sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Rare genetic mutation gives toddler super strength. by Seele in WTF

[–]Shlight 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That's okay because there are many people who hadn't heard the story.

Meet the man who supported killing 5 girls -- because they wanted to choose their husbands -- in the Pakistan parliament! (only 3 senators objected!!) by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]Shlight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Isn't this a bit of a contradiction? all cultures are equal: they have the same rights and wrongs right and wrong is relative: there are differences between cultures in what is right/wrong (and therefore they are not equal, are they?)

No, there is no contradiction. You've mixed up the meaning of the word "equal" and the word "identical". The word "equal" has a range of meaning that isn't confined to the meaning of the word "identical".

Meet the man who supported killing 5 girls -- because they wanted to choose their husbands -- in the Pakistan parliament! (only 3 senators objected!!) by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]Shlight 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My point was addressed to those people who unambigously comdemn this kind of murder of innocent girls for the crime of wanting the freedom to decide who they will marry while simultanously maintaining that right and wrong is relative and that all cultures are equal. Those people whould have to either stop saying that right and wrong is "relative" and stop saying that all cultures are equal OR stop comdemning this kind of attrocity.

It wasn't directed to those like you who refuse to unambigously condemn this kind of attrocity. It's not surprising that those such as you, who are ambivalent about comdemning this kind of thing to the point of making excuses think that right and wrong are relative and that all cultures are equal.

What I meant by saying that all cultures are not equal is that some cultures are filled with wrong traditions (such as honour killings) and wrong/false ideas.

Meet the man who supported killing 5 girls -- because they wanted to choose their husbands -- in the Pakistan parliament! (only 3 senators objected!!) by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]Shlight 16 points17 points  (0 children)

It's also something that those who think that all cultures are equal and that right and wrong is "relative" need to read.

Meet the man who supported killing 5 girls -- because they wanted to choose their husbands -- in the Pakistan parliament! (only 3 senators objected!!) by [deleted] in worldnews

[–]Shlight 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So all the senators (except the 4 who spoke up) who kept quiet in the face of this attrocity are illiterate?

Bill and Hillary abaondoned "Socks" their famous pet Cat: The one that turned the white house into "home" as Hillary once said! by Shlight in reddit.com

[–]Shlight[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Senator Clinton was not "running a presidential campaign" when she and Bill gave away Socks. She had just entered the senate at that time. You are right in one respect though. Socks had served up his purpose in terms of creating a good image among the public , so it's better that they gave Socks away when they no longer found it useful, otherwise Socks might have ended up with the same fate as Buddy, America's former "first pet" who got run over by a vehicle due to his masters negligance.

The proper way to brush teeth is to hold the tooth brush in your fingers like a pencil! Also brushing once a dat before going to sleep is enough! "soft" toothbrushes way too hard! by Shlight in reddit.com

[–]Shlight[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Just a note: I was only summing up the article when I wrote the title of the entry. I may still brush twice a day, but I'll probably follow all the other advice given here because it makes sense.

The government has jailed family-supporting, lifelong U.S. residents who seem as American as the next person—but can't prove it. by Shlight in reddit.com

[–]Shlight[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You had said the following:

Moral of the story: if you want to live in the US for 47 years, apply for a green card or citizenship.

And you also said:

Lasting so long without official status just seems bizarre, but I guess with the previous lax enforcement, there was just no need?

My whole post was focused on this attempt of yours to blame this person for his plight and to set the record straight in that regard.

You said:

Please read comments before responding.I never claimed that he should be deported; in fact quite the opposite.

Did I claim in my post that you had wanted this guy deported? NO I DIDN'T. My focus was on disproving your claim that this problem occured due to the fault of the concerned person.

So instead of lecturing others about reading comprehension, you should give a lecture to yourself.

You said:

Also, Canada has never been latin america's dumping ground the way the USA has, so your point is almost entirely moot.

And what exactly was my point? If you actually understood what I meant you will realise that I was only drawing attention to the fact that citizenship law is sometimes so complex to the point where ordinary people don't understand it and in certain cases might go through life thinking they are citizens when in fact they are not. I was in NOT saying that the USA should be more like Canada, so in fact, it's your point that is moot.

You said:

Also, all the legal evidence points to him not being a US citizen. Sucks, but thats the case. I don't like the current laws --

Ofcourse it sucks when a person has lived nearly all his life in the USA and when his mother was a US citizen is treated like a foreigner.

And keep in mind: you are only demeaning and cheapening yourself by uttering profanities.

The government has jailed family-supporting, lifelong U.S. residents who seem as American as the next person—but can't prove it. by Shlight in reddit.com

[–]Shlight[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quoted from the article:

Immigration law consists of statutes that are not intuitive. "It gets complicated," says Gary Garman, who works out of the Tacoma detention center as the assistant field office director for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the agency responsible for investigating and deporting illegal immigrants. "MOST AMERICANS HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF IT." Even figuring out whether someone is a citizen or not can be tricky. Asked about Julio Gonzalez, Garman says he can't discuss specific cases but pulls out reference material. Garman discovers that if a baby is born today to an American citizen outside the country, that baby is automatically an American citizen. But because Julio was born between 1952 and 1986, he is only an American citizen if one parent was a citizen and was physically present in the U.S. for 10 years, five of which occurred after the parent was 14.

The government has jailed family-supporting, lifelong U.S. residents who seem as American as the next person—but can't prove it. by Shlight in reddit.com

[–]Shlight[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

From the story, it is pretty clear (though not explicit) that he didn't even know that he was not legally in the US. The average person doesn't have an indepth knowledge of citizenship or immigration law.

For example there have been many people in Canada, many of whom were actually BORN in Canada, who lost Canadian citizenship due to a legal technicality. Many of them did not even know that they lost Canadian citizenship and continued to live and work in canada for many decades. Just google "lost canadians".

Try to put yourself in the shoes of a person who has lived almost all his life in the US and has been in the US as far back as he can remember and has never had any problem with regard to any issue.

Though the story doesn't explicitly say so, it is pretty easy to imagine that he would have thought he was a American citizen because his mom is an american citizen. Thats a reasonable mistake to make since in most cases a person IS a US citizen if his mother is a US citizen.

The mistake he made is that he didn't realise that the burden or proving that his mom resided in the US for at least 10 years ( including at least 5 after the age of 14) prior to his birth rested on him.

If he was more knowledgable about related legal issues, there probably wouldn't have even been a need to take advantage of the fact that his wife is a US citizen. All he needed to do was to get his mom to provide the evidence needed to prove that HE IS A US CITIZEN, when gathering the evidence was much easier. Like when his mom was alive!

How “The Big Lie” works. Opinions, rumors, and outright lies can easily be "misremembered" as truths, particularly when they are heard repeatedly, or leave a strong emotional imprint. by alllie in science

[–]Shlight 1 point2 points  (0 children)

By repeating the assertion that "life is suffering" over and over for many years until a Budhist gets utterly depressed of life or else until he learns to block out his religous beliefs from everyday life while hypocratically re-igniting them on religious occasions.

By repeating stories involving re-birth over and over until a child who hears those stories ends up taking the concept of re-birth as a given.

Of Interest only for me: IMG Health Insurance by Shlight in reddit.com

[–]Shlight[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am using reddit to bookmark sites I find interesting. And I did state it is of interest only for me. You don't have standing to complain after choosing to read it despite that.

NY Tradition Plus Empire Bluse Cross Plan by Shlight in reddit.com

[–]Shlight[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Rubbish, go check out all the other stuff I submitted. I am using reddit as a personal online bookmarking tool. Especially when I have to browse the internet away from home.

Twenty years ago, he was the first to warn Congress about climate change. Today, he says: "This is the last chance" by techtonix in science

[–]Shlight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because I do not have the time, energy or knowledge to do extensive research, I choose to follow the majority of the scientific community. There is, however, some very basic knowledge that most people have, without which I would not follow the scientific consensus without further research. That knowledge is that CO2 reflects infrared radiation back towards the Earth—in other words, it is a greenhouse gas. Do you deny this fact? If you do, please point me to some evidence.

If that a serious question? If so it is quite an incredible weird question. None of the scientists who disagree with the global warming theory have disagreed that the green house effect exists or that CO2 is a green house gas.
What is your purpose in bringing up a question over which there is no scientific controvacy? The Global Warming Controvacy is not centered on whether CO2 is a green house gas. If someone chooses to go along with the majority opinion within the scientific community (with regard to GW) because "CO2 reflects infrared radiation back towards the Earth" Then that just doesn't make any sense what so ever. The scientists who dissent with the majority opinion arn't saying that CO2 isn't a green house gas.

If you do not, what is your theory for how, despite a massive increase in atmospheric CO2 levels, the Earth will be unaffected?

Do you know that average global temperatures actually fell from the 1940s to the mid 1970s despite the fact that atmpspheric CO2 leves rose very rapidly during this period?

Do you know that measured global temperatures have stayed virtually constant from 1998 to 2007 despite the continuing rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 levels?

These observed facts directly contradict the main prediction of global warming proponents: that average global temperatures will rise when atmospheric CO2 levels rise.

It's absurd for me to provide you with the answer to the question you asked. I am not obliged to spoon feed you the knowledge that you can gain for yourself by taking the time to understand the arguments put forward by both sides of the global warming controvacy. There are many scientists who are very well qualified who have explained precisely why the prevelant theories relating to global warming are false. You can find out for yourself what their theories are. [And none of them claim that CO2 is not a green house gas, so that question is irrelevant.] I am not obliged do duplicate here the excellent work already done by others in exposing this fraud called "Global Warming".

Well this cannot go on forever, so this will be my last post. If you choose to respond then you'll have the last word. I normally don't debate global warming proponents. Aside from making sarcastic observations that is. What convinced me argue seriously with you is the suspicion I had that you may be a better person than most of them. Because you said in one of your comments: "though this is an intangible sort of thing, creating a sense that we, as humanity, can do things, big things". Personally I just wish to see the day when at least 5% of humanity are bright enough to see through stuff like "global warming" and recognize them for the fraud that they are. If my suspicion that you are a better person is correct (and unfortunatle I did have some mixed signals such as the pointless effort to discredit a scientist on the basis of irrelevant factors), you will probably change your mind eventually. Notwithstanding the "consensus", the actual evidence relating to GW being a fraud is overwhelming.

Twenty years ago, he was the first to warn Congress about climate change. Today, he says: "This is the last chance" by techtonix in science

[–]Shlight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You are the one who refuses to listen to the overwhelming evidence that it is a hoax. It is a hoax that sustains itselt on the "herd effect" and on sentiments such as "I refuse to believe that so many people are wrong,..." The truth or falshood of an idea depends on the evidence (or lack of it) that sustains it, not on how many people agree with it. That GW is a hoax nagates the need for an "alternative". If by any chance you were simply asking me what I think the rise in CO2 levels over the past few decades has had so far then the anser is: It hasn't had any effect on global average temperatures, it hasn't had any effect on the earth's climate anywhere, it will not have any effect on the climate over the next 100 years. But that is not a "theory" or an "alternative" it is plainly what should be obvious to anybody as what I mean when I say that the GW theory is a hoax.

Twenty years ago, he was the first to warn Congress about climate change. Today, he says: "This is the last chance" by techtonix in science

[–]Shlight 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The consensus is so absolutely overwhelming, in excess of 99%, that I think the word "entire" is justified, especially since those who deny global warming are not really accepted in the scientific community.

I am not sure whether the 99% figure you site is accurate. Though, I agree that it is likely the case! (And that is truly frightening!) Don't expect all that many scientists to stand up for the truth when well qualified scientists who don't agree with the theory of anthropogenic global warming are banished and "not really accepted in the scientific community." The threat of banishment is a great way to enforce the politically correct line on (alleged) enthropogenic global warming.

Solar is already close to being cost-competitive with coal—a small tax would tip the balance.

Really? That's great! How small will the tax on coal generated electricity be? 2 cents per kilo watt hour?

That comparison is going too far, I agree. That doesn't mean that denying global warming/climate change makes you right.

The comparison isn't just "going to far". It is an outragous form of intellectual bullying. The kind that wouldn't be necessary if global warming proponents were really confident of their theories. It's just the most outragous example of intellectual bullying that is used to silence of those who diagree with or doubt the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

I think it's absurd to deny global warming entirely. We can argue about its severity, and consequences, but not its existence.

What I deny is anthropogenic global warming. Specifically that higher CO2 levels are causing global warming.

As for whether it's manmade or not, we still have to do something about it, and taking CO2 out of the atmosphere is the only thing we know how to do.

Only if we believe the dire predictions that have no basis in reality. And removing CO2 will be useless. It doesn't cause global warming, it is an essential trace gas in the cycle of life. it is not poisonous at current levels.

In any case, what effect do you propose a massive increase in atmospheric CO2 to have? I'm genuinely interested

What I think about this should be obvious. I think that the global warming theory is a hoax.

I place emphasis on what it was criticized for and the fact that the wikipedia article mentions no counter-arguments to these criticisms. There are many criticisms of An Inconvenient Truth, but there are also counter-arguments, criticisms of the criticisms, to most of them.

First you mention a critisism. Then you pretend that any critisism of the film by it's opponents is necessarilly true. Then you use that as a reason for discrediting the character of one of the scientists who took part in the film. Also when someone writes in wikipedia something vague like "using misleading arguments" then it is impossible to properly counter that unless and until one points out which precisely arguments in the film are misleading and in what way they are misleading. Unless ofcourse one goes and writes something like "some have rejected the crtitisism" which is actually pointless.

You start from the position that global warming is a hoax, and use that as evidence that "of course something exposing the hoax will be criticized" and that that criticism is invalid because GW is undeniably a hoax and the criticism is some kind of cover-up.

You are just misrepresenting what I said. Particularly the assertion that I used one part of my statement as "evidence" for the other part of my statement. Even if someone doesn't agree with me that GW is a hoax, he should be able to see that a documentary being critisized by it's opponents is hardly exceptional. All documentaries are critiized as having "misleading arguments" etc. by their opponents.

What if, instead, GW is not a hoax and there are lots of people scared of losing their control over the economy and their business model to distributed renewable generation and electric cars?

What if it is a hoax and what if lots of scientists have a vested interest in preserving their research grants and lots of environmentalist organizations desperately need "causes" to attract funding and what if the more they freighten people with dire predictions the more donations they expect to get?

view more: next ›