zapatos

Because "touching" is not a requirement to get diseases.

Looks like the emboldened Trump trolls are are already trying to let us know they don't have to hide their racism any longer.

Have a nuclear war. If any of us survive, we may decide to swear off nukes for good.

That was freaking awesome!

We are talking specifically about abortion, right (just want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding)? If so, and at the risk of taking this thread completely off topic, a fetus is not legally considered a 'person'. Okay, that's fair. I feel like I'm starting to drive this discussion off course. My apologies.

Thank you.

Those words are mutually exclusive. If it's legal, it is not murder.

Well, we had to take the scenic route, but we finally got there. No. They don't. Their motives are irrelevant to the OP. You are trying to discredit the argument by discrediting the man. Being a racist or having racist motivations does not change the validity of the argument. The argument stands or falls on its own merit.

You have no evidence that everyone who argues a racial difference in intelligence is racist. I cannot believe you would seriously make such a claim. 'Guilt by association' does not fly on a science site.

Sure. Guilty until proven innocent. I suppose you don't see the irony, but racists tend to assume blacks are guilty until proven innocent. Hence the mistreatment of blacks by police and the courts in the US. You are no better. The burden is never on the person accused to prove their innocence, it is on the accuser to prove them guilty.

Why should anyone bother to explain to you the origin of their interest? You have already concluded that "people who put the time and energy in to making the argument" are racist. You are being unscientific and are as bad as any racist when it comes to making judgements about others. Rather than assuming someone is racist unless they can show evidence to the contrary, you would be better served to make no judgement at all unless and until you have evidence.

Nonsense and not true.

If the issue here is the credibility of the source and the validity of the argument, then you should focus on that and not on the motives and character of the person making the argument. Neither the use of sources that are not credible, nor invalid arguments, necessarily make you a racist. Your generalization that everyone is a racist if they believe there are differences in intelligence based on race, makes your argument invalid.

Seems rather self-serving to suggest someone who agrees with your position is honest, and that anyone who disagrees with your position is automatically a racist with ulterior motives.

Oh my God. Could only have been worse if he had said "Mom". Haha.

I used to think that cats were the 'girls' and that dogs were the 'boys'. ----------- Early in my marriage, my wife and I were in the kitchen and I wanted her to hand me the tongs so that I could turn over the meat in the skillet. The word 'tongs' didn't immediately come to mind and I instead asked for the 'turner'. Joking around she handed them to me saying "here is the Ike and Tina (Turner)". It stuck. From then on we only referred to the kitchen tongs as the 'Ike and Tina'. Fast forward 25 years, my son is away at college and cooking for a group of people in his girlfriend's apartment when he asks her to hand him the "Ike and Tina", or as he pictured it in his mind, the "ikentina". To him that word was no more unusual than "spatula". Naturally a big discussion ensues as he is trying to explain what he is talking about, and finally the laughter as someone makes the connection to "Ike and Tina Turner". He then calls home, flummoxed, embarrassed, wondering if we perpetuated a 23 year long gag on him. Still makes me laugh out loud.

At the other extreme maybe we'd be better off limiting who gets to vote. In the early history of the US, only white, adult, male, land-owners could vote. I suspect part of the reason for limiting who could vote was an attempt to ensure that the people who picked the leaders had some minimal knowledge of what their selection might mean to the country. Perhaps we could limit the vote to those who complete a publicly funded training course in civics/geopolitics at least once every four years.

Wow. That racist site leaves me speechless.

Being soft may not necessarily make you unreliable or unfit, but if your job (mobster) requires hardness (I realize these terms are not well defined), then softness is the opposite of a primary attribute for your job. If a mobster shows empathy and concern for the feelings of others, then will he be unwilling to exercise the maximum ruthlessness necessary to get the job done? And it doesn't even matter if he will or not. If he is perceived as being unwilling, he puts both his job, and the safety of himself and his organization, at risk.

It is a sign of softness.

There is a version for Congress. Unless you meant Congress as a whole, to be impeached en masse. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States I like John McCain too. I was terribly disappointed to hear his comment about blocking any SCOTUS nomination put forth by Clinton. That seems out of character, and I expected more of him.

Great explanations imatfaal. ++1 Do you happen to know if Einstein also recognized that GR was beyond its realm of application?

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/nutrition-and-healthy-eating/expert-answers/caffeinated-drinks/faq-20057965

sex drive

I think you need to do some demonstrating yourself. How do you know a deer is "happy", and that a farm raised animal is "hopeless" and that it "awaits slaughter"? You seem to be assigning human traits to these animals.