|
Munkeymon posted:You can call bullshit on the 'war on terror' all you want and I'm behind that, but, if you have to have the military kill someone, it's going to inspire some terror, so then every military campaign must also be a 'terror campaign' so the terror label is meaningless and not really worth bringing up unless you're trying to make an argument by emotive language. It can also serve to juxtapose current doctrine against alternatives emphasizing nation building. I've seen pitches for that on C-SPAN, talking about how we're trying to nation build and engage in 'frontier integration' style conflicts on globalization's periphery with militaries designed for great power conflicts.
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
It comes down to waging a war against terror was a dumb idea from the start and a full military response was bad idea from the get go. Every military campaign in the past century has been one of terrorism though as the increasing number of civilian causalities as the 20th century progressed can attest to and we need to really take a step back and assess just how awful the way of waging modern war has become. Or even if you don't want to follow that line of thinking, are you gonna tell me calling an airstrike on some ridge to hit a group of fighters attacking a patrol is the exact same thing as dropping a hellfire on a crowded marketplace to kill a terrorist leader? Because I don't think so since one is a tactical, perhaps necessity and the other is way to show civilians what the US will do to you if get on their bad side. Or maybe you don't want to follow that line of reasoning either and maybe just come to the idea that all war is indistinguishable from terrorism in it's impact and maybe we should try and work for a more peaceful world. (Yes I know this option is pie in the sky idealism that is unlikely, but some people really are pacifists that believe things along these lines.) Personally I believe a mix of all of these since, yes it is a complex situation, but I think that targeted drone strikes should be a measure of last resort and we should be aiming to capture these guys and put them on trial in full open US courts or even help some countries set up secure courts in the US though I'm sure that's really not an option.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:37
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Not making it a policy to just drop wherever, which is what their policy was. I think you're being pretty academically dishonest with yourself here. anonumos posts a pretty good summary of WWII capabilities, precision bombing wasn't what you think it is then as now.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:41
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:Slide 7 also promotes healthy cooperation with detainment camps and detainee facilities quote:along with unmanned aerial vehicles in order to "surround insurgents and any of their potential supporters". Slide 21 goes into detail on how to pressure Yemen, which work outed splendidly in the long run. It is right there in black and white that they didn't want to sow terror, yet to you this means they wanted to create terror? How is comparing this line of thought to the identical agenda 21 ranting of the right overblown hyperbole on my part again?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Boon posted:I think you're being pretty academically dishonest with yourself here. anonumos posts a pretty good summary of WWII capabilities, precision bombing wasn't what you think it is then as now. Except we deliberately did not attempt precision bombing for long portions of the war. Just dumping vast numbers of bombs all over the place. The allies even often called it "terror bombing" and "terror raids". It was not impossible to actually target things. No one was asking to drop everything on the exact spot. But what we did for much of the war was "yeah just try to get the bombs within 50 miles of the factory we want down and maybe we'll actually disrupt it".
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
Because bombing was generally only effective if done from low altitudes where bombers were susceptible to high attrition rates. To solve this issue we began bombing from higher altitudes and compensated for the drastic loss in accuracy with more ordnance/more destructive ordnance. That's why I say you're being dishonest. It's not "Lol we'll just hit everything" It's "Well gently caress, if we try to hit these targets efficiently we'll lose our bomber crews - go higher, drop more, and we'll try and saturate our target"
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:How is comparing this line of thought to the identical agenda 21 ranting of the right overblown hyperbole on my part again? It seems like for this someone could argue a mundane lack of coherence between tactics and strategy whereas for Agenda 21 you don't really have anything. Not that I would; I'd just be guessing.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:48
|
|
|
Boon posted:Because bombing was generally only effective if done from low altitudes where bombers were susceptible to high attrition rates. To solve this issue we began bombing from higher altitudes and compensated for the drastic loss in accuracy with more ordnance/more destructive ordnance. We kept doing it long after it was no longer necessary, due to things like the near destruction of the Luftwaffe and very useful fighter escorts. Again, the people planning this stuff literally described it as terror raids and bombed stuff that was known to not even be loosely connected with the war machine.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:51
|
|
|
Boon posted:That's why I say you're being dishonest. It's not "Lol we'll just hit everything" It's "Well gently caress, if we try to hit these targets efficiently we'll lose our bomber crews - go higher, drop more" Actually there was a rather prominent contemporary debate over this exact issue. The British had very recent memories of the Blitz and their opinion on the topic of bombing civilians was somewhere between "who gives a gently caress" and "blow the fuckers to hell". quote:"The destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers, and the disruption of civilized community life throughout Germany [is the goal]. ... It should be emphasized that the destruction of houses, public utilities, transport and lives; the creation of a refugee problem on an unprecedented scale; and the breakdown of morale both at home and at the battle fronts by fear of extended and intensified bombing are accepted and intended aims of our bombing policy. They are not by-products of attempts to hit factories." -- "Air Marshal Arthur Harris to Sir Arthur Street, Under Secretary of State, Air Ministry, October 25, 1943" quoted in Tami Biddle, Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare: The Evolution of British and American Ideas about Strategic Bombing, 1914-1945 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002), p. 220. quote:Concerning the renewal of area bombing, the Directorate of Bomber Operations focused specifically on creating civilian casualties, which was an extremely candid reversal of the earlier focus on destroying structures and housing: "If we assume that the daytime population of the area attacked is 300,000, we may expect 220,000 casualties. 50 per cent of these or 110,000 may expect to be killed. It is suggested that such an attack resulting in so many deaths, the great proportion of which will be key personnel, cannot help but have a shattering effect on political and civilian morale all over Germany." The US at least focused more on trying to attack specific targets, but after the precision-bombing raids on Schweinfurt went really poorly we said "gently caress it" and started supporting area bombing too. quote:Within weeks after the Schweinfurt raid, opinion within the Eighth Air Force had shifted in favor of adding nighttime area bombing to the American air offensive. General Ira Eaker, until this point a stout defender of the policy of targeted bombing wrote to Hap Arnold "I am concerned that you will not appreciate the tremendous damage that is being done to the German morale by these attacks through the overcast, since we cannot show you appreciable damage by photographs. … The German people cannot take that kind of terror much longer."[9] After the US got into it there was Dresden, which saw the US deliberately attempting to burn the entire city down and kill the entire population with various tactics. First they did a big airraid, then they allowed a period of time for civilians to reemerge from shelters, then they did a second bombing raid using incendiaries. This was calculated to be much more deadly than either type of ordnance alone, since the fire would spread very quickly due to the damage from the first raid. quote:The Allied commanders studied aerial photographs of German cities and specifically targeted areas of heavy residential populations. His aim, said Harris, was to make the ‘rubble bounce’ not just in Dresden but in every German city. The firebombing campaign in Japan was pretty ugly too. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:53 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
Can you guys create a thread to discuss the intricacies of drone strikes / WWII bombing runs and stop doing it here? This has all been discussed at length before, and really doesn't add anything to the current topic. In attempt to bring this thread back around to something a bit more interesting and less played out... Mitt Romeny! http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/could-mitt-romney-be-the-new-dick-nixon/ I don't think he'll be running at all, but He'll use the opportunity to get some free publicity to: 1. Sell a book. 2. Make Public Bets of 10,000 or more 3. oops?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
Sword of Chomsky posted:I miss when this thread about pointing and laughing at the GOP / despairing that they might actually win. It's just a giant clusterfuck of derails at this point with re-hashing year old discussions tossed in every page or two. I figured josh Marshall for being more clued in. I've read him off and and since his work on the AG scandal in the bush administration. But he really didn't know about diamond Joe and the onion?
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:We kept doing it long after it was no longer necessary, due to things like the near destruction of the Luftwaffe and very useful fighter escorts. Again, the people planning this stuff literally described it as terror raids and bombed stuff that was known to not even be loosely connected with the war machine. That's really great man, I'm not trying to say all the bombing raids were right. I'm saying that precision bombing, in the modern mind, did not exist then for the reasons I stated in response to you saying "we should have done it right the first time." Boon fucked around with this message at 00:00 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:58
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Yeah, by not torturing them and releasing them. I can see how the words "detainee releases" made you think we were going to disappear them forever What do you think happened to those people who ended up in that detainment camp? Use your imagination. Fried Chicken posted:it is explicitly outlining a campaign to minimize harm and win over the populace, therefore it must be an intentional terror campaign, as it used a piece of hardware and operated in a country? I don't think it's hard to interpret what Slide 7 is going to represent. It's usual violent and non-violent actions to corner part the population, not just the insurgents. The precedent is that anyone harboring them or any population sympathetic to them was fair game. It is explicit in its motive of being a counter insurgency operation, which was already a blacklisted word within the White House and Pentagon, and [url=like all counter-insurgency operations that Petraeus ran in Iraq, Haiti, and El Salvador, involved a very present terror campaign. COIN was termed and implemented long before it was ever implemented in Afghanistan. I think this is the first time I've seen anyone try to claim there wasn't a terror campaign, especially since David loving Petraeus was involved.
|
|
#
?
May 19, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:I figured josh Marshall for being more clued in. I've read him off and and since his work on the AG scandal in the bush administration. But he really didn't know about diamond Joe and the onion? I guess not everyone is as clued in on that as would be expected. It is obvious that Joe Biden knows about his image and takes the opportunities to play off it. I really wish he could be made VP for life. I don't want him being president, but he makes the best VP ever. Maybe he just shows so much more life than our previous VP that I love him for all his effort. I know he still somewhat lovely politically.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Boon posted:That's really great man, I'm not trying to say all the bombing raids were right. I'm saying that precision bombing, in the modern mind, did not exist then in response to you saying "we should have done it right the first time." It was fully possible to make your bombers at least attempt to only release over a single sector of a city where some particular target was located - this would have resulted in destroying the desired targets much faster. Instead it was deliberately chosen to allow lesser damage across an entire area each bombing run, which did not appreciably impede the war effort by the Nazis for quite a long time. It was a deliberate strategy against efficiency of the bombing in favor of upping terror. Which turned out to be useless, since people remained way more terrified of the SS et al and the consequences of giving up at work because your house got destroyed.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
Sword of Chomsky posted:Maybe he just shows so much more life than our previous VP You mean like having an actual heartbeat?
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Common Core Derail Incoming: Florida Lawmaker: Common Core Officials Will Turn Kids Gay quote:“They are promoting as hard as they can, any youth that is interested in the LGBT agenda," Van Zant said about American Institutes for Research. "These people that will now receive $220 million from the state of Florida, unless this is stopped, will promote double-mindedness in state education and attract every one of your children to become as homosexual as they possibly can." You knew it was Florida before even reading the quote.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Sword of Chomsky posted:I guess not everyone is as clued in on that as would be expected. It is obvious that Joe Biden knows about his image and takes the opportunities to play off it. I really wish he could be made VP for life. I don't want him being president, but he makes the best VP ever. Maybe he just shows so much more life than our previous VP that I love him for all his effort. I know he still somewhat lovely politically. He's the last of the "shaking hands and kissing babies" politicians. He's a "gaffe machine" because he has rejected the modern politician mold where nothing controversial or surprising is ever said in fear of the 24 hour news cycle. When he's campaigning or debating you can tell he's having the time of his life doing what he loves. And that's why he's an awesome VP.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Munkeymon posted:OK, but how do you eliminate enemy combatants without scaring their neighbors? Assuming that's something that's going to be done because it's at least politically infeasible not to and assuming there's no operationally feasible mechanism to give them a fair public trial (because sources would be revealed by evidence or whatever excuse they make up), I can't think of anything the military can do that's not scary to be around on some level. Ever read the grievances in the Declaration of Independence? Stuff like that seems to piss people off.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:15
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:What do you think happened to those people who ended up in that detainment camp? Use your imagination. quote:I don't think it's hard to interpret what Slide 7 is going to represent. It's usual violent and non-violent actions to corner part the population, not just the insurgents. The precedent is that anyone harboring them or any population sympathetic to them was fair game. It specifically points at isolating the insurgents from the general population, therefore the plan must be to terrorize the entire population. No insanity there. But yeah, you guys totally aren't copying every right wing loony who says they key is that they can see the secret meaning of everything which is totally different from the direct meaning and happens to mesh with what they said. quote:It is explicit in its motive of being a counter insurgency operation, which was already a blacklisted word within the White House and Pentagon, and [url=like all counter-insurgency operations that Petraeus ran in Iraq, Haiti, and El Salvador, involved a very present terror campaign. COIN was termed and implemented long before it was ever implemented in Afghanistan. Petraeus has always been up to his eyeballs in poo poo. That doesn't change the fact that your proof that this was a planned terror campaign is a long statement of how previous actions that caused terror were incredibly counter productive and repeatedly stresses that from here on out they must drive not to cause terror. Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 01:06 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:How about we use the facts instead. Show me evidence of a torture program since we shifted away from Bush Cheney. And no, feeding people on hunger strikes doesn't count. quote:Labeled Appendix M, and propounding an additional, special "technique" called "Separation", human rights and legal group have recognized that Appendix M includes numerous abusive techniques, including use of solitary confinement, sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation. We eliminated a few specific torture techniques, not the use of torture. We're particularly big on psychological torture because it can be dismissed as "not real". Stuff like sensory deprivation can literally drive you insane and is absolutely torture just as much as the water cure. Obama is a-OK with sensory deprivation for indefinite periods of time. Sleep deprivation can also be used indefinitely or supplemented with additional stressors like continuous exposure to strobe lights and loud music. That's not even getting into the less-abusive things like sexual assault or physical abuse like stress positions. Physical torture is also still taking place via renditions. It's probably a bit less, but it's still going on. Not even PolitiFact can bring themselves to make this a Promise Kept! I really don't know why you would lean on prisoner treatment in the War On Terror as an example of how ethically we've conducted ourselves in recent history. Bush wasn't that long ago and even Obama hasn't exactly been a shining light on a hill. The guy also gave you some specific examples, like the torture that Petraeus was involved in. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 01:10 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Says one of the people claiming that the ability to read true intent behind statements and that their imagined true intent overrides everything else. Fried Chicken posted:You have prevented nothing that at all substantiates your views, and the best response you have when that is pointed out is "nu uh". The only response you have offered is "you are wrong, I am right" This applies equally to you, I am afraid. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 00:28 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:I... I don't get it. She literally probably wouldn't be alive if it weren't for the assistance her family received growing up and republicans want to cut that. “I’ve been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No. No.” - Craig T. Nelson, to Glenn Beck, ca. 2009. Public assistance is bad, except when it helps me. Then it isn't public assistance at all!
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Sword of Chomsky posted:Common Core Derail Incoming: People like this need incentive to wipe their own asses. They project that on every other aspect of a person's character, so that there MUST be an incentive to BECOME gay, just as there is an incentive to attend church. That's why they dove-tail so nicely with the free market crowd; incentive.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
Sword of Chomsky posted:Common Core Derail Incoming: What's more likely between these two propositions: 1. Homosexuality is caused by some genetic discrepancy that affects a small percentage of the population (even in animals!) and this has been the case forever. 2. Homosexuality is a cult with a specific agenda: to turn everyone on Earth gay, after which people would only ever have straight sex to ensure the species' survival. Which is what fundamentalist Christians believe should happen anyway. I dunno, I'm stumped.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
Sword of Chomsky posted:Common Core Derail Incoming: 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Charles Van Zant posted:attract every one of your children to become as homosexual as they possibly can 
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Mystic_Shadow posted:1. Homosexuality is caused by some genetic discrepancy that affects a small percentage of the population (even in animals!) and this has been the case forever. The thing is, we're not even really sure about the whole genetic aspect of homosexuality even though we're very certain it is something that can't really be changed about a person. We've established some links between birth order and being out of the closet. We have not established a basis for homosexual attraction that links in any way to genetics. The really dissatisfying thing we're probably going to find out is that most people probably have some level of homosexual attraction. For the majority of people in the population those feelings are not strong enough to justify acting on them, and the social pressure against homosexuality probably impacts this greatly. Homosexuality and homosexual behavior are things that happen among biological entities. When there is less social pressure against homosexual behavior then it seems like it happens a lot more openly. Keeping homosexuality in check has been a preoccupation of societies for literally thousands of years at this point. The fact that many societies feel the need to explicitly pressure against it would seem to indicate to me that they feel like it's something that would happen more if that pressure wasn't there. The modern quirk about acceptance of homosexuality is how polarized it has become. A lot of people in the US seem okay with someone coming out of the closet, being gay, and then that's that. I wonder what acceptance is like for people who are "bisexual" The polarized understanding of homosexuality is probably going to end up being one of the things that goes by the wayside in future generations, and may be one of the things our kids tease us about. "Back in my day, gays were gay! Straights were straight! It's so confusing now. You kids have a boyfriend, then you have a girlfriend, then you have a boyfriend... I just don't get it! <secretly wishes they had had a gay relationship in their youth.>" ErIog fucked around with this message at 01:12 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Top headline on Drudge: GOP TAKES ON MICHELLE O'S LUNCH RULES I wasn't planning on voting in the next election, but now I'm definitely going to, as if anything is important, it's the freedom of our children to eat lovely food at school. This is what passes for their ideas.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:14
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Yea. That is what I said, though I never actually claimed you where wrong, just that you are being kind of pigheaded about this. The fact that you can't seem to comprehend that sometimes people lie is kind of weird. Especially on the national level where propaganda is really, really important. We can't all be Australia and straight up admit we are dicks. Paul MaudDib posted:A review of documents released under FOIA (the Freedom of Information Act) shows that use of the "Futility" approach in the AFM was the rationale behind the use of loud music, strobe lights, and sexualized assaults and embarrassment on prisoners. The "Futility" technique pre-dates the introduction of the current Army Field Manual, which is numbered 2-22.3 and introduced in September 2006. In fact, the earlier AFM, labeled 35-52 (pdf), was the basis of numerous accusations of documented abuse. We eliminated a few specific torture techniques, not the use of torture. We're particularly big on psychological torture because it can be dismissed as "not real". Stuff like sensory deprivation can literally drive you insane and is absolutely torture just as much as the water cure. Obama is a-OK with sensory deprivation for indefinite periods of time. Sleep deprivation can also be used indefinitely or supplemented with additional stressors like continuous exposure to strobe lights and loud music. That's not even getting into the less-abusive things like sexual assault or physical abuse like stress positions. Physical torture is also still taking place via renditions. It's probably a bit less, but it's still going on. Not even PolitiFact can bring themselves to make this a Promise Kept! I really don't know why you would lean on prisoner treatment in the War On Terror as an example of how ethically we've conducted ourselves in recent history. Bush wasn't that long ago and even Obama hasn't exactly been a shining light on a hill. The guy also gave you some specific examples, like the torture that Petraeus was involved in. [/quote] I picked it because of what you posted. Yes, everyone knows that Bush deliberately ran the detainee torture program like a blood gargling psychopath. But with the transition to our wind down of the war we ended those techniques, and what you can point to post 2009 is some maybes because we have no evidence. I'm not one for believing in things without evidence, but even granting the high probability we are still being lovely, the deliberate reduction and curtailing of widespread torture is an argument against this being a deliberate terror campaign. If we were trying to scare the poo poo out of them we would ramp it up.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
There is almost certainly a biological component to homosexuality as demonstrated by animals who exclusively participate in homosex E:v true, my bad. Miltank fucked around with this message at 01:38 on May 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Miltank posted:There is almost certainly a biological component to homosexuality as demonstrated by animals who exclusively participate in homosex
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
Rhesus Pieces posted:“I’ve been on food stamps and welfare. Anybody help me out? No. No.” - Craig T. Nelson, to Glenn Beck, ca. 2009. I can't tell if she just doesn't understand that she literally votes against her own interest, or if there's some deep down kind of self loathing at work, or if she just thinks that in her ideal scenario all the welfare will go away for everyone except for her and her husband because theirs is a blameless hardship unique from all others. I honestly don't get it. She'd be hosed if it wasn't for the programs that have kept her afloat. Thankfully most of that side of my family are pretty much democrats* so we all give her a bunch of poo poo about it at every opportunity. * except for a large section of men, mostly uncles of mine or generally any man born before 1970 in that extended family. They are democrat/leftist in almost every sense except for guns. Pro social programs, aware of inequality problems, very pro-union... still iffy around gay people but they're at least of a "live and let live" mentality. Yet they are positively frightened that if you elect a democrat on monday, then you run the risk that tuesday morning an ATF team will come to your door demanding all of your guns. It's enough of a fear to keep them voting for republican douchebags that they go on and on about how much they hate, due directly to the narrative they're fed about what will happen to all their guns if a democrat ever gets elected. I actually nurse a pet theory that if the left managed to take better control over that narrative it would dislodge a pretty substantial voting block on the right.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:I actually nurse a pet theory that if the left managed to take better control over that narrative it would dislodge a pretty substantial voting block on the right. The only way the left is going to take control over that narrative is to drop all references to gun control, buy out the NRA, and nominate George Zimmerman for President on the Democratic ticket.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 01:54
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Yeah, but a biological component doesn't mean its genetic. Twin studies shoot that down. Could be any number of other biological factors though. You mean twin studies like this 2010 study of ALL THE TWINS IN SWEDEN? Every homosexual twin in Sweden posted:There is still uncertainty about the relative importance of genes and environments on human sexual orientation. One reason is that previous studies employed self-selected, opportunistic, or small population-based samples. We used data from a truly population-based 2005–2006 survey of all adult twins (20–47 years) in Sweden to conduct the largest twin study of same-sex sexual behavior attempted so far. We performed biometric modeling with data on any and total number of lifetime same-sex sexual partners, respectively. The analyses were conducted separately by sex. Twin resemblance was moderate for the 3,826 studied monozygotic and dizygotic same-sex twin pairs. Biometric modeling revealed that, in men, genetic effects explained .34–.39 of the variance, the shared environment .00, and the individual-specific environment .61–.66 of the variance. Corresponding estimates among women were .18–.19 for genetic factors, .16–.17 for shared environmental, and 64–.66 for unique environmental factors. Although wide confidence intervals suggest cautious interpretation, the results are consistent with moderate, primarily genetic, familial effects, and moderate to large effects of the nonshared environment (social and biological) on same-sex sexual behavior.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:The only way the left is going to take control over that narrative is to drop all references to gun control, buy out the NRA, and nominate George Zimmerman for President on the Democratic ticket.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 02:03
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:You mean twin studies like this 2010 study of ALL THE TWINS IN SWEDEN? Huh, hadn't seen that one. Cool to know, thanks.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Huh, hadn't seen that one. Cool to know, thanks. Sex researchers have turned over literally tons of papers over the decades strongly suggesting this result but most were marred by small samples, possible selection bias, inconclusive genetic links, and lack of a general theory of heritability. Leave it to the Swedes when you want your sex research done proper.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 02:08
|
|
|
Chantilly Say posted:The only way the left is going to take control over that narrative is to drop all references to gun control, buy out the NRA, and nominate George Zimmerman for President on the Democratic ticket. You're probably right that even that much would still probably entail buying off the NRA. That organization has done an amazing job at manufacturing a large group of single issue voters over just the past few decades. They're like the De Beers of political power brokers.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 01:46 |
|
|
amanasleep posted:You mean twin studies like this 2010 study of ALL THE TWINS IN SWEDEN? Can someone put this in laymans' terms, I'm not sure I'm reading the results entirely right
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2014 02:46
|
|
