>> ^Boise_Lib:


Wonder what would happen if you tried to get them back?


We've got a little resort in Cuba. Have your people meet us there to sort out the specifics.

>> ^Reefie:

>> ^Boise_Lib:
@Reefie
W - T- F!!
Who the hell Has control of your Nukes?!?!

The UK's nukes are owned and managed by the USA, they're even kept in Georgia and our ships basically go pick up their warheads when required. I believe Lockheed Martin are primarily responsible for them, and we effectively pay for their management services which includes the rental of the warheads. Technically that way Lockheed Martin are responsible for the maintenance but ultimately it means that if the UK ever disagrees with the USA in a big way then we're stuck with our pants around our ankles

I'm sure you guys will always be on our side (or else).


Seriously, what a fucked up situation.
Wonder what would happen if you tried to get them back?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

@Reefie
W - T- F!!
Who the hell Has control of your Nukes?!?!


The UK's nukes are owned and managed by the USA, they're even kept in Georgia and our ships basically go pick up their warheads when required. I believe Lockheed Martin are primarily responsible for them, and we effectively pay for their management services which includes the rental of the warheads. Technically that way Lockheed Martin are responsible for the maintenance but ultimately it means that if the UK ever disagrees with the USA in a big way then we're stuck with our pants around our ankles

>> ^MonkeySpank:

I wholeheartedly agree with Lewis that you cannot talk about the economy in 2 mins when color commentary on a football foul can last 10 minutes. Just how much attention span do the American people have? How much can we trust them with?


In England under medieval Catholic rule you would be tortured to death for merely OWNING a copy of the Bible in English rather than Latin. They still use Latin in law and other 'Elite' interests. Having the general public follow what's going on has NEVER been on the menu.

US Corporate 'news' is just the latest iteration for keeping people running around in circles while the money flows in to the same type of families (in the Uk actually the SAME FAMILIES!).

But, you know, there's always 'Trickle Down'... or sorry, now its 'Wealth Creators'.. or, wait, lets check FOX for the latest spin..

Very interesting rant, but I truly hope it was written tongue-in-cheek. The comments bring up one of the central holes in the criticism of school subjects' "uselessness", namely "how does one find out whether one likes/is good at this or that?" Moreover, school democratises (or should democratise) knowledge. Thus, a kid growing up in an uneducated household raised on Jerry Springer and Cartoon Network might discover a love for literature, or physics, etc. via good teaching during the obligatory cursus, and follow an otherwise unlikely career path.

The problem with the US system, for the little I know of it, is that it tailors to the lowest common denominator instead of offering diverse pathways of education/career. I don't want to sound patriotic or anything, but I think the system here in Switzerland is not too shabby (although there is plenty of room for improvement). What the wiki article fails to articulate is that in the last three years of obligatory school (13/14-15/16yo) the different sections tailor to different skills, eg home economics and handyman crafts for the "low level" section, and Latin/Greek and advanced math for the "high level" section.

Brazilian police have been questioning a man accused of driving his car at high speed through a crowd of cyclists, injuring at least 12 of them.

Video of the incident in the southern city of Porto Alegre shows bikes and riders flying through the air as other cyclists scream in panic.

The driver said he accelerated because cyclists were banging on his car and he feared he would be attacked.

The cyclists were holding a regular event to promote the use of bikes.

The incident happened on Friday evening but came to national prominence in Brazil on Monday when television networks began broadcasting amateur footage that had been posted on the internet.

No-one was killed and the injured have all been released from hospital.

The driver, Ricardo Neis, 47, fled the scene of the incident but was brought in for questioning after his abandoned car was found.

Police said he could face a charge of attempted homicide.

Cyclists in the demonstration said no riders had threatened the motorist.

The riders were part of a movement known as Critical Mass, which holds mass bike rides in cities around the world to demand more respect for cyclists and is sometimes accused of deliberately blocking traffic.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12604639

@ReverendTed
You have been a courteous sparring partner so I will try to answer in kind, but I must admit being very exasperated by your last response. Moreover, I do not think I want to pursue a debate with someone who cannot see how adoption-in-place-of-abortion is neither feasible nor even remotely ethical (vis-à-vis the woman, the would-be child and human society in general). So this will probably be my last wall of self-indulgent dross.

Let’s get one thing out of the way: we both agree that we need more education all ‘round, on all subjects. And as you know, those most opposed to it are the same that are against abortion. Abstinence education is redundant when proper sex-ed is given, because it goes without saying that “no sex = no unwanted pregnancies” is a part of basic sex-ed. Of course, it is un-pragmatic to expect teenagers (or anyone for that matter) to forego sex, so why harp on it, other than for misguided religious purposes?

Your conception of consciousness is fuzzy at best. Everything we feel, experience, etc. is due to electro-chemical reactions in our body/brain. Magical thinking is saying some non-physical “me” exists attached to it, what religious people call a soul. Consciousness is not subordinate to cognition in terms of value, but in the sense that without the one (cognition) you simply don’t have the other (“subordinate” as in “dependent upon”). I mentioned blind-from-birth people for a good reason; they have no visual aspect to their consciousness, their identity/consciousness is built upon the other sensory input. Now imagine a being that has zero sensory input (or a central system capable of making use/sense of it), and you have a mass of muscles/cells/organs devoid of consciousness. And that is what is aborted before the 25th week. I must make it clear, however, that even if this developed much earlier it would still be the woman’s prerogative to choose what she does with her own body/life. In that respect I think the “viability” argument is a pragmatic (albeit conservative) one, because it draws the line between an excrescence and a (possibly) autonomous being.

After the first two paragraphs, your response goes from bad to worse. What I said about adoption v abortion still stands, but I would add that it is still forcing women to go through a pregnancy they do not want (thus still affecting the quality of their lives), not to mention leaving them with the guilt of abandonment, the kids with issues, etc etc. And all for what? So some third person’s unfounded superstitions be upheld? And then you have the gall to compare criminalising abortion with criminalising incest and crazy people locking up/raping their families. You seriously need to think a bit before making comparisons. In the case of child abuse and/or rape (incest itself is a victimless crime, but that’s for a different discussion), there are actual victims, for one, and secondly, the crazies would lock them up whether it was legal or not, because it is a question of absolute control over the other.

Since you cite Guttmacher statistics, allow me to suggest you read a little more:

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. For example, the abortion rate is 29 per 1,000 women of childbearing age in Africa and 32 per 1,000 in Latin America—regions in which abortion is illegal under most circumstances in the majority of countries. The rate is 12 per 1,000 in Western Europe, where abortion is generally permitted on broad grounds.

• Where abortion is permitted on broad legal grounds, it is generally safe, and where it is highly restricted, it is typically unsafe. In developing countries, relatively liberal abortion laws are associated with fewer negative health consequences from unsafe abortion than are highly restrictive laws.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html

So basically pushing for the criminalisation of abortion is pushing for there to be more abortions, and more dangerous ones.

You note how a large percentage of abortion-seekers are above the poverty line. Obviously, they can afford it / are aware of the possibility. Ever notice how the poor/uneducated tend to have more kids than the others? Do you really think being poor makes you want to have more mouths to feed? Or perhaps it is because they lack access to contraception/abortion (not to mention the poor/uneducated tend to be more religious; religion thrives on misery). Of the “developed” world the US is a bit of a special case, because it is so backward with regards to healthcare and contraception. Notice how most women in the US pay for their abortion out of pocket, and “Nearly 60% of women who experienced a delay in obtaining an abortion cite the time it took to make arrangements and raise money.” (http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html/) As an aside, the religious right here in Switzerland (not as influential but almost as stupid and backward thinking as that of the US) are trying to make abortion be no longer covered by the universal healthcare system.

On the “potential” question, everything has been said. I’d simply point out that your “95%” potential leaves out something absolutely crucial, namely the choice of the woman to terminate the abortion, which can reduce that to “0%”. You say “it’s nearly guaranteed”, but so what? Two people having heterosexual vaginal sex without projection over a long period of time will conceive of a child, it’s “nearly guaranteed”, therefore every possible pairing of male and female should have continuous unprotected sex otherwise they are depriving potential beings from existing. “But what if they don’t want to?” Exactly, what if the woman doesn’t want a child at that moment? See how absurd the “potential” argument is?

I’ll risk making this wall of text even wallyer and propose an analogy, The Analogy of the Film and Camera. When you put a film in a camera, the potential for it becoming a strip of individual, unique photos goes up. But so long as no pictures are taken, so long as nothing is imprinted on the film’s receptive surface, you lose no individual photos by taking the film out, and there’s the same amount of potential if you put in a different film at a different time. It’s wonky, I know, but it illustrates that potential individual (the film) is not the same as existing individual (the photo), nor does destroying the first cause any damage to the second, because the second doesn’t exist yet.

The comparison with the IGB campaign is terribly inappropriate and simply false. In one case it is question of keeping living individuals from ending their lives, whereas abortion is about preventing eventual individuals from coming into existence because it would harm the quality of life of an already existing individual (as well as the one to be). IGB is about giving people options/hope, whereas criminalising abortion is about taking that away (from women, to give it to the mind projections of superstitious third parties). The only connection between the two is that in both cases the unsubstantiated beliefs of third persons impinge on an individual’s quality of life and liberty. I already addressed your “good from bad” argument, which you draw out again in an emotionally manipulative way (which frankly made me sick).

On eugenics, oh boy. What you’re saying is akin to saying “self-defence should be outlawed because otherwise some (like Zimmerman) might commit crimes and say it was self-defence”. Or, a little closer to home perhaps: “we shouldn’t have universal healthcare because some might fraud”. Yes, some people fraud the insurance, and yes, some people are aggressive and try to pass it as self-defence. That’s why we have a judicial system. Bringing in eugenics is seriously grasping at straws and you know it.

I’ll end my last contribution to this exchange with the following: having a child should never be an inevitability. Bringing a human life into existence is way too big a responsibility to be an obligation. A women’s body is her own, to deal with as she chooses, uterus and co. included.

Cheers

Are you posting this? This needs posting!!!!!

In reply to this comment by radx:

An 11-year-old Brazilian boy has earned a place at the Barcelona football team's summer training camp - despite being born without feet.

Exciting stuff.
(I'd always heard of this as "quadriplegia", but apparently "tetraplegia" is more internally consistent, being entirely Greek, rather than a combination of Greek and Latin.)

>> ^kymbos:

@jimnms - link for your last para?
Meanwhile, I think you're missing the point: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/america-is-a-violent-coun
try/
Over to you and your next move: the 'data must be wrong' argument.


Here's your source, and it didn't come out of my ass like Bill's shit.

What point I'm missing? Your linked article doesn't mention guns anywhere, it shows that America is more violent than other advanced countries, which is even more of reason to carry a gun for self defense. I think you're the one missing the point.

Ninety percent of violent crimes are committed by persons not carrying handguns. This is one reason why the mere brandishing of a gun by a potential victim of violence often is a sufficient response to a would-be attacker. In most cases where a gun is used in self-defense, it is not fired. Can the average citizen be trusted to judge accurately when he or she is in jeopardy?...

A nationwide study by Don Kates, the constitutional lawyer and criminologist, found that only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high." [source]

Of course, it is not surprising that where there are more guns, there tends to be more gun-related deaths, but northern Latin America (Brazil in particular) breaks from this trend in a major way. The area has a massive homicide by firearm rate, with some of the lowest rates of gun ownership in the world and the highest homicides by firearm count...

Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela and Ecuador combine for more homicides by firearm than Mexico, the United States, South Africa, the Philippines, Honduras, Guatemala, India, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, Bangladesh, Argentina and Jamaica put together. That is every other country with over 1,000 homicides by firearm. You would imagine that gun control would be very lax in the area, but as the top chart here illustrates, that is not the case. Brazil, for example, has roughly 255 million fewer guns (and about 115 million fewer people) than the United States and a much more strict and effective set of firearm regulations. So, while it is true that where there are guns, there is gun violence, that is clearly not the only determining factor. [source]

quoting Wiki:

While there are a number of versions to the Bible. There are 8 primary versions found in history:
Septuagint - 250 A.D. Written in Greek
Vulgate- 400 A.D. First version of the Bible which is canonized at the Council of Carthage in 400 A.D. Written in Latin
Luther's German Bible- 1534 A.D.
King James Version- 1611 A.D. This is the most widely used versions however it has large number of errors given that none of the writers had a decent understanding of Hebrew.
Revised Standard Version- 1952 A.D. Literal translation into American English which used the earliest possible text
New International Version- 1960's & 70's A.D. This is a very good contemporary English version. Another good contemporary English version is New King James Version (NKJV)
The Youngs Literal Translation is as close to the originals as you can get, translated by Robert Young in 1898 A.D.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_different_versions_are_there_of_the_Bible#ixzz1z4GtYcTU

Wanting to give life and love something more than yourself = a grave immoral sin...if it's not god. That god is just so fucking needy.

EDIT: Also it's In vitro. Latin for "within glass".

I think he could be both white and hispanic/latino.

I know darker skinned white people from latin america and southern europe who are darker than Zimmerman.

Now that he's in a bind, his pop wants to claim he's hispanic. It's like some white people I know claiming they're 1/4 indian, when they pass as white 100% of the time.

great sift. thank you

art is in everything

african rhythms in 3 gave rise to the triplet in jazz, the clave in latin, and the F in funk

All latin dance is basically sexo con ropa.