They just fuck with Kenyans. And that’s obviously okay, because they are not part of the western nations. /s
They just fuck with Kenyans. And that’s obviously okay, because they are not part of the western nations. /s
Oh shit. My pollen allergy in spring is a death trap.
Go back to kindergarten.
It’s objectively worse than Firefox. For example, Firefox recently passed all minimum security requirements by the German Federal Office for Information Security. No other browser meets them.
Depends on the scale and how it accommodates for the gravitational acceleration.
I see. Okay. Didn’t know that.
If you use a scale, the force acting upon the mass is calculated out such that you get a mass displayed.
Kilonewton? That would be a force and not a mass. For mass the standard unit is (kilo)grams.
In international standard SI units that’s about 113 kg.
First the EPP is center-right, not conservative right-wing.
As far as I can see it, they are conservative-right wing. It’s even clear from the first sentence of the Wikipedia article you posted further down:
with Christian-democratic,[4] liberal-conservative,[4] and conservative[5][6] member parties
Second there’s too much leftists’ bullshit already in EU member states
You mean like those competiveness laws discussed in this post?
that only benefits the USA
Sounds like a conspiracy myth to me. Feel free to elaborate.
Europeans People Party, large political party within the EU which is largely full of conservative right-wing folks with the german Ursula Gertrud von der Leyen at it’s top. She is also currently president of the European Commission and has been known to be involved in corruption and to favour company interests, as well as the rest of the fuckers in the EPP.
So I guess the context is: If EPP stays in power, that’s good for top-business-people, but bad for everyone else. Thereby detrimental for such competitive-practise-laws.
Because there is no “experience” after death. You just start to rot.
How come that you refuse this so confidently?
Here just a few works from that wide field:
The Abrahamic religions do not have a monopoly on the concept of God.
Yes. I just made few examples on popular concepts. And I can make similar examples for a lot of other concepts. However, to discuss this further, we need some clear definitions.
Do the ridiculous things now ascribed to electricity […] prove that electricity doesn’t exist?
This is a form or erroneous attribution. It reminds me of the luminiferous aether of which physicists thought for a long time that it exists until it was disproven. This is a testable hypothesis. Your pixies might even be testable to a certain degree. But beyond a certain point they aren’t. Therefore being in the realm of pseudoscience again.
If we observe electricity, of course elctricity exists. But if we don’t know its cause, it’s important to investigate it. We have to investigate cause and effect instead of just assuming that a higher power plays a role. That’s our only way to gain knowledge and separate fantasy from reality.
And currently, religions with their concepts of deities reside in the realm of fantasy.
Debugging fucked up C/C++ code for example.
Of course we can. We have means to observe the dying process. There is already a lot of scientific knowledge on that topic.
That is a bad comparison IMO. We have piles and piles of hard evidence the Earth is round. Saying the Earth is flat is just factually incorrect at this point.
We also have a lot of evidence that snakes can’t speak, people can’t turn plain water into wine, walk on the water and so on.
But the existence of God. I would argue we have no hard evidence of God’s existence nor do we have hard evidence that God doesn’t exist.
Claiming something which can neither be proven or disproven is what constitutes a pseudoscience. By that logic I could claim that we are in fact giant pink elefants hopping around on the moon, while imagining our reality as we currently think to perceive it. Since you can’t disprove that, I must be right. Or am I not?
As far as science is concerned it is still a theory.
No. A scientific theory can be proven or disproven, while the idea of a God, as interpreted in most religions, can not. Thereby constituting a pseudoscience. And thus, it’s not a scientific theory.
On top of that what makes a god a God there are multiple definitions of a God.
I suppose in the context of the parent comment the abrahamic God is meant, as interpreted by Christians, Jews and Muslims.
In practise, we probably don’t. But maybe we could speed up a lot of progress if we could remove some obstacles and think about it really carefully.
No.