Dechristo Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 All , no nutz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."--Albert Einstein  Wrong as teletubbies kiddo. There will always be bad people in this world which want to do bad things. Sometimes the only way to prevent those things from happening is from fighting fire with fire.  I am sure that Albert's war time activities suggest that he understood this more than this isolated quote would suggest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Heyyyyy, are you channeling Kropokin? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Well if you invoke altruistic behavior then you're inferring a conscious intent which I don't believe is present. Â Mutualism is inadvertent. Â So are you saying that angiosperms and bees evolved simultaneously? Â Yep. Flowers smell and appear more attractive to get pollinators. They give the bees nectar. The bees adapt to see flowers better, e.g., in uv, carry pollen better, become social, etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 Well if you invoke altruistic behavior then you're inferring a conscious intent which I don't believe is present.  Mutualism is inadvertent.  So are you saying that angiosperms and bees evolved simultaneously?  Yep. Flowers smell and appear more attractive to get pollinators. They give the bees nectar. The bees adapt to see flowers better, e.g., in uv, carry pollen better, become social, etc  ...and goats eat flowers. Thank God for mountain lions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STP Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Well if you invoke altruistic behavior then you're inferring a conscious intent which I don't believe is present.  Mutualism is inadvertent.  So are you saying that angiosperms and bees evolved simultaneously?  Yep. Flowers smell and appear more attractive to get pollinators. They give the bees nectar. The bees adapt to see flowers better, e.g., in uv, carry pollen better, become social, etc  Gary, I don't really have any problem with what you're saying but aren't you making an 'a priori' assumption. I mean, you do have a Ph.d., right?  Isn't this the point that Stephen Jay Gould had tried to express, not by casting doubt upon evolution, but rather to clarify it? For instance, take this example: The Jesus Christ hypothesis for the evolution of flight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war."--Albert Einstein  Wrong as teletubbies kiddo. There will always be bad people in this world which want to do bad things. Sometimes the only way to prevent those things from happening is from fighting fire with fire.  I am sure that Albert's war time activities suggest that he understood this more than this isolated quote would suggest.  A minor omission: Einstein spent the rest of his life publicly regretting his contribution to the creation of the atomic bomb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Well if you invoke altruistic behavior then you're inferring a conscious intent which I don't believe is present.  Mutualism is inadvertent.  So are you saying that angiosperms and bees evolved simultaneously?  Yep. Flowers smell and appear more attractive to get pollinators. They give the bees nectar. The bees adapt to see flowers better, e.g., in uv, carry pollen better, become social, etc  Gary, I don't really have any problem with what you're saying but aren't you making an 'a priori' assumption. I mean, you do have a Ph.d., right?  Isn't this the point that Stephen Jay Gould had tried to express, not by casting doubt upon evolution, but rather to clarify it? For instance, take this example: The Jesus Christ hypothesis for the evolution of flight  There's a fine rhetorical line here, but I'm going to have to go with what I think STP (and Gould) say. Flowers don't smell good for the purpose of attracting bees. Flowers that smell good attract bees, so they survive better than those that don't. Mutations and recombinations either help or hurt chances of survival inadvertantly. They have no pre-determined 'purpose'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 I have no sadness for the militants who bomb innocent civilians or civilians who hide such murderors. Â The largest militant to bomb in one event is the United States. Â Hiroshima then Nagasaki Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Well if you invoke altruistic behavior then you're inferring a conscious intent which I don't believe is present.  Mutualism is inadvertent.  So are you saying that angiosperms and bees evolved simultaneously?  Yep. Flowers smell and appear more attractive to get pollinators. They give the bees nectar. The bees adapt to see flowers better, e.g., in uv, carry pollen better, become social, etc  Gary, I don't really have any problem with what you're saying but aren't you making an 'a priori' assumption. I mean, you do have a Ph.d., right?  Isn't this the point that Stephen Jay Gould had tried to express, not by casting doubt upon evolution, but rather to clarify it? For instance, take this example: The Jesus Christ hypothesis for the evolution of flight  There's a fine rhetorical line here, but I'm going to have to go with what I think STP (and Gould) say. Flowers don't smell good for the purpose of attracting bees. Flowers that smell good attract bees, so they survive better than those that don't. Mutations and recombinations either help or hurt chances of survival inadvertantly. They have no pre-determined 'purpose'.  Yep I agree w/ you two, just kept it relatively short and concise (and unfortunately misleading/ambiguous) because I was spraying on my iPhone while on the bus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 I have no sadness for the militants who bomb innocent civilians or civilians who hide such murderors.  The largest militant to bomb in one event is the United States.  Hiroshima then Nagasaki  Apples and Oranges homes. One bomb was delivered to end a war*. The others were sent to start/continue a war.   *Not saying this is the only reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Hiroshima was first. Nagasaki was second. That's two. Â Nagasaki was destroyed even though the Japanese had signalled they were surrendering. There has been much speculation as to why the second bomb was dropped. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 Why do you think I said one ace? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 You're being slippery. Â Are you agreeing with Stefan or not? He said "one" as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted January 6, 2009 Author Share Posted January 6, 2009 1) No I am not.  2) No  3) No he didn't. He said "Hiroshima then Nagasaki."   Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmuja Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 Â My prayers go out to the innocent civilians that are caught in the crossfire. Â Too often it seems it's not so much a case of being caught in the crossfire as it is of being the "wrong" race, religion, nationality, or simply being unable to use any effective force in return.. Â case in point: Â UN official says Gaza school was clearly marked "UNRWA regularly provided the Israeli army with exact geographical coordinates of its facilities.." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefan Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 1) No I am not.  2) No  3) No he didn't. He said "Hiroshima then Nagasaki."   Then you believe the Japanese war could not have been stopped by US forces over time.  Your original statement said, "The use of force is one of a final means to carry out one's will once all other means have been exhaustivly and futively tried." Military historians believed the Japanese war could have been won by US forces, but over time, and yes, many, many lives lost--but yet they would be mainly military forces and NOT innocent civilians. The ending of the Japanese war was quickened by the use of Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. Many claim it was to save lives. A tradeoff for Hiroshima...how many military lives would have been lost versus innocent civilians lives lost. This means the United States did NOT "exhaustivly and futively" try to end the war militarily.  Hiroshima AND Nagasaki both would be in your prayers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 There's a lot of historical evidence (do your own research; most of the stuff's in print and not on the internutz) that Japan was on the verge of capitulation when The Bomb was dropped, and probably would have surrendered very soon had it not been. Â There is also much evidence that the U.S. wanted to see what happened to an undamaged city when hit with a nuke. They chose Hiroshima specifically because it had not been significantly damaged previously. It was 'fresh'. There was a strong sentiment within the program to use the bomb against a city, and not much to the contrary. Â Finally, it was suggested within the bomb program that high level Japanese officials be invited to witness a bomb test instead of killing 200,000 civilians (a staggering number that nearly eclipses the number of U.S. casualties during the entire war in both theatres); that potentially life saving suggestion went no where. Â Dropping such weapons on civilian cities was as inexusable then as it would be now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 My prayers go out to the innocent civilians that are caught in the crossfire. Â What the hell good is that going to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 6, 2009 Share Posted January 6, 2009 It advertises for this audience that AKA is a really caring individual who is deeply concerned about the situation. Â Â Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted January 7, 2009 Author Share Posted January 7, 2009 1) No I am not.  2) No  3) No he didn't. He said "Hiroshima then Nagasaki."   Then you believe the Japanese war could not have been stopped by US forces over time.  Your original statement said, "The use of force is one of a final means to carry out one's will once all other means have been exhaustivly and futively tried." Military historians believed the Japanese war could have been won by US forces, but over time, and yes, many, many lives lost--but yet they would be mainly military forces and NOT innocent civilians. The ending of the Japanese war was quickened by the use of Hiroshima and then Nagasaki. Many claim it was to save lives. A tradeoff for Hiroshima...how many military lives would have been lost versus innocent civilians lives lost. This means the United States did NOT "exhaustivly and futively" try to end the war militarily.  Hiroshima AND Nagasaki both would be in your prayers.  Read a book. It could have, but after much more ground fighting and to most estimates, another year of fighting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted January 7, 2009 Author Share Posted January 7, 2009 There's a lot of historical evidence (do your own research; most of the stuff's in print and not on the internutz) that Japan was on the verge of capitulation when The Bomb was dropped, and probably would have surrendered very soon had it not been. Â There is also much evidence that the U.S. wanted to see what happened to an undamaged city when hit with a nuke. They chose Hiroshima specifically because it had not been significantly damaged previously. It was 'fresh'. There was a strong sentiment within the program to use the bomb against a city, and not much to the contrary. Â 1) Hind sight is 20/20 2) This makes little sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted January 7, 2009 Author Share Posted January 7, 2009 My prayers go out to the innocent civilians that are caught in the crossfire. Â What the hell good is that going to do? Â Alot more than you bitching on the internet will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akhalteke Posted January 7, 2009 Author Share Posted January 7, 2009 It advertises for this audience that AKA is a really caring individual who is deeply concerned about the situation. Â Having been there, indeed I am. Any more words of wisdom from your armchair dick-hole? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prole Posted January 7, 2009 Share Posted January 7, 2009 My prayers go out to the innocent civilians that are caught in the crossfire. Â What the hell good is that going to do? Â Alot more than you bitching on the internet will. Â Wrong! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.