nothing bad happened, he's fine and very smart. Grayson loves playing with my computer, pressing the buttons, and bringup up pages. He will not receive his 9 month vaccines however, my stand on the subject has changed and for reason. WHETHER YOU WANT TO ADMIT IT OR NOT, VACCINES DO AND HAVE CAUSED INJURY. JUST LIKE THE VIRUSES THEIR DESIGNED TO ELIMINATE.

Well I guess everything one of my favorite teachers in highschool told me was wrong. He gave a big presentation on Jobs after his death and then showed us his speech to a graduating class at Harvard. Jobs creating the company is what I meant, reckon I was wrong though.

I have no reason to lie about the parents we personally know. My soon to be wife is an intactivist and lactivist who has her own local mothers group and part of other moms groups. The people she has personally met and told us their stories is pretty compelling. I stood with a pro-vax standpoint but after talking to them, I've changed my mind. Call me ignorant or even delusional believing in fallacy. The small amount of parents I've talked to who had horrible outcomes after vaccinating is enough to sway me not to. I guess I'm done here, not much more to say unless ya'll have more belittling comments to make.

You're taking the death statistics out of context. Here in America where children aren't malnourished or don't have bad immune systems to things such as HIV. I've looked at the death statistics for measles and mumps here in America, have you? We have personally talked to parents who vaccinated their children and had horrible reactions. There is a reason that on the main page of the CDC, center for disease control's website. Their main page has a link to handle legal matters involving vaccine related issues, which millions of dollars are given to families each year. We are not putting my sons health in danger by not vaccinating him. However the population and his future health maybe. Him not being vaccinating increases the breeding grounds for the virus and thus increases it's chances to mutate and become worse. However we're going to homeschool him and if he want's to vaccinate when he is older, he can. Seriously you guys have been very rude to me about this subject, I don't claim to know everything. However you're not even hearing out my side of the argument and automatically label me selfish, ignorant, sad from your perspective, etc. Vaccines have gotten better but that doesn't mean they still don't cause problems - http://www.nvic.org/nvic-vaccine-news/may-2011/in-memoriam--infant-deaths---vaccination.aspx http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6236a2.htm That's just one week, first link I found and can't find others? Maybe I'm not looking hard enough but from what I understand the mortality rate is very very low here. On a risk basis no good reason not to vaccinate? We personally know parents who's children have gone deaf, blind, encephalopathy, even shown signs of regressing in their milestones after receiving their vaccines, and death.

Specifically, I'm not really sure. The best I can come up with is establish trade between goods for them to produce and a consumer population for them to buy. Compare Einstein to Jobs, I don't think it's that off of a comment to make. Steve Jobs had so much to do with computer software we use today, it's not even funny. Steve Jobs invented the mouse, the whole concept of being able to have a free cursor to move around with. Steve Jobs invented Pixar and had alot to do with the development of 3d graphics. Steve Jobs has not made the contributions to man kind that Einstein has, however the man was a genius in his field.

Measles, mumps, these viruses aren't necessarily life threatening. Extremely uncomfortable, yes. She makes a good argument.

I'm pretty sure if a Country or even extremist group is stupid enough to launch an intercontinental ballistics missile at us, we would be okay. They however, wouldn't. The U.S military receives more funding per year than the rest of the worlds militaries combined. With Nuclear missile defense and our spy satellites. I think we can use our defenses to keep the warfare conventional, dismantle their communications, and bring them to a yield. ISIS needs to be taken care of though in my opinion, but that's a whole nother story.

In my opinion, it's only a matter of time until Africa as a continent or a majority of the countries their are industrialized. With that being said, it won't be a bad idea to go ahead and influence a plot of land with potential. If we do this, energy subsidies, pollution, and waste could be avoided. Help the growing area's develop trash systems like Swedens - https://sweden.se/nature/the-swedish-recycling-revolution/ Part of our problem with clean energy is economically we're very dependent on other sources. Money along with jobs could potentially be harmed in a massive transition of fossil fuels to clean energy. (I'm not 100% sure about this because I don't know the demographics and logistics) Investing into their education could possibly benefit us, who knows maybe under the right educational system we'll get the next Albert Einstein or Steve Jobs. So if we can identify areas that are going to be industrialized in say the next 100 years, maybe we should lend a hand.

I'm using Libre Office. Word is what 10$ a year or something? I should probably look into that. However if I spend a few days on Wikipedia, should be able to get a better grasp on my English. Might not end up needing word. I'm not too keen on winning a literary award, my vocabulary is rather inadequate anyways. Above all, I'm having fun with this. I have really enjoyed weaving this story together, foreshadowing events, and reflecting upon humanity. The writing has been some work and not all play. I am having fun with this though, writing it for myself, and hoping to appeal to others. Btw after some thought, I think I'll drop the handcuffs. The blindfold does it's job of showing the security and secrecy. It was a little too over the top. However the American scientists is going to stay, I think you'll really enjoy their role in the book, along with other researchers. Theirs different countries, alliances, factions, government, secrect societies,conspiracy type stuff with some who're aware of whats going on and others left in the dark. Can't give away too much, but you'll see why it's strictly talking about American scientists in the intro. Anyways I'm going to sharpen my English and grammar. I'll return with my fully edited first chapter, not just the initial attention grabber. I think ya'll will like it Thanks for all the criticism, it's helped me tremendously.

That's only my first 1,000 words, the first chapter is about 3,000. I've ran it through an editing software but that hasn't really corrected my run on sentences and improper use of commas/lack of. So basically.... EEEEK. I highly doubt Ophiolite or any other SF member want's to proof read and fix all the errors in my novel. Shooting for somewhere between 100,000-150,000 words. I'm about 3/4 through the story and at about 80,000 words. If you need something done the best way is to do it yourself. I'm sure if I just put the effort I didn't administer in gradeschool, into teaching myself English. I'll learn. I really appreciate it guys, didn't think my English was that bad but I needed to know this. You guys rock.

I agree, we should be dropping scholarships on Africa above all else. Economically what if we had different countries in Africa produce a large amount with a small variety of goods that have elasticity. Of course we have to take certain things into account about the areas that are to be industrialized and educated. Such as cost of energy and whether or not subsidies will be necessary. Their exports, imports, and waste should be taken into account. I guess I said NATO because the other thread about WW3 defense made me think about what role countries in Africa would possibly play. Globalization is not necessarily a good thing lol.

I needed to hear that, thankyou Ophiolate. I'm just not very knowledgeable in English and Grammar. From what I've seen whenever you send your project into review for a publishing company like Penguin, they have an editor go through it for you. So long as the manuscript and required amount of materiel to read is pleasing to them. If I do something like Amazon instant publishing, then I'll really have to take my editing more seriously. Still though, even if I take the route of seeking a publisher. It would look better if my novel doesn't need to be proof read. Thankyou though, I honestly had no idea my English was that bad lol. I think I'll stick to the plot, as it is science fiction. The cuffs in my opinion seem more relevant along with the collection of American scientists as the story unravels.

Dude, you're awesome thankyou!

Ofcourse it would be good for Africa however if we get involved, it's still important to know and inform people that there's something in it for us as well right?

Lol, it's all good man. I don't care about my rep points XD.

Economics doesn't fit the parameters of the scientific method well. We can apply the scientific method to economics however, theirs so many variables. It's hard to control, test, and even predict outcomes for. However I think we can observe it enough to the point that some science can be applied to economics. Establishing constants and theories for economics, a system that grows and evolves. That doesn't seem entirely possible. However understanding it to some degree is. Is science so much a concept as it is an applied method of understanding?

Economics is relatively difficult to apply to the scientific method. However I still think it can be considered a science or atleast be broken down to one. You got your question, research, hypothesis, experiment, analysis, and conclusion. If multiple experiments are ran under different circumstances and the same results are yielding through a crucible of researchers, then it is widely accepted in the scientific community. Economics is also the observation and gathering of data to explain phenomena. What economists do - http://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/economists.htm#tab-2

I think Economics is a science. That being said, my question is do you think that if The U.S or NATO industrialized Africa as a partner in trade. One that can produce, sell, and buy goods. Would that stimulate a sufficient amount of economic growth in the global economy to be a significantly large change?

I know this may seem silly to talk about, but I think it's interesting. I mean don't you think the American military at least has a plan if a WW3 situation breaks out? I'm willing to bet they do. I like captain panics idea, and realistically I think it could be applied. I would think fronting the worlds largest submarine fleet. Designed for anti-submarine warefare, nuclear missile capability, and anti ballistics capability. Launch multiple military satellites capable of destroying or putting foreign satellites out of commission. Focus on dismantling enemy communication. Keep our borders large and don't let Nations with adamant military conquest get too large a foothold. Keep the warfare conventional, make them fight our fight while we dismantle their trade and communications. I think that if NATO is threatened or we see frequent military conquest anywhere, we're likely to intervene. I know for a fact we as a country already at least identify the agenda for the intensity of different Militant actions in the world. Of course trade is a crucial factor in wars, you might actually be harming your economic sustainability by severing ties with a foreign nation. If you look at the history of recorded war - http://www.datesandevents.org/events-timelines/24-timeline-of-war.htm I don't think a large scale war is improbable enough that the U.S government and military shouldn't have an emergency plan. I'm sure they do.