Sure that is the rhetoric, but not the reality, in fact its not even something presidents can do, so the fact they make these claims should really show you something.

When a president claims to be able to create jobs, what they really mean is that they are going to grow government and those jobs are paid for with taxes.

When a president says they are going to fix an industry they mean they are going to give away tax dollars.

When a president says they are going to remove our dependency on oil, they mean they are going to subsidize other energy regardless of the market situation.

All while claiming to reduce spending . . . sorry, not possible to do all those thing, no less at the same time.

LIES LIES LIES

I can always count on you to state the obvious!

Yea these devices have a pressure sensitive electric fuse that controls detonation of the shaped charge. SUPER DANGEROUS. EOD usually blows these up with another charge rather than tinker with it when it fails to detonate.

The two main candidates are so close in policy as to be twins. The make believe difference just dont pan out when you look at the details. The only real change is Ron Paul.

I would not consider any kind of cybernetics to be hybridization. Mainly becuase none of the changes will be passed down genetically.

In fact based on my belief that we own our bodies, and should take personal responsibility for there care or destruction, we alone as individuals should be able to decide how we augment our bodies.

Basically I dont see an ethical concern when it comes to any kind of modification I can currently think of . .

Maybe some examples might help.

Not that it matters, Florida is a sealed deal for anyone wearing red regardless of principles.

I will never vote a lesser of two evils vote again. I will not play into the designed obsolescence of winner take all voting.

I am happy to look at the research, can you link citations?

http://petrov.stanford.edu/pdfs/19.pdf

It baffles me that after having explained how jumping to conclusions from inadequate understanding is the problem we are still having a discussion which is entirely the child of misunderstandings based on assumptions, just different assumptions, on a different topic, but the same type of misunderstandings.

Why not?

It is like dismissing an electrical problem when you have a leak in your toilet.

When a document that offers protections is ignored, do not place the blame on the document for the outcomes.

Well it not about labeling in and of itself JB, but understanding causal interactions. Once we know why a thing occurs, we can then understand how to manage it.

Misdiagnosis is a major issue for that very reason. I was just as misguided in my understanding about this particular topic until I looked it up a few minutes before posting here today. In fact with my new knowledge I am going to pay closer attention to when I get my terrible headaches that I thought were just the weather, or sinus related.

When I was on several different medications for my back injury years ago, it raised my blood pressure, and I already had a bit on the high side, well then add to it I was working as a contractor at a company with a truly terrible boss (much worse than the movie) and would get constant headaches, sometimes right after a particular annoying conflict with the boss in question. Sometimes I would even see spots after getting yelled at as the headache was starting.

There is no doubt in my mind that these headaches were associated with the stress and high blood pressure. However I would be jumping to conclusions to attribute it to a specific diagnosis, and it may be true that I only remember the particularly bad headaches after a bad boss interaction and could be selecting those moments and discarding the others . . . ie confirmation bias at work. I dont get those headaches any more, and my BP is under control now. Proof . . . naw, but it sounds good and it fits from a physiological perspective, so it might be valid speculation.

With her . . . YES, but that is no guarantee she will get it.

Its about vasodialator interaction. The causes are well known, but often misdiagnosed.

I only used it as an example of one of the many things which you assume to be so, and make conclusions based on that assumption, which leads you to false conclusions, so common as to be the rule vs the exception when it comes to you.

Read that article, you may learn something.

Exactly, he continues to make assertions that we have shown examples which contradict, and yet he continues to assert the same things.

That is the point I decide its not worth it.

No amount of good thoughts will cure melanoma skin cancer.

A headache is a symptom, not a cause. A migraine is not a headache, migraines are genetic, and are different than headaches, it is extremely common for people to assume a bad chronic headache is a migraine, but they may be wrong.

This anecdote illustrates two things. One you are assuming you had migraines. Two you are assuming stress was the cause. You may be correct about stress being the cause, but if that is the case then it was not likely migraines.

Not trying to beat up on ya JB, but this is systemic in these discussions. Your examples are as bad as your ability to interact with the discussions. Full of assumptions. If you saw a neurologist and were officially diagnosed with migraines, then excuse my skepticism, however know this . . ..they will come back, and they can be triggered by a lot more than just stress.

In fact migraines are a great example of medical mythology. Here is a good site that offers information about them vs the myths.

http://www.migraines.org/myth/mythreal.htm

Honestly I am waiting for you to make claims and stop spamming links.

Make a claim, im happy to engage, I dont have time to go through every link you can dredge up from the internet with every "alternative" cancer theory.

. . . of course not it makes no sense. As has been explained over and over.

Good post rockondon and thank you for participating.

No, it is your lack of knowledge. The meaning of my statement is clear, I said Sun burns cause the trauma, which causes the mutations which causes the cancer. I used fewer words, but the meaning is the same. What I said was EXTREMELY simplistic, hence why I posted sources for more detailed information in the hopes that anyone who was interested would read it. Instead of reading any of it, you made your statement.

Your question should have not made any conclusions if you did not understand the pathways of mutation, which you dont.

This is just you trying to defend your ignorance and nothing more, you are playing word games in defense of ignorance.

You fail at critical thinking and logic repeatedly. Even if I was wrong, the answer is to withhold judgement until you understand what is and is not correct. Clearly not at all what you do. You take what people say, ignore digging into the subject matter and make sweeping conclusions from ignorance.

This is not personal for me, I and just making an observation that you consistently blame other people for your lack of understanding and get snippy when anyone points it out to you.

Also this was your question
You asked specifically what was the cause of HIS skin cancer. I answered what the cause of HIS skin cancer was . . . that does not mean that ALL skin cancer MUST originate in that same way. Your logic is fallacious on almost every count, and you dont even see it.

This is what critical thinking is all about, trying to be precise with understandings, and making sure that all conclusions are well founded in the specific context applicable.

I am not a cancer researcher, or doctor, or anyone who studies cancer in any real depth, its fully possible I have no clue what I am talking about, however your terribly sloppy logic and complete lack of critical thinking make it impossible for you to be able to know one way or the other.

Do you know what happens when a scientists has determined that something may be the cause of a disease. They attempt to falsify that assertion, ie they try to prove themselves wrong. They explore every pathway that could create an incorrect conclusion. This is what quacks will avoid like the plague.

Do you know what happens when a scientists finds examples of things like skin cancer and have nothing to indicate it may have been caused by sun burn, or really any other mechanism they believe to be true?

They try to find out if it could be another cause for the same disease, becuase not all things have a single cause. Your assumptions ignore all of these distinctions, and you wonder why people call it out.

I am not trying to make you feel bad, and so it should not be taken personally, but you have serious issues with science, and any attempt to disabuse you of those issues should be seen as someone trying to help you.

People like peter and volant do not help at all. They are even worse, it almost appears they have a specific motivation to spread misinformation, and enjoy nothing better than trolling science. The naturalnews article was a great example. Don't have a real argument . .. just post some "facts" about the failures of science to discredit that which refutes you.

If anyone really thinks these kinds of tactics are intellectually sound they need some time with a philo of science course, and some remedial study.

Repeat it all you want. The lack of knowledge is yours. You have a lot to learn on a great many things, and seem to have little desire to do it.

Spend more energy on learning and less on being offended at the obvious.