Thanks for the link -- I enjoyed it. To say that Christians are against breast feeding is simply nonsense. It is not even unusual to see mothers doing it discreetly in church.
Possibly NSFW link: 31 Beautiful Paintings of Mary Nursing the Baby Jesus".
religious folks don't breastfeed
This assertion is totally contrary to my experience. But since it was modded "Insightful", I am sure you must have a credible source for the information. Could you please provide it so I can be better-informed? Thanks in advance.
I agree that metacognition can be a challenging concept to grasp. Basically, it describes the awareness and understanding of one's own thought processes, or to put it more simply, "thinking about thinking" or "knowing your mind". For example, one might analyze his own learning processes to determine the study strategies that are most successful for him and then adjust his behavior based on this knowledge. Or one might learn to recognize his own biases and preconceptions and take this into consideration when processing new information and experiences. Effective metacognition can help one to comprehend new information more capably or even to make better life choices. I hope that helps.
I have thoroughly enjoyed chatting with you. But I am (thankfully) employed and I owe my employer eight hours of work today, so I will allow you to have the last word. Best wishes for a happy and safe Christmas.
Anyone who thinks that boasting of his IQ supports his argument is not as smart as he thinks he is.
"Do you see a man wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him."
See also Dunning-Kruger effect: "The Dunning-Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which low-ability individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their ability as much higher than it really is. Dunning and Kruger attributed this bias to a metacognitive incapacity, on the part of those with low ability, to recognize their ineptitude and evaluate their competence accurately."
As an amusing side note, "The study was inspired by the case of McArthur Wheeler, a man who robbed two banks after covering his face with lemon juice in the mistaken belief that, because lemon juice is usable as invisible ink, it would prevent his face from being recorded on surveillance cameras."
Communist China knows Trump will roll over and turn a blind eye while they steal all the technology they can get their hands on.
That is an interesting assertion. I would like to learn more. Could you possibly provide links to supporting evidence? Thanks in advance.
If I'm pointing a browser at an address, I expect a current webpage. If it takes all of three seconds to give me that, I think that's okay.
Except when your phone has lost internet service since you first loaded the page. Then you go to look at it and the browser discards a perfectly good cached page, attempts to reload, and gives you... a blank screen.
I hate it when that happens.
He didn't win the popular vote, and that's a fact.
Of course Trump didn't win the popular vote. That is not the point of my argument and that was not the point of the election. The point of the election was to win the electoral vote, and that is what both sides' campaign strategy was based on.
Take California, for example. Clinton won by three million votes. But it doesn't matter whether she won by three million, ten million, or ten votes. It was a foregone conclusion that Clinton would win California, so Trump spent little effort campaigning there. If the contest had been for the popular vote, Trump would have campaigned in the largest population centers -- like California -- and presumably he would have gained more votes there. I suspect many Republicans didn't even vote in heavily blue states, because their vote didn't matter anyway.
The whole point of the campaign was to win the electoral vote. You can't say "Well, Hillary won the popular vote, so she is the real winner, and it is only a statistical fluke that Trump won." The goal was to win the electoral vote. If the goal was to win the popular vote, it would have been a different campaign and a different election and Trump may have won that also.
Yes, only in America can you win by 3 million votes and still somehow lose. Thanks, Electoral College!
The results of the popular vote are irrelevant because that is not what they were campaigning for. You can't point to the popular vote and cry, "It's not fair! Hillary should have won!" If the contest had been for the popular vote, it would have been a different campaign and a different election. You can only speculate about the results, but Trump may very well have won that, too.
I don't think the speeding analogy is a fair illustration because there you are dealing with a clear law and two absolute, fixed values: 150mph vs 70mph. But tax valuation and fair market value are two different things. Also, I suspect the lowball figure is Trump's opening offer, subject to negotiation. Which is what you would expect from a sharp businessman.
Here is a helpful link: http://www.maxrealestateexposu...
If you think real estate assessed value and real estate fair market value have any correlation to one another then you are wrong! As you read further you are going to discover the difference between assessed and fair market real estate values.
... One of the misconceptions that I routinely come across is people who like to draw a definitive correlation between a homes assessed value and it's fair market value.
Lets set the record straight folks -- there is very little correlation in most circumstances between the two figures.
Democrats got ~3 million more votes than Republicans did for President.
You say that as if it means something. It doesn't. The goal of the candidates was to win the electoral vote, not the popular vote. It has been this way in the US for well over two centuries. Both candidates based their campaign strategy on this. If the goal was to win the popular vote, it would have been a different campaign, different people would have voted, and Trump may have won that, too.
When the contest is for the electoral vote, candidates concentrate on campaigning in the swing states while giving relatively little attention to states that are already heavily in favor of one candidate or the other. If the contest was for the popular vote, candidates would campaign in the largest population centers instead.
With the current system, a Republican voter in a heavily Democratic state (or vice versa) may as well not vote, because it won't count anyway. If the winner was based on the popular vote, everyone's vote would count, and people would come out to vote regardless of which way their state was leaning.
For example, in California Clinton won the popular vote by about 3 million votes. But it doesn't matter whether she won by 3 million, 1 million, or 10 million. It was a foregone conclusion that Clinton would win California and its 55 electoral votes, so neither candidate spent much time there. (Also, I suspect many California Republicans did not vote, because they knew their vote wouldn't matter anyway.)
If the election was based on the popular vote, the campaign would have been different -- the candidates would have concentrated their efforts on the most populous states (like California) and ignored the smaller states. Voter turnout would have been different and the results would have been different.
Trump let Clinton have California because there was no way he was going to win the majority there. If the contest was for the popular vote, Trump would have fought in California for every vote he could get.
This is not a bug, it is a feature. One of the reasons it was designed this way was so that smaller states would not, in effect, be shut out of the presidential election. For example, the population of California is about 65 times the population of Wyoming, but only has about 18 times the electoral votes. Without this protection, smaller states would have been reluctant to join the Union in the first place.
You might argue that the system should be changed. But when the system, as it is, is based on the electoral vote, candidates run their campaigns to win the electoral vote and the winner of the electoral vote becomes president. The results of the popular vote are irrelevant because that is not what they were campaigning for. You can't point to the popular vote and cry, "It's not fair! Hillary should have won!" If the contest had been for the popular vote, it would have been a different campaign and a different election. You can only speculate about the results, but Trump may very well have won that, too.
... racist Bannon.
That is an intriguing assertion. I would like to learn more. Could you please provide links?
I mean links to actual racist things Bannon has said. Not just the liberal echo chambers saying "Yup. He's a racist. Sure is."
New systems generate new problems.