search results matching tag: Waffles

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (66)     Sift Talk (1)     Blogs (11)     Comments (223)   

5 ways you are already a socialist

dannym3141 says...

<Skip if you're not interested in semantics.>
Stating your annoyance about how people use a word and arguing the semantics of the word only contributes towards clogging up the discussion with waffle and painfully detailed point-counterpoint text-walls that everyone loses interest in immediately. I'm going to do the sensible thing and take the meaning of socialism from what the majority of socialists in the world argue for; things like state control being used to counteract the inherent ruthlessness of the free market (i.e. minimum wage, working conditions, rent controls, holidays and working hours), free education, free healthcare (both paid for by contributions from those with means), social housing or money to assist those who cannot work or find themselves out of work... without spending too much time on the close up detail of it, that's roughly what i'll take it to mean and assume you know what i mean (because that's how the word IS used now, like it or not).
<Stop skipping now>

So without getting upset about etymology, I think a reasonable argument could be made for Jesus being a socialist:
- he believed in good will to your neighbour
- he spent time helping and caring for those who were shunned by society and encouraged others to do so too
- he considered greed to be a hindrance to spiritual enlightenment and/or a corrupting influence (easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle and all that)
- he healed and tended the sick for free
- he fed the multitude rather than send them to buy food for themselves
- he argued against worshiping false gods (money for example)

If we believe the stories.

I also think that a good argument could be made for Jesus not being a socialist. You haven't made one, but one could be made.

Marx is open to interpretation, so you're going to have to make your point about his quote clearer. I could take it to mean 4 or 5 different and opposing things.

Babymech said:

'Jesus' wasn't a socialist, though. The ideas in the Bible aren't socialist; it's just that people have sloppily started to associate socialism with vague ideas like sharing and being good to your fellow man. Socialism is a specific economic and ideological model for explaining and directing societal phenomena, and it's sort of annoying that it has been turned into either a spooky bugbear or an adorable care bear. There's a reason why Marx called religion the opium of the people.

Mishka wants waffles

Mordhaus (Member Profile)

Why are there dangerous ingredients in vaccines?

Mordhaus says...

Yes, I was wondering when you would trot out Hooker's paper and the 'CDC whistleblower" bit. You see, in the lack of clear scientific fact, conspiracy theorists tend to grab whatever they can to prove that they are right. I'll dissect your attempt right now.

First, Hooker's paper was covering the data involving African-American children with supposed predilection towards autism. The sample size was small, the math was ludicrous, and he incorrectly analyzed a cohort study. Because of the NUMEROUS failures to appropriately conduct a true scientific study, his paper was retracted. So, when exposed to the light, his theory was decidedly lacking in content and was canned.

http://retractionwatch.com/2014/08/27/journal-takes-down-autism-vaccine-paper-pending-investigation/

This incompetent study was the result, allegedly, of discussions between Hooker and a senior psychologist at the CDC named William Thompson. Hooker then teamed up with Andrew Wakefield to cherry pick bits to make it sound as though Thompson were confessing to some horrible crime of data manipulation to hide this “bombshell” result reported by Wakefield. Thus was born the “CDC whistleblower".

In February 2010, the General Medical Council in the U.K. recommended that Wakefield be stripped of his license to practice medicine in the U.K. because of scientific misconduct related to his infamous 1998 case series published in The Lancet, even going so far as to refer to him as irresponsible and dishonest, and in May 2010 he was. He is a now doing everything he can to prove his theories, like possibly illegal recording of conversations, so that he can regain some credibility. The guy is a hack.

Thompson has admitted to being prone to anxiety disorders, being delusional, and has shown that he is more scared of being 'the bad guy' then doing his job. His career is pretty much finished at the CDC, because he has shown that he will waffle if confronted by angry people who can't understand science. I feel sorry for him, but he has issues.

So, now we can address your link. A congressman, not a scientist, has received information from people who have been laughed out of the scientific community for multiple reasons. He sees buzzwords and decides to get ahead of the bandwagon, calling for further investigation and research. I can, of course, show you knee-jerk reactions by multiple members of congress similar to this, like Ted Cruz calling for immediate investigation into Planned Parenthood over the recent videos. You know, the ones that were chopped and spliced together to make it sound like PP was selling aborted babies? Do you see a pattern with the chop and splice for sensationalism? I hope you do.

In other words, you don't have any scientific facts. Like all anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists, you rely on a few items that seem to tie together to form a true fact, but they don't. When confronted with this, you will say that it's all big pharma and money trails, etc. Do you not see the fallacy in that logic? It's like saying that the the earth was created 9000 years ago...because RELIGION!

Btw, if you want to place your trust in politicians trying to be scientists, I leave you with this gem from former congressman Paul Broun.

"You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says."

Sniper007 said:

And you are the guy who rapes nuns on Teusdays for peanut butter jelly sandwitches. (Hint: Lies aren't don't become true just because you type them out.)

You are welcome to continue placing your faith in the FDA, CDC, and AMA to tell you the truth. Good luck with that.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4546409/mr-posey

You expect me to show you massive, expensive, controlled studies published exclusively by those who have a massive, vested, financial interest in supressing the very same studies. Genius. Pure genius.

These peer reviewers are regularly lying to each other, to themselves, to the publishers, and to the public to maintain funding. They have no credibility whatsoever. You are reading studies that are all fancied up to be all technical and socially acceptable and official and scientific and peer reviewed and above reproach... And they are all lies. Calculated lies to maintain the results expected by those who fund the studies.

Doubt - How Deniers Win

dannym3141 says...

@bobknight33

Please tell me what your experience is with the scientific community. Do not waffle or sidestep the issue but answer exactly what the extent of your experience with scientific research is, and if necessary how that positions you to judge scientific material.

Please also provide three examples from three separate (and recent) peer reviewed (and published, i.e. forming part of the scientific argument) scientific research papers from approximately the last 4 years (since 2010) that provides something illogical as a foundation argument or any particular conclusion. (You realise of course that even 3,5,10, 100 out of 10 thousand is meaningless, but i know that you can't even understand the layout of a scientific paper, nevermind find 3 examples of an illogical statement in a scientific paper.... even my professors would struggle with that.)

I'm not going out of my way to be a dick here @bobknight33 .. but if you tried to give people medical advice (chemotherapy is illogical propaganda!) then you would be expected to have an expertise in medicine. So don't run away from your responsibility.

This shouldn't be a difficult challenge for you, being as you are so certain and so correct that the science is illogical propaganda. I've had to accept things that ran completely counter to my intuition, so if climate change science is bull then as soon as you prove it, i'm on board.

So go ahead, explain to me simply and clearly what makes it bullshit science, or you're going to have to admit that you don't even have the first clue what you're talking about (as i strongly suspect).

Believe climate SCIENCE, do not believe what politicians and industry leaders tell you about climate science - ASK A FUCKING SCIENTIST. And most of all - @bobknight33 - it is NOT ok to pretend to understand science and lie to people about it, you deceptive, brain-dead parrot. Well, having said that, at least parrots have redeeming features.

Perfect Pancakes for the Mentally Challenged

Sagemind says...

I don't make Waffles because I need to use that silly machine. Why would I ever want to use this thing - what they don't tell you here, is they overflow and drip out the sides -- all over your burners....
I use a regular Teflon griddle, wipe minimal oil on with a paper towel, and have no issues flipping anything.

Talk about trying to sell people things we don't need.

Oh, and that thing limits you to four at a time, I can make up to eight at a time, because I don't have restrictions..., not to mention little ones and big ones...

Akbar

Akbar

Cậu Bé nhảy đám cưới

chingalera says...

so glad you hit the sarcasm button there copper-C, way to waffle and save whatever face you imagine you have_an apology would be the noble thing, simply hit sarcasm and downvote my sentiment-Yeah, I'm a real pervert maestro-

chicchorea said:

Swirley again...spinning...spinning....

This one meets your age requirements too.

Picking up a Hammer on the Moon

Chairman_woo says...

@MichaelL

And this calculation exists in complete isolation from the rest of the universe and laws of physics? That was the angle I was coming from and I did explain several times how it was indeed unnecessary and self indulgent of me to do so.

Just because a simple weight/force calculation was all we needed practically didn't mean that the rest of the universe just disappeared. We can just conveniently ignore it.
I didn't because I was A. bored and B. had rocketry on the brain from playing too much KSP.

This is what I meant by not the whole story. Your not wrong but that does not necessarily preclude what I was waffling on about.

Though while were at it if that astronaut and suit weight say 100kg then that'd be 180N of force right? So that's like lifting a 18kg object on earth? I don't know about you but 18kilos would take some shifting for me, especially if I was trying to throw it vertically. Doable but not what I'd call easy. (& naturally throw in the cumbersome suit and its a total pain in the arse)


And goddamit the whole Fosbury flop thing flashed into my head but I dismissed it. Never occurred to me that that extra meter or so would have such a profound effect when you introduce a multiplier like gravity. Great example!

dzonny (Member Profile)

Waffles The Cat Attempts Jump From Snowy Car

Waffles The Cat Attempts Jump From Snowy Car

Waffles The Cat Attempts Jump From Snowy Car

dzonny (Member Profile)



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon