John Cuthber

BTW, for the benefit of those in the USA, much of the rest of the world wonders why you call your two parties Left and Right. From our point of view it's a matter of very Right and even more Right, This may go some way to explaining the issues raised.

Because it's what the actual evidence says.

Without someone telling them that "God says it's OK" it is rather difficult to get people to kill other people.

No, but on the other hand, I can guarantee that , as we speak, there are plenty of people killing one another in God's name and none doing so in the name of atheism. Dimreaper, if all it offered was comfort, I'd be happy to ignore it. But check out the death toll. Also, consider what it does to people's ability to think clearly:do you think this is an acceptable side-effect of that comforting illusion? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/21/children-religion-fact-fiction_n_5607009.html

"-In theory, the Na and Cl dissociate in solution" In what solvent? Water is the obvious choice, but it reacts with carbonyl halides.

It's tricky to separate them as the 2+ ions, but if you add H2O2 and HCl you will convert the Fe(2+) to Fe(3+) which forms a complex with the HCl and you can extract it into ether. In practical terms, be careful to make sure that the solution you are extracting isn't full of Cl2 or H2O2 by boiling it . Other approaches are available. Which one you choose depends on why you want to separate them.

As far as I can tell, politicas as a whole has drifted (some would say "sprinted") to the Right. Obama got called a communist even though he's probably to the Right of, for example, Kennedy. That's certainly consistent with the Right hand edge of it needing to be essentially insane, just to stay to the Right of mainstream. I'm still hoping that someone can find the Left wing Nutjobs.

Odd as it may see, I have never decided to kill someone for their beliefs in those matters. Sadly, it seems that religion brings forth different behaviour. At least we would eliminate one cause of it.

To be fair, the source you cite isn't exactly pro Republican. They might have edited out any Loony Left politicians. I'm hoping that those who seek to support the Right wing will be able to provide us with examples of Left wingers who, for example, believe in dragons like the guy in the OP. Of course, it may be that no such people exist- in which case I'd love an explanation from them.

Come on, to "live within your means " implies that , if times get hard you cut spending. You said "However when you are in trouble with your spending you don't ask for a higher limit on your credit card !" so, either you cut spending or you do the thing that sets a government apart from a household. You increase your income. Governments can do that- they can (and do) raise taxes. The classic distinction between Left and Right is whether they want to increase or decrease tax revenue. You presumably have a view on that and it defines whether you are politically Left or Right, no matter how you think your daughter should dress.

"So how much distance is there between "the dog decided to help the kitten because it triggered the instincts associated with protecting puppies" and "the dog was confused and thought the kitten actually was a puppy."" In one case the dog knows that a kitten is not a baby dog. True altruism means making a sacrifice, not because it helps you or your kin, but simply because it helps them. (There is a real question about whether or not it ever really happens) Altruism is the opposite of selfishness. so, if you have (and feed, house, look after...) a cat because you like having a cat that's not altruistic. You are doing it for your benefit. Putting food out for wild birds on a bird table in the garden is more nearly altruistic- though you can expect some "payback" in that you get to watch the birds in the garden. Paying money to the RSPB so they can in some abstract sense, look after birds, is even closer to altruism- though it's still somewhat selfish. There must be something you "like" about doing it- because otherwise you wouldn't do it. Now, it's hard to say where the instincts of animals lie, but I guess the dog feeding a piglet is running pretty much on instinct rather than rational thought. She does it because she likes to do so. Her reasons for liking to feed the youngsters are not the issue. She does it because she wants to. I find it hard to see that as altruism. On the other hand, if she sees the poor hungry piglet and takes pity on it, and feeds it even though she knows that, in principle, it will be a competitor for food from her own children's point of view, that's altruistic (to a degree) but it's also anthropomorphism to a degree which I personally find unrealistic.

In a way, it's true by definition.Since things don't stop moving, you can't experience anything without motion- because the motion is always there.

Intent.

It's difficult to see how Fiveworlds could think that picture was relevant unless it's because he has no idea what he is talking about. Also, there is no evidence for humans having an aura so it's impossible to measure any interaction it might have. If you look carefully, you will see that the 2 wiki pages he cited don't actually mention "aura". It's a bit like asking "What is the effect of the microwave background on unicorns?"

Incidentally, the assertion that the Republicans were more sensible in the past supports the thread title's suggestion that they have lost their minds. An alternative would be that they never had (working) minds in the first place. Also, the labels are valid- no matter how silly they may be. They label two distinct groups- the ones who seem to utter lots of batshit crazy things, and those who don't. Coincidentally, I see we are coming up on the 2nd anniversary of me asking this question. I had a brief look, but I can't see many instances of people rising to the challenge. Perhaps folks would like to make a special effort to find some Left wing Lunes by the 18th to ballance things.

If you call yourself a Republican, and the other Republicans let you, then you are under that umbrella. On the other hand, Mr Obama is not a Republican; so his actions have little or nothing to do with the thread.

Is this "altruism" or just "not spotting the difference"?

I suspect that many, or most, of the users of pornography are getting free sex (unless they are paying themselves).

So can I, but it has little to do with the question I asked.

Can you prove that?

That goes both ways. Have you seen Israel's military budget?

http://www.someecards.com/usercards/viewcard/MjAxMi04ZTczNGExNmM2ZWRlZjMw

I'm calling Poe's law on that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law

Indeed, and many of have that rather crass adaptation. I suspect that there are lots of subtle ones that mean that our "optimum" diet (whatever that might mean) is different from what it was 100,000 or 1,000,000 years ago. There's also the fact that we simply don't do the same thing as we did back then (unless I'm gravely mistaken, and our distant ancestors also drove cars to their offices so they could sit at a desk all day.)

Plenty of people, particularly in NW Europe drink milk. That's an adaptation that we picked up since our ancestors left Africa. It's bizarre to think we have not made other adaptations in that time.