On what basis do you say "we don't?" If these differences are only now being identified then it isn't necessarily a case of "do not" just "have not yet."

Structural != "hard-wired" it just means that there are different brain structures associated with specific traits. It isn't saying that the traits are immutable, just that if you have those traits you probably have a certain brain structure to back them up.

No, it was Putin who busted it into smithereens with one blow from his mighty fist.

Gee thanks for not answering the question. The problem with your analysis ain't the math, its the premise. The reporter also said that he didn't keep constant speed, sometimes varying with prevailing traffic.

He said "as much" not "can not."

I understand publishing charts and whatnot for the averate NYT reader. But throwing the actual log files up on the webserver is only marginally more effort and yet would give Musk tons more cred with the technical crowd. Expecting us to "reverse engineer" it from the charts is antithetical to the silicon valley mindset that Musk claims to be bringing to the car business.

Do you know this to be specificlly the case with the wheel options on the tesla S? Or are you making a generalization?

Why do you think I called it a simplified theory?

I agree - one in portrait mode for a full-screen web browser for reading documents and the other in landscape mode for interactive work.

Huh? Is this some kind of moral equivalency thing? The most trivial of litterbugs deserve to have their DNA analyzed and cataloged? Seems way out of proportion to me.

Maybe it has something to do with who is complaining. Here's a simplified theory:

Conservatives, by definition, want to conserve the status quo. So they are not going to be happy about news reporting on any changes.

Progressives, by definition, want to see a change in the status quo. So any reporting on the way things are is nothing new to them - they wouldn't be progressives if they didn't already think the status quo sucked.

So you get one group getting their views challenged and another getting their views reinforced. Seems plausible that the one getting their views challenged would be motivated to find allternate explanations that don't conflict with their world view.

Will they? When al-Qaradawi himself said it doesn't work the way you claim it does, when he was specifically talking about verse 9:5 and he said it in arabic on al jazeera that kind of makes it seem like I have a much better gasp of the topic than you do.

Hey, if your man al-Qaradawai said 9:5 is abrogated by the other versus, what more is needed?

Oh, so now the taco defense does not apply? You are changing your interpretation as you go. Your new explanation is still just as ridiculous. If that was what was going on then it would mean the Christian churches in egypt were happy to be second class religions. Never mind the actual wording of the declaration -- "absolute equality in rights and duties." Not secondary in rights - equal.

You know what makes more sense? That Al-Azhar said what they mean.

Given that the context was war with various pagan tribes, then yes killing the enemies you have not signed a treaty with seems pretty reasonable. Even if it is a gimme, you still can't explain away 9:6 commanding the muslims to take the non-believers to somewhere that they are safe.

You know what really cracks me up? How you started using my name over and over again instead of referring to me with a pronoun. It's like you just woke up to the fact that you are on a stage after I pointed it out to you. You are so transparent. It is funny, but sad.

Remeber all those christian churches that signed on? They are in egypt. They speak arabic. They signed on to the original arabic document. They wouldn't be fooled by a bogus english translation because they read the english version.

I suspected you would try the taco defense. That's the one that trumps any critical thinking. Anybody who says anything that disagrees with you is lying. Even the very same people that you cite as an authoritative. Do you understand how circular that reasoning is? There is literally nothing that can change your mind. It is the same thing as the salem witch trials. That ain't science, that is mindless bigotry.

I never expected you to honor your side of the deal. But for anyone else reading along, they can see your hypocrisy for what it is.

I think that is probably true. Not that I believe that deserves a medal or anything, but I am willing to believe that for a normally adjusted human, killing someone, even by remote control, is very destructive to the pysche.

I watched a video a of person dying because I thought it was a very important event, that her death ought to be witnessed by as many people as possible. It was far more intense than I ever expected, even though it was no hollywood shoot-out or anything like the way death is portrayed in video games or movies. Even today I still get broken up any time I think about it.

So not only do I think that it is entirely possible for drone operators to be affected by the things they do, I think it is a good thing. It means that we haven't been able to completely take the humanity out of war, not yet at least.

First verse 9:5 is specific to one group of treaty breakers, not everyone as specified in 9:4 "Excepting those of the idolaters with whom ye (Muslims) have a treaty, and who have since abated nothing of your right nor have supported anyone against you. ..."

The following verse 9:6 says "If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. ..." In other words, don't hurt the guy, preach to him and then let him go.

I expect you've got your twisted reasons for saying the verses before and after 9:5 don't count. So I've got more:

2:256 "There is no compulsion in religion"

--That's pretty straight-forward.

18:29 "so let whosoever will believe, and let whosoever will disbelieve"

-- Looks like even atheists are welcome.

6:108 "Do not revile those unto whom they pray beside God, lest they wrongfully revile God through ignorance"

-- Basically the golden rule for religion - treat others religions as you would your own religion. Hardly a recipe for religious subjugation.

60:8 "God does not forbid you to be kind to those who do not take arms against you. God loves those who are just"

-- Also pretty straight-forward. If people aren't attacking you, you should not attack them.

Abrogation - that's a new one since I last ran into your brethren. If you can't dispute the text, pretend it doesn't count. Looks like that AC had you pegged on that one. But, unsurprisingly even that newest form of delusion doesn't hold up under scrutiny.

You've listed Yusuf Al-Quradhawi and the al-Azhar University as sources of proof that verse 9:5 is the real deal that over-rides everything else, that all of the other verses about freedom of religion don't count. Al-Qaradawi is a pretty popular islamic theologian, he even has a show on al jazeera, kinda like glenn beck had a show on fox. While al-Azhar University in Egypt is arguably the "chief centre of Arabic literature and Islamic learning in the world." So when those two say something it must be true, right? They are your go to guys in this argument.

So, here's what al-Qaradawi actually has to say about 9:5:

• "...aggression on Muslims and not disbelief is the basis for Muslim warfare... There is disagreement on the so-called Sayf aya (the verse of the sword). Some claimed that it abrogated 200 verses of the Quran among which are the forgiveness and tolerance. But there are those who say that the Sword verse itself is abrogated."
  Who is an authority on Islam Robert Spencer or Al Qaradawi?

And here is the official position of al-Azhar University on the freedom of religion. Not just one or two professors who might be cranks, this statement has the full force and standing of the authority of al-Azhar itself.

1. Freedom of belief and the right connected to it of full citizenship (muwatana) for everyone, based [in turn] on absolute equality in rights and duties, is considered the cornerstone of the modern social order. This freedom is guaranteed by diriment and ever valid religious texts and by explicit constitutional and juridical principles. The Omnipotent in fact says, be He exalted and magnified: 'No compulsion is there in religion. Rectitude has become clear from error' (2:256); 'so let whosoever will believe, and let whosoever will disbelieve' (18:29). It follows that any form of compulsion in religion, persecution or discrimination in its name, is condemned as a crime. Each individual in society has the right to embrace the ideas he prefers, provided it does not harm the right of the society to preserve the heavenly faiths. In fact, the three divine religions have their own holy character (qadasa). Individuals are free to practise their own rites without offending the sensibility of others, violating the sacredness (hurma) of the three religions in word or in facts, and without making an attempt on public order.

   Since the Arab fatherland is the cradle of the heavenly Revelation and the protector of the divine religions, it is particularly committed to safeguarding their holy character, to respecting their rites and to protecting the rights of their faithful, in freedom, dignity and brotherhood. From the right to religious freedom derives the recognition of the legitimacy of pluralism (taâaddud), the protection of the right to difference as well as to each citizen's duty to respect the sensibility of others and their equality, on the solid basis of citizenship, participation and equal opportunities in rights and duties.
   Declaration by al-Azhar and the intellectuals on the legal ordinances of fundamental freedoms

Even the christian churches in Egypt endorsed Al-Azhar's statement:

• Egypt's three major churches and the Maspero Youth Union have come out in support of Al-Azhar's proposed basic freedoms document, which lays out a basic framework for respecting freedom of belief and expression in Egypt."
  Egyptian churches embrace Al-Azhar basic freedoms document

I didn't say they were ignorant. I said they did not sign a contract with monsanto nor did the grain elevator they purchased them from advertise them as monsanto seeds. In other words there was no conspiracy.

No, you don't get to just link to so some random website and say "that is my argument." You want to cite proof for your claims about 9:5, that's fine. But until you make a straight-forward testable claim, then there is nothing to debate.

Put all your cards on the table and we duke it out right here.

Because you have not held up your side of the deal yet.

Answer the question - why is 9:5 evil? Not what evil things did Mohamed do, not what evil things did Osama do, not what evil things are in some other verse or some other hadith. Stay focused and make a specific point.

You are free to give up and walk away if you are unable to fulfill the requirements of the deal.