Genital Wart Removal Freezing Recovery

10 things I love about my job.

1. Have much time for me.
2. Power nap with my two cats on top.
3. Being who has (almost) the last word.
4. Prepare some kinds of last minute and not be noticed.
5. Have time to watch TV in the evenings.
6. It gives me a wonderful excuse to spend my life reading.
7. Now I research a lot of songs I like.
8. Going to museums is my obligation.
9. Incomprehensible leave work (if they were to class understand, ha).
10. Find once a semester, a student who has something in his head.

Wwe Smackdown On Nilesat

Heidegger was a Nazi and a sophist

On my first charge, I quote the book pro-Nazi "100 views on Hitler", which quoted the following opinion on the Führer of the Nazi party member and philosophaster Martin Heidegger: "The National Socialist Revolution is not simply the seizure of power by another party that have grown for this purpose. On the contrary, this revolution brings the total change of our German existence ... Seek not the rules of your being in the dogmas and ideas. The Fuehrer himself, and he alone, is the German reality of today and tomorrow, it's their law ... not the dogma or rational truths, must be constructed in standards of conduct. Today and always, the Führer is the only one qualified to decide what is good and what is bad. The Führer is our only law. "Neither Goebbels, hear!. With respect to his pseudo-philosophy (or rather anti-philosophy) we know that existentialism is a variant of subjective idealism that irrational part of the unit would be subject-object embodied in a "being" irrational, because to acquire consciousness " existence, "the subject must live a" limit situation "between life and death, being the" intuition "opposed to reason the means to access the world of" existence. "Review: Heidegger's subjective idealism is false, reductio ad absurdum that leads to solipsism (only myself) and that end is unrealistic and contradictory. It is also wrong to claim that external reality depends on the intuition or thought of subject when the subject itself is a natural part of that reality is governed by objective laws. If the world and its laws were a subjective construction of the subject, suffice it mere desire to bracket the world's laws, but nobody in practice such a serious blunder, and that no one crosses a street when a vehicle passes "imagined by the subject." There will be something that this "subjective fiction" hit him and kill. Of course, no one really believes that there are no objective laws because, after all, nobody is as parallel as to throw a 40 th floor to show how "subjective" which is the law of gravity, right?. With respect intuitionalism irrationalism that exudes old-fashioned smelling Heideggerian existentialism, we can say that it is wrong to claim that without reason and logic can penetrate the reality that the scientific method, which is the only one that allows access to the world, is rational-logical (to empirical pair) as shown by the fact that science be used concepts, judgments and chains of reasoning that are logical forms, together with the logical connectives "and" (disjunction), "or" (conjunction), "if .. . then ", etc. Also used in science logic operations of deduction, induction, analogy, etc. and logical inference rules like modus ponens" and "modus tollens" etc. And to the same sophists irrationalists use reason and logic in everyday life when deduced consequences (logical deduction), making comparisons (analogies), etc. and, of course, these parents kittens who preach without reason, but do not practice strictly obey the principles of logic, since the most stupid or irrational whistleblowers (or almost, because in that tribe is everything) believe that the passage of micro-bus that costs, say 380 pesos, and it cost 700 pesos at a time, and this violates the principle of non-contradiction (p ~ p = F) and it would be cheating too moron driver. That's not thinking about it! Right?. Before sacrifice all that spit and pretend taradeces think before I ripped my bucks, more missing man !;-). With regard to the "intuition" or "direct contemplation" to claim that intuition is in conflict with the reason is purely free and ad-hoc, as philosophers like Descartes, Spinoza, Locke, etc.., although the differing discursive thought, not opposed to it as do the irrationality. In fact, Locke believed that the ideas of intellectual intuition were taken from the experience, and is irrelevant to science and scientific philosophy what the context of discovery of a thesis (a dream, imagination, a metaphysical belief, etc. ), since what matters is the context of justification (Reichenbach) in which verifies the authenticity of the hipótesis.Con about that nonsense that only they are aware of existing in an extreme situation, it is easily disproved by asking anyone who travels on the street if it is "aware of existing ": If you answer" yes "this refutes the dogma of Heidegger charlatan because this guy is aware that there is not in an" extreme situation "(unless someone thinks that making a simple and stupid question is an experience" the limit. ") following the" logic "of Heidegger (to call it somehow) he too was aware of" existing "given that when he wrote boutade that he was not close to death ... unless, of course, that his editor as threatening to break the contract if they did not produce a new tome unintelligible to the ignorant facherío consumption, look at those things are the bread of life and death, eh:-DA the way, the essence of existence is not a situation to the limit as Heidegger argues that chupaflautas, which is nothing more than rationalization, in a language of images, the fear engendered by capitalist reality (uncertainty work, fear of the future, etc..), but the subject, as all objective existence is material and matter is what actually exists (to the brain and the body of this charlatanazo was not an abstract matter and "Being-in-the-world"), and the materialist philosophy (a philosophy and true philosophy) is the only one who can deal successfully with the irrationality crap they were (and are) the breeding ground of the Nazi-idiotología Fascist and other trifles as the postmodern irrationalism conservative and pro-capitalist.

Thanksgiving Vegetable Dishes

chanta fallacies and myths of the "holy" Everything is

1-Non sequitur fallacy: from the premise not the conclusion follows, since there is no logical connection between them. "Fabric comes from the time of Christ because it found traces of pollen and plants from the Middle East. "criticism: so what?, also in the Middle Ages had the pollen and the plants of the Near East that could adhere to a fabric of the area that later was exported to Europe.

2-Fallacy blatant lie: "The symposium did not resolve the controversy over the age of the shroud to recognize the regularity of carbon-14 tests carried out in 1988, under which indicated the shroud dated from the Middle Ages . But he added that we should not rule out a possible contamination of the fabric that has been distorting the results. "criticism: Here lies the lie to pretend that pollution invalidate the results of the analysis of carbon 14 in the 3 laboratories that led out, in circumstances that these 3 laboratories CLEAN TEST BEFORE, WITH DIFFERENT Technically, all traces of impurities, LIPIDS, ETC. YOU MAY HAVE THE Shroud, which is a standard procedure that applies before any dating any sample to be tested in any laboratory in the world.

3-Fallacy of begging the dispute or begging the question:
ej1: "However, scientists could not explain this phenomenon, a fact that makes me doubt the scientific canons, because if I refer to science, all people to die emanate an energy similar to that of the holy sheet, but with less intensity than that found in the shroud. "criticism: what type of energy emitted all meats when stretching the leg? what frequency, wavelength and intensity is the mysterious "energy"? what part of the electromagnetic spectrum that enigmatic figure "energy"? what "science" supports the existence of this "energy" post- mortem and what evidence has to support it? "or will the chatter about this charlatan who confuse science with pseudo-scientific charlatans and tomfoolery like him?.

ej2: "it is estimated that, for example, 10% of the weight of the sheet corresponds to organic matter added to it over the centuries, and the presence of an unknown radiation that altered the genuine carbon percentages of flax, and factors such as Chambéry fire, leading to melting of the silver chest containing her canvas and that upset the purity of the samples. "criticism: It was noted that samples of the Shroud of Turin were washed with different techniques and products (hydrochloric acid, oh Na, detergents, ultrasonic bath, etc..), ergo it is wrong to say that the sample was not cleaned of organic matter or ash and other impurities result of fire in Chambéry and therefore , is a lie that they "upset the purity of the samples. but what's really neat is to defend the supposed authenticity of the cloth entering the blunder that" radiation unknown "(sic) would upset the purity of the samples. how do you know that the cloth was affected by an" unknown radiation "if the allegedly was ... unknown such radiation? What empirical evidence is of such" unknown radiation? what if it was "unknown" how do we know if it was a "radiation" and not a "ectoplasm" (Pegasus type of "Ghostbusters") or a "slime psicomagnotérico" (Ghostbusters II) and perhaps they? what frequency, wavelength and intensity is that blessed "unknown radiation? what takes place in the electromagnetic spectrum? Or is it that sits on the spectrum ... Spooky ghosts?. All the foolishness of radiation "unknown" (I'm starting to listen to the tune of the series "Twilight Zone", kids) to test the supposed mystery of the Shroud trick reminds me of the pseudo-ufo-crazy trying to explain the Of course pseudo-mystery of UFOs with the equally mysterious and for-abnormal pseudoscientific theory that UFOs are teleplasty and ideoplastias (networked the terminachos macaneros) issued by paragnostas equipped with psychokinetic powers ... (re-sic). In other words, to defend a club (ufology) resort to another baton (parapsychology), in the same way that sindonólogos to defend the holy wool fetish pseudoscience STURP sindonologa of appeals to the club of the unknown para-abnormal radiation. Truly sublime.

EJ3: "In 1988, according to some authors the journal Science report something funny: for example, thanks to radiocarbon dating, some snails" live "subject to this measure have yielded an age of 26,000 years. On another occasion had set the age of a freshly killed seals in 1,300 years. More examples, the journal Radiocarbon warned of the dangers of this form of dating, and provided another plausible example, a mammoth that had existed 26,000 years ago had a dating from 5,600 years. And what to think even the incident experienced by the laboratory director of Zurich-one, one of those charged with studying the Shroud, when referring a tablecloth of her mother to carbon-14 found with astonishment that yielded a four centuries old. "Review: Al Apparently this moron does not know that carbon 14 dating should only be applied to inert things, not snails living or freshly dead seals. even the logic of that whistleblowers should say that the meter does not work, because it does not measure ... the weight of something (sic). With respect to the mammoth how he knew that had 26,000 years? not be using the same method of carbon-14 made from different laboratories to eliminate possible margins Error?: precisely why the analysis of the Turin cloth was made in 3 laboratories, not just one, because if one is made mistakes can occur (the science is not perfect, nor that humans do) the which are reduced when the analysis is performed in more laboratories where there is the possibility of contrasting resultados.Lo likely that these errors are due to be outlined that this principle failed to replication of measurements and results by different researchers, which is basic sciences. That's it. The rest is to carry water to the mill of dementia of fanaticones STURP Catholics.

Iinfection After Pedicure?

Shroud language? All comes down to sign?

According to postmodernists, who claim Saussure disciples: a) it comes down to lenguaje.b) the language is good for comunicarse.c) all comes down to signos.d) abstract concepts are signs. But what is the rationale to defend such nonsense? As they say based on the ideas of the famous linguist Ferdinand de Saussure, author of the classic "Course in General Linguistics." Well, let's take a look at the "Cours de Saussure to see if it's true that the postmodern pontificate:

a) With respect to all comes down to language, Saussure tells us that language should identify 2 factors: language (langue) and speech (parole) and to define the object of linguistics: "you have to get from the first time in the field of language and take it as a standard of all other manifestations of language. "Regarding the language, a different system of signs that correspond to different ideas, Saussure tells us (on pg. 144): "But this definition still leaves its tongue hanging out of their social reality, and makes it an unreal thing, since they cover more than one aspect of reality, the individual aspect, we need a speaker for mass there is a language ... at no time was there the language of social fact. "In other words, Saussure tells us that language, or its essential part is the language (understanding that language should not be confused with the language because it is part of that) constitute the whole of reality (omnitudo realitatis), but presupposes that the language "speaking mass" or partnership (not limited to langue), and this in turn presupposes the external nature (which also reduces to the language or a system of signs). And with regard to language on page tells us. 50: "The language has a single side and social side, and you can not conceive of one without the other." Later Saussure tells us that the language also needs the historical event or time: "But in these circumstances, the language is viable, non-living, we have not taken into account rather than social reality, not historical fact. " The same is said about the language on pg. 50: "language requires both a established and evolving; at all times is a current institution and a product of the past. "That is language, as sovereign as the postmodern irrationalism, presupposes the social and historical reality time (since the language and the language are a historic product). And, last but not least, Saussure says that language also depends on the brain: association ratified by the collective consensus, and which together constitute the language are realities that have their seat in the brain "(p. 59 .) Saussure also tells us that what is designated a "foreign language" is important in the tongue and cites historical facts (such as the Roman conquest), the domestic politics, institutions, customs, etc. as important facts for the language (pp. 67-68). Then it is true that language, and essential part of language, are "the whole of reality" because they presuppose other realities are not confined to the langue.

b) With respect to foreign language dogma that does not serve to communicate anything, Saussure says, "language is a set of linguistic habits which allow an individual to understand and be understood, and if it be understood is" communicating " , then it is false absurdity of the postmodern articulates fidei.

c) The sign language is a "combination of concept and sound-image" (p. 129) or union of meaning (semantic content) and significant (auditory or sensory image representation), and no doubt that the signs are part of the language, but elements of the circuit of words between 2 subjects such as brains, sound waves speech organs, ears, etc. (P. 54-55) are linguistic signs nor non-linguistic signs. either society or the history are semiotic signs or objects, then it is false postmodern nonsense that is not based on the ideas of positivist Saussure.

d) Saussure tells us (in the page. 54) that concepts are "facts of consciousness" and on pp. 128-129 states that the linguistic sign is a 2-sided psychological entity: an abstract concept and sound-image is sensory and "material" as opposed to the concept or meaning, then we can not say that the concept is a sign, since the latter is a unit that the concept fails cover completely, as the meaning or concept is only part of the sign, and the other part is the signifier and "these two elements are intimately linked and that call each other" (pág.129). And finally I will quote Saussure to show how absurd it is to argue that the concepts are signs in themselves (excluding the signifier), "The linguistic entity exists only thanks to the significant association and meaning, if not retained just one of those elements, vanishes, instead of a concrete object before us only an abstraction. At all times in danger of not more than grabbing a part of the body believed to cover the entirety "(p. 178).

Source Course in General Linguistics Ferdinand de Saussure, Editorial Losada, SA Buenos Aires, 1945 (378 pags).