zapatos

You clearly have a vivid imagination.

I'm sorry but I don't understand. Can you please restate this?

I'm afraid that might result in more dangerous guns as they would be inherently more difficult to shoot accurately. I'd rather stick with something like trigger locks. As far as that woman is concerned, if people don't follow basic safety standards then most everything in their lives will be dangerous.

As I said, it does spin. As I also said, it does not suddenly stop.

There is no point at which the outer reaches of the atmosphere stop spinning around the earth. The upper atmosphere travels with the spin of the earth just as the lower atmosphere does. Just as friction from the spin of the earth pulls the lower atmosphere with it in the same direction, so the friction from the lower atmosphere pulls the upper atmosphere with it in the same direction.

Whether or not I like it is irrelevant. The right of Americans to own firearms most certainly does impact people. As you'll recall, "Every day, 20 US Children Hospitalized w/Gun Injury (6% die)". That is 20 people per day who are impacted by your right to own firearms. And as you are so fond of citing Heller, let's not forget this little nugget; “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” ​If you wish to say "too bad, I like my guns and I'm going to keep them", that is fine. But don't pretend the Constitution gives you unfettered rights to keep and bear arms. It does not. You know it, we know it, and the Supreme Court certainly knows it.

I am obviously not making myself clear. The people who don't choose to own guns have every bit as much right to the preservation of life as those who choose to own guns. When your rights interfere with my right to preservation of life, then the government has the Constitutional right to regulate your rights. That is why you cannot yell 'fire' in a crowed theater. If the right to own guns interferes with the rights of others to preserve their lives, then the government can regulate guns. You seem to think that the right to bear arms is somehow more important than other rights. It is not. They are equal, and as the old saying goes, your rights end where my rights begin.

I would have thought that by now you would have realized there are other people in this country, besides gun owners, who have a right to preservation of life. Continually ignoring this aspect of the Constitution and this aspect of the arguments of others, is getting old.

As I mentioned to you once before, that phrase was not written in isolation. It is part of a larger document, which includes the following phrase: ...rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of LIFE, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ... By responding to iNow's post in such a simplistic way, ignoring every point he made, makes it appear you are trolling or willfully ignorant.

Lying in bed. It seems to block out any distractions and my mind only focuses on one thing. It is not unusual for me to get out of bed in the middle of the night to write something down so that I don't forget it when I fall back asleep.

No, I think that you should have been able to name both countries that were invaded.

He also invaded Afghanistan which I believe most would consider to be the "right" country.

Maybe they will. But that will not change the fact that the ability to care for a patient under anesthesiology is a weakness of mine.

Maybe you are right. I just heard the local university hospital is looking for a new anesthesiologist. My background is IT but I'm not going to let that hold me back. They may think my lack of medical training is a weakness but I'll show them that my training in IT is really a strength for that position, and they should not ignore the positive outcome for the patients that will be derived from my advantageous ability to debug code.

No, weakness implies a deficiency or shortcoming, not failure. But recognizing a complementary strength you have does nothing to ameliorate the weakness as you are suggesting. It remains a weakness. If the job description requires 'ability to work in a group setting', you will not get hired by telling the hiring manager that while you cannot in fact work in a group setting, you can make up for that deficiency by working alone instead.

Just because working by yourself is a strength does not mean that the inability to work in a group is not a weakness. They don't cancel out.

Clearly I seem to have offended you. My apologies. The point I was trying to make was that some people really think that creationism is valid, and some people enjoy watching that kind of debate, and some people like to learn how to debate creationists by watching others. I am of the opinion that reading an old thread is no substitute for actual debate, just as reading about football is no substitute for actually playing it. Since no one here is required to participate in a creationist debate short of having open the thread to see what it is about then quickly closing the thread, I am unsure why said person would object to others participating in the debate if they choose to do so. I don't like political fundraisers, but I don't try to stop anyone from participating in them. Once I realize I have walked in on one, I simply leave, closing the door behind me.

I don't mind. I like reading your posts.

Personally I think frisking every person is the right idea, but if that doesn't work for you, other options include quickly moving away from any disturbance you see developing, avoid being close to demonstrations, etc.

You still need evidence at some point. I didn't mean to imply the speculation was a waste. Speculating is a good thing. I do it all the time.

Many things are possible, but barring any evidence to support your conjecture you are just having fun speculating.

Perhaps we could do the same for people who want to understand the twin paradox. Why waste everyone's time? Just tell them to use the search function. There are already umpteen threads here on Relativity. Is that what I was doing? I'm unsure why you object to people having a discussion. You are under no obligation to participate, nor even to read the threads.

I believe there will always be people on this site who will benefit from following these discussions, even if they don't participate in them. Therefore I would allow them. Just because the people here have debunked creationism multiple times does not mean the creationist who wants to debate it has heard the arguments before. Another good reason to allow them. If the creationist is simply preaching or trolling we can painlessly let the thread die a quiet death by individually deciding further discussion is a waste of time and no longer responding.

LOL!

I recently took a course that addressed this question from a business perspective and the answer was unequivocally to work on your strengths, or more importantly, those strengths that make you stand out. The purpose of the course was to help develop outstanding performers. In the research done by the people who developed the course, they found that the most successful people had a small number of outstanding strengths that allowed them to succeed where others failed. It didn't matter whether or not that person had weaknesses, as long as they weren't disastrous weaknesses that caused others to run and hide from him. If you have no disastrous weaknesses, and no outstanding strengths, it was determined that your best chance of success would come from taking your best strength and developing it to the point where it was outstanding. Others will happily put up with some weaknesses on your part of you have outstanding strengths.