Misconceptions.. hmmm.. got alot of these... I apologize in advance if people feel offended by the ones I hate.
Being against political correctness does not make someone a bigot. It is not okay to be racist/sexist/etc just because your race/gender/etc was oppressed by someone else's in the past. Not liking an individual does not equal not liking their entire demographic.
Freedom of speech does not give you the right to be a jerk, nor does it apply to my website, private business, or country.
Just because America's culture has its fingers into every other countries culture, does not mean England/Australia/Canada/etc has, or needs, the same government/rights system it does.
Democracy is not the most awesome governmental system ever invented, it is just A governmental system, it has its flaws just like any other.
"We saved your ass in WWII" is neither true, nor respectful, nor appropriate when you are visiting someone else's country.
Just because a piece of computer hardware or software is used by pirates/hackers, does not mean that is the only use for it.
Not all video games are violent.
Not all people of "insert religion or nation here" are bigoted and intolerant or agree with their "nation or religion's" leaders.
Unemployed does not equal lazy. Just because you can walk into a job and get one where you live, doesn't mean everyone can where they live.
My boyfriend was pretty pissed off when he realized Tom Bombadil got cut from the LotR movie.
I've heard this a few times, and since I am a bad person and have never read LotR, I want to know: Who was this guy, why is he so important, what did he do, and why was he cut?
It's basically a classic case of Boba Fett syndrome - he's mysterious, so people think he's cool, despite the fact that he doesn't really do anything.
OK... I love Lord of the Rings. My favourite book. But I never realised anyone actually thought that Tom Bombadil was cool...
To address the question of why he was cut:
He's basically this weird, prancing, immortal, fairy-man that sings instead of talks. It would have been difficult to pull off in the movie without losing some of the audience. That whole section of the book is a little weird.
My boyfriend was pretty pissed off when he realized Tom Bombadil got cut from the LotR movie.
I've heard this a few times, and since I am a bad person and have never read LotR, I want to know: Who was this guy, why is he so important, what did he do, and why was he cut?
It's basically a classic case of Boba Fett syndrome - he's mysterious, so people think he's cool, despite the fact that he doesn't really do anything.
OK... I love Lord of the Rings. My favourite book. But I never realised anyone actually thought that Tom Bombadil was cool...
To address the question of why he was cut:
He's basically this weird, prancing, immortal, fairy-man that sings instead of talks. It would have been difficult to pull off in the movie without losing some of the audience. That whole section of the book is a little weird.
Ok, not 'cool' as such. But some LotR fans do seem to have an undue reverence for him, and many were somewhat pissed that he was cut from the movies - despite the fact that he plays only a very minor role in the story, and everything of consequence that he does do is easily transfered to someone else for the sake of brevity.
Lets face it, some LOTR fans were angry that anything at all got cut, or changed, and hated that things were not painstakingly identical in look and feel to the books.
I'll admit, I was worried they wouldn't do the books justice... but the important parts of the story were all there as far as I'm concerned, Bombadil was a freaking idiot. I heard somewhere that he was only in the book because he was a representation of Tolkien's son's favorite toy.
The misconception I hate most is that just because I might be the same colour as you, you somehow think that I want to hear your stupid, racist thoughts.
The misconception I hate most is that just because I might be the same colour as you, you somehow think that I want to hear your stupid, racist thoughts.
The misconception I hate most is that just because I might be the same colour as you, you somehow think that I want to hear your stupid, racist thoughts.
Seriously... Complete strangers sometimes.
Also, the same thing with "just because I'm a guy" with stupid, misogynist thoughts and the "just because I live in America" with stupid, fundie-tripe. I shit you not, all I wanted was a haircut and this lady keeps trying to trick me into arguing about creationism. While holding sharp things around my head.
Edit: Oh and just because I smoke doesn't mean I have any patience for your stupid hippie-bullshit either. If it's from nature it's good for you? What the fuck is wrong with you? Know what else is from nature? AIDS.
ViolentChemistry on
0
Options
BroloBroseidonLord of the BroceanRegistered Userregular
The misconception I hate most is that just because I might be the same colour as you, you somehow think that I want to hear your stupid, racist thoughts.
Seriously... Complete strangers sometimes.
Also, the same thing with "just because I'm a guy" with stupid, misogynist thoughts and the "just because I live in America" with stupid, fundie-tripe. I shit you not, all I wanted was a haircut and this lady keeps trying to trick me into arguing about creationism. While holding sharp things around my head.
Edit: Oh and just because I smoke doesn't mean I have any patience for your stupid hippie-bullshit either. If it's from nature it's good for you? What the fuck is wrong with you? Know what else is from nature? AIDS.
monkey fucking is a natural part of the human psyche and aids is just another part of the cycle of catching and fucking monkeys
Some faith healing works, in the same way that taking a placebo works for some conditions like warts. There is nothing magical going on.
As far as Dawkins' "Root of all Evil?" documentary, there was one incredibly dickish thing he did, which was compare the big religious meeting to the Nuremberg rallies. Irrelevant and uncalled for. The rest of it I found okay though, mostly.
Anyway, the average person's misconceptions about anything nuclear or having to deal with radiation are staggering. Like when the FDA approved irradiated food because it was completely safe and did not change the taste of the food. There were still cartoons of people in hazmat suits handing people their burgers.
And then there's the whole "frankenfoods" retardedness. Genetically modified foods have to be tested by the EPA for environmental effects, the FDA for food safety and the USDA for agricultural effects. It's completely safe, despite fears borne from ignorance about "superbugs." GM techniques are basically the only way avoid starving the world without cutting down every last scrap of forest.
And then there's the 9/11 conspiracy crap, but I won't get into that.
Maybe I'll think of more later.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
The world produces enough food to feed everyone. World agriculture produces 17 percent more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70 percent population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kilocalories (kcal) per person per day (Food and Agriculture Organization 2002, FAO 1998. The principal problem is that many people in the world do not have sufficient land to grow, or income to purchase, enough food.
The misconception I hate most is that just because I might be the same colour as you, you somehow think that I want to hear your stupid, racist thoughts.
Seriously... Complete strangers sometimes.
Also, the same thing with "just because I'm a guy" with stupid, misogynist thoughts and the "just because I live in America" with stupid, fundie-tripe. I shit you not, all I wanted was a haircut and this lady keeps trying to trick me into arguing about creationism. While holding sharp things around my head.
Edit: Oh and just because I smoke doesn't mean I have any patience for your stupid hippie-bullshit either. If it's from nature it's good for you? What the fuck is wrong with you? Know what else is from nature? AIDS.
I've gotten a lot of "rawr gay people are...." because people don't realize I'm gay.
It's sort of strange, people who aren't really racist (I don't think they'd deny a promotion based on race, for instance) will just start spouting off rather racially insensitive jokes because everyone in the room is white. And when no one in the room is lisping, it's safe to start tossing around fag and just about everything else.
Genetically modified foods have to be tested by the EPA for environmental effects, the FDA for food safety and the USDA for agricultural effects.
I wouldn't be so sure about that salmoned part, chief.
If a GMO food can be shown to be "substantially equivalent" to an existing non-GMO food, then the FDA requires no further testing. There are those (myself included) who don't think that this is necessarily good enough.
For the record, I don't think the FDA does enough to regulate food in general, GMO or non-GMO.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
They treated the women like shit and the actual number of people who were citizens was really small compared to the number of inhabitants of Athens.
I read this one legend that said, Athena and Poseidon both wanted to be the patron god of the city of Athens when it was first built. So all the people in Athens voted, and the men voted for Poseidon, and the women voted for Athena. It happened that there was one more woman than there were men, so Athena won. And all the men were pissed that they didn't get Poseidon, so they never let women vote again. Because them hos fuck everything up.
That's an... odd interpretation of the myth. The real myth is that Athena and Poseidon both provided things for Athens. Poseidon gave them a river. Athena gave them Olives. The citizens of Athens were like "lol, olives > sum water, kthx."
My boyfriend was pretty pissed off when he realized Tom Bombadil got cut from the LotR movie.
I've heard this a few times, and since I am a bad person and have never read LotR, I want to know: Who was this guy, why is he so important, what did he do, and why was he cut?
It's basically a classic case of Boba Fett syndrome - he's mysterious, so people think he's cool, despite the fact that he doesn't really do anything.
OK... I love Lord of the Rings. My favourite book. But I never realised anyone actually thought that Tom Bombadil was cool...
To address the question of why he was cut:
He's basically this weird, prancing, immortal, fairy-man that sings instead of talks. It would have been difficult to pull off in the movie without losing some of the audience. That whole section of the book is a little weird.
Ok, not 'cool' as such. But some LotR fans do seem to have an undue reverence for him, and many were somewhat pissed that he was cut from the movies - despite the fact that he plays only a very minor role in the story, and everything of consequence that he does do is easily transfered to someone else for the sake of brevity.
The Ring doesn't affect him. He's a nod to the rest of the mythos of the world that exists in the Silmarillion which the Ring has no power over - he's a Maiar. There's other arguments to be made about stuff that was cut/added, and I'me of those who cried foul over a lot of things, but let's face it - Bombadil would have been practically impossible to work well in film. The problem is that by removing him, you also get rid of Old Man Willow and the Barrow Downs, which were neat in their own rights, and with the removal of the Barrow Downs, coupled with the changes they introduced on Weathertop and adding Arwen at the ford, it turns Frodo into a giant bumbling pussy who needs the help of the big folk to get anything done.
Genetically modified foods have to be tested by the EPA for environmental effects, the FDA for food safety and the USDA for agricultural effects.
I wouldn't be so sure about that salmoned part, chief.
If a GMO food can be shown to be "substantially equivalent" to an existing non-GMO food, then the FDA requires no further testing. There are those (myself included) who don't think that this is necessarily good enough.
For the record, I don't think the FDA does enough to regulate food in general, GMO or non-GMO.
Okay, I guess it is only tested by two government agencies in some cases.
But do you know the criteria they use to determine if it's similar enough? They don't just squint at it and say "eh, good enough." They do a compositional analysis and basic testing and essentially write a research paper on it. If what's in it is close enough to the normal thing, they don't need to do extensive, costly, unnecessary testing. I don't think there's even one case where these crops declared similar enough have had any adverse health effects.
And, as far as the "we have enough food" thing, I just want to say that there is still a tradeoff between forest and farmland, especially when you're a poor African farmer who has been denied seeds which will increase the food yield per acre. In addition, the world population will continue to grow, requiring more mouths to feed on even less land. "We'll just chop down more forest" is a monumentally stupid way to approach the problem.
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
As far as Dawkins' "Root of all Evil?" documentary, there was one incredibly dickish thing he did, which was compare the big religious meeting to the Nuremberg rallies. Irrelevant and uncalled for. The rest of it I found okay though, mostly.
he actually did this?!?!? ahahaha what a jackass
but he's right, big religious meetings are JUST like the nuremberg rallies, in exactly the same way as MLK's march on washington, gandhi's great salt march, or your average college football game are.
anytime a large group of people rally around a common cause, it's totally like nazism. as long as dawkins says so
Pants Man on
"okay byron, my grandma has a right to be happy, so i give you my blessing. just... don't get her pregnant. i don't need another mom."
But do you know the criteria they use to determine if it's similar enough? They don't just squint at it and say "eh, good enough." They do a compositional analysis and basic testing and essentially write a research paper on it. If what's in it is close enough to the normal thing, they don't need to do extensive, costly, unnecessary testing. I don't think there's even one case where these crops declared similar enough have had any adverse health effects.
How "close" is "close enough?" In the US, there are no defined standards. It's up to the food producer to make a compelling argument of substantial equivalence. Since the levels of toxic substances and antinutrients can vary wildly in both GMO and non-GMO crops, and there are no mandatory standards for what biomarkers must be tested, or how close they have to be to be found equivalent, there's a lot of wiggle room for food manufacturers to play with.
Beyond that, I'm uncomfortable with the "generally regarded as safe" standard for food additives and GM-inserted proteins, because I think it's implemented in a fashion that is too permissive. I admit that this is a criticism that goes beyond the scope of just the GMO controversy, though.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
They treated the women like shit and the actual number of people who were citizens was really small compared to the number of inhabitants of Athens.
I read this one legend that said, Athena and Poseidon both wanted to be the patron god of the city of Athens when it was first built. So all the people in Athens voted, and the men voted for Poseidon, and the women voted for Athena. It happened that there was one more woman than there were men, so Athena won. And all the men were pissed that they didn't get Poseidon, so they never let women vote again. Because them hos fuck everything up.
That's an... odd interpretation of the myth. The real myth is that Athena and Poseidon both provided things for Athens. Poseidon gave them a river. Athena gave them Olives. The citizens of Athens were like "lol, olives > sum water, kthx."
Yeah, I've heard that version too. Though in my version of your version, the reason they chose olives over the river is because the river was salt-water because Poseidon was god of the Sea and apparently didn't understand namby-pamby human need for fresh water.
I met someone the other day who apparently thought that all people who read Harry Potter are Harry Potter freaks.
Edit: Also, the mad scientist stereotype. Which is just a little bit more annoying than the benevolent scientist stereotype. Basically lay people being ig'nant tards and not understanding what scientific research is about. I mean sure some people can be irresponsible, or some people do it for the betterment of the human condition, but most people I talk to are mainly motivated by intellectual interest and inquisitiveness, and are not crazy. The whole "ohnoes radiation!" thing also annoys me. Scientists are much more responsible with radiation than tobacco companies are with cigarettes.
I used to work in a lab that was in a ginormous building that also has administrative offices and whatnot. Once the fire alarm went off in the middle of the day and a couple wings of the building were evacuated. I was standing outside with some people apparently from one of those administrative offices and overheard one of them saying something like, "It's probably one of those dumb researchers blowing something up" and I just wanted to march over and bitchslap that fucking cunt for being a retarded whore. Maybe I was just PMSing or something, but I've really had enough of that "Scientists are egotistical maniacs who torture rats for fun and dump toxic waste in my water cooler" bullshit.
Who... who built the pyramids if it wasn't slaves?
Free egyptians? That seems unlikely.
I've seen a lot of history documentaries that say it wasn't slaves but voluntary (maybe drafted) labor. Because it was considered an honor to be a part of the immortalization of the pharoh or something.
Dont know how true it was, but I was always taught that when the nile flooded, every year, all the people who lived and worked there went to work on the pyramids.
But do you know the criteria they use to determine if it's similar enough? They don't just squint at it and say "eh, good enough." They do a compositional analysis and basic testing and essentially write a research paper on it. If what's in it is close enough to the normal thing, they don't need to do extensive, costly, unnecessary testing. I don't think there's even one case where these crops declared similar enough have had any adverse health effects.
How "close" is "close enough?" In the US, there are no defined standards. It's up to the food producer to make a compelling argument of substantial equivalence. Since the levels of toxic substances and antinutrients can vary wildly in both GMO and non-GMO crops, and there are no mandatory standards for what biomarkers must be tested, or how close they have to be to be found equivalent, there's a lot of wiggle room for food manufacturers to play with.
Beyond that, I'm uncomfortable with the "generally regarded as safe" standard for food additives and GM-inserted proteins, because I think it's implemented in a fashion that is too permissive. I admit that this is a criticism that goes beyond the scope of just the GMO controversy, though.
So I'm guessing then that there's at least one example where a GM food regarded as safe in this manner was found not to be?
RandomEngy on
Profile -> Signature Settings -> Hide signatures always. Then you don't have to read this worthless text anymore.
Dont know how true it was, but I was always taught that when the nile flooded, every year, all the people who lived and worked there went to work on the pyramids.
It happened every year for the entire period that Egypt was settled up until the dam. So... I mean... yes. But not always. Only during Pyramid Building years. Also, they weren't slaves, dammit. People were well compensated with both amenities and funerary services, and worked for what was essentially President Jesus Pitt. I don't know why people think it was all slaves. I can only imagine "Jewish slaves left Egypt + Pyramids in Egypt too = SLAVES BUILT PYRAMID".
Okay, what drives me crazy is people who confuse wasps and bees.
A bee:
A wasp:
It's an important distinction because a bee will die after it stings you once, whereas a wasp can sting you over and over and over again. Also because if you know what the insect is after, you can get it to leave sooner. (Bee: looking for flowers, may be confused by floral shampoo. Wasp: wants your sugary drink and food.)
People who think the best way to avoid getting stung by a wasp is to flail their arms around and scream also irritate me.
Okay, what drives me crazy is people who confuse wasps and bees.
A bee:
A wasp:
It's an important distinction because a bee will die after it stings you once, whereas a wasp can sting you over and over and over again. Also because if you know what the insect is after, you can get it to leave sooner. (Bee: looking for flowers, may be confused by floral shampoo. Wasp: wants your sugary drink and food.)
People who think the best way to avoid getting stung by a wasp is to flail their arms around and scream also irritate me.
But it's hard to tell considering that as soon as a wasp stings some people, it dies.
Not due to the stinging DIRECTLY, but if I get stung I'm sure as hell swatting the little yellow fucker.
Dont know how true it was, but I was always taught that when the nile flooded, every year, all the people who lived and worked there went to work on the pyramids.
It happened every year for the entire period that Egypt was settled up until the dam. So... I mean... yes. But not always. Only during Pyramid Building years. Also, they weren't slaves, dammit. People were well compensated with both amenities and funerary services, and worked for what was essentially President Jesus Pitt. I don't know why people think it was all slaves. I can only imagine "Jewish slaves left Egypt + Pyramids in Egypt too = SLAVES BUILT PYRAMID".
Hey, that's really interesting. Fits nicely with the whole 'terribly concerned with the afterlife' thing they had going.
The Cat on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
edited September 2007
There's actually no evidence whatsoever of Jews/Israelites ever being slaves in Egypt at all. So, that's a thing.
QFT! Evil fuckers! Also, isn't the second picture a yellowjacket? Are yellowjackets wasps???
....Oh yeah, and whoever said something about worse hangovers coming from dark alcohols.....that's because darker alcohols have a lot more tannins in them.
There's actually no evidence whatsoever of Jews/Israelites ever being slaves in Egypt at all. So, that's a thing.
Could you provide proof that compelled you to make this statement?
If I understand that post to mean what I think it does, then that is a completely absurd question. Why does he have to provide proof that there is no proof? It's a completely laughable proposition. Here's a skit for you:
Defendant: "You have no evidence that I killed my wife!"
Plaintiff: "Really? Well can you PROVE that we have no evidence?
There's actually no evidence whatsoever of Jews/Israelites ever being slaves in Egypt at all. So, that's a thing.
Could you provide proof that compelled you to make this statement?
How does one go about proving that evidence doesn't exist? By scouring all the information in the universe and then reporting back to you in ten years? Oh but what if someone finds evidence within those ten years? No, the way this works is you prove him wrong by showing evidence. Unreasonably popular works of fiction with scary cult-followings don't count.
Posts
I
OK... I love Lord of the Rings. My favourite book. But I never realised anyone actually thought that Tom Bombadil was cool...
To address the question of why he was cut:
He's basically this weird, prancing, immortal, fairy-man that sings instead of talks. It would have been difficult to pull off in the movie without losing some of the audience. That whole section of the book is a little weird.
Ok, not 'cool' as such. But some LotR fans do seem to have an undue reverence for him, and many were somewhat pissed that he was cut from the movies - despite the fact that he plays only a very minor role in the story, and everything of consequence that he does do is easily transfered to someone else for the sake of brevity.
I just dont think it would have translated well into the movie.
I'll admit, I was worried they wouldn't do the books justice... but the important parts of the story were all there as far as I'm concerned, Bombadil was a freaking idiot. I heard somewhere that he was only in the book because he was a representation of Tolkien's son's favorite toy.
The misconception I hate most is that just because I might be the same colour as you, you somehow think that I want to hear your stupid, racist thoughts.
Seriously... Complete strangers sometimes.
Also, the same thing with "just because I'm a guy" with stupid, misogynist thoughts and the "just because I live in America" with stupid, fundie-tripe. I shit you not, all I wanted was a haircut and this lady keeps trying to trick me into arguing about creationism. While holding sharp things around my head.
Edit: Oh and just because I smoke doesn't mean I have any patience for your stupid hippie-bullshit either. If it's from nature it's good for you? What the fuck is wrong with you? Know what else is from nature? AIDS.
monkey fucking is a natural part of the human psyche and aids is just another part of the cycle of catching and fucking monkeys
As far as Dawkins' "Root of all Evil?" documentary, there was one incredibly dickish thing he did, which was compare the big religious meeting to the Nuremberg rallies. Irrelevant and uncalled for. The rest of it I found okay though, mostly.
Anyway, the average person's misconceptions about anything nuclear or having to deal with radiation are staggering. Like when the FDA approved irradiated food because it was completely safe and did not change the taste of the food. There were still cartoons of people in hazmat suits handing people their burgers.
And then there's the whole "frankenfoods" retardedness. Genetically modified foods have to be tested by the EPA for environmental effects, the FDA for food safety and the USDA for agricultural effects. It's completely safe, despite fears borne from ignorance about "superbugs." GM techniques are basically the only way avoid starving the world without cutting down every last scrap of forest.
And then there's the 9/11 conspiracy crap, but I won't get into that.
Maybe I'll think of more later.
I'm not an expert on world hunger, but I've seen nothing but evidence that says this is one big misconception.
http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
Like I said, no expert, but I'd love to see some evidence to the contrary.
I've gotten a lot of "rawr gay people are...." because people don't realize I'm gay.
It's sort of strange, people who aren't really racist (I don't think they'd deny a promotion based on race, for instance) will just start spouting off rather racially insensitive jokes because everyone in the room is white. And when no one in the room is lisping, it's safe to start tossing around fag and just about everything else.
I wouldn't be so sure about that salmoned part, chief.
If a GMO food can be shown to be "substantially equivalent" to an existing non-GMO food, then the FDA requires no further testing. There are those (myself included) who don't think that this is necessarily good enough.
For the record, I don't think the FDA does enough to regulate food in general, GMO or non-GMO.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
That's an... odd interpretation of the myth. The real myth is that Athena and Poseidon both provided things for Athens. Poseidon gave them a river. Athena gave them Olives. The citizens of Athens were like "lol, olives > sum water, kthx."
The Ring doesn't affect him. He's a nod to the rest of the mythos of the world that exists in the Silmarillion which the Ring has no power over - he's a Maiar. There's other arguments to be made about stuff that was cut/added, and I'me of those who cried foul over a lot of things, but let's face it - Bombadil would have been practically impossible to work well in film. The problem is that by removing him, you also get rid of Old Man Willow and the Barrow Downs, which were neat in their own rights, and with the removal of the Barrow Downs, coupled with the changes they introduced on Weathertop and adding Arwen at the ford, it turns Frodo into a giant bumbling pussy who needs the help of the big folk to get anything done.
Okay, I guess it is only tested by two government agencies in some cases.
But do you know the criteria they use to determine if it's similar enough? They don't just squint at it and say "eh, good enough." They do a compositional analysis and basic testing and essentially write a research paper on it. If what's in it is close enough to the normal thing, they don't need to do extensive, costly, unnecessary testing. I don't think there's even one case where these crops declared similar enough have had any adverse health effects.
And, as far as the "we have enough food" thing, I just want to say that there is still a tradeoff between forest and farmland, especially when you're a poor African farmer who has been denied seeds which will increase the food yield per acre. In addition, the world population will continue to grow, requiring more mouths to feed on even less land. "We'll just chop down more forest" is a monumentally stupid way to approach the problem.
he actually did this?!?!? ahahaha what a jackass
but he's right, big religious meetings are JUST like the nuremberg rallies, in exactly the same way as MLK's march on washington, gandhi's great salt march, or your average college football game are.
anytime a large group of people rally around a common cause, it's totally like nazism. as long as dawkins says so
How "close" is "close enough?" In the US, there are no defined standards. It's up to the food producer to make a compelling argument of substantial equivalence. Since the levels of toxic substances and antinutrients can vary wildly in both GMO and non-GMO crops, and there are no mandatory standards for what biomarkers must be tested, or how close they have to be to be found equivalent, there's a lot of wiggle room for food manufacturers to play with.
Beyond that, I'm uncomfortable with the "generally regarded as safe" standard for food additives and GM-inserted proteins, because I think it's implemented in a fashion that is too permissive. I admit that this is a criticism that goes beyond the scope of just the GMO controversy, though.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yeah, I've heard that version too. Though in my version of your version, the reason they chose olives over the river is because the river was salt-water because Poseidon was god of the Sea and apparently didn't understand namby-pamby human need for fresh water.
I met someone the other day who apparently thought that all people who read Harry Potter are Harry Potter freaks.
Edit: Also, the mad scientist stereotype. Which is just a little bit more annoying than the benevolent scientist stereotype. Basically lay people being ig'nant tards and not understanding what scientific research is about. I mean sure some people can be irresponsible, or some people do it for the betterment of the human condition, but most people I talk to are mainly motivated by intellectual interest and inquisitiveness, and are not crazy. The whole "ohnoes radiation!" thing also annoys me. Scientists are much more responsible with radiation than tobacco companies are with cigarettes.
I used to work in a lab that was in a ginormous building that also has administrative offices and whatnot. Once the fire alarm went off in the middle of the day and a couple wings of the building were evacuated. I was standing outside with some people apparently from one of those administrative offices and overheard one of them saying something like, "It's probably one of those dumb researchers blowing something up" and I just wanted to march over and bitchslap that fucking cunt for being a retarded whore. Maybe I was just PMSing or something, but I've really had enough of that "Scientists are egotistical maniacs who torture rats for fun and dump toxic waste in my water cooler" bullshit.
Free egyptians? That seems unlikely.
I've seen a lot of history documentaries that say it wasn't slaves but voluntary (maybe drafted) labor. Because it was considered an honor to be a part of the immortalization of the pharoh or something.
So I'm guessing then that there's at least one example where a GM food regarded as safe in this manner was found not to be?
A bee:
A wasp:
It's an important distinction because a bee will die after it stings you once, whereas a wasp can sting you over and over and over again. Also because if you know what the insect is after, you can get it to leave sooner. (Bee: looking for flowers, may be confused by floral shampoo. Wasp: wants your sugary drink and food.)
People who think the best way to avoid getting stung by a wasp is to flail their arms around and scream also irritate me.
Bees are alright.
But it's hard to tell considering that as soon as a wasp stings some people, it dies.
Not due to the stinging DIRECTLY, but if I get stung I'm sure as hell swatting the little yellow fucker.
They still look the same to me.
Also Satan picture = lol.
Hey, that's really interesting. Fits nicely with the whole 'terribly concerned with the afterlife' thing they had going.
QFT! Evil fuckers! Also, isn't the second picture a yellowjacket? Are yellowjackets wasps???
....Oh yeah, and whoever said something about worse hangovers coming from dark alcohols.....that's because darker alcohols have a lot more tannins in them.
Could you provide proof that compelled you to make this statement?
If I understand that post to mean what I think it does, then that is a completely absurd question. Why does he have to provide proof that there is no proof? It's a completely laughable proposition. Here's a skit for you:
Defendant: "You have no evidence that I killed my wife!"
Plaintiff: "Really? Well can you PROVE that we have no evidence?
Defendant: Well... no....
Plaintiff: Ha! Guilty!
Oh ho ho! Snap!
How does one go about proving that evidence doesn't exist? By scouring all the information in the universe and then reporting back to you in ten years? Oh but what if someone finds evidence within those ten years? No, the way this works is you prove him wrong by showing evidence. Unreasonably popular works of fiction with scary cult-followings don't count.