Sayonara

That's not conquering ecology, it's conquering physiology.

I think there's a danger inherent in assuming the listener will understand what you mean by the term "republican" (or democrat, liberal, evil monk, whatever). (Also, you didn't answer my question. I already know why they do it in the first place.)

Oi Like a plane is going to have the exact amount of fuel for 1 trip, never mind less. Anyway, since a molecule of fuel is logically indivisible (otherwise it is no longer fuel), the analogy breaks down pretty fast.

Bear in mind there is a difference between "genetic defects" and "unfavourable genetic makeup". Also that keeping someone alive despite their condition does not mean they can or will reproduce.

You are not exempt from international law, and we aren't going to make exceptions for you from the policies you agreed to abide by when you joined.

I don't think you can qualify that statement in any way. You may not give a shit about the rules on their site, but as long as you are posting here you will kindly abide by ours.

It's a reply to you. It's a paraphrased summary of what Hawking will say.

What do you mean by "degrade the gene pool"? I would dispute that increased susceptibility to allergies is evidence of anything other than forced selection with increased domestic hygeine as the root cause. I don't see how keeping people alive who would otherwise have died can have a significant effect on our population, even in cumulative terms. People in general just aren't that promiscuous, except in some third world countries where both the birth rate and infant mortality rates are way higher than in the West (and therefore don't count, because your "artificially kept alive" candidates aren't.)

Dreamer: Please read the terms of use on web sites before duplicating their material: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=317936&contrassID=2&subContrassID=5&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y ...and from the site in the original post: We don't want to be sued because you have taken protected material from another organisation and published it here, ta.

Sorry, but I don't think the following is highly reliable: * Essentially how he has "solved" the problem. What he will be announcing is "yeah, I was wrong", without necessarily agreeing with everybody else.

Someone who is aggressively foolish.

Consider the possibility that there are an increased number of diagnosed cases because diagnosis and detection technologies are becoming more sophisticated and more widespread.

I think you'll find that it's Horace the Mars Snail, who was fossilised in transit while going to the shops to buy some gin for the missus.

Pretty much yeah. If anyone knows whether he is right or wrong, it certainly isn't me - I was only talking about how he will be received. Ah well, at least Martin caught the flying encyclopedia

I'm fairly certain they weren't the only same-sex lovers of the ancient world. People use famous historical figures and leaders as examples because their antics are generally recorded in more personal detail. Taking an interpretation that disagrees as being evidence that over-rules any other possible social records is a bad idea. There are plenty of trusted sources who wrote about the society of their times in utterly unambiguous fashions.

The biggest fear that is fed into Americans day in and day out is the fear of not succeeding, which is quite comical for the well-adjusted individual to watch (in a tragicomedy kind of way).

I should have underlined the "you". If you say "I am a Republican" I have to assume there's a reason why you identify yourself with that group.

What'll be interesting are the "well if you are saying you were wrong then, why should we believe you are right now?" arguments, accompanied by the sounds of struggling as Hawking tries to keep hold of his encyclopedia*. * Score +10 for obscure Hawking reference.

You known, that particular joke gets tired real fast.

The link itself isn't that important - what is important is that you cite the source and acknowledge the material belongs to them. Use http://www.bugmenot.com for member-only news site logins.

Let me rephrase: what is that makes you a Republican?

Also, why should it only branch in one 'direction'?

Where is this taken from?

Why are people so eager to stick themselves in boxes such as "republic", "democrat" and so on? Personally I think that approach opens the door to people who would rather oppose issues with labels. Thread split off from here