No. Observable and testable. Consensus has nothing to do with it.
That is an over-simplification. Nothing in science is as black and white as you are suggesting. If it was, there would be no need for peer reviews and follow-on studies. Scientific studies utilize observation and testing to "support" scientific theory and assertion. A single instance of corroboration from these results does not establish scientific fact. That's why scientific consensus is important. Theology has done the same in regards to faith over the course of thousands of years to reveal theological truth. It begins with the theological premise that God is creator of the universe. You may not agree with it, but to many people it is fundamental to the human condition every bit that science is to other folks. I simply question why people feel the need to denigrate religion and faith. If you are a non-believer, great - that's your choice.
Bitter chocolate tastes bad, therefore it must be good for you. It's like a religion.
Perhaps a better way of getting your point across is by NOT arbitrarily assailing people of faith - especially when the topic at hand has nothing at all to do with religion.
Laws are for the little people, not them.
The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 became law on November 26, 2014. Clinton's final day as secretary was February 1, 2013. The "Law" that everyone keeps claiming that she broke wasn't effective until a year and a half after she left office. There was absolutely no legal requirement at the time of her tenure to use a government e-mail. Furthermore, she retroactively complied with the records portion of the law by turning over any business related e-mails she had on her home server archive. Also, previous Secretaries of State, like Colin Powell, used personal email as well. In his case, they didn't even archive it so many of the emails are lost. We'll never have access to his electronic discusssions about, say, the decisions leading for him to give a speech at the United Nations calling for the Invasion of Iraq.
Not true. She was still bound by the Federal Records Act of 1950, U.S.C. chapters 29, 31 and 33.
I don't want to discount the threat of fundamentalist religious lunatics(of any stripe), nor would I stand in the way of reasonable efforts to put them down, but lets be real here, and not blame an entire religion of 1.2 billion people for a handful of incidents, and fringe groups....
I agree with the general point you are trying to make in indiscriminately blaming a large group of people for the actions of a few. However, spending a significant amount of time in Djibouti, Iraq, Kuwait, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the UAE and Bahrain and others over the past 27 years I have become intimately familiar with the ideology that you describe as "the fringe" which is much more mainstream than many westerners believe even if only a small fraction of those people act on their beliefs in the form of terrorist acts. In western society, we have different opinions left or right of the political spectrum. Even so, western societies largely agree on basic moral standards of what constitutes a "civilized society" which I would argue are simply orthogonal to moral "standards" in mainstream Muslim communities.
Every day is a sad day when you're divorced from reality.
Of course it is. Because your perception of right and wrong is by definition "reality" and by extension superior to mine, right? I wonder if you or any members of your family have experienced Cuban communism first hand (and I don't consider Disney-esque vacations in Cuba as "experience"). I'll go out on a limb here and say 'no'. So tell me, how's the view from the cheap seats?
Humans are brave, and motivated by ideals like liberty and honor.
Corporations are risk averse, and motivated solely by profit.
Humans are brave, and motivated by ideals like liberty and honor.
Corporations are risk averse, and motivated solely by profit.
Well said.
Pause for storage relocation.
