We've known this for a very long time. Longer than I've been here even.
I'd mod you up if I had points.
Yes, it is a publicity stunt, and yes, it won't convince people who are invested in the conspiracy theory, and yes, it does not prove the original photo was authentic. But as you said, it does give a plausible explanation for the lighting in the original photo.
(including the Russians who would have called us out on it had we obviously been filming on a sound stage
FWIW, most Moon landing conspiracy theories claim that Soviets were in on the scam, either because they were bribed (a common theme claims food shipments were the bribe, thereby "explaining" why the USSR didn't have any more devastating famines),
You know, I've noticed that even though there's a strong impulse to make smores, and preparations made, it always ends up with everybody drunk and just burning the marshmallows on the end of a stick, eating all the chocolate and then running around the campfire naked before tripping over a branch, passing out and waking up covered in ticks and mosquito bites.
I've been part of so many camping trips where there was every intention of making smores and it never seems to work out.
They also led to the rise of marshmallows, binge drinking and running around the fire naked.
God, I love camping.
>Causing pain to others is bad because the response I get is likely to cause me discomfort.
Politicians and CEOs and lawyers and cops do it all the time and it seems to work out quite well for them.
He's most certainly a liberal in the sense that he says that you should have the freedom to choose. That's a bad thing?
When the Democratic party leadership decided against single payer, Ezekiel Emanuel was one of the lead hit men making the case against it (including a lot of falsehoods and misinformation), along with his brother Rahm, who provided the political muscle.
Thanks to the Emanuels, you have to buy Obamacare from your insurance company.
Here's what that means: If you have a chronic disease, like inflammatory bowel disease, you will have to pay $8,500 a year in total health care costs. In Canada, the comparable costs through taxes would be about $4,000 a year. And also, people tell me that they can't keep their doctors. One student with IBD was seeing a gastroenterologist at a major academic medical center. The plans under Obamacare would have forced her to see a neighborhood gastroenterologist who's willing to take Medicaid. That's a pretty important difference when you're taking biological modifier drugs like rituximab that kill people when they're given by a doctor who's not familiar with them.
My grandmother served as a volunteer at her local Salt Lake City hospital for about 30 years, starting around the age of 65. She also traveled the world, going on mystery vacations that took her everywhere from China to Peru to the France, and was doing that all the way into her 90s as well. She was able to live independently in her home the entire time, still was hosting get-togethers with her friends right up until the end, and still made it down into town a few days a week to get her hair done or do other errands. And since her house was paid for long ago, she could easily live off of my grandfather's Army pension, allowing her to be generous with her time and the money she got from her other retirement holdings.
She broke her leg when she was 101, and despite the doctors not thinking she'd manage to survive the surgery to repair it, she did so with flying colors and was doing well in recovery afterwards. It wasn't until a few weeks later that someone broke the news to her: she would never be able to walk unaided again, nor would she be able to live independently any longer. She passed away within two days. I firmly believe it was a case of losing the will to live.
All of which is to say, people can and do live active, fulfilling lives well past 75, and I see no reason to cut off life early if the life is still being lived well. Volunteering is a great suggestion. You get to be involved in improving other people's lives and can see them benefit from your efforts. But without something to motivate people or keep them moving, people tend to die quickly. I've seen it happen time and time again, as have most of us, I'd assume. And I'd hope that it's the case for me as well: when I stop being able to contribute, I don't want any extraordinary measures used to lengthen my life. I outright let my retirement advisor know that I didn't plan to be alive for long after I retired, since I plan to work late in life in one capacity or another, and when I can't work, I plan to keel over shortly thereafter.
>Money requires relationships.
No, it just requires a job. It's not that hard to get a crappy-to-mediocre-paying job without any personal relationships. Or, you can be like corporate executives or lawyers and just be really good at lying to people, so you have relationships but they're not actually genuine.
>So you can name dozens of people who don't live by caring about others. There are what? almost 8 billion people on the planet?
The dozens of people I can name are actually running the planet. It doesn't look like this system of yours is working all that well.
Ezekiel (like his brother, the mayor of Chicago) is from a family with a history of liberal political activism. In a very direct way he was raised with liberal, and arguably progressive leanings. His formative years (the dying of his wool) developed the philosophies he now holds as a mature adult.
In Israel, his father a member of the Irgun, a terrorist organization responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel and the Deir Yassin massacre. I don't think Ezekiel disagrees significantly with AIPAC.
His mother supported the civil rights movement, but I don't know of any other way in which I would consider him liberal.
I would call Ezekiel and Rahm neoliberals. I don't consider them liberals, and they certainly aren't progressives.
Most significantly, they both opposed single payer health care, and instead gave the health care industry over to the insurance industry. That basically followed the Heritage Foundation recommendations, although once Obama adopted it, the Heritage Foundation disowned it.
Rahm also supported the Iraq war (which is not surprising, since Israel supported it).
You forgot young earth creationists, probably the most popular conspiracy theory around. Evolution, geology, paleoclimatology, dendrochronology, astronomy, radiocarbon dating, fossil record and probably a dozen other sciences I forget all a hoax. A false flag operation by either god himself as a test of faith or the devil playing tricks, you don't have to go to the 1% nutters - who mostly lack sanity - to find total rejection of evidence, science and logic.
You're not going to be around that long for the long-term good of society to matter much to you.
Since the only thing I provided any details on was the origin of the Universe, you seem to be building lots of straw men. Let us see.
to believe that there is a "Philosophical question regarding the origin of the Universe." Is, in itself, a religion.
Scientific inquiry into the origin of the Universe not a religion, your claim is a baseless fabrication. We investigate the origin of all kinds of objects in numerous fields of Science. What causes O3, what causes stars to form, what did dogs evolve from, etc... The origin of the Universe is a much larger subject and requires much more to attempt an answer, but it's just as valid as the three subjects just mentioned.
The question will matter the moment you can tell us why there is a reason for the origin of the universe we currently live in.
Irrational statement and nonsensical. Form this into a question and try again.
I philosopher probably would say that, but that would be an another example of why they are useless hanger ons to the historical coat tails of science.
When the fallacy and falsity is removed you state "the question does not matter" to which I'll point back to the post you responded to.
Yes, there is proof. We are walking around in it. And yes, atheists do understand the something caused it. But there is a lot of evidence showing it was a natural something, and zero evidence it was a bi-product of intent.
Absolutely false statements and more fallacy. No! Science has not determined the origin of the Universe. Both Big Bang and Expanding Vacuum theory pick up _after_ something already exists. Both require all of the laws of physics to exist, both require mass and energy to exist, and both require space to exist . Quantities of each of those things will vary depending on who's theory you prefer, but none of the explain the origin.
But there is a lot of evidence showing it was a natural something, and zero evidence it was a bi-product of intent.
I had to pull that quote twice, because this is exactly what I was referring to when I stated that people refuse to separate Religion from discussing the Origin of the Universe.
I won't pick apart the rest of your statements which do the same exact thing to other subjects that you did with trying to mangle a discussion on the origins of the Universe. You have built a bunch of straw men out of fabrications like "The science is well know. The vast majority of public debate isn't about anything debatable. It's one side making things up and the other using science. i.e. expermint, data, ect.". That is absolutely false, and any person truly interested in "science" should be appalled at such an open lie.
>1) If I cause pain to others, or believe that this is justifiable, then others quite likely will treat me the same
Politicians and CEOs seem to get along just fine causing pain to others without suffering any negative repercussions. They just make sure to have some select cronies who assist them in fucking over everyone else.
>2) If everyone lived according to the ideals of "care about is your own personal survival and comfort, and nothing else.", society would collapse.
Yet we happily put people just like that into the highest positions of power over us.