... now all it needs is a light side and a dark side.

Sometimes common sense is just wrong, particularly when it comes to predicting the behavior of other people who might not agree with what you consider "common sense". If you check his publications in Google Scholar, this guy's been publishing surgical neuroscience papers in real journals since around 1990. I think he really intends to try this.

And at least a few of them genuinely believe in the magical thinking, while most are just there from social peer pressure. But it's still a dire problem.

science!

you can't explain it

I thought cosmic rays trigger lightning.

vaccines have to be mandatory as freedom has nothing to do with prideful ignorance that is a threat to safety of and well being others

get it shitbag?

wait, you're stalking my other posts? and you think heroin is like a vaccine?

of course any vaccine should be thoroughly tested before they inject it into anyone you raving moron

it's not like they are grabbing people and injecting them with experimental formulations. the science on this is well-established and there is a rigorous review process before anyone gets injected

you are a fearmongering, pridefully ignorant wackjob. you need to get and your kids your fucking vaccine and if you do not you ARE a health threat to us so we WILL save your kids and the rest of us from your dangerous ignorance, you irresponsible asshole

go live in the mountains and never have kids. if you won't do that, do what you have to do to be part of society you dumb fuck

We didn't have vaccines for most of our nations history and those diseases never posed more than a passing threat to our society.

go to an old graveyard

look at the old tombstones

look at the ages

you're a pridefully ignorant asshole and your stupidity is dangerous to the rest of us

Fraud she certainly is, but the fraud was so transparent that clearly she's not right in her head.

While the financial aspect of this makes her culpable, building an outrageous fraud around readily disprovable details of your personal biography is a very bad idea in the long run if you're simply a con artist. Doing that suggests that there are short term needs that trump simple financial considerations. Perhaps she felt she deserved more sympathy, nurturance and nurturance than she'd gotten in life. That's common enough that there's name for it: Factitious Disorder.

Over the years I've read many stories of people who assumed false biographies. Most often this took obvious forms -- passing for white before the Civil Rights Era. But in some cases people chose to assume minority identities, particularly as American Indians in the early 20th C. Chief Buffalo Child Long Lance was (by the terminology of the age) a negro with some Cherokee ancestry. He ran away to join a wild west show where he learned from Cherokee language from other performers, used that to get into Carlisle Indian School and later traded up his "Cherokee" identity for a Plains Indian one. Wenjiganooshiinh -- "Grey Owl" -- was an Englishman who was abandoned by his father in childhood then later adopted an Apache/Ojibwe identity.

What makes these two men relevant to this case is that they were both advocates of Indian rights. As outsiders, they understood what sympathetic outsiders wanted Indians to be better than an Indian would. And they would't have been able to pull it off if they weren't a little off their nut; if they didn't want to escape who they were for a more glamorous alternative.

If involves breaking the law -- not just some kind of namby-pamby administrative regulation but the basic stuff of civilization like like the prohibitions on assault or murder -- then I'll sure as hell tell what not to do.

If you're a veteran I'll gladly shake your hand and thank you for your service. I'd be honored to buy you a drink. But I won't hand you a get out of jail free card.

Have a little perspective. Yes it's wrong to impersonate a veteran, but it doesn't impugn the character of veterans. But claiming that all veterans will and should overreact to a breach of propriety with violence *does* impugn their character. Which is worse?

could you cite the HPV vaccine concerns? i remember some fearmongering from the right during the last election

you need clear and present proof, not "maybe possibly could"

your concerns are empty and pointless fear about hypotheticals that don't exist. therefore they are of no value

vaccines work. we should mandate them

someday they might not work you say? someday they could be a danger you say? what does that even mean? every fucking thing we make in the world can fuck up. maybe someday the AI of self-driving cars will screw up and drive people off bridges, so we should never have self-driving cars. what? this is just unfounded fear

your position is nonsense

you have no right to shoot and kill someone unless they represent a mortal threat to you

likewise, government has no right to use force against anyone unless that person represents a clear threat to society

if you do not get vaccinated, you are a clear threat to society as a disease vector

therefore, society has the right to protect itself from your irresponsibility of exposing people to danger, by authorizing government to force you to vaccinate

it's exactly the same as protecting yourself from a home invader. you can get shot for invading a home, because you are an unknown mortal threat to the home's occupant. in the same way, if you don't vaccinate, you are a threat that society must neutralize with use of force

the words in your comment are written as if government and society are forcing you to do something against your will for no good reason

but society has a very good reason

you are a threat to us if you do not get vaccinated

there's always going to be people with legitimate medical reasons like yourself not to get vaccinated

which is why you should be grateful for laws making vaccines mandatory: herd immunity means you and the few others unvaccinated for valid reasons are protected

where herd immunity breaks down, such as when not enough people get their vaccinations for fucking retarded reasons, you are at greater risk of getting maiming and hobbling diseases

i waded through your dreary insults then stopped reading here:

I personally see absolutely nothing cruel about warning someone against doing drugs because it will lead to a life of poverty, addiction, and early death and then making them face the consequences of their decisions when the turkey comes home to roost

no, douchebag, that is cruel

your views are invalid as your attitude is immoral

coming after all the condescension and assumed superiority, it was actually quite funny

Well, the idea of copyright is to incent creators to create, not to reward them per se. So the sensible way of approaching is to ask how many years in advance a reasonable person would make economic plans for.

Corporations seldom worry about income streams ten years out; such future income is discounted to insignificance. On the other hand an artist planning on managing his own creations might very reasonable think about fifty years out. Seventy-five years is beyond the pale of reason if we're talking about incenting creation. So is any extension of pre-existing copyrights.

If we wanted to maximize the present value of future income to an artist contemplating creating or performing a song, I think a fifty year term would be reasonable, with the proviso that any assigned rights automatically return to him without encumbrance after ten or fifteen years. Such an arrangement would have no impact economic on his ability to sell the rights to his work immediately, and hold out the promise of getting a second bite of the apple in a decade or so.