John Cuthber

And, once again, I have to thank someone for providing my references for me. Thanks Ewmon. When I pointed out that a good way to get over the fact that most people don;'t want to kill other people (even in war) was to demonize them, and that religion did a good job of this I didn't supply any evidence. this “we do not fight against flesh and blood, but against … the spiritual forces of evil” is exactly the sort of thing I meant. The first half is clearly not true- felsh an blood is exactly what you stick a word into. The second half is the "justification", you pretend that you are killing the "forces of evil". I grant that religion isn't the only thing that does it. Mr Bush's "axis of evil" is essentially the same, but much of his motivation also seems to be religious too. Incidentally, since there are 3 major religions that accept the old testament, if I take the piss out of it I'm not being any more anti Christian than I'm being anti Jewish or anti Islamic. Labelling it as anti Christian is either massive bias or illogical (or possibly both). Like iNow I'm an equal opportunity religion basher.

Perhaps he means West in some other sense.

It's hard to be certain because there are lots of different epoxy resins. Quite a lot of them are soluble in 100% formic acid. If you take this approach please note that your fingers will also be soluble. The glass fibre is more difficult to dissolve and the only obvious contenders are HF or very strong bases which would attack the chip (as well as your fingers). However, once you have washed the resin away the glass fibre can be removed by un weaving it. The other problem is that anything that dissolves the epoxy resin will attack any other plastic packaging of other components present. What are you hoping to achieve here?

Logically nothing. Any departure from the laws brought about by a thing would be a means by which we could deduce the existence of that thing and hence observe it. Take something that's difficult to observe, like the neutrino. We know that, according to the laws of physics, momentum is conserved, but some forms of radioactive decay seem not to obey that law. From this we deduce that there must be something else involved. We thereby observe the existence of neutrinos.

Just a thought. For whatever value it may have, the psychologists who study such things say that intelligence comes in a variety of forms. The number of varieties seems to depend on whom you ask, but this one is fairly typical (and the differences between the competing ideas don't affect my point). Crystallized Intelligence Fluid Intelligence Quantitative Reasoning Reading & Writing Ability Short-Term Memory Long-Term Storage and Retrieval Visual Processing Auditory Processing Processing Speed Let me know if you find a model of intelligence where "racial intelligence" is actually a defined term, so that we can sensibly discuss it on a science page. Of course, since ,as has already been pointed out, race is a rather meaningless term, I suspect that no such model exists. That brings into question any assertion which starts "Racial intelligence is like any other human trait..."

People who think "The only people who have things to hide are criminals." should be made to stand naked (in a greenhouse if it's too cold) on a busy shopping street until they realise that they are mistaken.

The last comment was meant to be general. Sorry for not making that clear.

JohnB While you make false statements like the assertion that religion has had a monopoly on marriages in the past, you are not really in a position to educate anyone. The UK is part of the West unless you hadn't noticed. So is France http://www.weddingsinfrance.com/requirements/civil_requirements.html So is Germany "It used to be that a marriage in Germany was legal only if it was conducted in a registrar's ("Standesamt") office. You could have a religious ceremony later. " (From) http://marriage.about.com/od/germany/p/germany.htm And Spain http://www.andalucia.com/law/marriage/home.htm And even Italy http://www.italy-weddings.com/how_to_get_married_in_italy.htm Between them that's a lot more people than are in the USA. I can get married in a registry office if I choose- no church involved. Do you understand that the reason you were ignored is that you were flat out wrong?

If he had felt inclined to check then Pasteur would , at the dawn of the age of microbiology, have found that urine from healthy humans is sterile, or nearly so. It seems you are the one who missed out on a hundred years of understanding. Also, you seem to have remained determined to make this personal (and hence an ad hom) even after I pointed out that it's not just my opinion, but that of a group of people. Btw, if you can single handedly get the street "running with piss" then I think you should see a doctor. If you can't then it was another straw man attack. Please desist from them. They make you look silly.

Does this help? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_factor

I'd just like to thank Dimreepr for backing up my assertion with the references. Joatmon. I don't understand why you asked where he got his figures from. They are in the references cited. It's possible that they are total hogwash but even then it's unfair to mark someone down for reporting them in good faith.

They act in the same way as nicotine. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicotine#Pharmacology Hence the name.

As far as I can tell, we are lazy so we invent technology to do stuff for us. Laziness makes us technologists.

Is the winch for rescuing Europeans? Incidentally, if the desert concerned is the Antarctic, long sleeves are better.

It's a valid challenge, but I'm not rising to it.

Roughly. The misinformation about God is a lot more widespread. Also kids grow up at different rates. But, by the time they are old enough to make their own decisions about things in general, they really ought to have noticed the lack of evidence for their invisible friends.

I think the evidence says otherwise. Even in war a lot of people (and most will be men) were found to avoid killing. It's an interesting paradox. Religion says "thou shalt..." but most armies have priests of some sort. Also, it seems to have been military policy over the years to "demonise" the enemy. It's much easier to persuade people to kill what they see as "sub humans". Being the "wrong" religion is seen as one way of being sub human. So, while they say "thou shalt not kill" they also lend legitimacy to those who, for whatever reason, want to see lots of the other guys dead.

"They've had for quite some time in the West, " Plain wrong. I can get married in a registry office. "Otherwise you just finish up going back and back until we have no records at all and really have bugger all idea of what really went on." Since all the old records were kept by the church, that's rather close to begging the question. It's certainly not a way to get an unbiased outcome. In any event, you seem not to know what's going on now if you think churhes have a monopoly on marriages. "I think that the only thing we can truly say about the distant past is that marraiges were important (at least ruling class ones were) and the priests of the dominant religion or God made sure that they were in on the deal." I don't think that for two reasons. First is that it's not actually backed up by evidence: it's just supposition. Secondly whatever we were before we were humans would quite possibly have been an ape that formed strong pair bonds. If that's the case then we may have had pair bonding rituals long before we had priests. My made-up scenario is just as good as yours. "My personal thought is that the word "marraige" should be reserved for the religious and that there should be a secular "Civil Union" that carries all the rights of marraige for other couples that the secular government decides it should apply to. This both opens the can and solves the problem be redefining the concepts." This may be your thought but, as has been pointed out, it's based on the false premise that marriage is something to do with churches. "iNow did a great post on the 14th Amendment and walked around the edge of the problem. "Marraige" was, is now, and always will be discriminatory in some fashion. If we are going to have discrimination (and we will certainly continue to have it) let's make it government sanctioned where the arguments are out in the open." Indeed, lets . Particularly if the alternative is to let an unelected church make the decision. "The thing nobody wants to mention and is avoided by couching the debate interms of "Who we love" or genitalia is this. Every single argument for gay marraige can be modified and used by NAMBLA or similar groups." That's a rather iffy "thin end of the wedge" argument. "If you want to run the debate in terms of "What right does society have to interfere wih personal relationships? Blah blah". Then you have face the obvious result of this. What right does society have to interfere with a 40 year old marrying a 6 year old? And in the days of easy divorce, he can get rid of her at 12 and have himself a new bride." Whatever right society has to make decisions is a lot more legitimate than the right of any church to make those decisions. "Or is it wrong to discriminate on the basis of sex but is alright on the basis of age difference? Or age for that matter, why can't two 7 year olds get married? There is a very slippery slope that nobody wants to admit exists." Slippery slope arguments are logical fallacies anyway. Just because something might happen does not mean it will happen. Please stop using them. However, whatever stops us sliding down that slope is the society's opinion. That's normally codified into law and enforced by governments. That's who I want to see in charge of weddings. The argument would work just as well the other way. Imagine that only the civil government was authorised to conduct marriages and someone was suggesting that the church might also get that authority. I could argue (just as (il)logically) that "if you let the church decide who can marry, it will be the "NAMBLA or similar groups" next. The argument is wrong in both directions. You shouldn't let minority interest groups make decisions about important stuff (I know we do but...) "If there are rules, then here will always be somebody who feels that they are discriminated against. If there are no rules, then there are no cohesive societal values and shortly afterwards, no society. This is the lesson of history" A valid argument in favour of a government of some sort. But utterly irrelevant to the issue of churches conducting weddings. You show that it's a good idea to let society decide this sort of thing. Why let the church overrule that decision?

I see you use the past tense, does this mean that you lost Libido? (Please note, at least I used a capital letter to denote a proper noun). I was going to call my goldfish Methionylglutaminylarginyltyrosylglutamylserylleucylphenylalanylalanylglutaminylleucyllysylglutamylarginyllysylglutamylglycylalanylphenylalanylvalylprolylphenylalanylvalylthreonylleucylglycylaspartylprolylglycylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylserylleucyllysylisoleucylaspartylthreonylleucylisoleucylglutamylalanylglycylalanylaspartylalanylleucylglutamylleucylglycylisoleucylprolylphenylalanylserylaspartylprolylleucylalanylaspartylglycylprolylthreonylisoleucylglutaminylasparaginylalanylthreonylleucylarginylalanylphenylalanylalanylalanylglycylvalylthreonylprolylalanylglutaminylcysteinylphenylalanylglutamylmethionylleucylalanylleucylisoleucylarginylglutaminyllysylhistidylprolylthreonylisoleucylprolylisoleucylglycylleucylleucylmethionyltyrosylalanylasparaginylleucylvalylphenylalanylasparaginyllysylglycylisoleucylaspartylglutamylphenylalanyltyrosylalanylglutaminylcysteinylglutamyllysylvalylglycylvalylaspartylserylvalylleucylvalylalanlaspartylvalylprolylvalylglutaminylglutamylserylalanylprolyphenylalanylarginylglutaminylalanylalanylleucylarginylhistidylasparaginylvalylalanylprolylisoleucylphenylalanylisoleucylcysteinylprolylprolylaspartylalanylaspartylaspartylaspartylleucyleucylarginylglutaminylisoleucylalanylseryltyrosylglycylarginylglycyltyrosylthreonyltyrosylleucylleucylserylarginylalanylglycylvalylthreonylglycylalanylglutamylasparaginylarginylalanylalanylleucylprolylleucylasparaginylhistidylleucylvalylalanyllysylleucyllysylglutamyltyrosylasparaginylalanylalanylprolylprolylleucylglutaminylglycylphenylalanylglycylisoleucylserylalanylprolylaspartylglutaminylvalyllysylalanylalanylisoleucylaspartylalanylglycylalanylalanylglycylalanylisoleucylserylglycylserylalanylisoleucylvalyllysylisoleucylisoleucylglutamylglutaminylhistidylasparaginylisoleucylglutamylprolylglutamyllysylmethionylleucylalanylalanylleucyllysylvalylphenylalanylvalylglutaminylprolylmethionyllysylalanylalanylthreonylarginylserine But it took me more than 7 seconds to say it and so he could never learn it. (I know it's a myth about goldfish memories, but why let the facts spoil the joke?)

No, they are mislead. But if, in spite of finding out that he's just a way that parents bribe their kids into being good (making a list, and checking it twice) they grow up and continue to believe in him, then they are broken. Of course, kids are often mistaken about things because they simply don't know any better. Not so much "broken" as "not yet fully built".

1 Not really. The particular examples they chose were specific. They were chosen to be intrinsically harmless. (can you give me an estimate of the death toll from them?) 2 No, but it didn't. Nice try at a straw man. 3) no, not really (see 1). 4) Apparently not (see below) 5) OK so even you agree that this isn't important and yet it still influences those people's decisions. Even if they only get affected by a third of things that don't matter then that's still not actually rational is it? 6) I think that's what they call the thin end of the wedge fallacy. Whatever you call it, it doesn't make sense. My sense of honour isn't to any particular group, but to right vs wrong. A friend of mine found that her father had indecent images of children on his computer. She shopped him to the police. Are you saying that, because of family loyalty she should have let him carry on? Sometimes betraying family is the right thing to do. 7) I guess it might be a cultural thing. A while ago a friend of mine said that she knew someone who couldn't get a decent job. The reason was that he had a criminal record. His offence was that he was caught by a police officer while peeing in the street (on the way back from the bar). Most of us present felt that he had been unduly harshly treated because we knew that we had all done the same thing in the past and knew that, while not desirable, it was not actually harmful. Maybe the difference is that it rains a lot more here. Again, can you give me an estimate of the death toll, or even the number of hospital admissions or the cost of the clean up? So, yes, of course I still say it doesn't matter and so did a fairly randomly chosen group of other people. 8 no it's still different. In one case there is actual data in the other case there isn't. Can you show me any actual evidence for poor logical thinking among tree hugging hippies? 9 The shit of wild animals is disgusting, but it's not morally wrong. Well, that's a turn up for the books, isn't saying "(And it only took 9 months or so of research to work that one out.) " doing exactly what you were complaining about. You can't find a valid way to rubbish their argument, so you criticise them personally.

"But nothing about sex slaves. " You think the idea of "Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves." was so they could be kept as nurses and cooks? Also, re "Everyone knew the consequences of defeat: death or, hopefully, slavery. " They may have known the consequence, but what choice did the young girls have?

I think the simplest reply is to invite you to get back to us when you find some evidence.

You seem to have answered your own question. ".Is there one gene responsible for breast size and shape" "My mother currently has an E(DD) cup but before I was born she had C cup" In any event, human heritability is usually rather complicated. It is (as far as I know) never as simple as "Is there one gene responsible for breast size and shape, another for legs and thighs... or the overall silhouette depands on one gene?" The best indicator of how you will develop is probably your mother, but there's so much variability due to other influences that your are pretty nearly guessing. Sorry, but we can't predict the future.

Interesting question that one. If I want to recruit cannon fodder the last thing I want them to do is think independently. If, on the other hand, I want intelligent, logical, innovative soldiers who can, at need, also act as diplomats and statesmen then I do want people who "question" things. I guess the senior US military just told us how they think of the men and women serving their country.