Just stumbled on this article today and thought I'd add here.

The Science of Spanking
The American Academy of Pediatrics
has a new policy on spanking: Don't do it.
Posted Dec 10, 2018

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-baby-scientist/201812/the-science-spanking

I'm guessing that as each piece is added, it is already orbiting with the station exactly whether it's attached or not.

The station does need periodic boosts as there is some drag caused by atmospheric changes by the sun.

Disclaimer: Not a rocket scientist

What Japanese scientists do on their break.

Remind you of anyone?

I also love how weighted this argument is. Finding the ONE person of an ethnic/political/social etc... view point that contradicts the norm but completely disregards the extreme majority because it doesn't fit their narrative.

I'm sure if you look hard enough bob you can fine a "scientist" who thinks cigarettes are just great too.

OK well you'd better let the 12,000 or so doctors, researchers, scientists and dietitians from dozens of organisations know that you don't agree with their terminology.......

The issues with this....

The cost in energy to pump that water must be enormous. All for what? Does that really impress people? As said above, it would suck to be in any of those offices below, especially after the inevitable failure of the waterproofing.

Ian Malcolm: "Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should."

Hey Bill, you know that bit about collective responsibility and listening to scientists?

Funny how you conveniently ignore that when it comes to vaccines.

Jaron Lanier is a Computer scientist, composer, visual artist and author. He is considered a founding father of the field of virtual reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaron_Lanier

He is certainly NOT mainstream but most definitely NOT a crackpot.

His ideas and musings should be considered.

The chart is quite informative thanks. If you put aside your focus on believers in God (as that's a separate topic to my first post) and try and see the difference between atheism and agnosticism in relation to scientists, you'll see what I mean.

There is a great difference between one who "doesn't claim to know no god exists" and one who "claims to know no god exists". Exactly as described on the chart, on the definition of athiest from Merriam-Webster (one who advocates athiesm) and dictionary coms definitions and synonym study. Or Merriam Websters own distinction between the 2 "The difference is quite simple: atheist refers to someone who believes that there is no god (or gods), and agnostic refers to someone who doesn’t know whether there is a god, or even if such a thing is knowable."

Richard Dawkins would fall into the category of gnostic athiest I suppose. He is adamant that no God exists and he is fully at odds and advocates, actively, against such a belief. Whereas Thomas Huxley however, who may have coined the word 'agnostic' according to various dictionaries and other sources, is more someone who doesn't claim to know.

"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorus application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, * Try all things, hold fast by that which is good"

Here he is actually describing a Biblical passage from 1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Test all things; hold fast to that which is good" which is the scientific method in a nutshell, regardless of what you think of the rest of the book.

He goes on "Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary
according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved to-day may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, to-morrow."

A vast difference to the likes of some others in science today who boldly claim there is no God and ridicule those who might believe in one. Sorry for the long reply.

The furthest a true scientist can get away from the belief in God is as an agnostic. All other proud claims of knowledge that He doesn't exist are just as religiously dogmatic as those this video claims to describe.

Which ironically is the only ridiculous claim.

Congratulations! Your comment on God Sent Two Scientists To Cure Cancer But They Were Aborted has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 3 Badge!

Congratulations! Your comment on God Sent Two Scientists To Cure Cancer But They Were Aborted has just received enough votes from the community to earn you 1 Power Point. Thank you for your quality contribution to VideoSift.

This achievement has earned you your "Silver Tongue" Level 31 Badge!

Your video, God Sent Two Scientists To Cure Cancer But They Were Aborted, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

I didn't argue against any study, only his (and your) consistent misrepresentations of them. Those 9037 studies may indicate eating large amounts of red meat seems to raise the risk of certain cancers, they never claim red meat causes cancer, no legitimate study would make that leap, and no legitimate scientist would lie to you about that....but he does.

Stating there are studies that say highly processed cured red meat appears to contain carcinogens is true. Saying those studies concluded and claimed eating red meat is the same or worse than heavy smoking is wholly unsupported nonsense. He did the latter....and you repeat it.

Sweet zombie Jesus...."they" huh? They who? Clearly huh? Clear to whom? That's not what that would mean even if it was in the study, which I doubt. Your obvious bias completely overwhelms your ability to read a study.

Besides, who eats >2.5 lbs of highly processed cured red meat every week for life?
Keep in mind that's >2.5lbs cooked/processed weight that appears to raise your risk, (so probably 5-7.5lbs uncooked weight) without a rate of rise listed (the study didn't say "serious risk", did it, I would bet it said "elevated risk" or similar if it actually said anything about risk), so you must make umpteen leaps away from logic and fact to make your statement

.....why are you arguing this again. You eventually conceded you were totally wrong and he had exaggerated and misrepresented data last time we had this discussion. Were you just hoping to not be contradicted again so you could fool/scare some people into your vegan mindset with misinterpretations and misrepresentations of studies you've previously admitted were totally misrepresented by Greger?

Also keep in mind the study was only about highly cured and processed red meats, not just red meat...one more fudging of fact in a long line. It's intended to be studying the results of processing/curing meats, not the meat itself.

9037 studies demonstrate that red meat causes cancer. I'm well aware that you can manipulate statistics, which is why there is an organisation called the World Cancer Research Fund. They've sifted through 500,000 studies and currently have identified 9037 legitimate studies. wcrf.org/int/research-we-fund/cancer-prevention-recommendations/animal-foods

You might not like vegans or Dr. Greger, but you cannot argue against over 9000 peer reviewed, and medical journal published studies, that are unrelated, done by non-vegans, and then filtered through by non-vegan scientists to assess the quality of the results.

EDIT: They say that more than 300g of red meat a week puts you in serious danger of developing cancer - that quite clearly means it is at least as dangerous as smoking.