John Cuthber

As far as I can tell, you are beginning to get to grips with the reason why individuals don't evolve, but groups do. An individual's reproductive success is, largely, a matter of luck. But if some individuals within a group possess some trait that tends to improve their success, then that trait will (almost inevitably) be more strongly represented in the next generation.

Wouldn't it have been easier to just pick one?

The thread is fundamentally related to free speech and I think the limits and regulation of free speech are a legitimate part of the debate. If the legitimate legal redress doesn't work then it offers some validity to those who choose to break the law (obviously, it doesn't excuse murder, but, if they criminals had restricted themselves to vandalising the offices and claimed that they did so because they had no legal option open to them, people would be more sympathetic) In the example you cite, Simon Singh was the victim of an (unsuccessful) attempt to suppress freedom of speech. (At least the chiropractic association didn't feel that shooting people was the solution) What's wrong with system? If I don't say rude things about people then I can't get sued for slander. If I say rude things then I might get sued. If I can prove that those things are true, or that I had reasonable grounds to believe that they were true, or I was clearly stating my opinion, then the law suit fails; they end up paying for suing me. If I say rude things and I can't prove that they are true then I get into trouble; but I deserve it. As I said; what's the problem? (Actually there is a big problem- you can't get legal aid for slander cases- but that's a political problem, more than a legal one). Singh said something the chiropractors didn't like. They sued. He won because what he said was fair comment. It took longer than it should, because one of the judges made a mistake, as wiki says. "The pre-trial hearing took place in February 2010 before three senior judges at the Royal Courts of Justice.[9] In April 2010, they allowed Singh's appeal, ruling that the high court judge had "erred in his approach"" It's important to note that Singh didn't win because he could prove that his allegation was true. He won because it was regarded in law as "fair comment". That is the law upholding the right to free speech. The fact that he only won because he could afford to pay is a problem, but that's an issue with the legal system in general, rather than libel law in particular.

I doubt it. If it was homework I don't think the question would include the bit about Cl2 being insoluble in acids. Chlorine is soluble in at least some acids- that'a part of the basis of aqua regia. However, there are two threads about this and it might be better if (1) Justin read the rules and (2) some kind moderator merged the two threads.

France isn't one of those countries. If reason prevailed, the lese majesty laws and the blasphemy laws would all be scrapped.

molten NaCl. Why do you ask?

"But it simply can't be shown in any of these cases that the survivors were IN ANY WAY more "fit" than those that died. " How do you define "fit"? In many cases it's luck, but on the average, it's fitness- by definition of fitness. On the whole; survivors survive. It's not even an axiom- it's true by tautology.

Do you realise that they were not the only people satirising things? Most are still going. Yes,it says that some people have a vastly overblown sense of their own importance. Then they could sue as I suggested, and they would lose their court case and end up paying the court's costs. This "libel laws are fundamentally flawed in that they presume guilty until proven innocent, which is ridiculous." isn't really true, btw. It's the outcome of the presumption of innocence of the person who was insulted.. Imagine that someone calls me a cheat (or some other such slander). I'm assumed to be innocent. So it falls to them to prove that I'm a cheat- otherwise they have slandered me. If they made the assertion recklessly or falsely, then they should answer for it. What's wrong with that?

I agree that a thread looking at the true cost of farming would be a good idea, but I think I can answer the second point there with a single reference. They do have different duty rates for agricultural fuels. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_dyes

If rich politicians can unduly influence the vote (and they do) then you don't have a democracy, you have a plutocracy. Imposing, and enforcing, a cap on campaign spending would be a good start. How would you propose to improve the system?

Here's a hint; he didn't mention cost. Risking the destruction of our ecosystem is a cost too: rather a high one. Whatever the cash costs are, there is a lot of special interest and social inertia preventing the introduction of less polluting energy sources.

That's because it doesn't have any real meaning. I'm not sure that citations for it are the issue. Clarification would help. What do you consider "The bulk of the "falsifiable evidence" for evolution is actually extrapolation of the specific to the general. It's impossible to falsify the legitimacy of these extrapolations at this time and they exist outside of metaphysics and are supported primarily by logic dependent on language but most importantly, are at odds with observation. " to mean?

Being insulted is not an excuse for criminal violence or murder. The appropriate response to such an insult is to sue for libel or slander, not to discard the law and go on the rampage. What do I need to understand about French politics that makes murder acceptable? And, are you aware that the US and UK politicians usually get a pretty hard time in cartoons too. https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=steve+bell+%22president+bush%22&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=775&tbm=isch&imgil=zNw7BecTnpSPXM%253A%253BjyVEdDMW1VIsFM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fpritheworld.tumblr.com%25252Fpost%25252F57004893465%25252Fbritish-cartoonist-steve-bell-on-president-george&source=iu&pf=m&fir=zNw7BecTnpSPXM%253A%252CjyVEdDMW1VIsFM%252C_&usg=__xC9U_e_InoKa7tqwGfzccK1A3HE%3D&ved=0CCwQyjc&ei=4wixVJmyDY3waNXsgLAJ#imgdii=_&imgrc=4Ppjjcn-7CSnrM%253A%3Bcqt99LnnTTr6gM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fstatic.guim.co.uk%252Fsys-images%252FGuardian%252FPix%252Fpictures%252F2003%252F04%252F10%252F4bell.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fno-pasaran.blogspot.com%252F2013%252F08%252Fus-president-depicted-year-after-year.html%3B372%3B192 https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=steve+bell+%22president+obama%22&espv=2&biw=1600&bih=775&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=HAmxVI2NF4qrae-ygFg&ved=0CCAQsAQ&dpr=1#tbm=isch&q=steve+bell+cameron

A mark of 18 out of 30 suggests that you got 30-18 i.e. 12 things wrong. Ask her what those 12 mistakes were so that you can avoid them in the future. Of courses, if she can't point out 12 mistakes, she has more or less admitted that she gave you the wrong mark.

Not quite. Alkyl dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride is the ingredient in the wipes. (one compound with a five part name) Anyway, I can't think of any credible reaction product from that quaternary compound, and hydrogen peroxide that would be significantly toxic.

"Are the 'middle class' really worse off today than in the 50s ?" Who cares? It's the wrong question. The thread is about inequality between the rich + poor today. The "poor" are better off today than they were 50 years ago, but that's not the point. Why are the Poor twice as wealthy while the Rich are a hundred times as wealthy? It's true that there are elections. Please let me know which candidates are proposing to raise taxes? The problem is that only the rich can afford the advertising etc needed to get elected. Those who would- in even the slightest regard- seek to support the poor are libelled as "Communists" as Obama was. So, sure you have a vote, but the voters have been extensively lied to by a group who use their influence to ensure that "critical thinking " is banned from the curriculum. "As for the top 1%, or at least the CEOs with 'obscene' salaries ( even when the companies they run are tanking ) maybe it is time the government got involved. But keep in mind that a lot of these politicians see CEO positions as 'parachutes' for when they leave office, and are reluctant to regulate them." Well, you have spotted the problem. The rich exclusively run the government. What we need is a system where the truth gets out from time to time. Are you prepared to spread that truth?

Would you like to explain what you think that means?

Oh, I almost forgot. Delta, Did you not realise that the government gave you the internet? So, the fact that you are posting here shows that you are wrong.

Gravity. Exactly the same gravity that wasn't strong enough to stop the liquid rising in the tube would need to magically be strong enough to overcome exactly the same attraction. That's why it doesn't work.

It's a bit like playing tic tac toe; If you make the right first move (whether that's marking the middle square, or making sure that you are on the side of the debate that's supported by the evidence) it's easy to play well. You more or less win by default. Have you had a chance to rethink your points since finding that they don't make sense?

Really? No welfare, no public libraries, no police force etc? That's interesting, where are you?

Indeed, and if you start with a lot of points that are trivially shown to be wrong, your opponent will get the last word by simply pointing out that your assertions are all false or fallacies.

If you have to speak in secret then your speech is not free.

So, you think cartoonists should be "free" to live in fear of intimidation by criminals.

Perhaps we could all stop voting for parties that pledge to reduce taxes.