Libel, surely, not slander?

As does the US government, as Brits will discover if they've ever been arrested but never charged, and then try to travel to the USA.

My defence against Americans criticising British coffee always used to be that the worst coffee I ever had was in a cafe in St. Petes, FLA. Then I had a coffee in a Starbucks at London Heathrow, and I was forced to concede to Americans that the worst coffee I ever had was indeed in Britain. :(

It's probably more than that. Criminalize everybody, and you can prosecute whoever you like without having to admit why you're really going after them.

Many women are able to borrow a friend's whenever they want to.

Penis size is pretty useless as a biometric. It changes depending on the site being accessed.

Jack of all trades, master of none.

[citation needed]

Because of the low fleet flight hours, that one accident gave it the worst safety record of that generation of aircraft. It was retired because it would have been too expensive to make it safe.

Trust me -- whatever country you're in, the right side of the road is the opposite one to the oncoming traffic.

You never ride the subway, then? I don't think trains have steering wheels...

If you're going to drive slowly, the left lane is just the place to do it. You did notice that the article is about the UK, right?

(And I hope they do follow the rules of the road. That will include not pulling out at 65 mph into the path of a car doing 75 mph.)

What has any of this got to do with the ontological argument? Or cosmology? And neither dualism nor (most forms of) idealism have anything to do with solipsism. Are you actually reading what I'm writing? Or just responding to what you wish I'd written? You said "materialism is based on physics". Ok, where's the empirical evidence that favours materialism over rival metaphysical positions, and how would materialism be scientifically falsifiable?

Er, no. How can you possibly base materialism (a metaphysical position) on physics? Materialism is (usually) an assumption of physics (some, though not many, physicists assume dualism instead). If you try to use physics to argue for materialism you have a circular argument; the most you can claim from that is that materialism and physics are consistent with each other. Which of course they are, that doesn't make materialism the only metaphysical position consistent with physics.

Dualism is based on nothing, true, but the same can be said for materialism and idealism. You've stepped outside science and into metaphysics, in just the way I described.

Now, it is possible to reason about metaphysics, but trying to argue from science ("based on nothing"), ad-hominem attacks ("don't know shit about "mind" beyond their baseless dogma and refuse to learn about brains") and handwaving ("woo") doesn't make for a coherent case.

Try reading "Aping Humanity" by Raymond Tallis -- prominent atheist, neuroscientist and philosopher -- and you might learn that things are more complex than you think. Assuming you're willing to move beyond baseless dogma, that is.

Much of the rest of the planet (not all) is less polarised between science and religion, and finds ways -- with varying degrees of intellectual credibility -- of accommodating both without significant conflict. Typically that will involve accepting the science where it's pretty definitive (eg, evolution) whilst leaving things open when the science tries to stray into metaphysics (eg, dualism versus materialism).