|
|
The stupid thing was that he didn't convert to islam first.
Then his comments would have been a valid protest against decadent Western imperialism, and the EU twats would have awarded him 23 million pounds in compensation because the police looked at him a bit funny.
Your hierarchical individualist, however, might sneer cynically – first at the prospect of a shower of trick-cyclists managing to change his or her mind on climate change by means of spin rather than hard numbers. The hierarchical individualist might also view the "science of communicating science" push as a rather ignoble attempt by the soft-studies profs to get a share of the climate change research funding bonanza that has poured into the hard science and biology faculties in recent decades. And anyone at all might be rather alarmed, perhaps, at the prospect of actual success in the matter of developing a working discipline of Psychohistory – which could and would surely be used in other areas than climate change policy, and would surely be a threat to democracy if it worked as advertised.
And you're complaining about "culturally congruent risk perception"? This isn't news. This isn't factual reporting. This is someone framing their interpretation of a scientific letter to try to get you on board with him. I think he's ripping on the academics by way of Asimov's Foundation trilogy.
And here's a news-flash for whoever wrote that summary: Terms like "Culturally congruent risk perception" have no obvious meaning for the general reader.
That's because nearly the entire summary comes directly from a peer reviewed journal made for people who understand that sort of dense speak.
And could you say "culturally" a few more dozen times in your next summary? It really makes you sound smart, and not full of shit at all.
Behold, one of the problems with trying to relay science to the common person.
How is one culture supposed to judge another culture? Everything is relative...
Until you actually get told otherwise by your conscience.
Well, from my philosophy courses in college (as financially useless as they may have been) there's actually been a lot of study and attempts to codify what should be regarded as Universal rights. There's no need for us to rely on our "conscious" or someone else's conscious nor should we sit back if we feel that human rights are being abused in another nation that is sovereign. I'm a very liberal open minded person. If you want to worship some stupid magic person in the sky, go to town. If they start to infringe upon others' life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, then we have issues that must be remedied.
Your lax definition of a 'Conscious' be damned, begin the escalation of political pressure then economic pressure then physical pressure.
Sort of on topic, from your signature:
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
The Nazis were stopped because they blatantly violated (nearly) everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights -- so much so that many of their own detested it. And we should not allow something like the Holocaust to happen again. Communism, on the other hand, is a counter case. We went into Vietnam under the laughable pretenses that a Universal Human Right is capitalism in place of communism (with obvious self interests). Believe it or not, communism does not blatantly violate everyone's rules of Universal Human Rights and so we were kind of lacking on the support and moral high ground for that war. If you think communism has been "ended" and that it has been "ended" by war and not inherent corruption that it can't seem to shake -- you and I must be reading different books by very different authors.
To recap, Universal Human Rights transcend your suggestion of relativity. I'm not sure but if you're attempting to make fun of people who tolerate other cultures by saying it's relative, there's no place for that when you're dealing with a child's life and their attempt to be educated.
The government is legally entitled to kick the monarch out of office for such an offense and has attempted to extend that to Prince Charles any number of times.
+5 bullshit
Don't klnow where you're getting your figures from.
http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Civil%20List%20expenditure%202006.pdf says 12 M.
And that's annual. As to the land, it's the first I've heard about it. Are handing it over every year? Because if not the comparison is pointless, like most of the shit you post.
If you hardcode shit like that you're doing it wrong.
They could do it the Kindle tablet way, like Amazon - sell only the shit models outside the US, at prices 80% higher.
FTFY.
If Zimmerman had stayed in his car, and locked the doors and/or driven away, Trayvon wouldn't have been able to beat him up.
Of course that works both ways.
So why was Zimmerman out of the car?
And why would you pay to send your kid to a private school that is no better than a public one?
Because you're a snob?
we have sky scrappers
What's the going rate for melted-down clouds these days?
You can never do just one thing. -- Hardin