It is when it tells people what [not] to believe.
Fundamental atheists have zero respect for tolerating other people's different belief -- they arrogantly assume theirs is the "correct" one.
Considering Science by definition is amoral where else would they get it from?
Politics?
Philosophy?
>> "As a mystic I have _knowledge_ by definition, aka experience."
> false. Completly(sic) and utterly false
Only an idiot attempts to tell another person what they have experienced. Quit being an idiot -- you are smarter then that.
> so now you are saying you have special vision no one else has? Hoe(sic) convenient.
1. Show me _where_ I made the claim that I was the _only_ one who could see??
2. Do you even understand the word: Analogy ??
> which is why we ask for proof.
Proof of what _exactly_? God? As I said before, There is NO proof except experience.
Did you completely fail to understand the analogy that _playing_ the drums IS proof that you _know_ how to play the drums ??
How exactly do you propose Atheists have an experience about something they have no belief in?? They dismiss _all_ actions_ that are needed such as prayer and meditation; their mind is closed. Not even an NDE would convince them that a higher reality exists -- only death, but by then it will be too late.
Nay, the only proof I will give is that "First" contact will happen by 2024.
> lowly science student
There is nothing lowly about someone curious to learn. Curiosity is a gift; using your mind is good.
I call it fraud, but the contract says "up to" some speed or other, so technically they're only breaking the contract if they provide you faster service than you paid for.
I still call it fraud. And a contract of adhesion.
That's why you use a "google glass" like thing. You don't use welding goggles, you use something totally opaque, and look at the world through a video camera.
But it only works after you're expecting it.
If you don't see, it's because you aren't looking.
OTOH, I will agree that not anything like all of the protestors of the 1960s & 70s were basically idealistic. Many just didn't want to die in a war they could see no justification for. How terrible.
Perhaps the worst thing to come out of the Vietnam War was the abolition of the draft. Now nobody with power has to even notice that unjust wars are being perpetrated, and certainly they don't feel a direct affect on their children. Perhaps if they did things would be different. OTOH, the government has gotten very good at ignoring opinions that it doesn't want to hear, so it might not have made any difference.
This doesn't mean the convention has nothing to do with it, but it's not surprising that the Geneva convention would choose to adopt the rules that everyone was already following a lot of the time.
Also note that your history indicated that "sawback" bayonets were mainly used by the German armies. Adopting a prohibition against them may have been a political move to allow retroactive condemnation of the "uncivilized" enemy army.
Causation in the real world is usually a complicated thing. Especially when politics and treaties are involved.
Does a uniform count as military equipment?
I do not believe that "cap and trade" is a viable solution. There doesn't seem to be a single implementation around the globe that isn't a nest of loopholes.
Carbon tax could be implemented in quite a straightforwards way internally to a single country. Imports and exports would need a more complex adjustment, however, to balance things so that penalties were not unfairly assessed or bypassed.
OTOH, I'm actually more in favor of a more general "environmental degradation tax", though I can't imagine any generally acceptable way of figuring it.
Sorry, but while it adds fresh water *ICE* to the ocean, it gets added almost entirely as ice without undergoing a melt phase until it gets far north of Antarctica. So you aren't getting a lot of fresh water added to the Antarctic ocean. You're getting ice (which is, indeed, fresh water) added to the ocean. It gets a considerable distance from Antactica before it typically melts. (Except, of course, a little bit, which lubricates the flow of the glaciers.)
OTOH, if the sea ice were trapped around Antarctica, I suppose it would melt. Fresh water has a higher freezing point than salt water. But I don't believe that's what typically happens.
AGW?? I read that as "Anti-Global Warming", but it doesn't match the rest of your message. Perhaps you should spell out your abbreviations a bit more. I suppose it could also be "Anthropogenic Global Warming", but I see that phrase much less often.
When the same TLA could mean two totally opposite things, it might be a good idea to avoid it...or at least to define it in context.
unhhh.... you do know that the Arctic Ocean is essentially clear of ice during the late summer these days don't you? And that passenger ships are starting to ask for the right to route their trips through that area? (It's still not safe enough for a standard ship, because one iceberg can ruin your whole day...but it's getting there.)
Sorry, the *sea ice* volume is probably much higher. You can't as easily measure that from a satellite, but it's what is to be expected. What's happening is the glaciers that were on the Antarctica land mass are moving out into the ocean and floating. This increases the area of sea ice coverage and decreases the amount of ice on land. But sea ice melts as it moves around, so it keeps disappearing as it moves towards the equator.
P.S.: Another way of saying the same story is "Antarctica has been spawning icebergs faster than the bergs have been melting".
Agreed. Beautiful logic!
Q. What are lawyers good for?
A. They make used car salesmen look good!
Q. What does molds, ooze, pond scum, lawyers, and used car salesman have in common?
A. They're all slime.
Q. What's the difference between a car salesman and a computer salesman?
A. The car salesman knows he's lying!
I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"
