You are implying that ones political stance is an indicator of their intelligence?
What!? I'm sure both parties are equally likely to use words like "intellectual", "elite", "professor", "educated", "scientist" as disparaging or insults.
opinion
[uh-pin-yuh n]
noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
To most people, both supporters and opponents, evolution and global warming are a matter of opinion because they don't know enough for certainty. I suppose a lot of them could argue that it's actually a
fact
[fakt]
noun
4.
something said to be true or supposed to have happened:
The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.
While evolution and global warming are both definitely questions of fact rather than of preference, there are very few who could make that determination themselves rather than trust someone else's judgement.
OK, if someone decreed that they didn't like what you said and that if you didn't fork over a bundle of cash, their big army of goons would come take it by force... you'd call the cops on them, wouldn't you?
Now, if instead the government decided that they didn't like what you said and that if you didn't fork over a bundle of cash, their big army of goons would come take it by force... then whatever you said isn't protected by freedom of speech. Even if you call this process a civil lawsuit.
Our laws have got to be the most daring hack ever.
Is there any other way for a Middle Eastern country to earn our respect, other than to be able to nuke us?
(And no, they don't need a rocket delivery mechanism -- it can be shipped pre-emptively to the country most likely to meddle with them.)
Because the alternative would be some kind of wild west scenario where the party who can summon the most naked force to his cause wins.
That would be me. If someone were threatening me with bodily harm over something
I said, I'd call the cops on them. Let's see them summon more force than that.
The 1st amendment doesn't apply, as libel is a civil infraction.
If anyone could win a civil lawsuit against any gun owner (no matter how responsible) for emotional damage because "guns are scary", would you still think people had the right to bear arms?
It's not the government that acts against you, it's the injured party.
Then explain why there's a court involved, and why the government will enforce collection of the civil suit damages?
Freedom of Speech has never implied freedom from responsibility.
It does if by "responsibility" you mean "consequences". And especially if by "consequences" you mean "government will do nasty things to you".
Hint: libel laws are an exception to free speech, not a "responsibility".
But does the HUD reduce profit margins?
public domain is a myth
[citation needed]
What do we do if the sun goes into red giant mode?"
The answer by the way, is "not much".
First of all, we have billions of years before that happens. Second of all, we can just move the Earth a little farther from the sun (if we're still living here or it has sufficient sentimental value). This, incidentally, relates to asteroids in that we can use the slingshot effect to transfer energy and momentum from asteroids to planet.
A plan to save us from NEOs would require some ability to actually reach an NEO before it hit.
Any plan to reach a NEO before it hits requires some ability to detect them (preferably when they're far enough away that we only need to give them a gentle nudge).
"Avira flags all that crapware that most other antiviruses are paid to ignore," said a spokesman for Freemium.com.
Got it. Bugs in the airplane's airflow decrease fuel economy, but aren't considered a safety concern.
Oh, well. It's no skin off my nose.
The following statement is not true. The previous statement is true.
