Lurker > tiornys

they very well might. doesn't change the fact that before that sneeze hits the filtration system it lands on your face.

Ill give you all my breadsticks for your rye chips

plz

Whoa, whoa, whoa, people actually liked the rye chips?

but it's disingenuous to put so much effort into blocking a rally without also putting equal effort into blocking the protests.

But they didnt follow those guidelines...

especially if we follow safety guidelines outside of the protest".

It's stupid but it's not necessarily hypocritical.

"Covid is bad but economic collapse from closures is even worse" is a real perspective and not incompatible with "gathering in groups to protest is dangerous".

No argument here with that overall statement, though thats not the point of the platitude. But left of current right wing doesn't automatically mean "left" as in democrat/progressive.

I personally do not think reality can be defined in political terms.

The cookie cutter conservative that watches fox news and which you probably think represents all of the right? That isn't reality, sure. But there are more varieties of conservative than that.

Reality has no bias. Its just reality. Platitudes like these expose the inability to rub two brain cells together.

I'm not a fan of the wearing mask on the plane also. What happens when you wear a mask then take it off once they are high enough? It's not like they're gonna turn around and make emergency landing right?

It doesn't have to be the law. Airline companies are a business and you abide by their terms when using the business. I thought Trump supporters had a hard on for big business being able to do whatever they want.

I could never find anyone to play V:TES against...

The further we drag this pandemic on, the worse the economy will be, and the longer it will take to get back to normal. It's simple logic, but dipshits like our governor can't grasp it.

This is begging the question; you're starting with the framework that systemic racism against blacks exists and results in cops "hunting" minorities. But I think it's fair to "extrapolate" the following conclusions:

* Police do have a militarization issue, but it's not a result of racism, it's a reaction to increasing rates of violent crime in bad areas.
* People in professional positions, ESPECIALLY police, live in fear of offending the protected classes (minorities) and losing their jobs and/or going to prison. This results in police hesitating when they shouldn't be when dealing with minorities, which is dangerous, because if you're letting an aggressive subject try to escape or draw a firearm or get a sucker punch in when you should've subdued them 10 seconds ago, you're causing more violence than necessary. See that video of that black woman punching that white cop in the face multiple times, nearly knocking him unconscious, and it's only stopped when a black cop comes up and hits the woman back, because the white cop thinks he would be racist if he acted.
* People live in a fantasy world regarding this stuff. If you were to ask someone "What percentage of black suspects are shot in error?" They would probably say 75%, but really it's 1%. Same for the other stats I've mentioned. This predilection for propaganda creates waves of anti-cop and anti-white hysteria, like we're seeing now, and honestly it just makes things much worse.

That obviously it doesn't exist and all officers are innocent, misunderstood saints that have such a hard job and we must respect them at all times.

I had them both in my EDH deck in highschool <_<

progenitus is just such a funny card, I don't even care how poorly games go if sometimes I get to play a card with protection from everything. the entire deck was just ways to ramp it out and ways to boost power by 1 so you can kill in 2 hits instead of 3

After a decade or so of becoming "Creatures: The Blocking", MTG badly needs a removal renaissance.

If you're going into medicine to see hot bodies, you'll quit within a week by all the gross bullshit you gotta deal with >_>

Dude, have you ever worked a day in medicine? 99% of the nudity I see is either flopping dicks or granny titties >_> I can count on 1 hand how many actual hot titties I've seen on this job out of probably 10,000 patients I've had.

That's not allowed, your job must define everything about you

All you have to know about the media is that they said that he said Mexicans are rapists and they left it at that. Simply listen to his clip and he said "some" illegal ones and he even said some are good people. But the media left that totally out. Everything is twisting by them.

Since you keep coming back with genuine responses I feel the need to say this is a joke topic.

Scientific explanations often make use of things we cannot see or feel, such as protons, electrons, and quarks. Do these things really exist? If so, how do we know they exist?
Imagine youre enclosed in a completely dark room with no light at all and cant see a thing. You are chained to a chair somewhere in the room, and you have a pile of rocks at your disposal. While trying to decide whether or not you are part of a bad horror film, you decide to figure out the size of the room youre in and its shape.
Good thing you have those rocks. You can throw the rocks in all directions. Judging from how long it takes for a rock to hit a wall in a particular direction, you can get a rough idea of how far away the walls are. If you have enough rocks and patience, you can probably get a good idea of what sort of room youre in. If theres a door (no doubt handy if you actually are in a horror film), you can probably tell where the door is by the different sound made when the rocks hit it.
Thats Consistent With. . .
Suppose it is not possible to ever turn on the lights in the room. Can you be 100 percent certain the walls are where you think they are? Was that really a door that you hit? For that matter, can you be completely certain those were walls you hit? Is it possible that the sounds were made by something else?
No, you cant be 100 percent certain your surroundings are what you think they are, because you can never turn on the lights to see for sure. One thing you can say, though, is that all of your observations (i.e., the sounds you heard) are consistent with there being walls at varying distances away from you. You could even draw a map of your room. You could use the time of travel for the rocks thrown in each direction to estimate how far away the walls are in each direction. Abrupt changes in wall distance might be difficult to determine, so your map might be a bit fuzzy near those changes, but you still could get a general idea.
Lets move on to atomsthose tiny little things that youve heard about since you were in the second grade. Youve seen drawings of atoms. How did people decide what those drawings should look like? Part of the answer has to do with experiments similar to throwing rocks at the walls of a dark room.
In a famous experiment performed in the early twentieth century, Ernest Rutherford fired alpha particles (other tiny things you cant see!) at gold foil and looked at the pattern the particles made after hitting the foil. This pattern indicated that the atoms of gold had a closely packed, positively charged nucleus. The reasoning behind this picture of an atom had to do with the fact that alpha particles are positively charged and would be repelled by a positively charged nucleus. Although most alpha particles went straight through the gold foil, some bounced off at sharp angles, even to the point of heading back in the direction from which they came. Only a closely packed, positively charged, nucleus of a gold atom could accomplish this.
This experiment, plus many others like it, plus observations of chemical reactions, nuclear reactions, and the light that substances emit, all combine to give us a particular picture of what atoms look like. Just as with that dark room in which you cant turn on the lights, though, we cannot isolate a single atom and look directly at it to see if our drawings are correct.
The important thing is that everything we observe is consistent with our current view of atoms. The same statement goes for all sorts of other scientific models, such as quarks, electric and magnetic fields, and black holes. Theyre useful models because they explain our observations and help us predict new observations.
Who Needs Reality?
What about the issue of whether or not these models are real? Are electrons real? Are atoms even real? Fortunately for us, it doesnt matter whether or not these things are real. If you ask this question of a room full of scientists, you will find some who say these models are so well supported by evidence that they are, in fact, real. You will also find some who will say that these models are just constructs that have been invented by people. All of those scientists, however, make use of the models. Your philosophy regarding the reality of models doesnt affect your ability to use the models to guide your scientific investigations. If you believe these models represent reality, great. If you dont believe these models represent reality, also great. You can use the models effectively no matter what you believe.