How is it a crappy argument? The point is that if they weren't illegal people could take drugs and still do great things: like Dr. Halsted did. If you want an example of someone who's taken drugs in the 2000s and done something good with their lives, I could point you to one of many musicians, or come back to the argument that making their addiction illegal is holding them down.
kenai_alpenglow twisted meanings beyond anything that even resembles reason. erikkemperman was just trying to keep up. Who suggested transferring wealth to poor countries as a means of controlling climate anyway?
Other species have come and gone, that is true. But do you really care about them, don't you care a lot more about the homo sapien species? They've evolved to get along very well in the climate as it is today. I'd quite like to the homo sapiens to stay around, so let's try and keep the climate the way that's best for them.
I could see how you'd have a point if the film in question was the only material available about climate change, or even the best material available. As it stands the people who run the museum think that the film is needlessly provocative and does not further the debate. The museum does addressclimatechange. Those 3 links are what I found from a single search, I'm not sure how much you'd see if you actually visited the museum.
If you think that people who are at the limit are impaired then the limit needs to come down. I haven't met anyone who is noticeably drunk at 0.08 BAC. I'm not sure whom you know who is fine at 0.02 but starts slurring their words by 0.08, but they sound pretty fucked up.
I remember when I was a teenager I got a call from someone trying to sell me a long-distance plan. I told her that the only time I called long-distance was when I was prank-calling the Pope. We talked for a while. It was probably the first time I really had a conversation with a woman I wasn't related to. It was good.
You don't need to be able to replace valves to be able to drive a car. You do need to know that you put petrol in the petrol tank, and not apple juice.
Responsible people always get tested in between partners. They don't magically know that they're infected, but they take action to find out.
If you cheat on your partner and bring a disease back, then you're a douche for cheating and a douche for infecting your partner. For the partner who was cheated on, please refer to the first point.
Maybe, instead of sticking your dick in everyone who will let you, you get to know them for a couple of weeks, then get tested, then start getting it on.
If this had happened a few years ago when they were still calling themselves BP/Amoco we could divert these discussions a lot easier. For those wondering, Amoco is short for American Oil Company.
I never claimed to be a perfect, or even a good driver. We're talking about stalling out a test for an hour or so to get back under the limit. If the amount of time it takes to get a test done is long enough for you to get back under the limit, then you clearly weren't over the limit far enough to be any worse at driving than someone who is just under the limit. It's just another example of 0 tolerance being ineffective and wasting time for no reason.
It's people like you who make me want to learn more about maths. I felt like there could be an arbitrarily large gap between primes, but I had no idea how to express it. What you wrote, in addition that there are infinitely many primes proves the point perfectly.
Driving when you're clearly drunk is always a bad idea. But someone who's right on the limit: only had a couple of beers, and one of them turned out to be a higher strength than they thought: he's a lot less of a danger than half the people on the road anyway. I agree that drink driving is senselessly taking lives of people who would still be alive is drunks were more responsible, but heavy-handed enforcement of arbitrary restrictions doesn't help anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
How is it a crappy argument? The point is that if they weren't illegal people could take drugs and still do great things: like Dr. Halsted did. If you want an example of someone who's taken drugs in the 2000s and done something good with their lives, I could point you to one of many musicians, or come back to the argument that making their addiction illegal is holding them down.
kenai_alpenglow twisted meanings beyond anything that even resembles reason. erikkemperman was just trying to keep up. Who suggested transferring wealth to poor countries as a means of controlling climate anyway?
Other species have come and gone, that is true. But do you really care about them, don't you care a lot more about the homo sapien species? They've evolved to get along very well in the climate as it is today. I'd quite like to the homo sapiens to stay around, so let's try and keep the climate the way that's best for them.
I could see how you'd have a point if the film in question was the only material available about climate change, or even the best material available. As it stands the people who run the museum think that the film is needlessly provocative and does not further the debate. The museum does address climate change. Those 3 links are what I found from a single search, I'm not sure how much you'd see if you actually visited the museum.
I'd prefer that to someone who'd watch me suffer and not try to end it.
I just read a story on /. about a guy who was arrested for having a secret compartment in his car, even though he had no intention of using it for drugs. I think it was in Ohio. You should check it out: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/13/11/26/0014229/driver-arrested-in-ohio-for-secret-car-compartment-full-of-nothing
How do you have such a persecution complex?
If you think that people who are at the limit are impaired then the limit needs to come down. I haven't met anyone who is noticeably drunk at 0.08 BAC. I'm not sure whom you know who is fine at 0.02 but starts slurring their words by 0.08, but they sound pretty fucked up.
I remember when I was a teenager I got a call from someone trying to sell me a long-distance plan. I told her that the only time I called long-distance was when I was prank-calling the Pope. We talked for a while. It was probably the first time I really had a conversation with a woman I wasn't related to. It was good.
Well no, but there are other reasons to not hire people from Georgia. Such as the fact that they're all racists.
I'm not sure if this counts as satire or not...
You don't need to be able to replace valves to be able to drive a car. You do need to know that you put petrol in the petrol tank, and not apple juice.
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=1869#comic
Seriously though, there are places where you shouldn't be putting your penis.
Responsible people always get tested in between partners. They don't magically know that they're infected, but they take action to find out.
If you cheat on your partner and bring a disease back, then you're a douche for cheating and a douche for infecting your partner. For the partner who was cheated on, please refer to the first point.
Maybe, instead of sticking your dick in everyone who will let you, you get to know them for a couple of weeks, then get tested, then start getting it on.
How would you go about proving that they knew?
You'd have to do it the other way around, weight 1 oz on earth and sell it as 1 oz on the moon.
If this had happened a few years ago when they were still calling themselves BP/Amoco we could divert these discussions a lot easier. For those wondering, Amoco is short for American Oil Company.
I never claimed to be a perfect, or even a good driver. We're talking about stalling out a test for an hour or so to get back under the limit. If the amount of time it takes to get a test done is long enough for you to get back under the limit, then you clearly weren't over the limit far enough to be any worse at driving than someone who is just under the limit. It's just another example of 0 tolerance being ineffective and wasting time for no reason.
Explaining a joke always makes it better.
It's people like you who make me want to learn more about maths. I felt like there could be an arbitrarily large gap between primes, but I had no idea how to express it. What you wrote, in addition that there are infinitely many primes proves the point perfectly.
Wait, the infra-red spectrum of carbon dioxide is based on babies in anthropogenic nutshells? I'm confused.
So you only get freedom of movement if you can afford to live in Manhattan?
Driving when you're clearly drunk is always a bad idea. But someone who's right on the limit: only had a couple of beers, and one of them turned out to be a higher strength than they thought: he's a lot less of a danger than half the people on the road anyway. I agree that drink driving is senselessly taking lives of people who would still be alive is drunks were more responsible, but heavy-handed enforcement of arbitrary restrictions doesn't help anyone.
They're just pining for the fjords.
Their two weapons are surprise, comedy and ruthless absurdity.