This is a well written and referenced article, should be read by everyone whichever side they're on IMO. |
|
|
|
It's ironic that someone who believes that a sky fairy created the world 4,000 years ago and that humans lived alongside dinosaurs at that time, demands more evidence of a shooting that happened a few days ago before he'll believe it.  |
|
|
|
this situation is getting worse and worse. women are seen as second claas citizens in islam for that reason this segration is very reasonable in islamic perpective but london mayor should know that he is living in a western society and he should be integrated in it. women dont deserve this horrible humiliation. In Salafist / Wahhabist Islam, the women are just commodities, with the sole purpose of providing sexual satisfaction to their husbands. It is forbidden for the women to enjoy sex in Islam (that is why they perform female genital mutilation). Muslim women must remain faithful to their husbands, while the Muslim men are permitted to have sex with non-Muslim women. |
|
|
|
Oddly if you read the article it says: "Photos from the event show a ring of men at the front with the women further behind. There is no suggestion they were forcably segregated, but the Mayor did not intervene to prevent the women standing at the back."
What was he supposed to do?
Bingo. This is a stupid story that has nothing to do with Islamification. The whole article is based on one shitty photo where we can't even see the whole crowd, and like you said what the hell is the mayor gonna do, shout "bring all dem ladies up to front, Allah's praise be upon them!!" What a bullshit article. Plus this source "townhall.com" looks fascist as fuck to me, here's another of their articles on the front page: Enough: After Orlando, We Must Defund Planned Parenthood and Rethink Gay Marriage RulingAt OP, if you are going to post anti-Islamic material, can it at least be about serious stuff like actual crimes, and not fluff like this? |
|
|
|
@protokol
Without access to the proper resources I can't say too much about the Sun and Moon. What I do know is that the Moon and Sun are flat disks about 32 miles wide at an altitude of about 3000 miles. This can be measured with a sextant and calculated with plane trigonometry. There's also a 3rd disk known as the Black Sun, it can't be seen with the naked eye except when it causes an eclipse.
Moon light is coherent and produces a laser-like cooling effect while the Sun's light is obviously hot. The disk layout of the Sun and Moon is what causes the spotlight effect.
We're at the limits of my knowledge here but I'm going to go our on limb and say the Sun and Moon are most likely synthetic diamond disks that are held in place via superconducting levitation. Originally I thought they were projected onto directly onto the dome wall but I feel they're probably separate objects.
Any idea how they're powered? You realize that the Sun radiates 173,000 terawatts of power onto the Earth (this can be tested empirically by anyone using PV panels etc.). That's a fuckton of power, it must be a very heavy-duty generator that's being used. Maybe it's outside the dome, because we obviously can't see it... Any thoughts on the night-time star projector? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin has now completed a giant, two year long cup and handle. For any TA illiterate, that means likelihood of skyrocketing soon = high:  We're gonna need a bigger amount of tea. You know, to fill that huge huge cup. At least we'll be able to afford the tea. Lol I wouldn't sell my bitcoin for all the tea in... China?  |
|
|
|
BADecker, I think something's just clicked... You're not talking about Darwinism/evolution/Natural Selection! You're talking about how living cells first came into being, or abiogenesis, right? That's what your molecule example sounds like, because that's not the sort of evolution I was talking about.
You see when most people talk about Evolution they are not talking about Abiogenesis - they are two totally separate things. Unlike the theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis has not been explained by science in any meaningful way, although there are some hypotheses.
Darwin didn't really have a clue how his idea of evolution would work. He mostly suggested that it was simply there. However, anyone who tries to find out where life came from, and goes the evolution route, sooner or later has to consider abiogenesis... or stop looking at the most fundamental part of evolution... where it all started. The idea of separating evolution from abiogenesis completely, is one of two things: A. It is separation to more directly focus on aspects of one or the other; B. It is separation to cause conflicts in understanding, because both are together - cannot be separated, basically - and are being used by science to cover up the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are impossible. There is a third thing: C) that scientists are trying to change the meaning of "evolution" to "change," so that they can gracefully step out of their appearance of stupidity while keeping their status in society. The medical does this on a regular basis by changing disease smptoms on the books, and suddenly you are looking at a whole new disease.  Hmm I don't know what you mean by most of this post, there's a lot of words but you haven't really got a coherent point. Let me try and break it down... Darwin wasn't researching the origin of life itself, his famous book was titled "The Origin of Species". The theory of evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life we see, it says nothing of the initial origins of life. It is not something that can "simply be there" or not, it is a process, or concept. The main hypotheses for the actual origin of life are based on ways in which certain chemicals could form amino acids and then RNA and DNA. Some think this may have happened in deep ocean vents, others think material from meteorites may be involved. It's all quite mysterious and no-one knows for sure what happened. The theory of evolution is everything that happened after these cells with RNA/DNA appeared, and is an accepted scientific theory. Evolution and are two separate areas. Sure, if you are trying to answer the big questions in life such as "Where did we come from?" then you need to look at both of these areas. You would also need to look at many other fields, astrophysics and the Big Bang theory, microbiology to understand proteins and enzymes etc. That doesn't mean that these fields can't be studied and discussed separately, this is the easiest way to attempt to answer the big questions in life! Evolution doesn't explain how life began, and was never designed to. What is does explain however, is the huge diversity of life and the way in which certain species seem to be engineered perfectly for their environment. ... What this means is that the same probability math that makes changes in your definition of evolution, is the same thing that shows that such changes are impossible. ... The steps from the development of one form of life to any other, involve mutation or intelligent design. Mutation has been ruled out by probability math. ... EDIT: The term "natural selection" suggests that selecting can happen without intelligence. There is absolutely no proof for this, especially in the light that cause and effect permeate everything that we know and understand. OK, looks like you don't understand what the words "probability", "math", "mutation" or "evolution" mean, quite possibly all four. I'm out, have a good day. |
|
|
|
BADecker, I think something's just clicked... You're not talking about Darwinism/evolution/Natural Selection! You're talking about how living cells first came into being, or abiogenesis, right? That's what your molecule example sounds like, because that's not the sort of evolution I was talking about.
You see when most people talk about Evolution they are not talking about Abiogenesis - they are two totally separate things. Unlike the theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis has not been explained by science in any meaningful way, although there are some hypotheses.
Darwin didn't really have a clue how his idea of evolution would work. He mostly suggested that it was simply there. However, anyone who tries to find out where life came from, and goes the evolution route, sooner or later has to consider abiogenesis... or stop looking at the most fundamental part of evolution... where it all started. The idea of separating evolution from abiogenesis completely, is one of two things: A. It is separation to more directly focus on aspects of one or the other; B. It is separation to cause conflicts in understanding, because both are together - cannot be separated, basically - and are being used by science to cover up the fact that evolution and abiogenesis are impossible. There is a third thing: C) that scientists are trying to change the meaning of "evolution" to "change," so that they can gracefully step out of their appearance of stupidity while keeping their status in society. The medical does this on a regular basis by changing disease smptoms on the books, and suddenly you are looking at a whole new disease. Hmm I don't know what you mean by most of this post, there's a lot of words but you haven't really got a coherent point. Let me try and break it down... Darwin wasn't researching the origin of life itself, his famous book was titled "The Origin of Species". The theory of evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life we see, it says nothing of the initial origins of life. It is not something that can "simply be there" or not, it is a process, or concept. The main hypotheses for the actual origin of life are based on ways in which certain chemicals could form amino acids and then RNA and DNA. Some think this may have happened in deep ocean vents, others think material from meteorites may be involved. It's all quite mysterious and no-one knows for sure what happened. The theory of evolution is everything that happened after these cells with RNA/DNA appeared, and is an accepted scientific theory. Evolution and Abiogenesis are two separate areas. Sure, if you are trying to answer the big questions in life such as "Where did we come from?" then you need to look at both of these areas. You would also need to look at many other fields, astrophysics and the Big Bang theory, microbiology to understand proteins and enzymes etc. That doesn't mean that these fields can't be studied and discussed separately, this is the easiest way to attempt to answer the big questions in life! Evolution doesn't explain how life began, and was never designed to. What is does explain however, is the huge diversity of life and the way in which certain species seem to be engineered perfectly for their environment. |
|
|
|
|
BADecker, I think something's just clicked... You're not talking about Darwinism/evolution/Natural Selection! You're talking about how living cells first came into being, or abiogenesis, right? That's what your molecule example sounds like, because that's not the sort of evolution I was talking about.
You see when most people talk about Evolution they are not talking about Abiogenesis - they are two totally separate things. Unlike the theory of Evolution, Abiogenesis has not been explained by science in any meaningful way, although there are some hypotheses.
|
|
|
|
OK, well bear in mind that I'm not a big fan of the Pharmaceutical industry, and yes they have been know to corrupt studies and data to their own advantage. That doesn't mean that everything they do is corrupt. Meta-analyses are used to try and find the most accurate results, to get around tactics like data fabrication and cherry picking (that Big Pharma have been known to use), I'm not sure why you think they are "rich in deliberate fraud". Of course they have to be properly designed, but when they are they are the gold standard of statistical significance in science/medicine. Are you someone who still believes there to be a link between vaccines and autism (you haven't made your position very clear)? If so, what problems do you have with any of the studies that show there to be no statistical link? Here's an article that references 20 studies that have been done, using different methods, with high numbers of samples and statistical power: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.fullAnd no, I'm not interested in getting any information from youtube videos, I prefer scientific articles and journals that reference their sources. You like medical studies, but you don't want to look at the coincidences?
Baby very healthy.
Vaccines administered.
Baby suddenly autistic.http://www.naturalnews.com/026953_thimerosal_autism_mercury.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/027178_autism_vaccines.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/048753_Wakefield_study_MMR_vaccine_autism.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/027239_vaccine_flu_vaccines.htmlhttp://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.htmlSee bolded. That is not a very scientific way to get your views. I did read your links, but naturalnews is a very poor source for this sort of information. As I said earlier, the owners of sites like this probably don't believe the majority of the stuff they post, but they have pinpointed a demographic of people that lap it up. Notice all the ads on the page? Money in their pocket. Of the links, the only one with much substance was the first, with the study on Thimerosal on in vitro (petri dish) cells. I'll have a closer look at the study, but as far as I'm aware Thimerosal isn't in any vaccines apart from the flu vaccine since 2001. So kind of irrelevant to anything about autism. 2nd link was just quotes from books, trying to prove a wishy-washy anecdotal link. Poor. 3rd link was just an outright lying headline - No his study hasn't been vindicated: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(97)11096-0/abstract see those big red letters that say "RETRACTED"? 4th and 5th were about flu vaccine, which I wasn't discussing. The only way we can discuss this is if you make a clear position/argument so that we can debate it. Did you look through the article I linked with the 20 studies, did you pick up on any problems with any of the studies? |
|
|
|
If the human body must have vaccines to survive, then evolution and natural selection are fraudulent scientific theories. Conversely, if natural selection is real, then all humans are the survivors of thousands of generations of ancestors who self-immunized without any vaccines at all. Yet today, ridiculous scientists and vaccine propaganda pushers tell us that modern humans would all die without vaccines, claiming our immune systems are incapable of protecting us without vaccines. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054317_vaccine_science_natural_selection_contradiction.html#ixzz4BE522kdMEvolution works on a large time scale. Over time, animals that survived developed immunity to diseases that took out animals before them. You either survive or you die. That is how immune systems work in the context of evolution. Evolution doesn't work at all except in the lab. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.msg14706492#msg14706492. Not only does the article at the link give evolution a tremendous, gigantic benefit of the doubt, the article doesn't even begin to talk about the things in nature that destroy evolution. The fact is, the longer the amount of time, the less chance evolution has of even getting a foothold. Humans developed immunity to the diseases that happened in the past, but anything new has a potential to kill a large number of humans. Some will survive and develop immunity naturally, their genes will be passed to the next generations. The process is very brutal but the nature works that way. Actually, it works exactly the other way around. Entropy shows that all complexity is breaking down... becoming more simple all the time. Adding poisons to a gradually weakening system, only makes that system break down faster. What the proponents of vaccines are advocating is to get vaccines to known NEW viruses that you probably don't have antibodies for in your bloodstream. This is a noble thought. But why not strengthen the system to fight the new viruses, rather than poisoning it with some old, dead viruses and all the poisons that are added to the vaccine... like mercury? There are few problems: the ingredients in the vaccines might be harmful to you ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vaccine_ingredients), the virus that you take the vaccine for might not be harmful to you or you might not get infected so you are taking something that you don't really need. I think it is a personal choice, just like the insurance coverage. You know things like life insurance. It might be personal choice for you an adult. But government is forcing it on your kids. And, they are doing it while knowing it is bad for them. I'm not going to spend too long trying to explain evolution to you, I really haven't got time and It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he never was reasoned into. Suffice to say, you don't understand the concept at all. Your main problem is that you're thinking of Evolution itself as some sort of "entity" with a plan, when in fact it is just an abstract concept. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics, or entropy, doesn't apply here because we are not in an isolated system - the Earth gets energy from the Sun and therefore can decrease its entropy (even though the Universe as a whole does have slowly increasing entropy). It is possible for one part of the Universe to become more ordered, even as the whole thing is becoming less ordered over time. Nothing about the 2nd law is violated by the concept of Evolution. You say evolution can occur in a lab, so I assume you're aware that we can witness bacteria and viruses evolve. HIV is a really good example: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_04, "It reproduces sloppily, accumulating lots of mutations when it copies its genetic material. It also reproduces at a lightning-fast rate a single virus can spawn billions of copies in just one day."). Is it so hard to accept that the same process can happen in the wild, with more complex organisms (at a much slower pace)? Entropy applies because it applies to everything. Even though something looks like it is "advancing," it is doing so at the expense of something else that is declining more rapidly. You virtually said this, above, in other language. We can see evolution occur in the lab, after we make evolution occur in the lab.We don't have even ONE clear example of evolution happening in nature, which could not be attributed to something else at the same time. All the "slower pace" happenings would be destroyed by nature - say by oxidation - long before they got off the ground. The slower they are, the longer they take, the more time there is for something to destroy them. And there are loads of natural chemical reactions that are out to break down more complex chemicals. Evolutionists have play a trick. They have said that evolution takes a long time, and that's why we can't see it happening. The thing that they don't include in this thinking is that the longer the time, the more opportunity for evolved "things" to be attacked and destroyed. Go ahead and turn away from solid science if you want. Delude yourself into thinking evolution might be able to happen. But the math of simple chemistry and physics show that evolution is utterly impossible. Like I said above, the concept of entropy works in an isolated system (ie the whole Universe), but not necessarily on Earth. Chemistry and Physics do not show that it is impossible, in fact they support the idea, which is why it's a scientific theory. The way you describe Evolution shows that you just don't get it - sentences like "the longer the time, the more opportunity for evolved "things" to be attacked and destroyed." and "All the "slower pace" happenings would be destroyed by nature" make so sense whatsoever. Natural selection comes from tiny mutations in DNA, and over time the beneficial ones stick around while the useless ones disappear. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to explain it. Maybe one day you'll accept it, but you've obviously been indoctrinated pretty hard with some strong opinions on this. My number one tip to you, if you really want to learn, is to challenge your views and try reading articles from other places, rather than stuff like AiG and new age health websites. And always check the sources and references. New Scientist is a great source for mostly unbiased and accurate articles, without being too dry. |
|
|
|
Do you actually Beleive this or are you just posting the videos to show how ridiculous it is? If you actually Beleive this shit then maybe you should look up some photos of children that parents failed to vaccinate and ended up sick.
Or some pictures of those who's parents to 'succeeded'. --- BTW, since the common cry when the guy's name is brought up is that he is a fraud, Dr. Wakefield's co-author was a wealthy individual who had half a million spare kicking around to 'clear his name.' He did just this and in the process thoroughly humiliated the interests which demonized the research team. Funny that this isn't reported so much. http://www.ebcala.org/areas-of-law/vaccine-law/co-author-of-lancet-mmr-autism-study-exonerated-on-all-charges-of-professional-misconductAccording to this article the funding for Walker-Smith's defense was his insurance company, but the results were as described. Oh jesus, you're not defending Wakefield are you? The guy is a disgrace to medicine. You do realize he paid kids at his son's birthday party for blood samples, does that seem like valid, ethical scientific research to you? In terms of statistics, you know how many children were sampled in his retracted Lancet paper? 12. Oh look, here's an article that references a meta-analysis of 10 studies, involving 1.2 million children. That's 1,266,327. https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autismI'm perfectly happy to defend Wakefield and the more I learn about the details of the medical and pharma industry and the humanitarians trying to mitigate the threats they pose, the more happy I am to defend the guy. As for Wakefield's blood samples, yes I was aware of them and no, it doesn't strike me as a big deal as long as he didn't mis-represent any findings associated with them. It also doesn't bother me that Hillerman got the mumps for his vaccine from his daughter. What does bother me is that mumps is working less and less well and in order to keep their lucerative lock on the MMR market Merck had to flat out fabricate data. This is especially pernicious because be using a defective vaccine a fairly begning childhood illness is being pushed into an older age catagory where it can cause real problems. Of course it is true the 'thinkers' among us may not consider infertility among the masses as a 'problem' per-se. Wakefield did an interesting missive on mumps as well if you are interested. I find the science of general population ecology associated with vaccine regimes to be even more interesting than the science associated with individual response. I also find 'meta-analysis' studies to be a rich in deliberate fraud. Another good example is the '97% of scientists say...' one which is used ad-nauseam by the climate fraud crowd. OK, well bear in mind that I'm not a big fan of the Pharmaceutical industry, and yes they have been know to corrupt studies and data to their own advantage. That doesn't mean that everything they do is corrupt. Meta-analyses are used to try and find the most accurate results, to get around tactics like data fabrication and cherry picking (that Big Pharma have been known to use), I'm not sure why you think they are "rich in deliberate fraud". Of course they have to be properly designed, but when they are they are the gold standard of statistical significance in science/medicine. Are you someone who still believes there to be a link between vaccines and autism (you haven't made your position very clear)? If so, what problems do you have with any of the studies that show there to be no statistical link? Here's an article that references 20 studies that have been done, using different methods, with high numbers of samples and statistical power: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.fullAnd no, I'm not interested in getting any information from youtube videos, I prefer scientific articles and journals that reference their sources. |
|
|
|
If the human body must have vaccines to survive, then evolution and natural selection are fraudulent scientific theories. Conversely, if natural selection is real, then all humans are the survivors of thousands of generations of ancestors who self-immunized without any vaccines at all. Yet today, ridiculous scientists and vaccine propaganda pushers tell us that modern humans would all die without vaccines, claiming our immune systems are incapable of protecting us without vaccines. Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/054317_vaccine_science_natural_selection_contradiction.html#ixzz4BE522kdMEvolution works on a large time scale. Over time, animals that survived developed immunity to diseases that took out animals before them. You either survive or you die. That is how immune systems work in the context of evolution. Evolution doesn't work at all except in the lab. See https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1454732.msg14706492#msg14706492. Not only does the article at the link give evolution a tremendous, gigantic benefit of the doubt, the article doesn't even begin to talk about the things in nature that destroy evolution. The fact is, the longer the amount of time, the less chance evolution has of even getting a foothold. Humans developed immunity to the diseases that happened in the past, but anything new has a potential to kill a large number of humans. Some will survive and develop immunity naturally, their genes will be passed to the next generations. The process is very brutal but the nature works that way. Actually, it works exactly the other way around. Entropy shows that all complexity is breaking down... becoming more simple all the time. Adding poisons to a gradually weakening system, only makes that system break down faster. What the proponents of vaccines are advocating is to get vaccines to known NEW viruses that you probably don't have antibodies for in your bloodstream. This is a noble thought. But why not strengthen the system to fight the new viruses, rather than poisoning it with some old, dead viruses and all the poisons that are added to the vaccine... like mercury? There are few problems: the ingredients in the vaccines might be harmful to you ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vaccine_ingredients), the virus that you take the vaccine for might not be harmful to you or you might not get infected so you are taking something that you don't really need. I think it is a personal choice, just like the insurance coverage. You know things like life insurance. It might be personal choice for you an adult. But government is forcing it on your kids. And, they are doing it while knowing it is bad for them. I'm not going to spend too long trying to explain evolution to you, I really haven't got time and It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he never was reasoned into. Suffice to say, you don't understand the concept at all. Your main problem is that you're thinking of Evolution itself as some sort of "entity" with a plan, when in fact it is just an abstract concept. The 2nd law of Thermodynamics, or entropy, doesn't apply here because we are not in an isolated system - the Earth gets energy from the Sun and therefore can decrease its entropy (even though the Universe as a whole does have slowly increasing entropy). It is possible for one part of the Universe to become more ordered, even as the whole thing is becoming less ordered over time. Nothing about the 2nd law is violated by the concept of Evolution. You say evolution can occur in a lab, so I assume you're aware that we can witness bacteria and viruses evolve. HIV is a really good example: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/medicine_04, "It reproduces sloppily, accumulating lots of mutations when it copies its genetic material. It also reproduces at a lightning-fast rate a single virus can spawn billions of copies in just one day."). Is it so hard to accept that the same process can happen in the wild, with more complex organisms (at a much slower pace)? |
|
|
|
That's just the beginning, be sure of that. Sad but true.
What do you expect when you vote for a pro-ISIS guy as the mayor of London? Currently we are witnessing the Talibanization of London and the rest of England. Now they are banning certain images which offend them. Tomorrow they are going to ban the TV channels, as they are unislamic. The day after that they will ban music and alcohol. WTF is this thread..? First off, Wilikon, you link attention whore, you shouldn't link an article with your own photoshopped image to push some bullshit agenda. You should be ashamed of yourself. And Bryant, since when is the mayor of London "pro-ISIS"?? The "Talibanization of London and the rest of England" LMFAO, OH NOES THE MUSLIMS R GUNNA BAN THE BBC, RADIO, BOOZE AND DISCOS!!!!! Not sure if you are trolling, pumping your sig or just retarded... First off, Can't help it. Krita is too much fun as a new tool. Who made you the king of the internet? You do not have to click on any thread. You have free will. What sig? I have a sig? Life is too short to be sad. Be happy.  You know what I'm talking about, don't act all innocent - you've spun this thread in a way that suits your agenda by adding your own picture masquerading as a picture from the source article. I don't know whether you just want to shit-stir/whore attention, or whether you are pushing the "Islam taking over" angle, either way you're like the Daily Mail of BCT and it disgusts me. Of course I have free will, but the way you've presented the story is misleading to anyone clicking on the thread and not actually reading the source. For the record, I don't like the idea of any religion, or authoritarian control of the people under any guise. I'm a sound believer in the separation of church and state and an atheist, but I object to the misleading way in which you've framed this story to be evidence of Islamic influence over British values, which is clearly spurious when you actually read the article. If life is too short to be sad, why do the majority of the news stories you post always contain your signature negative spin, that encourages conflict? Hypocrite. And I was referring to Bryant's sig not yours. |
|
|
|
'satisfying' clouds...
Someone's feeling passive aggressive, no? I don't know what the hell competitive vaping is, but I'm blowing some sweet-ass rings right now and I haven't smoked tobacco in months. I feel great, how about you eddie? |
|
|
|
That's just the beginning, be sure of that. Sad but true.
What do you expect when you vote for a pro-ISIS guy as the mayor of London? Currently we are witnessing the Talibanization of London and the rest of England. Now they are banning certain images which offend them. Tomorrow they are going to ban the TV channels, as they are unislamic. The day after that they will ban music and alcohol. WTF is this thread..? First off, Wilikon, you link attention whore, you shouldn't link an article with your own photoshopped image to push some bullshit agenda. You should be ashamed of yourself. And Bryant, since when is the mayor of London "pro-ISIS"?? The "Talibanization of London and the rest of England" LMFAO, OH NOES THE MUSLIMS R GUNNA BAN THE BBC, RADIO, BOOZE AND DISCOS!!!!! Not sure if you are trolling, pumping your sig or just retarded... |
|
|
|
So after weed is legal do we stop there? Did we stop when alcohol became legal? No we're trying to make weed legal now too. So I guess heroine and meth and all substances will just be legal eventually then.
What do you mean? You understand that inititially, everything was legal, men made the laws that banned substances. You realize that all of these things are just substances, chemicals, they have no morals or conscience... Like I said earlier, I believe all drugs should be legalised. |
|
|
|
Do you actually Beleive this or are you just posting the videos to show how ridiculous it is? If you actually Beleive this shit then maybe you should look up some photos of children that parents failed to vaccinate and ended up sick.
Or some pictures of those who's parents to 'succeeded'. --- BTW, since the common cry when the guy's name is brought up is that he is a fraud, Dr. Wakefield's co-author was a wealthy individual who had half a million spare kicking around to 'clear his name.' He did just this and in the process thoroughly humiliated the interests which demonized the research team. Funny that this isn't reported so much. http://www.ebcala.org/areas-of-law/vaccine-law/co-author-of-lancet-mmr-autism-study-exonerated-on-all-charges-of-professional-misconductAccording to this article the funding for Walker-Smith's defense was his insurance company, but the results were as described. Oh jesus, you're not defending Wakefield are you? The guy is a disgrace to medicine. You do realize he paid kids at his son's birthday party for blood samples, does that seem like valid, ethical scientific research to you? In terms of statistics, you know how many children were sampled in his retracted Lancet paper? 12. Oh look, here's an article that references a meta-analysis of 10 studies, involving 1.2 million children. That's 1,266,327. https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism |
|
|
|
But the best thing to do is to NOT legalize. Instead, repeal all laws that make it illegal. Why? For thousands of years pot was not controlled by government. Now all of a sudden, in the last 100 years, it is a controlled substance. Don't you realize that if pot is legalized, it is still controlled? But it isn't the pot that is controlled. Rather it is YOU that are being controlled. Don't you want freedom? It's a nice idea, and I agree, in an ideal world weed would be freely grown and used responsibly. However, we have this thing called "society"... You can't make an illegal thing free without first legalising it, it's a bit like the step between Socialism and Communism. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
