Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

that's a valid complaint

some scientific discoveries go against conventional wisdom and are originally ridiculed. for example, some australian scientists discovered stomach ulcers are caused by a certain species of bacteria in the 1980s. they were rejected, laughed at, people got angry at them. the belief at the time was acid and spicy food formed ulcers. wrong. eventually they won the nobel prize for medicine for their discovery

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

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

but this process is mediated by serious researchers who, adhering to the scientific method, are compelled to reverse themselves in spite of their preliminary reactions

meanwhile, we have antivaxxers, moon landing deniers, GM food ignorance, creationists, climate change deniers, fluoride fearmongers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists babbling about burning airplane fuel and steel, etc... assorted douchebag crackpots who are absolutely, undeniably factually wrong, and oftentimes dangerous (to public health, for example), but enthusiastically keep spreading their lies nonetheless

stupid shitbags like this for example are working very, very hard to kill children:

http://njvaccinationchoice.org...

not they they understand their efforts only work to kill children: they're ignorant braindead assholes, pridefully arrogant in their lack of education

so they need to be shut down in other ways. your freedom to be a moron ends when your beliefs put my life and liberty in danger. so thank you, google

google's algorithm would downplay revolutionary new scientific evidence, like the ulcer causing bacterium, indeed. but this is a short time period, squarely in the realm of brand new scientific research, where, after enough weight, change would come quickly, and so to google's algorithm, if it gets its signals from solid peer reviewed journals that present genuine science

meanwhile, lies and idiocy are not peer reviewed and grow like fungus in the dark and will never, ever change

so they need to be buried at the bottom of google as the brain numbing, sometimes genuinely dangerous puerile prideful ignorance they are

OH MY GOD, THE HYPERBOLIC FUEL IS SO UNSTABLE! It will lead to the explosions of every satellite in orbit! And it's so acidic it will eat through the fuel tanks, dripping killer toxic acid rain onto every surface on earth!! The world will end!

Or, perhaps, your device auto-corrected hypergolic, which is to say a chemical combination that self-ignites when the two substances are brought into contact with each other?

intolerance itself

intolerance of intolerance

not the same thing

pointing a gun at a man

pointing a gun back

not the same thing

if you really can't tell the difference between who initiates a transgression and who defends against it, you're not worth the time. you lack fundamental social and moral sense

when you're working, can you do it in the middle of a concert hall? the middle of an interstate highway? in between a screaming fighting couple?

or do you benefit from having a private room/ cubicle?

same principle

the wide world is full of nasty chemical interactions and potent free radicals ready to destroy anything they touch. rooms help immensely

not only do they protect, they isolate. a self-replicating process can sputter out if not restricted to it's own products

go pour a little soap/oil in some water and shake it

congratulations, you've "made" micelles

micelles are self organizing. you don't "make" sea foam, it's a simple product of natural wind and wave with sufficient chained carbon compounds

micelles occurred naturally in the early earth out of non organic processes that produced simple hydrocarbons

then the rudmientary self-replicating processes also occuring naturally in that time period, and sputtering out, uncontained, joined up with micelles and sustained. because now they have a safe container to continue in

thus the first cell, from which all the rest has sprung

i've laid out my reasoning intelligently and convincingly. all you've done is bounce one empty unsupported insult reflexively. you haven't reasoned with me at all, you've made no argument. because you have no argument. when someone is left with nothing more than sputtering insults, they've lost the argument

if you're not the same AC (anonymous COWARD), as the other one i'm responding to, then here is genuine reasoning for your education:

http://slashdot.org/comments.p...

good luck on opening your mind and understanding your problem

hilarious

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

"no, you!" is not a valid argument

me arguing against bigotry is not the same as bigotry

if i define bigotry, and say it is wrong, going "so you're the bigot!" is only a reflexive, thoughtless defense on the order of 5 year olds

it's like you point a gun at me, so i point one back in defense, and you go "see! you're a murderer!" the defense taken against a transgressive action is not the same as the actual transgressive action. defining and condemning bigotry is not the same as bigotry. do you understand?

then this:

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

Philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."[2]

intolerance of intolerance is not the same thing as intolerance itself

example: charlie hebdo: if you have a society that respects free speech, and one group says "we will kill you until we get to restrict your free speech!" does that group get to claim bigotry and intolerance when their bigotry and inteolerance is opposed? no

is society violating it's principles by restricting speech... that advocates violent restriction of speech? see the self-contradiction? incitement to violence and murder to end free speech, is not protected by the principle of free speech, because it threatens the very concept of free speech itself

another example: nazi imagery in germany. is germany violating free speech by restricting nazi imagery? no, because nazi imagery in germany is not some abstract notion, it is the symbol of the ideology that violently destroyed free german society. there's no contradiction

you cannot attack a principle, and depend upon that principle, at the same time

you cannot claim bigotry, when being singled out for your bigotry

understand?

try again and good luck

making a micelle was the very first step in creating life

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

the next step was the chemicals concentrated in the micelle being able to control it

so the choice is be

1. in a wonderful understanding marriage, or

2. "sorry, to hell with you"

your message seems to be: if you aren't married, or in a bad marriage, or in any way deviate from the 1950s leave it to beaver perfect cookie cutter utopia of domestic life, well then go fuck yourself (figuratively, not literally). that seems to be the conservative message

do you ever stop to consider people and their conditions in life that aren't in the same glorious spot as you?

is this the wonderful mythical "compassionate conservatism" i hear about always that says "you get to have sex if your life is a fairy tale, otherwise, you get to suffer, period, end of story"

why don't you instead open your mind slightly, consider people that might not have it as good as you, and allow them what they need to keep going in life?

instead of, in intolerance as you currently do, defining your oh-so-perfect life, and then declaring anyone outside it to be unclean and unworthy. that's religious conservatism in action

that would be nice but first we have to get conservative religious countries to agree to the UN universal declaration of human rights

http://www.un.org/en/documents...

what happens if you go to a conservative, religious country and say you don't believe in god or are from another religion?

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-...

so conservative religious belief supports moral behavior like not hacking someone to death just for believing different that you, right?

i made a valid coherent argument that can be substantiated with facts

you reply with empty insults

if that's the best you can do, then it seems i've made a valid point here and the best you can do is sputter in response. so you're welcome for the education today

btw, progress is real and the hallmark of human civilization. the screen and the keyboard you use to read and respond to me are marks of progress. those who use the word as an insult, that's very telling about their intellect and character

"no, you!"

clearly you've reached the intellectual rhetorical heights of a 5 year old

faced with such a devastating response, how could i do anything but admit my humble defeat at your extreme intellect and wonder at how badly i've erred in my ways?

speaking against bigotry is not the same as bigotry. you can't keep sputtering the one reflexive insult you know and sound like you are making a coherent argument. so if that's all you can do, then i guess i've made my point pretty well to you today. you're welcome for the education

if that's your best response i guess i've made an impression. glad i could give you some education today

good and evil are objectively described as acts which benefit another person or transgress against another person. good and evil are not mystical wishy washy bullshit, they are apparent to, now that you mention it, even elementary school children. any child of normal psychological and social development, anyone who has empathy: you don't hurt other people

children possess a basic understanding of morality, right and wrong, good and evil: putting yourself in someone else's shoes. religion does not make morality, it is in all of us, naturally. japan isn't touched by abrahamic religions, they have morality. a hindu and a jew can agree on the vast majority of simple human morality, because they are both human, not because of their religions

if anything, religion usually defines ways for people to defy basic human morality, such as with vain, shallow, self-serving petty judgments, which is what people who call themselves religious and conservative usually busy their small minds with. that's a form of transgressing against another. something a moral person would understand as wrong. something a religious person would think is "right"