Bullshit. There is a clinic that would pay people 40 bucks a pop per "plasma" donation. I used to go there back when I was making minimum wage and flip an ounce of my plasma into a silver bullion coin once every week. That's almost 3 pounds of silver a year just to be at 90% strength for a few hours instead of 100. They would also test your blood for infection, your sugar / protean levels and what not, so it was a way to monitor your health and actually get paid for it.

PS: If you really have no pretext for this discussion, the only "strict gun laws" that ever get passed are "assault rifle" bans and limits on the number of firearms a person can own. Like i said, neither of those things are going to cause anyone to disarm.

You act like the criminals have no choice of who they rob. If they know a house is home to "gun people" they'll just target the guy down the street. Anyway, I'm not going to argue that point. Just look up the amount of homes registered as owning a gun with relation to time, you'll notice gun ownership by household doesn't change very much (no where near 50%, hyperbole? really?) whether or not "strict" gun laws are in place.

So like you said, criminals aren't stupid, they'll just pick a home that doesn't have "gun people" in it, and really, it's not going to matter if that house has 20 AKs, only one, or a couple of handguns, you can only shoot one or two of them at one. As for the rest, I'm going to have to call bullshit on your statement that laws preventing the ownership of 6 or more guns causes 50% of gun owners to disarm themselves.

According to this Ad Absurdum logic, dropping sand-bags in an at-risk hurricane zone actually causes the hurricane. Ever see hurricanes hit where NOBODY is getting prepared? No? Well, there you go, responding to a hurricane caused that hurricane, just like responding to a flux in gun violence caused that flux in gun violence.

PS: I don't advocate the removal of any of our constitutional rights, just the abandonment of shitty logic. Don't look so surprised, of course your regurgitated politically rhetoric is going to contain a dozen logical fallacies, it was drummed up to incite argument, not to dig into the root causes, that might *ghasp* bring closure to the argument and no politician wants that.

OP's logical failure is called the fallacy of the single cause. After half a dozen logic classes and 4 textbooks... I wouldn't be so quick to judge his professors, but it's odd someone could pass a logic course without knowing basic ELEMENTARY logic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

So If i hit a 90 degree turn at 200mph some equal and opposite force is going to keep my car from flipping over? Why don't you make a youtube video demonstrating this?

And nobody was arguing whether or not they were correct in defining it how they did. The only argument is that is how it was defined, not whether it was accurate or correct to define it.

Whether or not it's true is how you define "retarded". Most idiots would think of some down syndrome patient masturbating on the short buss with drool coming out of his mouth. That isn't how "retardation" was defined in the DSM, it wasn't invented to be nor was it always a derogatory word. Stricly speaking I myself am retarded, I have bi-polar.

Medically speaking most of the population has some form of retardation or another. Pretending your weaknesses are posative attributes won't make them go away or stop them from causing you difficulty in life.

If X is A, and a C is an X, then a C is an A as well.

/facepalm

Since we're talking about logical fallacies, nice Red Herring there, but citing an authority's position isn't an "appeal" to the said authority unless you were arguing that same position, which nobody is. All he was saying is that "suffering from mental illness" is the politically correct slang for calling someone a "retard", and that Autism is a mental illness.

If X is A, and a C is an X, then X is A.

Please, tell me more about how a person who spends 80 years staring into space, pissing and shitting themselves, and not responding to stimuli shouldn't be judged to have something wrong with them.

If there is something wrong with a person behaving in such a way, and a another person behaves the same way to some extent, while not as severe but for none the less the same reasons, then wouldn't they also have, to some extent, the same something wrong with them?

PS: "Locality" vs "Non-locality" are elementary ideas in quantum mechanics, if you aren't aware of their basic meaning then why should anyone waste their time trying to explain them to you. Do you think the world owes you answers just because you're too lazy to look them up yourself? In the most basic terms these ideas aren't even difficult to understand-- phenomenon that are unexplained by, that contradict classical physics.

For example, one branch of Quantum Computing is projected to accommodate instant network communication across any distances, that is, a network connection to Mars could have a 10ms ping as the connection would rely on entanglement and not radio waves.

"non-locality" would be the only thing that would make quantum computing a novel process. Otherwise, it's sort-of like an electric car, using new tech to solve old problems.

If you didn't know, building a "quantum computer" is about more than ramping up the GHz and shrinking die space.

No one would take him seriously unless he's an arrogant moron? Do you take arrogant morons seriously, is "seriously" how arrogant morons should be taken? Wait, silly question, obviously you take them VERY seriously. lmao.

Classic example of an idiot confusing causation with correlation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

So what you're saying is the races shouldn't mix.