The main skeptic with whom I dialogue holds the following beliefs:
1. Warming is happening. 2. CO2 concentration is atypically high. 3. CO2 concentration is atypically high due to man-made emissions. 4. CO2 concentration has some upward effect on global temperature.
That is the strangest definition of "skeptic" I have seen in this discussion.
Ask just about any pro-choice group if a 15 year old has the right to an abortion without parental consent, or even parental notification, and they will say "Of course she does." But somehow that girl doesn't have the right to choose to perform the action that leads to the abortion.
One of the 50 states had an age of consent of 14 just over a decade ago. And it probably wasn't a state you would pick if I gave you three guesses.
And, yes I did pick 'conservative' for its connotation. Because I think there is a great logical inconsistency* in how people view sex, with the liberals and conservatives using their opponents' typical arguments to support their own views. Whether someone has a right or not, whether a right exists or not, what right society at large has, and other aspects of people having sex.
As for my own thoughts on the subject, I agree that 15-year-olds don't have the maturity to correctly decide what to do. But that doesn't mean they don't have the right anyway. We all know adults who lack the maturity to make wise choices, yet they still have the right to make bad personal choices anyway. What is so magical about the 18th birthday? I'm in my 40's, and still don't see the point of that arbitrary date.
*Note: The word I want to use is 'hypocrisy', but that would imply a wanton disregard of logic. On this issue, many people don't even realize there is a logic, because their responses are so based on emotional reactions.
The problem your argument faces is that age-based consent is purely a legal fiction based on the culture the people are part of. Just as the culture was mostly against homosexuality but now accepts it, the same could happen with pedophilia. If it does, you would come across as bigoted for your stance against it.
Well, since baby frogs are called tadpoles, and tadpoles sorta look like large green sperm, and the saran warp (that's a trademarked term, by the way, just letting you know) is covering the opening through with they would normally exit the long, hard, cylindrical tube they are in, as things got really hot, I believe you referring to those people who want to give free condoms to school children.
Ironically, shipping costs for full glass bottles is sometimes cheaper than shipping costs for empty glass bottles.
A brewery based in Hawaii moved part of its production to California. It saved money on operations, since Hawaii is a very expensive place to live, and land is very expensive. It also saved a lot of money on shipping its bottled beer to Hawaii, as opposed to shipping empty beer bottles to the Kona brewery to be filled and then sent around the islands.
The shipping company charges different industries different rates for different products. It is based on how easy things are to load, ship, and unload. Also, the beverage industry is a large customer (Coke and Pepsi included, not just beer, wine, and liquor), so the price for bottled beverages is reduced as a quantity discount. But that discount isn't applied to empty bottles, which are shipped as common goods.
In addition to the actual shipping price, full bottles of beer have less of a chance of breakage than empty bottles do. So there is less waste from broken merchandise.
The Kona brewery is still in operation, but its product is put in kegs for sale to bars and at stores.
Note: I wrote the below comment when I wrote the previous one, but wanted to separate the two discussions. So here is my response to your oil subsidies claim.
As for the oil subsidies, you provided nothing that disputes my argument. The government does not give money from tax receipts to the oil industry. The government does give tax deductions for various business expenses and practices, just like with every other industry. Each of those articles you point to show they are talking about tax breaks of various kinds, not direct payments. It's fine with me if you oppose some of those tax breaks, because you have every right to oppose them.
On a side note, when did a 'tax deduction' become a 'subsidy'? A subsidy is money given to encourage an activity or assist a group*. A tax deduction may be enacted to also encourage or assist, but it is not the same as actually giving someone money from your own pocket.
As I said, a statement of fact, that helping people or corporations pay for expensive items from tax receipts is not trail-blazing, cannot possibly be left unmolested.
You must follow your pet ideology and attack it. Rinse, Repeat.
If you notice, nowhere did I say I don't support it, our wouldn't accept it if I bought a new car. But it is simply not the ground breaking concept that you seem to regard it as. Because this has been a common government practice for thousands of years.
Slashdot Mirror
And for the truth, the partisans mod you as a troll. Why isn't that a surprise?
With Krugman charts to prove it.
So basically, tax the rich to the highest level they can bleed, and put all elderly on welfare.
Do you really not understand why neither side wants to implement that?
Just a story about age-based sex.
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-ma...
Not saying it proves anything, but the timing is spot on.
By the way, just saw this article and thought it was quite coincidental in timing.
http://news.yahoo.com/texas-ma...
The main skeptic with whom I dialogue holds the following beliefs:
1. Warming is happening.
2. CO2 concentration is atypically high.
3. CO2 concentration is atypically high due to man-made emissions.
4. CO2 concentration has some upward effect on global temperature.
That is the strangest definition of "skeptic" I have seen in this discussion.
Is there an xkcd comic you can use to explain your view?
I'm glad I could amuse you. :^)
And you can count me as one whose viewpoints are seen in both liberal and conservative circles. My sig isn't just for laughs, after all.
Ask just about any pro-choice group if a 15 year old has the right to an abortion without parental consent, or even parental notification, and they will say "Of course she does." But somehow that girl doesn't have the right to choose to perform the action that leads to the abortion.
One of the 50 states had an age of consent of 14 just over a decade ago. And it probably wasn't a state you would pick if I gave you three guesses.
And, yes I did pick 'conservative' for its connotation. Because I think there is a great logical inconsistency* in how people view sex, with the liberals and conservatives using their opponents' typical arguments to support their own views. Whether someone has a right or not, whether a right exists or not, what right society at large has, and other aspects of people having sex.
As for my own thoughts on the subject, I agree that 15-year-olds don't have the maturity to correctly decide what to do. But that doesn't mean they don't have the right anyway. We all know adults who lack the maturity to make wise choices, yet they still have the right to make bad personal choices anyway. What is so magical about the 18th birthday? I'm in my 40's, and still don't see the point of that arbitrary date.
*Note: The word I want to use is 'hypocrisy', but that would imply a wanton disregard of logic. On this issue, many people don't even realize there is a logic, because their responses are so based on emotional reactions.
Kids DON'T. That is why it is statutory rape, they are not old enough to make that choice.
A 15 year old girl doesn't have the right to decide what to do with her body? Sounds awfully conservative of you.
The problem your argument faces is that age-based consent is purely a legal fiction based on the culture the people are part of. Just as the culture was mostly against homosexuality but now accepts it, the same could happen with pedophilia. If it does, you would come across as bigoted for your stance against it.
There you go, bringing facts into an emotional argument.
That's not fair.
Of course, it could be Kzin... :)
I have a large ball of yarn in my garage, just in case.
I wondered why that sounded familiar.
It was called "Childhood's End" by Arthur C. Clarke. The aliens looked like the classic image of Satan, complete with horns and bat-wings.
I read it a couple years ago. Not a bad story, but not my favorite of his.
You're not supposed to point out that fact on this site. It really irritates some people.
And that BA degree was the longest seven years of your life, right?
Goddamn Big Graphite!! I knew they were behind this.
Well, since baby frogs are called tadpoles, and tadpoles sorta look like large green sperm, and the saran warp (that's a trademarked term, by the way, just letting you know) is covering the opening through with they would normally exit the long, hard, cylindrical tube they are in, as things got really hot, I believe you referring to those people who want to give free condoms to school children.
Ironically, shipping costs for full glass bottles is sometimes cheaper than shipping costs for empty glass bottles.
A brewery based in Hawaii moved part of its production to California. It saved money on operations, since Hawaii is a very expensive place to live, and land is very expensive. It also saved a lot of money on shipping its bottled beer to Hawaii, as opposed to shipping empty beer bottles to the Kona brewery to be filled and then sent around the islands.
The shipping company charges different industries different rates for different products. It is based on how easy things are to load, ship, and unload. Also, the beverage industry is a large customer (Coke and Pepsi included, not just beer, wine, and liquor), so the price for bottled beverages is reduced as a quantity discount. But that discount isn't applied to empty bottles, which are shipped as common goods.
In addition to the actual shipping price, full bottles of beer have less of a chance of breakage than empty bottles do. So there is less waste from broken merchandise.
The Kona brewery is still in operation, but its product is put in kegs for sale to bars and at stores.
Note: I wrote the below comment when I wrote the previous one, but wanted to separate the two discussions. So here is my response to your oil subsidies claim.
As for the oil subsidies, you provided nothing that disputes my argument. The government does not give money from tax receipts to the oil industry. The government does give tax deductions for various business expenses and practices, just like with every other industry. Each of those articles you point to show they are talking about tax breaks of various kinds, not direct payments. It's fine with me if you oppose some of those tax breaks, because you have every right to oppose them.
On a side note, when did a 'tax deduction' become a 'subsidy'? A subsidy is money given to encourage an activity or assist a group*. A tax deduction may be enacted to also encourage or assist, but it is not the same as actually giving someone money from your own pocket.
* Source: https://www.google.com/search?...
Don't they have an app for that?
That doesn't make sense. The second time I find it, it is already where you want me to move it to.
You not allowed to ask me that question. At least not in some states, or the military.
As I said, a statement of fact, that helping people or corporations pay for expensive items from tax receipts is not trail-blazing , cannot possibly be left unmolested.
You must follow your pet ideology and attack it. Rinse, Repeat.
If you notice, nowhere did I say I don't support it, our wouldn't accept it if I bought a new car. But it is simply not the ground breaking concept that you seem to regard it as. Because this has been a common government practice for thousands of years.