What do you want we can not be good at all! For proof: youyou really have trouble with the second degree and with irony
Thank you the compliment touches me, really! Yes Yes !, on the other hand in the cutting of text and the exit of context you are champion, *
For cutting, assuming you have passed the stage of kindergarten, the answer point by point avoids confusion between each party and when the context, it is not your strong it seems!
On the theology side, confusing Hinduism and Indian, it is rather light! As for humor in theology, you should already know the subject before talking ... like for vaccines!it is true that we can not be good everywhere, and that the theology studies do not help for the second degree (in the humor not in the studies, I think that you still have to go beyond the college level)
now past the flow of flowers and mutual amiability let's move on to the most serious.
You see, you already understand the comparisons better. Indeed it is easier to judge the value of things with hindsight. But it's also interesting to know that whistleblowers are not modern novelties, every time, every era has had its own. [*]in your list you forget the dead in miners, and yet the coal mines still exist, (among others) after as I say it's easy to criticize this or that old product with hindsight and current knowledge
Yes and no! Science (as if it were reducible to some technical means only) know (meaning of the word science!) More things in its details, but overall it remains a great mystery difficult to decipher to its possible limits and the shortcoming of research is that the more one's field of knowledge increases, the more specialists are needed who end up losing an overview.the difference with, before and now is that science has evolved, we know much better anticipate,
Science (in my field) was my job and that does not scare me in itself, except that the human has a short view and it gives more importance to an immediate result (visible, controllable, verifiable, etc. ...) that its effects on the long term, since it has and can not have a sufficient retreat on its actions (pollutions of all kinds!)but I know that you do not believe it for fear of science
No, the prohibition of glyphosate is not that political since the government wanted to reduce to 3 years (political act there) whereas the justice is independent of the executive and it has decided its prohibition pure and simple, by precautionary principle. So if he is a naive, I doubt it is me!and the decision to ban glyphosate in France is purely political, I hope you are aware of it or you are really naive (after the decline on the ecological transition of the government, it was necessary to make a gesture towards the eco in anticipation European elections, I will tell you in case)
Religions in India are characterized by a diversity of practices and times. The country is the birthplace of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism and has long been home to Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Zoroastrianism.In other words, I have deliberately talked about Hindu and non-Indian scientists, because we must not forget that India is a country where religion still exercises a very important power, so a certain independence or dependence of mind will know. ..
India is not the only country under religious influence, such as our Western countries, but to suspect that Indian scientists are influenced by any religion is also to suspect that it is the same for us. But your boyfriends recommend the idea that a scientist must leave his beliefs at the doors of laboratories or design offices to do their job, it is obvious, but so far they can not let their conscience of good as the wrong in what he does, in the cloakroom.
[*] Thus, from his first attempts, Pasteur went astray in his claims to overcome rabies. Successive failures are recorded in SES own documents and they are proven by statistical results showing a blatant increase in rabies deaths after his vaccines and this has been denounced by some of his contemporaries " Pastor does not cure rabies, he gives it But more than a scientist, he was opportunistic and close to power enough for politics to support (financially) his work
So nothing new under the sun: politics, personal interests, business have always been good at supporting what will end in disaster.
Glyphosate, I repeat, is not important in itself, it's just the tip of the iceberg of agrochemistry which destroys the living without knowing the effects on the long term, provided that everyone finds FINANCIEREMENT his account. The farmer because it does not cost him much, the industrialist because it brings him a lot of money.
