“There's a big difference between tolerating differing points of view and discriminating against those with differing points of view.
No one is saying this baker needs to approve of gay marriage or needs to marry a man himself, what the court is saying is that he can't use his views to discriminate against those in the public marketplace.”
konspikuous on Dec 7, 2013 at 12:49:24
“The comment was not in regard to the beliefs of the shop or the ruling. It is focused upon the interactions Ive had with others in the thread.”
Dec 7, 2013 at 12:06:47
“Perhaps, but then the author uses inflammatory quotes (ie. "the study is junk science"), provides very little contextual analysis of the study and its implications, and focuses the entire article on the premise that the study results are controversial.
This was not a balanced article looking at the science. It wasn't even a balanced article looking at the media's distortion of the study. The author resorted to the very journalistic hype she's supposedly criticizing.”
Dec 7, 2013 at 12:00:07
“Judging by your post you're not someone with a background in the sciences. In medical research different types of studies have different standards of validity based on how well their conclusions can be considered reflective of reality. Meta analyses are considered to be among the most credible of all research methodologies.
Now, if you're aware of some faulty methodology that was used in the selection criteria for this particular study that undermines its credibility you should present it. That's exactly what the peer review process is for, did they miss something that you didn't?
Likewise, if my arguments are "shoddy" then please point out their weaknesses, but an empty accusation is not a credible refutation.”
“Nuclear DNA is not paternal. Nuclear DNA is the full complement of chromosomal DNA received from both parents. Only the Y chromosome is exclusively paternal.
Mitochondrial DNA is completely different from chromosomal DNA. It's found only in the mitochondria (an organelle found in most cells that generates energy and is unique in having its own genetic information), not the nucleus. Mitochondria are inherited exclusively from the maternal egg cell. Since sperm do not contribute any mitochondria to the ovum, mitochondrial DNA is strictly maternal.”
Dec 5, 2013 at 16:55:30
“Upon re-reading the article I realized that the paragraph in which the author referenced 'overweight' vs 'obese' was in reference to the NPR article, so I'll retract my accusation of misusing terminology.
However, I still stand by my more relevant criticisms that the author is overhyping the controversy, unjustifiably dismissing the relevance of the study, and distorting the science to fit a preconceived premise - thereby still making it an example of the poor journalism the author initially criticizes.”
Dec 4, 2013 at 15:39:09
“Actually, there is some evidence to suggest that HIV can infect other cell types. However, you're correct that the primary target are white blood cells, the proportion of other infected cells would likely be insufficient to result in the calamity that rwgunn describes.
Dec 4, 2013 at 15:27:51
“This article is an example of the very poor journalism it claims to criticize. Rather than presenting a clear and factual accounting of the science - specifically what conclusions the study does and does not support, the author instead starts with a premise and cherry picks evidence (and sources) to support it. Typical shoddy journalism that seeks to manufacture controversy rather than inform the reader.
This study is relevant and provides useful information. Like any study, it doesn't answer all the questions, but provides a piece of the puzzle. It is a relevant finding that, all things being equal, obesity is a risk factor for cardiovascular complications for those who are otherwise metabolically healthy.
In other words, being metabolically healthy is not sufficient to protect obese individuals from cardiovascular complications.
Notice the bait and switch the author uses when discussing obesity (a subtle but important use of language in any article on this topic). "Obese" and "overweight" are clinically distinct terms, they are NOT synonymous. The misuse and blatant manipulation of these terms by this author is misleading and irresponsible.”
Sherry Sanders113 on Dec 6, 2013 at 22:28:44
“The study is nonsense! Meta analysis can prove anything they want, because they pick which studies they want to include. Not to mention, almost ALL obesity studies never consider risky weight loss practices. Yo-yo dieting increases the risk for heart disease and diabetes, as do some diet pills. The stress of stigma can be an independent factor. As can social class, because obesity is associated with poverty in industrialized countries. You have pretty shoddy arguments yourself!”
Deb McCafferty on Dec 6, 2013 at 11:14:52
“I don't believe that the author sought to discredit the study per se, but rather to discredit the way in which it was reported to the general public.”
Anne1983 on Dec 4, 2013 at 23:13:10
“This author does not misuse or manipulate the terms"obese" and "overweight" in this article. The terms have been accurately used throughout the piece. If you find an error- let me know.
The error was made by NPR in their story. According the actual journal article, "overweight" was not associated with an increase in mortality. Yet, the title of their segment implies that it is.”
“What "strong disagreements that rage between scientists on both sides of the evolution debate"?? Such "disagreements" are not amongst actual scientists, but rather perpetuated by religious fanatics pretending at science.
Your argument holds no sway. It is based on science ignorance, simplistic contrarianism, and is completely devoid of anything vaguely resembling evidence... "one scientist" - you can't even provide a name with your "quote."
Tell you what, I'll respect your "right to challenge their theory in a classroom" when you can:
1) challenge it with an equally scientifically credible theory, and
2) respect my right to challenge the fairy tales you teach in Sunday School.”
“Is it just me, or does Israel seem to be more of an inhibitor than ally in the Middle East peace process?
Part of the solution or part of the problem? Because I haven't seen much in the way of solutions coming from Isreali policy...”
AlbanyConservative on Nov 24, 2013 at 19:03:21
“What do you think Israel should do. Iran has said over and over again that it wants to wipe Israel off of the map. That is a fact. Do you think we would just sit back and wait for someone to attack us? We would not. And oh, by the way; We did not.”
Hooponopono on Nov 24, 2013 at 18:57:43
“Thanks to Netanyahu, Israel has been a huge part of the problem.”
“'Truth' is only what can be proven. What you refer to is 'belief.' Belief is faith and faith is choosing to believe in something for which there is no evidence.
As you concede, you cannot know or understand the will or thinking of 'God' - all you "know" are the assumptions you've made about God. Therefor you cannot know what His/Her will is or what will happen upon 'judgment.' Its just as likely that upon my death God and I will sit back with a couple of beers and laugh about all the ridiculous BS people like you convinced themselves of claiming to "know" God's will.
It's also just as likely that the God I'll be drinking those brewskies with is Oden or Vishnu. You're just rolling the dice and hoping you picked the 'right' God.
“The Bible also says we should marry women after we rape them (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) and that its OK to beat our slaves as long as we don't kill them (Exodus 21:20-21), along with a whole lot of other ridiculousness believed by superstitious sheep herders 2,000 years ago.
If that's your God's idea of "justice" then I'm better off without "His" word.”
David777James on Nov 22, 2013 at 12:03:15
“You misquote scripture, and you obviously therefore do not care about truth. You're simply showing yourself to be an antagonist against God, when you don't know the first thing about Him, nor apparently care to.
As far as my God's idea of justice? God is what He is, and He often SEEMS very cruel to our simplistic ways of thinking, because we do not know what He knows unless we seek it through His word, which is inexhaustible in a lifetime.
Therefore, if God says that if one believes on Jesus Christ as Savior, he has eternal life, but to reject Christ and therefore be against Him is eternal living death, shall I choose the living death because you or I do not fully understand Him and all His ways?
Your excuses will not stand in the day of judgment, yet scripture says you will bow your knee at your judgment and claim "you are a just God" as you are sent away from His presence for eternity, for your refusal to further seek Him on earth.
Why would you accept that as your future, EVEN IF IT WAS ONLY A "POSSIBILITY", when simple faith in Jesus Christ as your savior is the only thing that separates you from ETERNAL life with the living God?
What's funny to me is that out of all the religions in the world that all claim to know the way to god, the only "faith" (not religion) that is different from”
Nov 21, 2013 at 15:14:56
“Genes related to metabolism and adiposity can not function outside of environmental factors. In order to store fat one must first have the excess caloric balance to do so. Someone can only be genetically predisposed to storing a higher percentage of their -excess- calories. The body does not store calories that are required for metabolic activity.
Don't be overly impressed with fancy "Harvard" titles. The un-confessed premise behind the entire article you link to (with very few citations, shame shame) is an environment of excessive caloric intake. This is a key factor that every individual has control over.
Therefor, while genes certainly influence weight gain, they cannot do so without enabling environmental factors, ie diet and exercise.”