At the high school level, biology classes required a lot of chemistry, and a fair amount of physics.
Marcusmoon, the theory of thermodynamics is not part of the standard high school biology curriculum because the theory of thermodynamics is a theory of physics. You appear to be ignoring the very reason that science is separated into different branches in the first place. This is the standard high school biology curriculum:-
Curriculum Topics Covered in High School Science Courses
The following is a list of curriculum topics covered in selected High School science courses.
Biology
Use methods of qualitative and quantitative observation.
Describe the general structures, functions, biochemistry and diversity of cells.
Describe levels of organization.
Explain perpetuation of species.
Apply laws of classical genetics and the principles of chromosomal inheritance to problems of genetic differences in individuals.
Explain the general functions of DNA and RNA.
Compare scientific theories of the origin and evolution of living things.
Apply methods of taxonomy to classify organism.
Identify career opportunities in the biological area.
Describe the characteristics of microorganisms.
Describe general anatomy and physiology of plant and animals.
Explain the biological behavior of living things.
Understand the relationships in energy flow patterns, and the development of the ecosystem.
Analyze the skills required for the practice of biotechnology.
https://www.genome.gov/12011721/
This will be my very last post here. I am done with this website, the trolls who use it, and the general stupidity of mankind.
Have a good one.
Amazing! It's my debate title, but I didn't mean it now
But I did mean it. I purposefully used a sensationalist debate title. But that makes me sensationalist in the same way that kissing babies made Hitler compassionate.
Please take the hint. Nobody wants you here on this site.
ignoring real fascists (Middle East, North African, and some Asian countries)
Islam is not the same thing as fascism, you ignorant 12 year old idiot. One is a religion invented in the 7th century and the other is a political ideology invented in the 20th century. How is it even possible that you are so stupid?
Nom, it is the central concept of the book..
That's strange, because Bernays does not mention the phrase "social engineering" anywhere in the entire book. You are such an utterly stupid liar that it is frustrating even talking to you.
Here is a copy of the book for anybody who wants to run a search on the phrase:-
http://www.historyisaweapon.com/defcon1/
I can't even believe I am arguing with you that wording you used does not belong to Edward Bernays. You must literally be retarded.
Nom, this is another classic projection.
Yes, and clearly you are the one doing it. You invented your own argument, twice claimed it was mine, and when I protested you claimed it must be mine because I mentioned Edward Bernays in a post I wrote 24 hours ago. All you are doing is making up your own bullshit and claiming it is what other people believe. That is not debate. That is just you being an arse.
Bernay's book "Propaganda" was published in 1928
I have read Propaganda from cover to cover and referenced it extensively in my university dissertation. I still have a copy of it somewhere on my old hard drive. Given this fact, I would like to know why you have decided to pretend that a book written for students of public relations is actually a book about Nazi "social engineering"?
It seems that you are not content to merely misrepresent my own arguments, but now you are trying to do the exact same thing to Edward Bernays!!!!!
You cant be serious......
I never joke with fascists. You chose to use wording which you pretended was mine. When I pointed out you were lying, you then claimed it was Edward Bernays' wording. It belongs to neither of us because you are the one who used it.
I've read two of his books and an essay by him
No, you are a liar who Googled Edward Bernays shortly after you decided you were going to blame him for the false argument YOU INVENTED and then claimed was my own.
You're pathetic and stupid.
With a sense of personal responsibility this abysmally low
Where is your sense of responsibility not to misrepresent the arguments of the people you talk to? You are not simply a liar, but a world class hypocrite to boot.
You invoked Edward Bernays who has multiple books detailing his conception of "Social Engineers"
No he hasn't you retarded imbecile. He has not written a single book about social engineering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EdwardBernays#Books
God, why are you so stupid?
The closest he ever came was a book he wrote in 1955 called The Engineering of Consent. If this is indeed what you are referring to, then can you explain why you are blaming Germans in the 1930s for not reading a book which was not written until 1955?
I'm sure you can shed some light on this mystery for us. Does it have to do with your belief that time is not real?
Have you read anything I said on the matter
I have done my utmost best not to, but unfortunately some of your weak-minded, nonsensical abuse of language penetrated my retina in a moment of weakness.
I read enough to understand that you want to punish the ordinary German people who fell victim to the lies of the Nazis, despite them having no prior experience of Nazi propaganda. The confusing thing is that in contemporary life we are quite familiar with the techniques of Nazi propaganda, and chief among them is making up your opponent's beliefs for them.
Hence, on the one hand, you berate the German people for being victims of a party of complete liars, and on the other, you have fallen victim to the exact same methods of propaganda, since you are copying them verbatim.
you do not even understand your own position
So let me get this straight, brother. You tell me what my beliefs are, and when I disagree with you, you tell me it is because I do not understand my beliefs?
Is that seriously what just happened?
How are you not under permanent psychiatric supervision?
With a sense of personal responsibility this abysmally low
It isn't about "personal responsibility" you complete fool. Nobody had ever seen Nazi propaganda before. You want to punish people for falling victim to a con the world had never seen before? How are you any better than Hitler?
This statement is to my point exactly
Something tells me you are not going to explain to any of us how it is "to your point".
Your position is
So your "point" appears to be that you are a Nazi who repeatedly makes up his opponent's argument for him. Is that your "point"?
is simply that they were re-engineered sub-consciously
No, those were your words, not mine. I agreed with you on the basis of the obvious underlying point that the German people were the victims of a coordinated propaganda campaign. You are the only person here who has even mentioned engineering, so congratulations on attacking your own argument, you complete fucking halfwit.
I honestly have no more time for this stupidity of yours. You are being ridiculous (as usual) so there is little point in trying to reason with you.
You are taking the position that full-grown adults hold little to no real responsibility for themselves
Am I? Well, thanks for letting me know. I had no idea. It's lucky I have you to tell me what I think otherwise I'd be completely lost.
Please, tell me more about how we should punish people who are conned for being conned. That sounds to me like a theory I might have heard somewhere before. Where was it now?
Ah yes, that's right. 1930's Germany.
@xMathFanx
You just got schooled like the dopey troll you are.
You agree with the statement as-is or with the obvious sarcasm I intended/employed?
We do not prosecute the victims of fraud in my country. Perhaps you feel that warrants sarcasm, but then again very little of what you write is worth reading anyway.
Your right--the German citizens that bought into Nazism "hook-line-and-sinker" were passive victims of social re-engineering.......
I agree completely.
Well, first of all, fascism had never been institutionalised as a serious political system at the state level before. The German people simply had no experience in recognising Nazi propaganda.
Second, it was only really during that era that writers such as Ed Bernays etc... began publishing the first works on propaganda. Way back then, the word "propaganda" did not have the negative connotations that it has today, and our modern disdain for the word is in no small part because of Nazi propaganda.
Third, Hitler was producing real economic results and slowly putting Germany back together again after a humiliating defeat which many cost many German nationalists their dignity.
Finally, Nazism struck like a wave, taking almost everything with it in its path and crushing whatever remained in way of opposition. The more power the Nazis obtained, the more they used that power to obtain more power, and so their rise became exponential.
It just looks like the man answered your question and stayed on topic.
Hi @FactMachine.
Bye @FactMachine.
If you are lying and you don't know you are lying then you are not lying, you are just wrong. Unless of course you are lying to yourself as well.
Good comment.
condemn countries in the Middle East
I'm condemning Ronald Reagan because your debate is about Ronald Reagan you goosestepping halfwit. Your debate isn't about "countries in the Middle East". God, why are you so stupid?
Interesting that you don't have the same labeling terminology towards countries in the Middle East that are guilty of worse.
You literally made that up you mad Nazi halfwit. You have never asked my opinion about death squads, nor have you ever provided any examples of governments which use them, in the Middle East or anywhere else on planet Earth.
You are literally fucking ridiculous. Stop making up arguments and telling me they are mine, and stop deflecting the topic of your own debate.
Well let's use your claims Nom.
you can't condemn Obama.
That is your claim, you mad Nazi halfwit. Not mine.
More importantly, your thread is about Ronald Reagan, so stfu talking about Obama.
Conservatives donate almost double to the poor.
Another spectacular distortion of the facts. Conservatives donate to the Church, which in turn donates to the poor. Minus gifts to the Church, Democrats give significantly more to charity than Conservatives do.
What Nom doesn't understand is that he is a multiple type troll.
And you decided that the best way to "prove" that was to come in here and troll me?
Goodbye bronto. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.
Peter Strzok and Fusion GPS is proven common knowledge.
Nothing you say is "common knowledge" to anybody without a swastika tattoo.
Nope
Yup.
Oprah claims the school scandal happened
Oprah can claim whatever she likes. A court of law acquitted the accused. How is it possible that when discussing Trump you respect due legal process, but when discussing Oprah you do not even respect a full court acquittal?
So show us 75 guilty verdicts.
Show us 75 smoking chimneys without also showing us a fire.
Both of my allegations are proven.
Liar. Oprah has not been convicted of any wrongdoing. If an allegation is enough to prove something, then by the same definition Trump is guilty of four rapes.
The girls school scandal happened, and she admits it happened. Google it.
OK bronto.
Woman acquitted in Oprah school scandal
Wait for rebuttal.
Is that what you think you are doing? Ahahahaha!
You are mad, bronto. Mad.
Hillary Clinton claims to be a Goldwater girl.
Hitler was a hero because.... Genghis Khan! Vlad The Impaler!!
Oh no wait. Attacking someone else does not make the person I am defending good. Go figure.
Hey I thought I was fact machine!!!!
Hi @FactMachine.
Bye @FactMachine.
Unproven
Ah, the Bill Cosby defence. Interesting. So you attack Oprah with unproven allegations but then you have a problem when someone does the exact same thing to Trump? Are you even for real?
You cannot be taken seriously when you have one set of standards for discussing Trump and the literal opposite set of standards for discussing Oprah. When you discuss opponents of Trump, the most overt fake news blogs and fascist propaganda memes suddenly become all the proof you need to convict someone. The perfect example is Hillary Clinton. Or Muslims.
Normal for all billionaires
Interesting. So becoming a billionaire requires one to break the law 75 times?
How is it even possible that your first sentence reads, "unproven" and your second is a ridiculous claim for which you have provided no proof?
The dossier was fake
Ahahahahahahahaha!
President Trump is racist only in the frenzied minds of liberals.
He was sued by the federal government for systematic housing discrimination against blacks. There are thousands, THOUSANDS of pages of evidence incriminating him as a racist. His father was also a notorious racist so the apple does not fall far from the tree.
Your neo-Nazi propaganda is insulting to the memory of everybody who died fighting you wingnuts the first time.
‘No Vacancies’ for Blacks: How Donald Trump Got His Start, and Was First Accused of Bias
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/
A bit vague for my taste Con. By moral do you mean having the same hump buddy boyfriend for decades without marrying him
I think he means who has the smallest number of neo-Nazis and KKK activists supporting their political policies.
You must have missed the Orah girls' school scandal.
Ahahahahahaha!.
You must have missed the four rapes, seventy five open legal cases, dozens of sexual assaults, the treason against the United States, the attacks against everybody who investigates, the Federal Government's case for housing discrimination, the jokes about disabled and black people and the fact that his voting base consists of southern white supremacists and KKK members.
In a 2007 deposition, Trump admitted he had borrowed “a small amount” from his father’s estate: ‘I think it was like in the $9 million range.” And as Trump’s casinos ran into trouble, Trump’s father also purchased $3.5 million gaming chips, but did not use them, so the casino would have enough cash to make payments on its mortgage — a transaction which casino authorities later said was an illegal loan.
I seen you claiming their is 70 genders 1 time.
Hi @FactMachine.
Bye @FactMachine.
There is a 100% consensus that climate change is real
And there is a 97 percent consensus that climate change is being caused by humans, so what's your point?
Oh, you don't have one? How unusual.
I do not deny that the climate is changing.
The 97 percent scientific consensus is not that "the climate is changing" you impossibly dishonest buffoon. The consensus is that "human activities" are causing the radical climate problems witnessed over the last century.
No--but "Science Denier" is a somewhat appropriate label based on many of your other positions.
You are a lying troll. I have never denied any form of science at any time on this website, which explains why you were unable to provide any examples to support your bitter personal attack. The opposite is in fact true (i.e. that you frequently deny science). This can be proven by, among other things, your claim that "The flow of time is an illusion". See:-
http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/
I am banning you for being pathetic. You cannot best me in fair debate and that is exactly why you lie so much. To be perfectly frank, you are a complete failure held together by nothing but ego.
Nomenclature is a science denier
I gave you an official statement from NASA and you responded by posting an article called "Flawed Climate Models" by two men who do not have a SINGLE SCIENTIFIC QUALIFICATION BETWEEN THEM.
Liar.
Consensus on what?
The very statement itself explains what the consensus is.
You know damned well that formulating a hypothesis is not demonstrating a conclusion.
You know damned well that we are not talking about a "hypothesis".
Rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.
https://climate.nasa.gov/
That is not a hypothesis, so take your upside down neo-Nazi language and choke on it pal. You are a common liar.
I underlined the critical language that shows that NASA recognizes that 97% of climate scientists have agreed on the hypothesis.
Marcus, when I want to know the opinion of NASA I will ask NASA, not a pathetic global warming denier who wants to misrepresent NASA.
Nomenclature is a science denier.
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
Official statement from 18 different top scientific associations:-
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)
https://climate.nasa.gov/
Just like every other Nazi here Marcus, when your argument fails you resort to simply turning the truth upside down.
Are you mad?
Reagan funded terrorist states in Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras. He labelled them "fledgling democracies". In El Salvador, the government literally sent out roving military death squads at night to execute dissidents and their families.
Under Reagan's leadership, the United States of America became the only state in recorded history to be convicted of international terrorism after the world court ruled it had "unlawfully used force" in the bombing of Nicaragua.
He willingly traded with and aided apartheid South Africa, even sidestepping congressional legislation aimed at stopping him.
He oversaw the selling of arms to Iran, including HAWK and TOW missiles.
He sold chemical and biological weapons to Saddam Hussein. The exact same chemical and biological weapons Saddam used to gas his own people.
Under Reagan, the American CIA became a drug smuggling operation to rival the top Colombian cartels.
How about you start another thread and ask if Hitler was the best leader of Germany in modern history? You know you want to. Secretly.
The leftist media's approval rating is like 12%.
Every lie that you tell and every myth that you proliferate just proves my point. Professors Ed Herman and Noam Chomsky proved that the media is not "leftist" in 1988, after an exhaustive study of the last half century's worth of American media, using multiple academic methodologies. I must have made this point to you four or five times, but every single day you ignore this fact and tell the exact same lie!
The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader
https://www.amazon.com/
You must not be familiar with the Democratic Party and its annual character assassination tactics
You must not be familiar with the popular contemporary concept known as truth. You are a mad little nincompoop who makes everything up as he goes along and always ends up neck deep in contradictions. Everything you say is an effort to bend reality to fit your astonishing 18th century wingnut biases, and despite claiming to be a Christian you are one of the most hateful little shits I have ever had the misfortune of encountering.
Would a Christian make up stories about my mum being raped by my cousins just to spite me? I don't think so.
Oh please. Seriously Grenache? Let's pause a minute. Just imagine if Trump finished a speech, did a mic drop, named a failing healthcare system after himself
Bronto, you are such a ridiculously stupid liar that you quite literally cannot write a single sentence without making something up. The term "Obamacare" was not invented by Obama. It was invented by political lobbyist Jeanne Schulte Scott, who first used the term in an article for the trade journal, Healthcare Financial Management. Andy Martin then borrowed the phrase and used it in his blog. The rest is history.
If everybody who has ever accused Trump of lying, cheating, stealing, raping and colluding with Russians is lying, then it will be the greatest coincidence in recorded history.
you are obviously alt right because you aren't Jewish
What a spectacularly sound argument. I'm not sure I'm going to be able to refute that one.
Lmao.
anti-alt right conservative Ben Shapiro
This is the precise opposite of what Ben Shapiro is.
Free Speech 'Hero' Ben Shapiro's as Alt-right as a Jew Can Get
Shapiro's views and tone are the closest a Jew can get to membership of the vicious alt-right whose media platform he helped build.
Bronto, your first link is to a subscription only article. It cannot be viewed without signing up. This proves that you are simply typing words into a search engine to see what ammunition comes back, and are not even bothering to read it when it does.
Your second link contradicts your initial claim that there are "millions of black Conservatives". At least, if they exist, then they did not vote for Trump. It reads:-
Back in July, there was great laughter and knowing nods when some polls showed that then-GOP presidential contender Donald Trump would get 0 percent of the black vote. This seemed about right. Trump seemingly earned and deserved the goose egg with his horrendous record of slamming the door on blacks in his apartment rentals, his relentless birther savaging of President Obama, his non-stop trash of the Central Park Five, wild enthusiasm for stop and frisk, and his thinly disguised race-tinged cracks and digs at his rallies. But a funny thing happened between the near gag line 0 percent Trump supposedly would get if the election were held in July, and the actual election. That 0 percent of the black vote, magically transformed into some real numbers that actually had some significance for the election, and maybe beyond. The 8 percent of the black vote he got which numbers wise factors out to roughly a half million votes.
Moreover, if 8 percent of the black vote represents half a million people, then the 1 percent of black voters who identified themselves as "strongly Republican" in 2012 must number about 62,500 people. That's 62,500 black Conservatives of voting age in the entire of America.
Here are a few of their creations.
For those of you who are curious, here is the equivalent far right terminology:-
Homeless - Lazy scumbag.
Criminal - Black.
Right wing protest - Sermon.
Sex change - Lobotomy.
Patriot - Warrior of God.
Christmas - The time of year we are forced to pretend we care about other people.
Ugly - Feminist.
I told you it was a mental illness.
Did you accuse your English teacher of being mentally ill too?
Perhaps that is why she gave you an F.
Not for fail. For fuckwit.
There are millions of black conservatives
Ahahahaha. In 2012, one percent of black voters in the United States identified themselves as "strong Republicans":-
http://blackdemographics.com/culture/
In contrast (as you can plainly see for yourself) fifty three percent identified themselves as "strong Democrats".
I seen you ommit part of the Bible earlier in different debate.
No, you saw me quote the part of the Bible which was relevant to proving the point I made. Since the part I "omitted" did not in any way discredit or disprove the part I posted, your fallacy is called a red herring.
Also, omit only has one M.
Finally, nobody wants you here. You are an intellectual idiot who has been banned more times than prostitution.
Being a Commie is worse than being far right.
According to the far right, sure. According to the far right, being a "Commie" is right up there with being black.
I am interested in more than simply in-group argumentation
xMathFanx.
You are only interested in one thing and that thing is misrepresentation. Personal experience has taught me that you deliberately misrepresent the arguments of anybody you cannot best in fair debate, and right now you are deliberately misrepresenting your own ideological beliefs.
Your sneering, arrogant neo-Conservative attitude drips from every word you write, so just like I pointed out thirty minutes ago: you aren't fooling anybody with an IQ above 100.
spare us the "I'm innocent" nonsense
Innocent of which crime? Posting the evidence which supports my position?
You are literally mad, bronto. The extension of your own fantasy is that you are deliberately omitting information because you didn't include the entire Bible in your most recent quote.
Are you referring to the debate Motion I presented a while back
I am referring to the fact that most (if not all) of your debates just happen to be neo-Conservative talking points. Reinstating the national military draft is not an argument likely to interest anybody on the left.
Interesting theory, care to support it ?
Your very response supports it. Yesterday, I posted an exhaustively long list of your opinions from your own argument waterfall. Something neo-Conservatives tend to do with chilling frequency is refuse to acknowledge the existence of evidence which undermines their position. They quite simply pretend it hasn't happened.
Leaving parts of verses out intentionally eh nom?
You are literally mad.
For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
A semicolon is used in English to introduce a separate (though related) clause. Hence, for all intents and purposes, the extra part you added is a new sentence.
Jesus never claimed children should be put to death
I quoted you the exact passages from the Bible yesterday, you mad wingnut nitwit. Ignoring or rewriting the facts does not make the facts go away. It only erodes your credibility as someone whose opinion should be taken seriously.
“Whoever curses father or mother shall die” (Mark 7:10 NAB)
“He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” (Matthew 15:4-7)
The Hallmark of Neo-Conservatism
I am fully aware of what the hallmarks of neo-Conservatism are. I have been schooling idiots just like you for well over a decade.
hyper-aggressive militarism
Which links us rather nicely to your bizarre proposition that the US military draft should be reinstated.
which is the issue I am most against
MathFan, you are one of the new breed of transparent neo-Conservative trolls who believes the best way to undermine liberalism is pretend to be a liberal. You are fooling nobody with an IQ higher than 100, I assure you.
What's Lincoln got to do with what I said
I explained in some detail what he has got to do with your rabid attack against Marx. Both of them lived in very different times and cannot be judged by the standards of modernity for that exact same reason. Abraham Lincoln is historically known as being the man who ENDED the domination of white supremacist thought by emancipating the slaves. But by the same logic you have used to attack Karl Marx, Lincoln was a sneering racist who believed in the genetic superiority of the white man:-
In 1858, Lincoln expressed his opposition to racial equality and asserted the superiority of white people.
Jesus provided Christians "the law", and had no problem withe premise of the Ten Commandments. His law is referred to as "The law of love".
So you are saying it is just blind coincidence that Jesus's "law of love" and traditional Jewish law both insist that disobedient children be put to death?
I find that very difficult to believe, as I do most of your claims. Especially when they directly contradict the known facts:-
“Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John 7:19)
For the law was given by Moses,…” (John 1:17).
You have already hosted multiple debates on this front
@MathFan.
You are a liar. Stop telling me what I think and what I have done. You are automatically disqualified from doing that on the grounds that:-
A) You are a liar.
B) You are not me.
What you are xMathFanx is a pseudo-intellectual neo-Conservative troll who is completely lost in any situation where he is obliged to tell the truth.
that’s rather hypocritical of you ( yet again )isn’t it ?
So let me just clarify this, Dermot. You think that NOT ignoring the vast differences time makes to culture makes me a hypocrite? Here is what the great liberal emancipator Abraham Lincoln said during his own time:
"As long as blacks continue to live with the whites they constitute a threat to the national life. Family life may also collapse and the increase of mixed breed bastards may some day challenge the supremacy of the white man."
Well, will you look at that? It appears that you are actually the hypocrite. What a big surprise.
Why don't you just admit that you are in favor of quasi-Orwellian Newspeak
I am not going to upvote this post, because you have chosen to use words to deliberately misrepresent my opinion. You do not get to decide what my opinion is. Not even if you use a thesaurus.
This has been the right's game for quite a while. After 9/11 they realised that there were millions of Americans would would quite literally believe anything they are told. This particular story is fairly old though. I linked it myself a few weeks back.
@Mathfan
I'm going to upvote you for managing to resist the urge to insult me. Well done.
Race has nothing to do with it.
If race has "nothing to do with it" then why did you lie about being an American Indian? Why not just admit you are white?
I agree that it is a form of censorship, although there is nothing "new" about it. Socrates encountered essentially the same issues thousands of years ago
Really? How interesting. So what did the Greeks request Socrates call black people instead of "niggers"? Did they force him to stop referring to Muslims as "filth"?
Here's the thing that you and many other users on this site don't appear to understand about free speech: your right to speak ends when you use your words as a weapon to attack other people with. You are not permitted to attack others with bats, clubs, knives, teapots or cutlery, so what on Earth makes you believe you have a right to attack them with words?
But I never claimed this comrade
But you are a liar, comrade.
you're the one who constantly calls blacks niggers
Show me one example of this. I'm afraid you'll have to do it in a separate thread though, because I'm banning you from this one. I don't like Nazis. Especially Irish ones.
While you're here though, here's some light reading material so you can educate yourself above the level of every other sneering Islamaphobic bigot. Not that you will, of course. I have noticed that when people are retarded enough to support Hitler's eugenics programs of the 1930s, they very rarely are the reasonable kind:-
For instance, child marriage in Islam is justified on the basis of a hadith in Bukhari, which says that the Prophet married Hazrat Aisha when she was just six and consummated the marriage when she was nine.
This hadith cannot be true for several reasons. First, the Prophet could not have gone against the Quran to marry a physically and intellectually immature child. Secondly, the age of Hazrat Aisha can be easily calculated from the age of her elder sister Hazrat Asma who was 10 years older than Hazrat Aisha. Waliuddin Muhammad Abdullah Al-Khateeb al Amri Tabrizi the famous author of Mishkath, in his biography of narrators (Asma ur Rijal), writes that Hazrat Asma died in the year 73 Hijri at the age of 100, ten or twelve days after the martyrdom of her son Abdullah Ibn Zubair. It is common knowledge that the Islamic calendar starts from the year of the Hijrah or the Prophet’s migration from Mecca to Medina.
Therefore, by deducting 73, the year of Hazrat Asma’s death, from 100, her age at that time, we can easily conclude that she was 27 years old during Hijra.
This puts the age of Hazrat Aisha at 17 during the same period. As all biographers of the Prophet agree that he consummated his marriage with Hazrat Aisha in the year 2 Hijri it can be conclusively said that she was 19 at that time and not nine as alleged in the aforementioned hadiths.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/
Woohoo! My master gives me two pieces of bread at lunch!!!
Isn't slavery AWESOME!
The only reason I reply to you still is because it annoys you.
That is the false reason you give because you are ashamed of the real one. The truth is that I am not annoyed, and even if I were then your methods of detecting it would be extremely limited anyway. No intelligent person would seriously claim to know the emotional state of a stream of words in a public chatroom. The actual reason you keep creating new accounts to chase an argument you lost two hours ago is because you are incapable of accepting your own defeat. You hate me for the simple fact that you cannot win an argument against me, and it drives you to the point where you are prepared to embarrass yourself just for the opportunity to keep trying. It's pathetic. I debunked your argument two hours ago because it was stupid. Goodbye.
The problem is that the research has produced shallow data sets
But that's simply bullshit pseudo-terminology you've conjured up to create the false impression that there is a problem. If there was a problem then there wouldn't be a 97 percent expert consensus on the matter in the first place. I doubt there is even a 97 percent scientific consensus about general relativity, so your pompous terminology does not define a problem to anybody except yourself and/or those mad enough to take you seriously.
Flawed Climate Models by David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hooper provides a clear explanation of why the 97 percent of climate scientists are unjustified
NASA thinks it is justified:-
Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.
https://climate.nasa.gov/
As regards the source you posted, a quick Google search of the authors reveals that David R Henderson is an ECONOMIST, with no qualifications whatsoever in relation to climate study, and Charles L. Hooper is President of Objective Insights, a private sector consulting company for the biotech and pharmaceutical industry!!! Neither one of these men has a single qualification in what they are writing about!! The only thing they demonstrably have is a conflict of interest!!!!
So stupid.
When you really think about it, (or at least just think for once in your life in the first place) You are actually supporting my argument
Ahahahahahahaha!
FactMachine, when you are retarded, then all persistence earns you is the title of a a persistent retard.
the structure of society allows you to be rewarded for doing this
If a business has to increase costs to pay for new manufacturing and clean energy requirements, the cost of their product increases to compensate. When that happens, customers go elsewhere and get a better deal. It isn't rocket science. That is how business works.
Your clan created a video that covers this topic very effectively.
Bronto, please see the following:-
For instance, child marriage in Islam is justified on the basis of a hadith in Bukhari, which says that the Prophet married Hazrat Aisha when she was just six and consummated the marriage when she was nine.
This hadith cannot be true for several reasons. First, the Prophet could not have gone against the Quran to marry a physically and intellectually immature child. Secondly, the age of Hazrat Aisha can be easily calculated from the age of her elder sister Hazrat Asma who was 10 years older than Hazrat Aisha. Waliuddin Muhammad Abdullah Al-Khateeb al Amri Tabrizi the famous author of Mishkath, in his biography of narrators (Asma ur Rijal), writes that Hazrat Asma died in the year 73 Hijri at the age of 100, ten or twelve days after the martyrdom of her son Abdullah Ibn Zubair. It is common knowledge that the Islamic calendar starts from the year of the Hijrah or the Prophet’s migration from Mecca to Medina.
Therefore, by deducting 73, the year of Hazrat Asma’s death, from 100, her age at that time, we can easily conclude that she was 27 years old during Hijra.
This puts the age of Hazrat Aisha at 17 during the same period. As all biographers of the Prophet agree that he consummated his marriage with Hazrat Aisha in the year 2 Hijri it can be conclusively said that she was 19 at that time and not nine as alleged in the aforementioned hadiths.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/
You even lie about your own religion, so only a fool would believe you ever tell the truth about Islam.
I'm confused, why should we be ashamed?
You personally should be ashamed because the owner of the site has banned you on multiple accounts, but you are still infecting his site with your stupidity. You are fully aware that he does not want you here, yet you do not have any respect for his wishes.
PS> By the way, I don’t judge conservatism by the conservatives on this site.
From my perspective (and bear in mind I live in a country governed by Conservatives), you are a Conservative and the other guys you're referring to are neo-Nazis.
A business no one does business with, exist it cannot.
The businesses which do not not raise costs because of environmental concerns will be EXACTLY the businesses customers use, you persistently stupid idiot.
Did you like that? The way I destroyed your long wall of bullshit in a single sentence? Cringeworthy, completely unoriginal impersonations make you intelligent will not.
But Madhammad was a peadophile
You are literally so thick that you don't know how to spell the thing you are accusing Mohammed of being.
muslims mostly accept that Aisha was 9 when the marriage was consummated
You made this claim up and I called you out on it yesterday. You have conducted no census on what "most" Muslims believe about Aisha. Cynically inventing things to satisfy your ridiculous and childish hatred for people with different coloured skin is not debate. It's just you being a racist. Furthermore, your claim has absolutely no relevance to how old Aisha actually was in the first place. It is not only a false claim (in that you made it up), but it is also an appeal to popularity.
I have already directed you to the many Muslim scholars who dispute the accuracy of the Hadith you have posted, so I do not understand why you are posting something again which I have already thoroughly refuted. The only reasonable explanation is that you are deliberately posting anti-Islamic propaganda.
I am tired of the fact that you are too stupid, too arrogant and too racist to acknowledge whenever you have been educated. There is absolutely no point in you being here other than to demonstrate how stubbornly stupid Irish people can be.
Hazrat Aisha was 19, not 9
http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/
The truth about Muhammad and Aisha
https://www.theguardian.com/
This is absolutely absurd, the burden of saving the environment and maintaining it should be shared by all humans.
You think it is absurd to expect the same people who are causing the problem to fix the problem? Why do I have a responsibility to fix a problem you are causing?
Nevermind answering that, FactMachine. I'm going to automatically ban every account of yours I see because you are an absolutely phenomenal idiot.
The Crusades occured from 1095 to 1291
Are you saying the last time Christians killed people was in the 13th century?
Just wow. You are quite literally bonkers.
The Rwandan genocide was in the 1990s. In the present day, Christian militias are tearing around Africa burning Muslims at the stake.
Poor old “ comrade “Nom thinks communism is superior to capitalism because it heroically overcomes problems that do not exist in any other system.
Hi Dermot. I have been considering your argument that blacks have inferior genes to whites. On the same basis, do you accept that Irishmen have inferior genes to Englishmen?
sensible
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
I say temporarily because the competition which exists within the free market would quickly adapt to the changing market conditions and before long the use of poisonous chemicals will either be eliminated or reduced to levels which the ecosystem can deal with.
We can all help to get the message to the corporate giants that they have been smoked out and must begin producing their goods using more environmentally friendly processes.
THEY WILL REACT TO ''FREE MARKET FORCES'' BUT WILL NOT DO SO VOLUNTARILY.
This is absolutely absurd. You can't put the burden of saving the environment on the consumer when it is the manufacturer causing the problems. Producing environmentally friendly goods will raise costs which the consumer will not wish to bear.
Because Jesus accomplished all that was required by the law, thus fulfilling it
This is hilarious. You are such a thoroughly insane bigot that you are quite literally misrepresenting the arguments of the son of God.
Which is speaking of the commands he just gave in the verses prior.
Ahahahahahahaha! He was talking about the ten commandments of Jewish law you thoroughly insane bigot. He repeats the EXACT same thing in numerous other sections:-
Jesus Christ: "Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law” (John 7:19)
Jesus Christ: “For the law was given by Moses,…” (John 1:17)
In Mark 7:10 NAB, Jesus criticises Jews for not following Jewish law and killing their own disobedient children: "Whoever curses father or mother shall die."
He does it AGAIN in Matthew 15:4-7, when criticised by the Pharisee for not washing his hands before eating: "He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death."
You are such a thoroughly disgusting liar and bigot. There is no place for people like you in a sane and rational society.
You already hate Jews and christians
Liar liar pants on fire.
But he didn't teach Judaism. Quite the opposite. Jewish was his ethnic orientation.
It was his religion and he states so throughout the Bible, you mad liar.
Jesus Christ: "Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:18-19 RSV)
“It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the (Jewish) law to become invalid.” (Luke 16:17 NAB)
Here is another good one from Jesus himself:-
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfil." (Matthew 5:17 NAB)
Judaism and Islam have many things in common
Yes. They are both despised by Nazis.
The geologists disagree with the climatologists
Geologists study rocks. Climatologists study climate.
This conversation is being impeded by the fact that you are mad.
