Yes, that's true, but is one exempt from that if one is PART of congress? I hope not, but perhaps.
As I saw it, when he said HE pulled the chart directly from planned parenthood's corporate records, that was testimony being offered to the other members of congress in the hearing, not a question, and it was clearly, intentionally, blatantly false testimony at that.
He said HE pulled the information and created the chart...which was an obvious and bold faced lie, it was not a mistake, not a misunderstanding, it was a lie. Unfortunately, I'm also fairly certain absolutely zero will come of it.

Not true, and that's why I posted the actual definition, rather than my personal feeling on what the word means. Then we can all start from the ACTUAL definition(s) rather than just making some up and arguing about it.

Your second paragraph/sentence makes no sense at all to me, and sounds like a disjointed red herring/straw man/bad attempt at creating a false argument you can shoot down....but it's so all over the place it's unfollowable.

You continue to confuse feminism with Feminism, and also continue to paint all Feminists in the worst possible light based on a few overboard examples rather than describing the normal, average Feminist.
For instance, many Feminists see pornography and prostitution as empowering and taking control of their own sexuality, and it was actually prudish anti-feminist men who tried to censor it in the courts.

In fact, there ARE many people in the civilized world who still think women don't deserve the same rights as men in many areas, and insist they are unable to perform tasks men can perform, must be coddled and subservient, and are lesser beings based purely on gender, despite all evidence to the contrary.

It's only because of this continuing misunderstanding on your part that you claim anyone said anything like "The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank... "...you are again confusing feminist with Feminist, and using the wrong one. We don't have Feminist advocacy to thank, we do however have feminist advocacy to thank for the advancements in women's rights...it's what the word means.


It doesn't sound at all like you 'appreciate the attempt at consensus building', or even understood my point, since you continue to conflate feminism with Feminism. I can't be certain, but it seems you are doing that intentionally in order to argue a moot point.



EDIT:sorry, I thought I quoted you @gorillaman, so I'll cut and paste....

gorillaman said:
Everyone has a different definition of feminism; that is to some extent the problem. Rather, this is the final bulwark to which its advocates retreat when their main arguments have been punctured and deflated.

"But surely," says the distorter of domestic violence and rape statistics - says the agitator who runs dissenting professors off campus - says the censor of allegedly harmful pornography - says the fascist who criminalises prostitution or BDSM - says the conspiracy theorist who sees systemic sexism in places it couldn't possibly exist, like science and silicon valley (and videogaming, and science fiction) - says the proponent of patriarchy theory in societies in which men are routinely sacrificed to war, to dangerous jobs, to extreme poverty; whose genitals are mutilated; whose children, houses and paychecks can be taken away essentially at the whim of their partners; for whom there is vanishingly little support in the event of domestic abuse or homelessness; who are assumed to be rapists and wife-beaters and paedophiles; and who are told, throughout all of this, that it is their privilege - "I'm just claiming that women have rights. How can you disagree with that?"

The implication, in any event, that this is somehow a novel position, for which we have feminist advocacy to thank and to which there is actually anyone in the civilised world who objects, is a laughable and insulting one.

Still, I'm sure we all appreciate the attempt at consensus building.

I don't think i've done a very good job of explaining my point, because:
1) I do not believe in the god of the gaps in any sense, i reject the notion.
2) I didn't ask for a "reason"; this is a subtle point that i'll try to make clearer.
3) I don't hold any "supernatural" beliefs in the sense you mean - not a single one.
4) I believe firmly in things that i can prove to myself, and am uncertain about things that i cannot supply any proof or reason for.

Why are we here? When i ask that question, i am not asking for a reason for our existence; a goal that humanity collectively must achieve. I am asking why do we find ourselves and our reality as we find it? We use science to describe it and become nonplussed by these amazing things but fundamentally, what is charge? Why do opposites attract? Why does mass attract mass, etc.? Isn't it all a bit weird and wonderful?

There is no answer to that question in physics. To use the term "supernatural" to describe a discussion of why/how (which lies beyond the jurisdiction of physics) is either naive or derogatory because the term is philosophy.

You reject the notion that you could go from not existing to existing, finding yourself in a world of things you don't understand. Yet you seem to find it unremarkable that at one point you went from not existing to existing, finding yourself in a world of things you didn't understand. If i put you in a fully immersive Skyrim game, unconscious and without memory, you'd play that game and think it was real. You may even believe that, once you died, you'd cease to exist. But one day, you die in Skyrim and everything ceases to be, before you're transported to a world of things you don't understand. Yet there were no mechanisms within the Skyrim universe to allow for that! In other words, what about things that exist or take place outside of our 3 spatial and 1 temporal dimensions, or perhaps beyond even our understanding of dimensions?

"There has to be a mechanism" is idle speculation on your part, and demonstrates your closedness to anything that might exist beyond our perspective of 3 dimensional space (which might be behind the "why?" and god of the gaps misunderstanding) - for which there is evidence and on which there is active and significant research. Besides, the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This is not the god of the gaps, this is acknowledging our limitations and constraining our certainty accordingly.

It's odd that you quote Sagan, because he often spoke about the spiritual and the unknowable/ineffable. I think he would be more aligned with my assessment than yours, as he was an agnostic and rejected the label atheist.

Possibly we continue to exist, perhaps we don't. Perhaps 'exist' and 'not exist' are human concepts that don't mean anything in the bigger picture, and the parts of us that exist outside of 3 dimensions bathe forever in rivers of custard (or something really weird that can't be explained in english). Nobody knows and no guess is less likely or less educated, in my opinion, which is based on my lack of certainty and absolute bewilderment that we did the not-exist->exist cycle in the first place - but i welcome any argument or evidence you can provide counter to this, and my mind is open to them.

I'm sorry, I often fail at getting my point across. My point with Cindy was that it seemed odd that you called him out as a fat guy, but I didn't think you would be OK with the same treatment of a woman. Kind of a 'what's good for the goose' argument is what I was going for.

Certainly average women are UNDER represented, but they are represented more all the time and certainly not absent. Gabourey Sidibe is on Empire, one of the higher rated dramas, just to name one non-skinny actress off the top of my head. It sounded to me like you were saying that ONLY pretty, thin, overtly 'sexy' women get screen time, and I think that's no longer true by far.

I'm sorry you think that about me. I, of course, disagree. If I was 'willfully blind about the facts', why would I discuss anything with anyone ever, or do any research on things I don't know about? I would know it all already and have nothing to gain from anyone. Because I don't always see things as you do does not make me 'willfully blind to the facts' IMO, but you're welcome to your own opinion.

Well, wait, didn't YOU just spread the 'unreasonable standard' about men in your first post when you said " ...when the only thing we get to see in the media are perfect beautiful men wearing tight clothing and makeup that extenuates their manliness, I won't complain as much."? That's how I took that statement, did I misunderstand?

I just thought Magic Mike (1&2) fit your above statement, not in any way did I mean to imply that it's a good movie. ;-)

I'm still at a complete loss as to why some people seem to think that calmly not submitting to random intrusive 'investigative' questioning makes a person a tool. The cop's not looking to have a nice conversation or make a friend, he's looking for anything he can use against the person he's interrogating...and often, as in this case, when they can't find anything, they'll make something up.
EDIT: often, they'll say you said something you didn't say, or twist what you may have said to come up with a reason to go farther and charge you with something made up. That's why you should say NOTHING, then they have nothing to twist or lie about 'mishearing' or 'misunderstanding'.

As I see it, not answering questions is not disruptive, not dangerous, doesn't cause fear (in normal people), is patriotic, and is also a methodology suggested by nearly EVERY lawyer worth their salt. I can't see the drawback, or how being respectfully reasonable and safe makes someone a tool. I think answering a cop's questions makes a person a tool...one that gives up their hard won right against self incrimination in order to not upset or inconvenience their overzealous interrogator, at the risk of their own freedom, safety, and sometimes life.
Since no one has put forth a reasonable explanation WHY one would act in such a self defeating, disrespectful (to those who died to secure the right to not incriminate yourself or be searched at random), unsafe, victimized way, it seems we should just agree to disagree. I think I put forth a number of logical reasons why I see this behavior (not answering questions) as perfectly reasonable AT ALL TIMES, and fortunately for me the DAs and judges agree with me.

I was thinking the same thing. We had a good deal of choice of what classes to take. I didn't take Lit, but I did do the basic English classes, where we read some Shakespeare and the like, but not to the degree the Lit students did. I didn't do any complex math classes either, I did Algebra. But then I also did Applied Business, or whatever it was called. I did Civics with the base History classes. I did Home Economics in 9th grade, not a required class, but an elective. Woodshop was another example of an elective class. Have they removed electives from schools? If not then it's this dude's own fault for not choosing the proper electives. If they are gone and all that is taught is the core, then there may be too much core.

I got to disagree with the video's premise that Math, History and the cores aren't needed. Do you need Calculus, no but you should graduate with a strong understanding of basic Algebra. History is important to, though I'm not sure the methods used are effective, route memorization of facts and dates for tests, rather than a general understanding of history and how to avoid the same mistakes. Teaching for tests period is a problem... Lit isn't important and should remain an elective, but having read some of the "classics" is important too, even if it is just a quick Cliff Notes sort of version of it (do they still have Cliff Notes?) Actually a Cliff Notes rundown of lots of the "classics" would probably be better than what most English classes do, while encouraging students to read more modern what they want fare for reports and the like. I didn't take Biology, but basic Science understanding is important, problem is it's politicized and rather than stick with the facts, too many people want to introduce at the very least doubt about the facts if not introduce ideological ideas that contradict the facts and are based on a misunderstanding of what the facts actually say... due to a messed up literal reading (well when it's convenient to take literal, other times things are dismissed as "literary" or "poetic" be it about the Earth not moving or bats being birds and on and on) of one particular bronze age book.

Also you can't teach people who to vote for... you gain understanding of the issues in History and Civics... so...

How to move away from testing is a tricky thing. You need to prove you have an understanding of how to form an Algebraic formula and to solve one. You need to prove you understand the issue(s) of the Civil War and the basic era (I'm not convinced you need to remember exact dates, know it was the 1860s), same with the other wars. What was one's nation's involvement in the World Wars and what caused those wars in the first place, and again basic era, if you don't know the exact year of the bombing of Pearl Harbor or D-Day or the dropping of the atomic bombs, okay, but a basic close approximation of the years. For English you need to prove you can write and read, and a basic understanding of literature, not details of classic books, but narrative structure etc. There should perhaps be more time spent on critical thinking and how to vet sources. You need to have a basic enough understanding of science not to dismiss things as "just a theory" which proves you don't know what theory means in science, and don't ask ridiculous questions like "if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys" instead you should be able to answer that. You should be able to answer properly if somebody notes that CO2 is good for plants or that compact fluorescent have mercury in them so they aren't better for the environment than older bulbs.

How does one prove these things without tests? That's the question. And it needs to be Federally standardized to a degree to ensure that you don't have lose districts teaching that the Civil War wasn't about slavery nearly at all, rather than the fact it was the primary reason, or that Evolution is "just a theory", or deny the slaughter of the Native Americans or interment of Japanese Americans. You need to insure that all students are getting the same basics, and insure they have a good range of choices for electives. It's the basics though that basically need tested for, and I personally can't figure out a way to prove a student knows say what caused the Civil War or that they know what Evolution actually is, or how to form an Algebraic formula to solve a real life problem without a test.

@newtboy,
as the ice on land disappears, it exposes permafrost that, as it melts, also emits methane.

More from charliem's article's abstract:
Arctic tundra soils serve as potentially important but poorly understood sinks of atmospheric methane (CH4), a powerful greenhouse gas1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Numerical simulations project a net increase in methane consumption in soils in high northern latitudes as a consequence of warming in the past few decades3, 6. Advances have been made in quantifying hotspots of methane emissions in Arctic wetlands7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, but the drivers, magnitude, timing and location of methane consumption rates in High Arctic ecosystems are unclear.

The article he linked IS saying that they've identified regions up north where the soil absorbs more methane the warmer it gets. They note this is a relatively unknown area as opposed to northern regions that emit methane. Charliem just didn't read the reference he pulled out at is it is counter evidence to his and your own statements.

As for your point:
As for your misunderstanding of CO2, removing all CO2 production tomorrow
I never said anything about that, I said:
if we could magically remove all the CO2 we've added to the atmosphere
As in I was talking about not merely ending our emissions, but also sequestering and pulling out of the atmosphere all the CO2 lingering there from us over the last century as well. That's pushing CO2 concentrations back down from nearly 400 to under 300. Re-read my statements in the correct context and they'll make more sense.
As for people "thriving", that's just ridiculous. There's been a food shortage world wide for quite some time now.
Again, context matters doesn't it? I'm describing how a person from 1915 would not look at our world today and wish they could go back to their time, end all CO2 emissions and avoid the catastrophic consequences we're suffering in 2015. If you want to talk about food distribution, your right and we've had problems with it forever. If you want to talk food production though, it's never been higher, if you go look at global agriculture output it's a steady increasing line as surely as the instrumental temperature record.

For the record, I absolutely state that the evidence throughout the entire instrumental record is a warming planet since records began in 1900. I absolutely state that the evidence is irrefutable that CO2 contributes to warming. I absolutely state the the evidence is irrefutable that we are raising global CO2 concentrations with our actions. Where I diverge from those like you is I do NOT see the scientific evidence declaring the results are catastrophic. It's simply not there to be found, in many cases it is in fact contrary to the limited evidence we DO have on it as well.

There MUST be a miswording there, or bold faced, outright lie.
As temperatures rise, frozen underwater methane (methyl hydrate)is melted and RELEASED, not trapped. Not only that, as the ice on land disappears, it exposes permafrost that, as it melts, also emits methane. It's been happening for a while now, and is accelerating. Methane is FAR more damaging to the atmosphere than CO2, for longer times, so once this cycle takes off, we can expect exponential increase in the temperature rise.
It's POSITIVE feedback loop, not a negative one.
EDIT: Perhaps they mean when the Atlantic currents are disrupted and the lower ocean becomes colder...at that point it will have the ability to store more methane, but not the ability to capture it from the atmosphere since the upper ocean will be far warmer.
As for your misunderstanding of CO2, removing all CO2 production tomorrow won't remove any in the atmosphere, it will be there for quite some time before it could be absorbed in the ocean/forests, and that time period extends daily as the ocean becomes more acidic (making it impossible for diatoms to use the CO2 to make their shells) and the forests are removed. Once the ocean stops absorbing CO2, even the amount naturally created will be far too much for the atmosphere, and temps/CO2 levels will still rise even if we produce absolutely none. The tipping point was in the 70s-80s when we could have stopped CO2 production and made a difference. Now, it's too late unless we find a way to trap CO2 and keep it trapped. The systems are quite slow to react.
As for people "thriving", that's just ridiculous. There's been a food shortage world wide for quite some time now. The water shortage is becoming a bigger threat, and that's expected to increase exponentially as glaciers, snow packs, and aquifers rapidly disappear. Ocean harvests have drastically decreased, as have natural foods. We are thriving in the same way locusts 'thrive' when they swarm...but note that 99.9% of them die of starvation in the end.

If that's your "evidence," I think you have a grave misunderstanding about how the science of meteorology works.

Jesus fucking Christ...

NOONE IS DENYING RACISM EXISTS.

The problem under discussion is CULTURAL APPROPRIATION, which is not actually a racial issue, but a cultural one. Yes, there's a difference, even though they frequently overlap.

Ugh, at this point, it feels you're just wilfully misunderstanding. @JustSaying thinks you're better than that and not a troll. I used to agree with him, but it's getting more difficult.

Crap....I just took your word that I was wrong. Just minor googling shows me that I was essentially right, and what you speak of happened near the end of total allied control of Germany. We've essentially had bases there since the end of the war.
WIKI-
In practice, each of the four occupying powers wielded government authority in their respective zones and carried out different policies toward the population and local and state governments there. A uniform administration of the western zones evolved, known first as the Bizone (the American and British zones merged as of 1 January 1947) and later the Trizone (after inclusion of the French zone). The complete breakdown of east-west allied cooperation and joint administration in Germany became clear with the Soviet imposition of the Berlin Blockade that was enforced from June 1948 to May 1949. The three western zones were merged to form the Federal Republic of Germany in May 1949, and the Soviets followed suit in October 1949 with the establishment of the German Democratic Republic (GDR).

In the west, the occupation continued until 5 May 1955, when the General Treaty (German: Deutschlandvertrag) entered into force. However, upon the creation of the Federal Republic in May 1949, the military governors were replaced by civilian high commissioners, whose powers lay somewhere between those of a governor and those of an ambassador. When the Deutschlandvertrag became law, the occupation ended, the western occupation zones ceased to exist, and the high commissioners were replaced by normal ambassadors. West Germany was also allowed to build a military, and the Bundeswehr, or Federal Defense Force, was established on 12 November 1955.

Will YOU stand corrected? ...or was this a misunderstanding of what I meant by 'why the bases are in Germany', because I do understand those reasons have changed over time, as you indicated...I was talking about the original reason we stationed American military there.

The difference being my lenses are designed to show reality, and can self correct when a flaw is discovered. Religion glasses are fixed lenses that distort what you see intentionally.
You can't prove it only because you can't examine everything you can apply the scientific method to, but every time it's been applied to a problem/question, it has been the best method tried to answer the question, no matter what other methods are tried.
Please, explain the 'assumptions' you speak of. The assumption that reality is real, and what we measure is also real? I'm happy to make that assumption, and will admit that it is one, but a base one must assume if you wish to have a chance of understanding the real world. If you don't believe reality is real, you have little place in science, as it only attempts to explain reality.
The 'problem of induction' sure seems a misunderstanding of science, which does NOT say the laws of physics are immutable, or that a series of measurements PROVES a pattern that will continue. The laws of physics were different at and near the big bang, and patterns change. Science knows this, and accounts for it, in fact, science discovered it.
Of course I have a world view, but it is not rigid as your is. I can assimilate new information to modify my world view as it becomes available, you can not, you must modify the information to fit your view.
When my 'sources of information' are data from random experiments and studies of phenomena, they are NOT selected because they agree with my assumptions, they just happen to agree with them (usually) because I had good teachers that give me a good base to make assumptions from, and when I see the assumption is wrong, I toss it. It happens...just not about religion.
You don't listen to me seriously, because you're mind is made up, I don't listen to you seriously because you're a fallible human and can't possibly know the things you claim to 'know', nor can you prove the unprovable, and trying is a total waste of time.
Tell god to get off his ass and show me then, and we can stop all this BS...until he proves the unprovable to me, it will remain unproven.
Your awe at reality is not proof of anything except your awe, no matter how much you wish it to be proof of god. My awe at beauty is simply awe, nothing more.
I'm not looking at your last video link, I've spent WAY too much time on this already, for nothing. You can't admit you even might be wrong, and can't ever prove you're even partially right (I've explained why)...so Good night.

Language that COULD be construed as racist is not the same thing as language that IS racist.
Mocking someone's racism, but not using racist language in doing so, is not very racist IMO. If Obama said "yeah, that (N-word) Obama", it would be racist, even if it's said to mock racists, IMO.
If Duke said it, he would not be mocking or joking, but agreeing with the racist statement, that's quite racist.
Yeah, the CK thing was odd to me, and racist IMO, funny or not. Professional comedians get a 'pass' in certain situations like roasts or if they're just really funny, but it doesn't make their statements not racist, they are just accepted by most as comedy, which is NOT PC and may be intended to be offensive.
You said it, he said something horrifically racist. He must be some bit racist to even consider such a thing, somewhat more so to say it. Because he has 'black friends' that find it funny does not make it not racist, as I see it. Just because he doesn't mean it, doesn't mean it's not racist, nor does it mean HE's not racist.
Yes, intent and context mean a lot, but not all. If you are completely not racist, you wouldn't think to talk about blacks, Jewish, Mexicans, whites, etc. It's racist just to think of people as different races...there's really only one race, just different levels of melanin in people's skin. (EDIT: I forgot about aborigines which I've read are actually genetically different from non-aborigines, but are still not a different 'race', but are possibly a different subspecies.)
I learned it went Kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species, sometimes subspecies...no 'race' in there.
I think you misunderstand and are thinking binary, as in either you're racist (and a bastard) or not (and a good person?). I'm looking at it in shades, and very few are at either end of the spectrum, most live in the middle somewhere. Most people will act like you described, and infer intent and react properly based on that. I'm saying intent is not the only measure, it's only one variable in the 'what's your racist quotient' equation.
Yes, I would consider you SLIGHTLY racist, just as I consider myself slightly racist. On a 1 to 10, we're probably both well under a 3...but almost on one is a 1...or, fortunately, a 10.
No outrage here about it at all, I'm just trying to clarify that even seemingly innocuous, not intentionally hurtful racism is racism. (Please think, if a random black person overheard you joking as you described, would they not be upset and hurt by the racism? That's kind of my point, intent may be unknown, so can't be the only defining factor.)
Did someone say they would kill someone? That's not good. People don't normally say that jokingly, but fortunately they usually don't follow through on their threats either...that said, don't say it to Obama! ;-)

I'll disagree.
Non-racists don't make racist jokes. Period. They are disturbed by racist speech, they don't play around with it with friends for fun.
Perhaps you aren't overtly racist, perhaps you consciously make an effort to not discriminate against other races. You could still be racist.
There are many levels of racism.
I think what you describe is a form of what's called 'tacit racism', where (at least publicly) you don't say racist things, but aren't disturbed by others saying them, certainly not enough to say so.
Consider....when someone makes a bad taste, but funny, racist joke in public, do you glare at them, or smile at them, or both? If you find humor in degrading other races, even in private, that's a form/level of racism...IMO. (I think most people will fall into that category of being 'slightly racist', including myself to be perfectly honest, while trying to not let that make them discriminate against others or act on that racism)
Maybe I misunderstand you, but that's how it sounded to me.

There's a big misunderstanding....let me try to explain.

The problem: flotsam has washed into a lagoon, causing damage to the reef inside.
The rule: no more than 2 pieces of flotsam can fit through the lagoon opening at once.
The 'genetic algorithm': waves wash the flotsam around, sometimes one piece may flow out, sometimes two may flow out, making the 'solution' better, sometimes 3 try to flow out and none leave, sometimes 4 try to flow out and none leave....
Solution: one or two at a time, waves will eventually wash the flotsam out.

No design, no intelligence, no set up, no hand in the process, no AI, yet this IS the process of 'genetic algorithm' in action (in a completely overly simplistic, barely evolutionary form).
Do you understand what I mean now? If not, forget it, you won't ever get it.