hypervalent_iodine

! Moderator Note vampares, stop bringing up the Snowden nonsense in other threads. Stick to the topic without trying to being in your own.

! Moderator Note SamBridge, I would think by now you were pretty well aware of our rules regarding civility, though you apparently need reminding. Keep the personal remarks out of it. And for the record, you have in fact given rep points in the past.

! Moderator Note Please everyone stick to the topic. If you wish to discuss homosexuality, please refer to one of the many existing threads on the topic or start a new one. akis3, language barrier or no, you need to abide by our forum rules and start engaging in proper discussion. This includes rules 1c., which prohibits the use of slurs or prejudice remarks against a group or groups of people (for example, homosexuals) as well as rule 8., which relates to soap-boxing (I warned you about this earlier). Please start responding to the actual points that people are making and try to clarify yourself a little better if possible, or this thread will be closed.

! Moderator Note There is obviously a very large language barrier here and your second line is certainly confusing, but regardless, the use of the word, 'whores,' is unacceptable here. There also seems to be a lot of claims made in this thread with very little support. Please cite where you get your information (that goes for everyone). Do not respond to this modnote in-thread.

! Moderator Note Johnny Electriglide, I have hidden your recent post in this thread as it violates rules pertaining to plagiarism and copyright infringement. If you are going to quote the work of other people, please provide more context and attribute it to them properly.

! Moderator Note Arnaud Antoine ANDRIEU, Your posts were hidden because advertising external websites is against the forum rules.

As with your other thread, please show what you have done and where you are having trouble.

We don't do homework questions here. We are happy to help if you can show some effort and explain where you are struggling.

I don't have to live in the US to know what is meant by libertarianism or the US Libertarian party. If you read my post, the citation made in the quote you provided does not make a link between the Libertarian party and science denial, but libertarian world views and science denial.

I don't live in the US and I have no party affiliation even in the country I do live in.

Again, your quote does not support your argument. I clicked through to the other link in the quote and still, there is no mention of the actual Libertarian party. In fact, the correlations made are between classes of world views and acceptance of science, which contradicts your previous distinction between Libertarian party members and libertarians. From the conclusion: To me, that's not so much a rejection of science as it is an extension of the libertarian view on government mandated programs. I don't agree with it (meaning that I don't agree, for instance, that people should be given the choice to vaccinate their children), but it's a different story to the one you seem to be trying to tell.

! Moderator Note Your links do not support your accusations against the Libertarian party. So again, what are you trying to talk about here?

! Moderator Note Schneibster, you have not been harassed or defamed by anyone, least of all anyone from SFN. If you wish to post here, then fine, but keep the nonsense accusations out of it. They are not relevant in any way to your OP, which you still have not clarified; are you talking about libertarians or are you talking about people who deny science? Equating the two is in no way supported by your links and this is why you need to clarify yourself. Last chance. The one thread on this that I didn't merge was left hidden because it was abusive and violated the forum rules. If you wish to cite quotes pertaining to your OP, go ahead.

! Moderator Note IF4IT, Welcome to SFN. Please be aware that we do not allow members to use threads or posts to advertise. I have removed your link and will be closing this thread.

! Moderator Note Schneibster, Your persistence is...persistent. 1. What exactly are you trying to discuss here? From the looks of this and your last two threads, this looks to be little more than soap boxing (against the rules). The articles you've linked are, for the most part, talking about people who deny science. I am not sure why you have chosen to single our libertarians in this except that you have an intense personal vendetta against them, so please make that clear or this thread will be closed as well. 2. The use of the word, 'libertardian,' stops now. As do the rest of your slurs against people who trend towards certain political persuasions (not as present in this thread, though very present in your previous ones).

I've merged your other thread on this. Please take note of Captain Panic's post.

We can assume for the sake of the argument that any sentencing of a prisoner to be passed on for medical experiments would have to be equivalent to the death penalty, since there is every chance that some unforseen side-effect will cause individuals in a given experiment to die. These experiments can be lengthy and presumably, painful (studies may involve, for instance, inducing cancer in individuals), which I would think falls in the category of human rights violations. As well, our justice system is imperfect and you cannot guarantee with absolute certainty that every person sentenced to death is guilty of the crime that put them on death row (especially when considering some of the charges that put people on death row in certain countries). As a punitive measure, it has been shown that the death penalty is largely ineffective at reducing crime rates and I doubt that the threat of medical experiments would be any better in that regard. Finally, using a population of death row prisoners for medical experiments is hardly going to give you statistically valid results for most studies. Not only do you not solve any ethical dilemmas, you create a few new ones and you struggle to generate any decent data. I do not see why you cannot extend this to the medical advancements that stem from animal testing (which encompasses most, if not all of the more modern ones from the past ~ 100 years). If we didn't develop chemotherapeutics, as an example, a lot of people that have otherwise survived their cancer would be dead. In a way, the animals we sacrificed to develop these drugs is a necessity and it will continue to be so until we can develop methods that are as robust and translatable to human models as the various animals we currently use are.

This is my last comment on the matter because it is off topic. Your link was to a secondary source of information. A report about a scientific article. I said that an article about a press release about an article is probably not the best source, as the media often obfuscates the content they report on. So I linked two things: the actual article from Nature, which you seem to have a problem with, and the press release from the scientists that put it together. The difference here is between primary sources (which I linked in the nature.com link) and secondary sources such as yours. Obviously, the primary source is more credible. Universities do not link to every publication their staff makes and even if they do, they usually send a link to the where the journal is located online (in other words, to the journal's website - nature.com would be one such website). It doesn't matter that it's nature.com and not nature.edu; nature.com was where the actual article was housed and the link I was provided was to that article so of course it's more credible. Regardless, your distinction between .edu and .com is a pretty silly metric. Also, journals such as Nature or Science (both .com) are not filled with articles written by Nature or Science staff, they are filled with peer-reviewed articles written by scientists reporting on their findings from whatever work they are doing. Perhaps you are confusing what I mean by article or you are not familiar with how scientific work is published? The nature.com link was not another media / press release. It was a link to the body of peer reviewed scientific work to which all the other media articles were referring to. Did you even look at it? I can only assume this is where the misunderstanding is, because I cannot think of any other reason someone would claim a scientific article from Nature is as (un)credible as a media piece that does a write up about it. In any case, if you want to say anything more on this, I suggest you open up a new thread.

! Moderator Note John Cuthber, this comment was unnecessary. If you could please keep the personal jibes and rudeness out of your posts, it would be greatly appreciated.

! Moderator Note Sure she did. Also, perhaps don't link to /b/ next time? The content there is 99% less than savory and has nothing to do with this post. In any case, I've moved this to the Lounge.

There's also a pretty big difference between posting links to media articles reporting about the contents of a scientific journal article and a link to the journal article itself (and in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world, no less).

Wait...are you actually trying to tell me that nature.com isn't a credible source for journal articles?

! Moderator Note iRock, you were warned on the previous page to go back and answer some of the questions asked of you. You have still not done this. Please make a coherent attempt at responding to what others here have asked you (and try to be concise). If you do not do this, this thread will be closed. I am also not sure what your last post means? You have quite obviously managed to join SFN. Do not respond to this mod note in the thread. Please use the report feature or PM a member of staff if you have a problem with this note.

They didn't. It's a hoax.

Reporting directly from actual scientists doesn't mean anything (though it's worth noting that neither of your links are actually sourcing their information from the paper, just from the press release on phys.org). It's the media. They are terrible at accurately reporting science, no matter where their quotes come from. Anyway, it took me 30 seconds to find the link to the paper. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7469/full/nature12512.html I don't understand it, so I'll leave it to others here to figure it out.