Fair enough. The only problem is that the clean up process has become a means to political power and money, and therefore there is no incentive to actually declare success. If the Clean Air and Water departments of the EPA suddenly declared that, hey drinking water in the U.S. is now clean, they'd be out of a job. So guess, what? It never happens. Instead, there is always something more to be done. The air over the nation is cleaner than it has been in the recorded history of the nation. But instead of focusing on individual problem spots like LA Country, NYC, Atlanta, etc., the EPA declares the national air is STILL not clean enough and demands even harsher regulations.
So, unfortunately, as long as the political structure is built around the clean up process, and not the clean up results, we will never hear anything except doom and gloom. We could scrub every microbe and pollutant from every molecule of air in the world, and the EPA would still find something that needed to be cleaned up (dangerous Oxygen isotopes, perhaps).
And human greed is unnatural in precisely what way, exactly? You didn't answer the parents question, you simply passed a moral judgement that not killing an elephant is morally superior to you.
Lions don't have to kill an elephant; they can kill a gazelle for survival.
So, do the Tiger's animal rights take precedence over the Elephant's animal rights?
The truth is, this whole argument basically boils down to various schools of thought on how mankind should manage the planet. Unfortunately, the hard-core environmental movement refuses to acknowledge this, instead preaching the mantra that any environmental policy other than theirs is destructive and harmful to the planet.
--- Its not anyones business what i share or who i share it with... As long as I'm not depriving anyone of income.. ( and if neither of us were going to purchase, then no income was deprived ) --- This is such a fallacious argument it's not even funny. Shall we try it with other things?
No one lost income when I took that rental car for a joyride because I wasn't planning on renting it anyway.
No income was lost when I sat in the bookstore for five hours reading a really good novel off their shelf and then putting it back because I wasn't going to buy the book anyway.
No income was lost when I told that high school kid to put me down for a ten dollar pledge on his walkathon because I wasn't going to pay anyway.
There are a couple of words for people like you: Leech and parasite.
The Kerry campaign calls on a publisher to 'withdraw book' written by group of veterans, claiming veterans are lying about Kerry's service in Vietnam and operating as a front organization for Bush. Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that the publisher of UNFIT FOR COMMAND is 'retailing a hoax'... 'No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them,' Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton tells the online mag... Developing...
I don't seem to recall Bush making that demand for Fahrenheit 9/11
No, it was the federal law that required convicted felons be removed from voter registration lists. Did you actually read the article you linked?
The names were scrubbed by a computer database matching names with known convicted felons.
Of course, in your tinfoil hat world. Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris personally programmed this database so that it would only exclude blacks who would vote Democrat.
I grant that particular factoid is hard to dig out from the racist ranting that fills the article, but it is there.
That's a pretty awesome trick the Republicans pulled, getting Democrat precinct officials to deliberately remove potential Democrat voters from the rolls. Those Republican operatives definitely need a raise and a promotion.
And just in case you don't get it: Voter registration rolls are handled by the local precinct officials.
Not the way you folks claim he does. Bush & Co. use the word to describe a very specific set of people: militants who want to kill Americans.
Libs accuse conservatives of using it the way they would: as an epithet to stir up hatred against people you don't like. You know kind of like the liberal playbook words: racist, bigot, homophobe, right-wing zealot, neo-con, etc.
The only people I hear using the word terrorist every chance they get are liberals accusing conservatives of using the word terrorist every chance the get.
And fission is cleaner and safer than coal, so all we have to do is SHOW people that.
You are experiencing a total disconnect from reality. You keep prattling on about the facts of fusion power. I keep telling you what the environmentalists will cause the PERCEPTIONS of fusion power to be.
They'll talk about radioactive water. They'll talk about tritium being used in fusion bombs, which are way more powerful than fission bombs. They'll talk about the million degree plasma and how it will vaporize anything in site if magnetic containment fails and how all that radioactive water will turn to steam and rain down on us from the clouds. They'll talk about how deuterium looks identical to regular water and how it would be impossible to separate from rivers and streams in case of a containment failure. Then they'll go on to state how deuterium is toxic and what it does to the human body when children drink it.
As long as environmentalists have the political power they do, you will NEVER see fusion power.
Do you even have an inkling as to the incredible research costs involved in finding a way to develop and etch silicon without using acids and other nastier chemicals?
Spending billions of dollars coming up with an entirely NEW manufacturing process isn't going to bring down costs.
Yeah, and pebble bed fission reactors can't melt down either. Do you see any of them being built?
Um, you are aware that high-energy neutrons CREATE radioactive isotopes, right? You block them by letting them slam into stuff (usually water, where they make Deuterium and Tritium and lots of other fun isotopes from the dissolved salts and organics in the water).
ANY time you're dealing with nuclear reactions, you're going to get nuclear isotopes and radioactive waste. It's the nature of the beast, and environmentalists will be quick to point this out, and the nuclear hysteria that runs rampant in our society will ensure that no fusion reactor ever gets built in the U.S.
What makes you think we'll ever have fusion power? Do you honestly think that environmentalists will EVER approve the construction of a power plant that produces high-energy neutrons as a byproduct and can turn into a nuclear bomb in a runaway reaction?
The hurdles for fusion power are not technical, they're social.
Not always. Sometimes things are expensive because they are technically difficult to manufacture, or because the raw materials are expensive, or because the environmental regulations are expensive.
memory chips require many expensive and hazardous chemicals to manufacture like fuming sulfuric acid for dissolving the photoresist inks and hydroflouric acid for etching the circuits. These chemicals have a large environmental regulation cost associated with them that's not going to go down any time in the forseeable future and is entirely outside the control of any manufacturing process.
Brainwashing has nothing to do with it. For people who claim to be driven by reason and evidence, you sure turn a blind eye when you don't like what you see.
Communism has NEVER in it's history increased individual liberty or prosperity. Communism has ALWAYS reducded individual liberty and prosperity.
Communism: It fails every time it's tried.
Capitalism: It succeeds every time it's tried.
These are truisms. Read some history and some newspapers.
The answer to your dilemna, of course, is in the word "unecessary." Since it's a safe bet you don't know God's purposes in creation, you do not have sufficient information to determine what is necessary and unecessary harm.
A more legitimate challenge to God using evolution is the writings of the New Testament where Paul makes it pretty clear that death did not exist in the world prior to the Fall of Adam. If there is no death, then natural selection cannot work, and evolution as the origin of species fails.
No, very hot summers lead to power grid failures because environmentalist policies have blocked the construction of new power stations.
We get epidemics because trial lawyers sue pharmaceutical companies into bankrupty on one side, and socialist politicians regulate them to death on the other side, so no new medicines are developed.
Our technology fails not because it's inadequate to the task, but because the human species has a Lemming instinct in it and periodically succumbs to an irresistable urge to throw itself off a cliff.
Incorrect. It is not an appeal to authority. The argument is not the Bible is true because these men said so (which would be an appeal to authority fallacy). The argument is: Your assumption that Christianity is false because you have found contradictions in the Bible is invalid because others have been able to logically reconcile those same contradictions. Just because YOU don't think the contradictions are reconcilable does not, in fact, make it so.
Because we all know that you and the authors of that website are the only people in 2000 years to actually read the bible and identify those inconsistencies, and that people like Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Thomas Moore, Isaac Newton (who wrote a great deal of biblical analysis), never ever saw them or tried to work through them.
And you say WE don't have critical thinking skills?
So, NBC denies permission to use one of their video clips, and it's George Bush's fault. This guy must be a real maroon, because if I were as powerful as he supposedly is, I wouldn't even be having the farce of an election. I'd just crown myself king. After, of course, I "silenced" John Kerry out to Guantanamo, nationalized all the major networks, and jailed every liberal on slashdot.
The internal inconsistency in logic of the typical liberal regarding George Bush borders on the insane.
You should have called into Micheal Medved's talk show a few days back. He was having a therapy session for all liberals who blamed George Bush for every problem in their lives.
Slashdot Mirror
Liberals make decisions on feelings. Conservatives make decisions on reason.
Fair enough. The only problem is that the clean up process has become a means to political power and money, and therefore there is no incentive to actually declare success. If the Clean Air and Water departments of the EPA suddenly declared that, hey drinking water in the U.S. is now clean, they'd be out of a job. So guess, what? It never happens. Instead, there is always something more to be done. The air over the nation is cleaner than it has been in the recorded history of the nation. But instead of focusing on individual problem spots like LA Country, NYC, Atlanta, etc., the EPA declares the national air is STILL not clean enough and demands even harsher regulations.
So, unfortunately, as long as the political structure is built around the clean up process, and not the clean up results, we will never hear anything except doom and gloom. We could scrub every microbe and pollutant from every molecule of air in the world, and the EPA would still find something that needed to be cleaned up (dangerous Oxygen isotopes, perhaps).
And human greed is unnatural in precisely what way, exactly? You didn't answer the parents question, you simply passed a moral judgement that not killing an elephant is morally superior to you.
Lions don't have to kill an elephant; they can kill a gazelle for survival.
So, do the Tiger's animal rights take precedence over the Elephant's animal rights?
The truth is, this whole argument basically boils down to various schools of thought on how mankind should manage the planet. Unfortunately, the hard-core environmental movement refuses to acknowledge this, instead preaching the mantra that any environmental policy other than theirs is destructive and harmful to the planet.
Um, won't governments be doing this?
---
Its not anyones business what i share or who i share it with... As long as I'm not depriving anyone of income.. ( and if neither of us were going to purchase, then no income was deprived )
---
This is such a fallacious argument it's not even funny. Shall we try it with other things?
No one lost income when I took that rental car for a joyride because I wasn't planning on renting it anyway.
No income was lost when I sat in the bookstore for five hours reading a really good novel off their shelf and then putting it back because I wasn't going to buy the book anyway.
No income was lost when I told that high school kid to put me down for a ten dollar pledge on his walkathon because I wasn't going to pay anyway.
There are a couple of words for people like you: Leech and parasite.
From drudgereport.com:
The Kerry campaign calls on a publisher to 'withdraw book' written by group of veterans, claiming veterans are lying about Kerry's service in Vietnam and operating as a front organization for Bush. Kerry campaign has told Salon.com that the publisher of UNFIT FOR COMMAND is 'retailing a hoax'... 'No publisher should want to be selling books with proven falsehoods in them,' Kerry campaign spokesman Chad Clanton tells the online mag... Developing...
I don't seem to recall Bush making that demand for Fahrenheit 9/11
Or government mandate. You WILL drive an electric car, or you will drive NO car at all.
No, it was the federal law that required convicted felons be removed from voter registration lists. Did you actually read the article you linked?
The names were scrubbed by a computer database matching names with known convicted felons.
Of course, in your tinfoil hat world. Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris personally programmed this database so that it would only exclude blacks who would vote Democrat.
I grant that particular factoid is hard to dig out from the racist ranting that fills the article, but it is there.
That's a pretty awesome trick the Republicans pulled, getting Democrat precinct officials to deliberately remove potential Democrat voters from the rolls. Those Republican operatives definitely need a raise and a promotion.
And just in case you don't get it: Voter registration rolls are handled by the local precinct officials.
Not the way you folks claim he does. Bush & Co. use the word to describe a very specific set of people: militants who want to kill Americans.
Libs accuse conservatives of using it the way they would: as an epithet to stir up hatred against people you don't like. You know kind of like the liberal playbook words: racist, bigot, homophobe, right-wing zealot, neo-con, etc.
The only people I hear using the word terrorist every chance they get are liberals accusing conservatives of using the word terrorist every chance the get.
When Fusion Power becomes possible, we'll see who's right.
And tritium is radioactive.
And fission is cleaner and safer than coal, so all we have to do is SHOW people that.
You are experiencing a total disconnect from reality. You keep prattling on about the facts of fusion power. I keep telling you what the environmentalists will cause the PERCEPTIONS of fusion power to be.
They'll talk about radioactive water. They'll talk about tritium being used in fusion bombs, which are way more powerful than fission bombs. They'll talk about the million degree plasma and how it will vaporize anything in site if magnetic containment fails and how all that radioactive water will turn to steam and rain down on us from the clouds. They'll talk about how deuterium looks identical to regular water and how it would be impossible to separate from rivers and streams in case of a containment failure. Then they'll go on to state how deuterium is toxic and what it does to the human body when children drink it.
As long as environmentalists have the political power they do, you will NEVER see fusion power.
Do you even have an inkling as to the incredible research costs involved in finding a way to develop and etch silicon without using acids and other nastier chemicals?
Spending billions of dollars coming up with an entirely NEW manufacturing process isn't going to bring down costs.
Yeah, and pebble bed fission reactors can't melt down either. Do you see any of them being built?
Um, you are aware that high-energy neutrons CREATE radioactive isotopes, right? You block them by letting them slam into stuff (usually water, where they make Deuterium and Tritium and lots of other fun isotopes from the dissolved salts and organics in the water).
ANY time you're dealing with nuclear reactions, you're going to get nuclear isotopes and radioactive waste. It's the nature of the beast, and environmentalists will be quick to point this out, and the nuclear hysteria that runs rampant in our society will ensure that no fusion reactor ever gets built in the U.S.
What makes you think we'll ever have fusion power? Do you honestly think that environmentalists will EVER approve the construction of a power plant that produces high-energy neutrons as a byproduct and can turn into a nuclear bomb in a runaway reaction?
The hurdles for fusion power are not technical, they're social.
Not always. Sometimes things are expensive because they are technically difficult to manufacture, or because the raw materials are expensive, or because the environmental regulations are expensive.
memory chips require many expensive and hazardous chemicals to manufacture like fuming sulfuric acid for dissolving the photoresist inks and hydroflouric acid for etching the circuits. These chemicals have a large environmental regulation cost associated with them that's not going to go down any time in the forseeable future and is entirely outside the control of any manufacturing process.
Brainwashing has nothing to do with it. For people who claim to be driven by reason and evidence, you sure turn a blind eye when you don't like what you see.
Communism has NEVER in it's history increased individual liberty or prosperity. Communism has ALWAYS reducded individual liberty and prosperity.
Communism: It fails every time it's tried.
Capitalism: It succeeds every time it's tried.
These are truisms. Read some history and some newspapers.
The answer to your dilemna, of course, is in the word "unecessary." Since it's a safe bet you don't know God's purposes in creation, you do not have sufficient information to determine what is necessary and unecessary harm.
A more legitimate challenge to God using evolution is the writings of the New Testament where Paul makes it pretty clear that death did not exist in the world prior to the Fall of Adam. If there is no death, then natural selection cannot work, and evolution as the origin of species fails.
No, very hot summers lead to power grid failures because environmentalist policies have blocked the construction of new power stations.
We get epidemics because trial lawyers sue pharmaceutical companies into bankrupty on one side, and socialist politicians regulate them to death on the other side, so no new medicines are developed.
Our technology fails not because it's inadequate to the task, but because the human species has a Lemming instinct in it and periodically succumbs to an irresistable urge to throw itself off a cliff.
---
I looked at Christianity for a moral compass and found it to be contridictory to my values,
---
Which makes you just as emotionally invested in arriving at a desired conclusion. Only in your case, the conclusion is that the Bible must be wrong.
Incorrect. It is not an appeal to authority. The argument is not the Bible is true because these men said so (which would be an appeal to authority fallacy). The argument is: Your assumption that Christianity is false because you have found contradictions in the Bible is invalid because others have been able to logically reconcile those same contradictions. Just because YOU don't think the contradictions are reconcilable does not, in fact, make it so.
If stupidity were a weapon of mass destruction, you'd be the biggest threat the planet has ever seen.
Because we all know that you and the authors of that website are the only people in 2000 years to actually read the bible and identify those inconsistencies, and that people like Aquinas, Calvin, Luther, Thomas Moore, Isaac Newton (who wrote a great deal of biblical analysis), never ever saw them or tried to work through them.
And you say WE don't have critical thinking skills?
So, NBC denies permission to use one of their video clips, and it's George Bush's fault. This guy must be a real maroon, because if I were as powerful as he supposedly is, I wouldn't even be having the farce of an election. I'd just crown myself king. After, of course, I "silenced" John Kerry out to Guantanamo, nationalized all the major networks, and jailed every liberal on slashdot.
The internal inconsistency in logic of the typical liberal regarding George Bush borders on the insane.
You should have called into Micheal Medved's talk show a few days back. He was having a therapy session for all liberals who blamed George Bush for every problem in their lives.