BigOats's Waterfall
No, you are mistaken. Not everyone has their head and pair of eyes inside their ass, such as in your case. Otherwise you would have understood that insulting someone is not the same as "disagreeing" with them.
Trump shill who will tell any amount of lies in support of his fuhrer is very much on topic.
The topic of my conversation with Mingi was Trump's alleged involvement in the central park five case. You must have posioned yourself with methanol and gone selectively blind once again.
No buddy, you got it wrong as usual. I wasn't cursing you out for disagreeing with me. You didn't even address the subject matter. Instead, you insulted me because you were triggred by my response to Mingi. That's why I told you to fuck off.
Mingi, you are only illustrating the problem. Every time I see someone accuse Trump of some maliscious deeds in the past, they quote an article which provides no proof whatsoever of said allegations. Instead it offers an emotional message which is meant to replace the proof. Accroding to your own link, the only "crime" comitted by Trump in the Central Park Five case, was publishing a newspaper announcement which called for capital punishment. The announcment didn't even mention that specific case. The actual prosecutor who had indicted these youths was Lisa Fairstein, and there is no evidence whatsoever linking her to Donald Trump. If there had been so much as a shred of evidence, it would have already been made public by Trump's numerous rivals.
Which does a nice job of contradicting
You're a retard if you think I was contradicting anything. Particle physics is not plain classical quantum mechanics, it's relativistic quantum mechanics and that does not appear in the research paper. Not that you've read it of course. Since you're a google expert you don't need to bother yourself with actually reading the reasearch you yap your mouth about.
Your empty rhetoric is pointless because the entire website saw you post the equation t = -t1. You can't take that back.
Why the hell would I take it back? Your insistance on being a total retard does not mean I need to retract anything.
weasel your way out of it by spamming the phrase "simple variable substitution
What???? You fucking idiot, it is a simple variable substitution. I even made debate on here to explain what substitutions are: https://www.createdebate.
Even a child would have understood what I meant by now. But you seem to be taking pride in having the cognitive abilities of a retard.
every person on this website with a grade school understanding of maths is laughing at your pure, unadulterated stupidity
I'll make another debate to see if this is true. A debate you will surely evade, just like you're pretending to be selectively blind in this thread.
You're trying to discredit my argument by agreeing with it.
I was agreeing specifically with your statement that time reversal can effectively take place in particle physics. Not that this has anything to do with the "experiment" you seem to be so excited with.
After completely discrediting yourself
You have no idea what mathematical equations are. That's OK for a journalist I guess, but your attempts to find what you think is a "mistake" are fairly idiotic and not even funny anymore.
Are you claiming to be telepathic now
No just reading other user's post on this site.
why that equation is mathematically impossible.
So time reversal in equations is mathematically impossible for you? This means you know nothing about math.
t = -t1 substitutes nothing. It gives you two different values for t.
It does no such thing. It means we are introducing a new variable t1 which is bound with the variable t as described. Writing "it gives two different values for t" could have been considered plain illiteracy had I not explained to you what the substitution means. Now it's just plain retarded and you're not even shying away from that, in fact seem to be proud of it.
In fact, anti-particles like the positron can mathematically be considered to be ordinary particles moving back through time.
Finally you'we written someting relevant. But this has nothing to do with the recent "experiment" which wasn't even using quantum relativistic electrodynamics as is obvious from the research paper text. The wave function they were using is the ordinary wave function from classical quantum mechanics, not Dirac's 4-function from relativistic quantum mechanics.
Or I'll post your IQ in public.
Nobody cares what you post in public.
On a serious note, literally every small iota of credibility you ever possessed vanished when you wrote t = -t1.
You never explained what exactly is wrong with t = -t1. What's wrong with variable sunbstitutions? Here's a substitution which helps solve an equation: https://www.createdebate.
I used t1 deleberately for the new variable although it could have been any other variable name.
But those 5 things you mentioned were originated by Americans.
Yes they were, that is why I think America is the example Russia should follow - not the SJW bullshit, but the actual liberalism which is the basis of your Constitution.
Compared to places like Russia, I can see how those ideals can seem liberal.
They were actually liberal, i.e. based on liberal philosophy as layed out by Locke and Hume and others. In the 20th century deep state politicians made a concerted effort to redefine and obfuscate that term. And they have succeeded.
American conservatives are Russia's liberals.
Our opposition has a lot of "liberals" who follow every whim of the US deep state political elite, i.e. neolibs. They get trashed by putinist propaganda because of the obvious flaws of modern day neoliberalism. We have almost no real liberals. I am a liberal and I'm against neomarxist bullshit like LGBTQI rights and such like. Which is very unusual for Russia.
But American liberals want to change the constitution.
Yes the neolibs want to change the Consitution. Actually Russia also has a Constitution and it isn't all that bad. But the checks and balances section is almost nonexistent and so Putin goes unchecked and violates the Constituion all the time. He basically uses it as toliet paper, as Russians say. And whenever he is called out on that, putinist propagandists always use same propaganda trick - saying that his oponents are liberals who want to make Russia run by gays, just like the US. And they win every time against the so-called "opposition". But not when they argue with me.
Liberalism used to mean an ideology based around the following principles:
1. Proclaiming individual freedom as an absoulute value that superseeds collective interests.
2. Only strong individuals can form a strong and functional state.
3. Individuals have god-given innate rights ("human rights", the theological argument was later forgotten). These rights include freedom of speach, freedom of peacful assembly, the right to defend yourself in court, freedom of religion, freedom of trade, freedom of enterprise, right to fair trial by law.
4. Everyone is equal before the law and laws should grant everyone equal opportunities.
5. The excercise of rights by an individual should not violate the rights of other individuals.
These are the principles on which both the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution are based upon. And they are liberal documents.
A liberal can be conservative on some issues and progressive on other issues. As were the founding fathers.
Neolibs stand for a different set of ideas:
- equality of outcome
- identity politics
- affirmative action
- positive discriminaiton
- restricting freedom of speech
- subverting due process
These are not liberal principles. They are neomarxist/ postmodernist ideas. All of the PC bullshit and SJW bullshit is not liberalism.
Making this distinciton is important to me, precisely because I stand against Putinism. Putinists use the insanity of the neolib movement to smear liberalism. So whenever you start talking about human rights in Russia you are immediately called a "libtard", which in Russian sounds like "faggot".
I consider myself a liberal, and I am an enemy of both Putin and the neolibs.
So you've redefined abortion and redefined murder, in order to reach the conclusion that killing a newborn child is not murder...And I'm the one twisting your words? You have twisted your own moral into a knot. And just for the record, all of this BS is completely unconstitutional. Not that you would care.
I am a human being, killing me is murder.
Oh I agree with that. But that's not your definition of murder. In a previous debate, you have argued that post-birth abortion would not be murder if we defined it as 'neccesary', since murder is the 'unnecessary' killing of a human being. So no strawman here.
Some of them do and it's hateful not to respect their choice of clothes and/or their choice of beard or lack of therein. You might even be called Adolph Hitler for doing that. (BTW I have no idea what the hell I'm saying & thanks for this debate)
People Continue To Believe That Ridiculous Idea. I Can't Change Their Thoughts.
A quote from your previous post in this tread, with reference to the "ridiculous idea" that people choose to be gay.
you telling me that I blindly follow this gay rights bandwagon is dumb
Saying that it's a "ridiculous idea" to think that people choose to be gay, without providing any serious proof to the contrary, is blindly following the gay rights bandwagon. Your "when did you choose to be" non-argument, is what I was referring to when I spoke of "cliches".
"Asking if I report to Obama is dumb without question."
How is it dumb? Many of your colleagues have played a huge role in implementing his political agenda, which often goes against the will of the people.
With regard to these issues, you demonstrate the same techniques of "debating without debating", as in some...of these institutions where the said people work.
Which is unusual for a person who can actually debate.
Yes I know about the three branches of power, but...rules can be bent, can't they? They have been many times in your country (and many more times in mine).
Saying "dumb" so many times looks like defensive aggression on your side.
Man, this is a really dumb post for you. You should stop and think a little bit on this one.
Well, you were first to say "dumb", and to imply I did was not thinking when I was posting. This, of course, proves that I'm dumb...even if I call you dumb now, I'll be second and so it won't count.
You want a sincere answer to whether I report to Barack Obama? Really?
Ok, here's the deal.
In many debates you demonstrate a very good grasp of logic. Othertimes it's just a good rhethorical habit, which still requires a high level of intellect.
At the same time, you defend the so-called "gay agenda" cause totally, without question, even the most stupid and unscientific aspects of it. You are an ardent supporter of every "gay rights" banality, as long as it's spread by your mass media. All your arguments, in any debate about these issues that I've seen, repeat the stupidest available cliches.
To me, this is an indication of a clear bias on your side, with regard to the so-called "gay rights" issue.
Your profession would rule out a possibility of personal bias on such global issues...which leaves me to conclude that it's political bias.
This is consistant with the fact, that in many of your states the courts make decisions on the so-called "gay rights" subject, which go against the will of the people. These decisions always support the political trend of the Obama administration.
So, my question wasn't so "dumb", after all.
Thank you for this information, which concerns the US judical system.
With regard to spreading these unscientific ideas, do you report directly to Barack? Or some of his cronies?
I would appreciate a sincere answer, and I'm sure I won't get one from you.
Just for the record, and so we don't start a meaningless conversation: I detest Putin.
You're username should probably ditch the "a" and the "s".
So what if I'm a Bigot?
97% of child molestation is committed by men? Last I knew there were men in heterosexual couples to, and single fathers.
How is the second sentence related to the first one?
In about 30% of molestation cases, the victim is a boy? That contradicts your argument because 70% are females or unreported....
Are you dorked? In 30% cases, the VICTIM is a boy, in the remaining 70% the victim is a GIRL. What's so hard to understand here?
And what does gays being 3% of the population have to do with anything? So they are made to be the minority?
It has to do with the essense of the question. Only 3% of male population accounts for 28% of all man-boy molestation. That means gay men are several times likely to be pedophiles.
This information is well-known.
However, my point was that you can't say that those that we know are sexually attracted to men are more likely to sexually abuse male children. It is the case that the people that appear to us as heterosexual (in terms of the adult relationships they form) are more likely to abuse.
You are right, many of them are married and appear to be heterosexual.
However, in my view the main factors here are:
1. These people just have easier access to children.
2. There is a higher chance of their crime eventually being discovered.
But the fact remains: among these offenders, the rate of male homosexuals is very disproportional.
You may be interested to know the majority of people that sexually abuse boys are heterosexual in terms of their sexual relationships with children.
Yes, this is the best defense LGBT activists have been able to put up on this subject: That men who molest boys are heterosexual. If you look closely at this pseudo-theoretical claim, you will soon see just how absurd it is. Of course they are homosexual, or at least bisexual. The victim's age does not change that fact at all.
You are probably the most intelligent anti-gay person I've encountered and sometimes I find your arguments quite convincing.
Thank you. I feel I must treat this subject seriously, because for me this is more about being pro-human rights than anti-gay. In my view, the LGBT movement is discrediting the very concept of human rights. This is very bad for my country, because it gives a green light to political nutcases who disrespect that concept in principle.
However when I read how you twist statistics to your own end I find it disappointing
I was not trying to twist statistics. If you have arguments in favor of the idea that some of the men who molest boys are straight, I am ready to listen and I can change my point of view if I see the truth is on your side.
Here are some well-known facts:
1. Male homosexuals make up for about 3% of the population.
2. In about 30% of child molestation cases, the victim is a boy.
3. 97% of all child molestation is committed by men.
The consequence:
Male homosexuals are at least 10 times more likely to molest boys than other population groups.
It is not normal that this sexual minority is allowed to adopt children.
According to a survey made by CDC in 2010, the rate of new HIV diagnoses among men who have sex with men (MSM) is more than 44 times that of other men and more than 40 times that of women.
The rate of primary and secondary syphilis among MSM is more than 46 times that of other men and more than 71 times that of women, the analysis says.
Source: http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/
Latest research shows the fallacy of the widespread claims about "children raised in gay families statistically are no worse off than those raised in traditional families".
This "information" is usually backed by the corrupt APA (American Psychological Association). However, a detailed investigation has shown that out of 59 studies sited by APA in support of this claim, only 4 meet the APA's own standard:
Loren Marks, "Same-sex parenting and children's outcomes: A closer examination of the American Psychological Association's brief on lesbian and gay parenting," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012), pp. 735-751;
As documented by Lorens Marks, "[N]ot one of the 59 studies referenced in the 2005 APA Brief compares a large, random, representative sample of lesbian or gay parents and their children with a large, random, representative sample of married parents and their children." Therefore, not one of these studies contains scientific proof of the claims made.
Mark Regnerus, a sociologist from the University of Texas, has recently conducted a careful, rigorous, and scientifically sound study, which was free of the methodological flaws found in preceding research.
Mark Regnerus, "How different are the adult children of parents who have same-sex relationships? Findings from the New Family Structures Study," Social Science Research Vol 41, Issue 4 (July 2012).
Below are some of the most important findings:
Compared with children raised by their married biological parents (IBF), children of homosexual parents (LM and GF):
•Are much more likely to have received welfare (IBF 17%; LM 69%; GF 57%)
•Have lower educational attainment
•Report less safety and security in their family of origin
•Report more ongoing "negative impact" from their family of origin
•Are more likely to suffer from depression
•Have been arrested more often
•If they are female, have had more sexual partners--both male and female
Children of lesbian mothers:
•Are more likely to be currently cohabiting
•Are almost 4 times more likely to be currently on public assistance
•Are less likely to be currently employed full-time
•Are more than 3 times more likely to be unemployed
•Are nearly 4 times more likely to identify as something other than entirely heterosexual
•Are 3 times as likely to have had an affair while married or cohabiting
•Are an astonishing 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver."
•Are nearly 4 times as likely to have been "physically forced" to have sex against their will
•Are more likely to have "attachment" problems related to the ability to depend on others
•Use marijuana more frequently
•Smoke more frequently
•Watch TV for long periods more frequently
•Have more often pled guilty to a non-minor offense
The most shocking and troubling outcomes, however, are those related to sexual abuse. Children raised by a lesbian mother were 10 times more likely to have been "touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver" (23% reported this, vs. only 2% for children of married biological parents), while those raised by a homosexual father were 3 times more likely (reported by 6%). In his text, but not in his charts, Regnerus breaks out these figures for only female victims, and the ratios remain similar (3% IBF; 31% LM; 10% GF). As to the question of whether you have "ever been physically forced" to have sex against your will (not necessarily in childhood), affirmative answers came from 8% of children of married biological parents, 31% of children of lesbian mothers (nearly 4 times as many), and 25% of the children of homosexual fathers (3 times as many). Again, when Regnerus breaks these figures out for females (who are more likely to be victims of sexual abuse in general), such abuse was reported by 14% of IBFs, but 3 times as many of the LMs (46%) and GFs (52%).
The articles by Marks and Regnerus have completely changed the playing field for debates about homosexual parents, "gay families," and same-sex "marriage." The myths that children of homosexual parents are "no different" from other children and suffer "no harm" from being raised by homosexual parents have been shattered forever.
You got it wrong.
It's not illegal to be gay in Russia
It's illegal to spread gay propaganda to minors. Infringement of this this law entails only a small fine for Russian citizens who don't use mass media or internet. In other cases the fine is higher. Foreigners may be arrested for 15 days and deported.
Anyway, this law is just a normal reaction to what the PC moonbats are doing in Europe and US.
The way the Olympics was organized, it's a failure of historical proportions.
50 billion dollars spent, and here's what we have:
1. "Cakes in ass" in restaurant menus - guess 50bln wasn't enough to hire a normal interpreter.
2. Double toilets in hotel apartments - did they invent a new sport?
3. Significant part of infrastructure built half - way and not functional.
4. Damaged roads, in some areas asphalt put directly on mud.
5. Stray dogs on the streets.
6. Jammed doors in elevators and hotel rooms.
Putin has made a clown of himself, and humiliated his country.
So, yes, I think this Olympics is gay.
I'll try this one more time.
I said I didn't know what "burkas" meant. From this it's obvious I didn't think of it as plural of "burka", which I deemed nonexistent in English
I knew "the whole time" that there's the Russian word бурка, which would indeed sound like "burka" in English. But I had no reason to think this also means a cloth's name in English, since:
1. I couldn't imagine that one word could be a name of two different clothe types, in two different languages. Do you know many such cases?
2. Since in Russian burka is a fur or karakul coat, and this obviously cannot have anything to do with hiding beauty, I didn't even consider the option that "burkas" was plural of "burka" in English. I thought it to be a word on it's own, not a plural of anything.
You damn well do. Which is why not only did you decide to reply, you disputed what I said.
Naw, I thought you were calling Cartman that.
And yes, just in case you didn't get it, I was calling you, BigOats, directly, a homophobic dumbass.
You see, this word means nothing to me, so you only isulted yourself.
Please help me solve the mystery: are you people deliberately playing wackos on this site? Or does it spread here like a disease?
You didn't even cancel the alliance...I said nothing "homophobic" here.
YOU NEED HELP.
1. In my language burkas are fur coats.
1. I couldn't imagine how wearing fur coats could relate to beauty.
(spoiler!)
Now, add 1 + 1 and you get:
I had to assume that in American English burkas was some noun in single form, of foreign etiology, and unrelated to clothes.
You win, I know nothing about physics since the American meaning of burka had been unknown to me (I just looked it up).
Are you aware that in a vast part of the world, Russia included, this word means something different - it's a traditional coat made of fur or caracul?
You're wrong, Gay marriage is not OK.
Besides, how will you call LGBT, if you win that "fight"?
Will it be LGBTP?
What about incest? Will you fight for it, too?
Mind you, after incest is legalized, the acronym will be LGBTPI.
But that's kind of hard to pronounce.
I suggest using a different order of letters: LBTPIG.
I admire your sense of humor (no sarcasm here, however stupid this whole sentence may sound).
I am disputing your argument, because like I've said, I don't think that globally there is anything funny about this situation.
Perhaps one day, your PC folks will come to a conclusion that the only way to respect everyone's marriage right, is for the whole of America to get married. I mean, like in one big marriage.
Those who disagree, will be sent off to Guantanamo.
I would hate that to happen, because you obviously would be one of the first to go there.
NOTE: I respect the term "human rights", and everything it stands for. Your politicians are now devaluing this term by their crazy activity. And that affects many other counties, Russia being among them. You are ridding us of the good example, which should be followed, and giving our crazy politicians, a powerful "argument" against supporting human rights.
The kids will understand.
You'll "educate" them, like you're doing it now with regard to "gay rights".
I suppose it's obvious I don't mean you personally.
Research will show, that kids adopted by such "families", are doing just fine!
Like now, kids adopted by the gays are doing "fine".
Of course, like with the gay families, the surveys will be made by asking the parents, their opinion of the kids' wellbeing.
- sarcasm _
Strange that gays who adopt kids, do not report anything being wrong, with kids who are adopted by gays.
- /sarcasm -
(Note: I don't really think any of this is funny).
WRONG SIDE
Just imagine: those peaceful ethnic gays, sitting in their homes in Gayland, their little gay children sucking their cocks.
And then they are driven out of their homes, and sent out of Gayland!
Their gay families are destroyed.
I think it's time we did something about ethnic gay cleansing!
Sending our troops to countries bordering Gayland could be a good start.
