Having faith in a higher power has nothing to do with a belief in evolution. The two can totally exist in harmony. Yet here we are, thanks to a delightful anti-science campaign that has somehow managed to stoke fear of scientific thought, to our own detriment.
This is a WONDERFUL example of how CORRELATION does NOT mean CAUSALITY.
When I am a teacher I am using this exact chart to explain that point.
so you know how humans can make animal noises like we can pretend to meow and bark and stuff
well how fucking weird would it be if animals could do that like they didn’t know what it meant or how to speak phrases but they could pick up on stuff we say and make the same noise
like youd just be watching tv with your dog next to you and youd reach over to pet him and
Parrots. You’re thinking of parrots.
This is Chicago, you dick.
I don’t take random photos of New Zealand and call it Middle Earth.
This is New York, 42nd Street. Also someone needs to calm their nerves down.
(I don’t mind if that was for me or the person who captioned the pic, it was still reblogged from me)
Oh well then
But they were filmed here and we got flooded with people trying to come see “Gotham City” - as if Gotham was really a place you wanted to be - in the movie it describes the crime rate & corruption as very high
i got this new furby and it’s really gross so my housemates have been hiding it around the house to try to scare each other and i went to bed and saw this out of the corner of my fucking eye
“I got this new furby”
“I got this new furby”
I learned something new today. They apparently still make furbys.
David Mamet writes this week’s cover story on GUNS. Here’s an excerpt:
Karl Marx summed up Communism as “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” This is a good, pithy saying, which, in practice, has succeeded in bringing, upon those under its sway, misery, poverty, rape, torture, slavery, and death.
For the saying implies but does not name the effective agency of its supposed utopia. The agency is called “The State,” and the motto, fleshed out, for the benefit of the easily confused must read “The State will take from each according to his ability: the State will give to each according to his needs.” “Needs and abilities” are, of course, subjective. So the operative statement may be reduced to “the State shall take, the State shall give.”
All of us have had dealings with the State, and have found, to our chagrin, or, indeed, terror, that we were not dealing with well-meaning public servants or even with ideologues but with overworked, harried bureaucrats. These, as all bureaucrats, obtain and hold their jobs by complying with directions and suppressing the desire to employ initiative, compassion, or indeed, common sense. They are paid to follow orders.
Rule by bureaucrats and functionaries is an example of the first part of the Marxist equation: that the Government shall determine the individual’s abilities.
As rules by the Government are one-size-fits-all, any governmental determination of an individual’s abilities must be based on a bureaucratic assessment of the lowest possible denominator. The government, for example, has determined that black people (somehow) have fewer abilities than white people, and, so, must be given certain preferences. Anyone acquainted with both black and white people knows this assessment is not only absurd but monstrous. And yet it is the law.
President Obama, in his reelection campaign, referred frequently to the “needs” of himself and his opponent, alleging that each has more money than he “needs.”
But where in the Constitution is it written that the Government is in charge of determining “needs”? And note that the president did not say “I have more money than I need,” but “You and I have more than we need.” Who elected him to speak for another citizen?
It is not the constitutional prerogative of the Government to determine needs. One person may need (or want) more leisure, another more work; one more adventure, another more security, and so on. It is this diversity that makes a country, indeed a state, a city, a church, or a family, healthy. “One-size-fits-all,” and that size determined by the State has a name, and that name is “slavery.”Gun Laws and the Fools of Chelm†, Newsweek
Pro tip: You lose 100% of your credibility 100% of the time when you use the word “slavery” to describe anything other than slavery.
Further Pro Tip: There are already MANY weapons that private citizens are legally prohibited from owning, like for instance nuclear warheads. If preventing the extinction of the human species is unconstitutional, then we should amend the constitution in a hurry.
Sad to see Newsweek stoop to linkbait tabloiding in its shift to digital, although maybe this sort of thing is inevitable. I’ve reluctantly unfollowed their tumblr.
John Green may write good books, but his political ideologies don’t make sense, his arguments are insulting, and thinks that a President who makes it free for everyone to kill unborn babies is a great guy. I’ve reluctantly unfollowed John Green’s Tumblr.
someone on facebook posted this intending it to be negative but instead it’s INCREDIBLE. go girl scouts
God I hope this is all true because if so EXTRA THIN MINTS FOR ME THIS YEAR.
I am not sure where you learned the concept of “morally right,” but I think you may be a little confused. If Girl Scout leaders are leading scouts to ignore their parents and act on their ‘sexual rights’ without parental consent, they are breaking the law. Usually, people who break the law are not considered morally right.
Secondly, if the CEO of GSUSA claims to be a Catholic and is pro-abortion, she is a hypocrite. I don’t think that hypocrites are “morally right,” and I would never be able to think they could be taken entirely seriously. I would be remiss if I did not question their ability to lead.
Also, anti-population laws are not only stupid, but they are dangerous and decrease the rights of the free citizens of America. The one-child policy in China, as is documented, led to a disproportionate amount of abortions of female babies. In America, we promote freedom, and having someone say we can only have so many children, that we shouldn’t be having babies, and that a baby is a “disease” or a “problem” that we can “get rid of” is as bad and as stupid as cigarette companies who advertise to children. If we support anti-population laws, then we may, in fact, see a DECREASE in the FEMALE population, which means that, down the line,
you could be hard pressed to find your Thin Mints at all.