Skeptical

Get the leather-bound ones.... **drool**

The Bible is against homosexuality, I can assure you. It's stupid, full of contradictions and heinous crimes, though, so I wouldn't worry all that much about it. I have to say, not knowing seems worse to me than being gay (I don't think homosexuality is "unnatural" or any such garbage, but I'm sure it would be pretty difficult in society today).

My nihilism motivates me.

I never had that either. Sure, I pulled a man-flag every-time I saw a modestly attractive female, but trees.... :ohnoes:

Thanks giving. :thumbsup:

Yea, the one thing in the world we have is a shortage of people. Never mind the millions of orphans, the billions that don't have a reasonable standard of living, the fact that more than half of the planet is functionally illiterate... Seems like the solution there is to blame gays as well, seeing as they're the ones having all those children.

No one (including myself) is here arguing definitions. Since when does a dictionary come into play concerning morality? The only example that comes to mind is the white-washing of the term "genocide". Since when does morality come into play concerning a business transaction? That's really the root of objection in this thread - firefighting should not be a business transaction, it should be a public duty. And public duties should be supported by the public. These people don't pay the taxes or the fees that support the fire department. Yes, it was stupid of them not to pay the fee but is that enough reason to stand by while their house burns down?

Because its what it means, implication. Like my dads dancing is not cool, doesn't mean his body tempature is higher than normal. I wouldn't say that it is, though. Someone who has things to do seems to have more of a life to me than someone who justs hangs around with friends all the time.

Twilight. Justin Beiber Cheap pencils Art class Crappy comics that have awesome covers. Digg Facebook

Projected to be 3.5% of total vehicle sales in 2015: as I far as most people are concerned, it's still a gimmick.

In the Name of God by Slayer

Another good point: building the infrastructure for petroleum is stupid: at this point, all we can look forward to is running out of it. Electricity, however, is just a medium. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. Thing is we're going to have to use it until something better comes up anyway. The best thing would be to wean ourselves off it. Having a very fast shift is probably going to lead to at least a few problems... A fast shift, will, at some point, become necessary. Unless we start soon. Automotive and industry can shift to electricity provided by renewable (including nuclear) fairly easily. We have the technology, we just aren't will to actually make the effort.

You won't alter your opinions even if evidence is provided to you? And a lot of legality is determined by our sense of morality: look at the change in laws regulating prostitution and marijuana. I would alter my opinions based on factual evidence, but there are people in this thread saying it was "wrong" to let the house burn. They are clearly not being swayed by the fact that the family didn't pay the fee. And religious extremists who mail bombs and kill doctors aren't going to be swayed by factual evidence. Shifts in morality are subtle, and are usually built upon by the nagging grain of curiosity formed by evidence prevented in a rational and emotionally conclusive format. Even that analogy is terrible. Mailing bombs is nothing like letting a house burn for not paying a protection fee. A better analogy would be something like Hospitals refusing to treat a patient because they don't have insurance, and letting the patient die. I think in that case, it's not morally justified that they should do that, because there is actually a risk of life in that case. Same applies to the burning house, someone could have gotten killed. To not save them, should be unlawful. I don't follow: you're drawing a parallel between law and morality. What makes human life sacred, while the destruction of animals and property can have a dollar value attached? (In this case, $75.) Believe it or not, morality and law is actually connected. This is the reason why different countries have different laws, because the different customs and communities would have different viewpoints of things considered 'taboo'. And I didn't say the destruction of property should have a dollar value attached. And Human life is sacred because we, as humans, are always going to want to improve the planet, and preserve our own species. We are technically the most intelligent beings on this planet, so I don't quite see what your point is. What does us being "technically the most intelligent" have to do with morality or law? Does morality dictate law, or law morality?

Another good point: building the infrastructure for petroleum is stupid: at this point, all we can look forward to is running out of it. Electricity, however, is just a medium. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But getting a fraction of your electricity from coal, while the rest comes from superior sources (read: every source of energy that is not coal) is still superior to burning petroleum to fuel a car. Pollution capturing techniques, heat recycling, and economy of scale all make it more efficient. I agree with your criticism of consumption to repair the damage of consumption, though. Certification systems are put into place: one that is quite common, and I'm sure you've heard of is USDA organic. It's not the solution to our problems (not by a long shot, but it's still a start). http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO&navtype=RT&parentnav=AGRICULTURE There are other issues to establish before really arguing on the Environmental factor of eating meat. What exactly makes the larger portion of the pollution, is it the transport of grain, or is it the manure? Is it the farts? etc Edit - Oh, and because of Electric inefficiency, it's not exactly environmentally friendly to use Electric cars as it may seem. It's the system of subsidies we have created for the industry: corn is grown, using huge quantities of petroleum, then transported, adding to the fuel costs, before being fed to cattle that still have a huge distance to travel. Methane, yes, is produced by cattle, but it's moronic to insist that's what we should work on "fixing": we've already wiped out millions of buffalo and other large animals, and the complexities of the greenhouse models can barely take into account the effects of albedo, let alone that of a natural environmental product that is cycled in and out of the environment in much smaller quantities from just as many sources, and with a large effect then Carbon dioxide, I remain a skeptic. (Sentence was too long, but I'm starting to feel the urge to do homework, so it shall remain as it is.) TO SUMMARIZE: the issue with consuming meat is not that of consuming meat, but of the idiotic systems we have created, including industrial feedlots, the treatment of manure as waste, excessive use of anti-biotics and the use of synthetic hormones, and the Wal-mart style supply chain. Do you think petroleum is efficient? The war, transportation, refinement, distribution, and inherent small-scale inefficiencies of internal combustion can hardly be dismissed out of hand. To the last part of your rant; No, I don't think Petroleum is efficient, but that's a different argument altogether. I think a major step to reducing global warming would be improving the efficiency of cars, with non coal produced electricity. This would fix some of the problem of meat being such a huge greenhouse gas emitter. I believe it should be a moral choice to eat meat or not, because most of the other factors, is the problems of the American Meat Industry, not ours. Hearing something that you don't like doesn't make it a rant. What special place do you live that is untouched by the industrial food system? I'm not kidding, I would love to live there. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html 49.5 percent from coal. What do you suggest we replace that with, how do you want to fund it, and why is petroleum superior to the 50% of power generated that is not from coal? About the efficiency of electric cars; That's a different debate altogether. And you're completely ignoring the fact that a large chunk of the other 50% will almost be as bad as coal. Where exactly did I say petroleum would be superior to whatever percentage of non coal produced electricity? Hmm? And did I really say that there is places untouched by the industrial food system? No. I didn't. However, poor practices within those industries can't really be blamed on us. Practices would be things like method of slaughter, living conditions of livestock, and other things that are related to the production of meat. Where do you think the other 50% comes from? Not coal, that's for sure. Who designed this food system? Us. Who buys the food from this system? Us. Who tolerates the abuse of animals inherent in it? Us. Who stands by and watches the environmental destruction it causes? Us. Who has allowed corporate interests to control our food system? Us. Who has decided that it's OK for propoganda to be fed to the country? Us. Who has said "I know everything in my food is safe." Us. Who supports the creation of GMOs, without knowing the risks? Us. Who denies it's existence, pretends it's all alright? Us. It's just as much my fault as yours. But we all have our share of the blame.

But Marijuana is a gateway drug. Another thing that annoys me; When I can't go to sleep at night because I like posting on Tif =/ Alcohol and tobacco aren't gateway drugs?

But getting a fraction of your electricity from coal, while the rest comes from superior sources (read: every source of energy that is not coal) is still superior to burning petroleum to fuel a car. Pollution capturing techniques, heat recycling, and economy of scale all make it more efficient. I agree with your criticism of consumption to repair the damage of consumption, though. Certification systems are put into place: one that is quite common, and I'm sure you've heard of is USDA organic. It's not the solution to our problems (not by a long shot, but it's still a start). http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO&navtype=RT&parentnav=AGRICULTURE There are other issues to establish before really arguing on the Environmental factor of eating meat. What exactly makes the larger portion of the pollution, is it the transport of grain, or is it the manure? Is it the farts? etc Edit - Oh, and because of Electric inefficiency, it's not exactly environmentally friendly to use Electric cars as it may seem. It's the system of subsidies we have created for the industry: corn is grown, using huge quantities of petroleum, then transported, adding to the fuel costs, before being fed to cattle that still have a huge distance to travel. Methane, yes, is produced by cattle, but it's moronic to insist that's what we should work on "fixing": we've already wiped out millions of buffalo and other large animals, and the complexities of the greenhouse models can barely take into account the effects of albedo, let alone that of a natural environmental product that is cycled in and out of the environment in much smaller quantities from just as many sources, and with a large effect then Carbon dioxide, I remain a skeptic. (Sentence was too long, but I'm starting to feel the urge to do homework, so it shall remain as it is.) TO SUMMARIZE: the issue with consuming meat is not that of consuming meat, but of the idiotic systems we have created, including industrial feedlots, the treatment of manure as waste, excessive use of anti-biotics and the use of synthetic hormones, and the Wal-mart style supply chain. Do you think petroleum is efficient? The war, transportation, refinement, distribution, and inherent small-scale inefficiencies of internal combustion can hardly be dismissed out of hand. To the last part of your rant; No, I don't think Petroleum is efficient, but that's a different argument altogether. I think a major step to reducing global warming would be improving the efficiency of cars, with non coal produced electricity. This would fix some of the problem of meat being such a huge greenhouse gas emitter. I believe it should be a moral choice to eat meat or not, because most of the other factors, is the problems of the American Meat Industry, not ours. Hearing something that you don't like doesn't make it a rant. What special place do you live that is untouched by the industrial food system? I'm not kidding, I would love to live there. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/epm_sum.html 49.5 percent from coal. What do you suggest we replace that with, how do you want to fund it, and why is petroleum superior to the 50% of power generated that is not from coal?

You won't alter your opinions even if evidence is provided to you? And a lot of legality is determined by our sense of morality: look at the change in laws regulating prostitution and marijuana. I would alter my opinions based on factual evidence, but there are people in this thread saying it was "wrong" to let the house burn. They are clearly not being swayed by the fact that the family didn't pay the fee. And religious extremists who mail bombs and kill doctors aren't going to be swayed by factual evidence. Shifts in morality are subtle, and are usually built upon by the nagging grain of curiosity formed by evidence prevented in a rational and emotionally conclusive format. Even that analogy is terrible. Mailing bombs is nothing like letting a house burn for not paying a protection fee. A better analogy would be something like Hospitals refusing to treat a patient because they don't have insurance, and letting the patient die. I think in that case, it's not morally justified that they should do that, because there is actually a risk of life in that case. Same applies to the burning house, someone could have gotten killed. To not save them, should be unlawful. I don't follow: you're drawing a parallel between law and morality. What makes human life sacred, while the destruction of animals and property can have a dollar value attached? (In this case, $75.)

But getting a fraction of your electricity from coal, while the rest comes from superior sources (read: every source of energy that is not coal) is still superior to burning petroleum to fuel a car. Pollution capturing techniques, heat recycling, and economy of scale all make it more efficient. I agree with your criticism of consumption to repair the damage of consumption, though. Certification systems are put into place: one that is quite common, and I'm sure you've heard of is USDA organic. It's not the solution to our problems (not by a long shot, but it's still a start). http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO&navtype=RT&parentnav=AGRICULTURE There are other issues to establish before really arguing on the Environmental factor of eating meat. What exactly makes the larger portion of the pollution, is it the transport of grain, or is it the manure? Is it the farts? etc Edit - Oh, and because of Electric inefficiency, it's not exactly environmentally friendly to use Electric cars as it may seem. It's the system of subsidies we have created for the industry: corn is grown*, using huge quantities of petroleum, then transported, adding to the fuel costs, before being fed to cattle that still have a huge distance to travel. Methane, yes, is produced by cattle, but it's moronic to insist that's what we should work on "fixing": we've already wiped out millions of buffalo and other large animals, and the complexities of the greenhouse models can barely take into account the effects of albedo, let alone that of a natural environmental product that is cycled in and out of the environment in much smaller quantities from just as many sources, and with a large effect then Carbon dioxide, I remain a skeptic. (Sentence was too long, but I'm starting to feel the urge to do homework, so it shall remain as it is.) TO SUMMARIZE: the issue with consuming meat is not that of consuming meat, but of the idiotic systems we have created, including industrial feedlots, the treatment of manure as waste, excessive use of anti-biotics and the use of synthetic hormones, and the Wal-mart style supply chain. Do you think petroleum is efficient? The war, transportation, refinement, distribution, and inherent small-scale inefficiencies of internal combustion can hardly be dismissed out of hand. *Yes, I am a self-professed student of Michael Pollan, particularly in the criticism of modern food systems, nutrition"ism" and the modern world's attitude towards food. I highly recommend his work, and will happily engage in debate on any topic included therein, and many besides.)

That's really good. I tried to do it once, and I have to say it turned out pretty horribly. Looking back, it sounds a bit funny though, since it involved a huge amount of swearing, and managing to stab myself in the eye with the plastic tool (needle?).

I have to do something physical during the day: work out, hockey, dig, split wood, haul something, bike.... I find relaxing by reading or listening to music in the lowest light possible (not in front of a computer screen) is very helpful if I'm not feeling tired.

Marijuana being illegal while alcohol is legal, and socially accepted.

But getting a fraction of your electricity from coal, while the rest comes from superior sources (read: every source of energy that is not coal) is still superior to burning petroleum to fuel a car. Pollution capturing techniques, heat recycling, and economy of scale all make it more efficient. I agree with your criticism of consumption to repair the damage of consumption, though. Certification systems are put into place: one that is quite common, and I'm sure you've heard of is USDA organic. It's not the solution to our problems (not by a long shot, but it's still a start). http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=ORGANIC_CERTIFICATIO&navtype=RT&parentnav=AGRICULTURE

You won't alter your opinions even if evidence is provided to you? And a lot of legality is determined by our sense of morality: look at the change in laws regulating prostitution and marijuana. I would alter my opinions based on factual evidence, but there are people in this thread saying it was "wrong" to let the house burn. They are clearly not being swayed by the fact that the family didn't pay the fee. And religious extremists who mail bombs and kill doctors aren't going to be swayed by factual evidence. Shifts in morality are subtle, and are usually built upon by the nagging grain of curiosity formed by evidence prevented in a rational and emotionally conclusive format.

Whey protein powder + milk = cheaper + superior

You won't alter your opinions even if evidence is provided to you? And a lot of legality is determined by our sense of morality: look at the change in laws regulating prostitution and marijuana.