John Cuthber

You keep saying that it lets you conceptualise stuff that's otherwise not accessible. But every time I ask for an example you just repeat the claim. Do you realise how dumb that makes you look? And re the second part- it makes no sense at all. It's just writing stuff down and pretending that your belief is actually proof. Do you realise how dumb that makes you look?

If the alternative is that we wait till both the gay guy and his captor are at the top of the building, then we bomb it, does it matter which option we choose? Seriously, how do you intend to stop him getting thrown off?

Like what. for example?

That's possibly a rather tall order. All we need to do is show them that one small part of religion is ridiculous. We only need to get rid of the idea that "The enemy" (i.e.us) is so evil that destroying it is worth dying for. I can't see us succeeding in that objective while we keep dropping bombs on them. I still think we should drop food; it's hard to hate someone who gives you a free lunch when you need it.

Not if the idea is "it''s good to throw people off buildings". In that case, you encourage it by doing that. And the problem here is that's exactly the sort of idea you are up against.

Both equations are plainly wrong anyway; check the units.. However, since height is measured from an arbitrary starting point, you can choose whichever sign you like for the height. Do you measure down from the head, or up from the feet. You can't use Bernoulli's equations reliably for calculating blood flow because the muscles in the blood vessels do work on the system.

Actually, we got peace when we stopped bombing. And, more importantly, we bombed countries. If we bomb Afghanistan, the enemy moves to Syria. They don't mind because they are stateless. But we piss off the other, legitimate, residents of Syria while we are at it, and the enemy laughs at our foolishness.

It depends. Toffee shatters.

Setting aside the fact that you seem instead to advocate bombing Ireland and Germany because they are the countries next door to the ones who provided the attackers... OK, so the relevant question is what turned a bunch of British and French citizens into criminals? Do you think it might have anything to do with seeing bunch of people, whom they saw as brothers, being butchered by an invasion of, let's face it, the wrong country? We are indeed fighting a foe with no state. So, calling it a war is a bit silly. And, perhaps more importantly, the enemy is an ideology. The enemy is the belief that "the West is evil". How do you bomb that into non-existence when every stray bullet or child caught in the crossfire and (what a charming term) "collateral damage" creates another bunch of converts- all the more convinced of the justice of their cause because they know who the enemy is- it's the bastard who keeps bombing their country. Bombing for peace makes as much sense as screwing for virginity.

So, started by Bush 1, not extinguished by Clinton (though, at least it calmed down a bit) then restarted by Bush 2. Best blame Clinton, and then muddy the waters by bringing Monica into it (Though, her fling with Bill was half a decade earlier and the story didn't break until 1998 so she can hardly have been a factor ). It's as if you think it's relevant. Is that the best you can do? Blix found no chemical weapons , mainly because there were none. do you remember that bit? It is the sort of thing I meant when I said he " invaded the wrong country (on the basis of a lot of made up stuff)". There were no WMD.

No. If I was after an apology, I'd have asked for one. What I'm still waiting for is for you accept that what you said was simply not true. Not weasel words. Not pretending that you said something else. Just an acceptance that when you said "Religion is what allows us to conceptualize things far beyond our current understanding, " you were talking nonsense, because it plainly doesn't. Unless of course, you can show that it's actually true.

You think a 50 50 hit rate is good enough for this sort of thing? And, of course, there's the interesting question of whether Afghanistan would have been the "right" country if he hadn't invaded it. They weren't the "right" target in terms of the 9/11 atrocity. "The hijackers in the September 11 attacks were 19 men affiliated with al-Qaeda. 15 of the 19 were citizens of Saudi Arabia.[1] The others were from the United Arab Emirates (2), Egypt and Lebanon. 2

Specifically, he continued to read a book about a goat, then he invaded the wrong country (on the basis of a lot of made up stuff). I'm not sure if that's "cowardice and panic" but it's plumb stupid. The vast majority of the people in America responded to the attack in an understandable, if perhaps not entirely rational, way. The last one I'd cite as an example of someone "doing their duty" was Bush.

You should still know better than to try a strawman like that; it sill just makes you look silly.

Under which recent US governments did (so called) Islamic terrorism not grow? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks It would be interesting to "rewind" history and see what would have happened with presidents who were actually Left wing.

Or maybe people with poor mental health can't get good jobs and can't afford meat. Or people with health problems spend time talking to doctors and doctors point out that (for many people) a vegetarian diet is healthier, so they accept this and change their behaviour. Or maybe there's some strange confounding variable- some odd genetic glitch that makes people less likely to adopt vegetarianism and also less likely to be become mentally ill. Perhaps it affects synthesis of a couple of proteins, one on the tongue and one in the brain. If, for example, there was a gene like this http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/060918165721.htm somewhere on the genome that was near the gene(s) responsible for this http://depressiongenetics.stanford.edu/mddandgenes.html It's going to be a while before we find out But it's an interesting study.

You should know better than to try a strawman like that; it just makes you look silly.

If you modified it to say that unicorns have no gall bladders I couldn't disprove that either. But it wouldn't stop you being flat out wrong about what you actually said , would it? Why not just accept that you said something that was offensive and nonsense? Every time you try to pretend you didn't, this thread gets raised again and a new bunch of people get to see you behaving like a two-year-old with a face covered in chocolate telling his mommy that he didn't eat the chocolate cake.

I'm appealing on behalf of that point under article 5 of the UN declaration of human rights "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." The actual point is that you said I couldn't (strictly, you said I couldn't conceptualise it but you haven't evinced that either.) and now you are trying to pretend that you didn't. Well, I have news for you; we can read.

I'm not sure if this topic is suitable for this sort of discussion. I'm not sure if I should suggest that you talk to your doctor or to your lawyer.

The relationship will be device dependent, wavelength dependent and, I think, temperature dependent too.

No, I can't. So what? On the other hand, if I assume that you don't really mean without using words. Fire is a process. It's a term we use for oxidations that produce heat and light- the full definition is a bit more complicated than that but since I can't see what it has to do with anything (and in particular, what it has to do with gravity) I will stop there. I suspect that the real problem is that you cant explain them and, because of that, you think that there are no explanations.

Yes "Many cases of serotonin toxicity occur in patients who have ingested drug combinations that synergistically increase synaptic serotonin.[5] It may also occur as a symptom of overdose of a single serotonergic agent.[20] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serotonin_syndrome

I see some of you don't like money. Feel free to send it all to me.

When Newton first came up with that idea it was an assumption. In particular, he assumed that all things attract all other things. That effect was looked for, and it was found. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavendish_experiment Can your strange idea explain this experiment too? Can it explain the inverse square law behaviour of the force? If so, please show us how. Until you can do that you are just making stuff up.