|
Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
01-05-07, 10:18 PM | #81 |
Just Draggin' Along
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,210
|
High level nuclear waste is commonly processed by immobilizing it in borosilicate glass ("Pyrex", "Duran").
__________________
Copyright means the copy of the CD/DVD burned with no errors. I will never spend a another dime on content that I can’t use the way I please. If I can’t copy it to my hard drive and play it using the devices I want, when and where I want, I won’t be buying it. Period. They can all take their DRM, broadcast flags, rootkits, and Compact Discs that aren’t really compact discs and shove them up their bottom-lines. |
02-05-07, 08:11 AM | #82 | ||||||
flippin 'em off
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,232
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And if you think the modern diesel engine in my pickup will cause carbon monoxide poisoning you're once again displaying your vast ignorance. |
||||||
02-05-07, 09:28 AM | #83 |
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
Cute, but you know I didn't mean it that way. Africa, China, South America, and many other places are rich in resources and are developing as a result. Most of those places don't have the benefit of our environmental protection laws, not to mention our labor and human rights laws. Because of their weak economies they will develop their industries with little regard to public health as we did more than a hundred years ago. Our economy went up when we started taking public health seriously because our natural resources are totally worthless without a strong labor force. Cleaning the air, the water, the soil, all make economic sense in the long run. But when a poor nation suffers a market correction or a recession, environmental issues go on the back burner in favor of the short term issues. That nation's industries will pollute and abuse the environment for as long as it takes for the economy to recover. When they are poor they are sloppy and reckless. When they are not then they're like us, not only concerned about the environment but able to do something about it.
We should be helping poor nations develop for humanitarian reasons, those are more pressing and more immediate than the environmental ones. Along the way we can give them the benefit of our experience, help them preserve their environments now so they won't have to restore them later. But we've become so jaded that we believe the environment is of greater moral concern than world wide poverty. Unfortunately we can't solve poverty by protecting the environment. But knowing that we can protect the environment by solving poverty I think it's time to put the "Oh No, capitalism and greed and free trade is going to destroy the World" argument to bed. Those things won't necessarily save it but the rest of the world will industrialize eventually. Everyone will harvest their ores and their coal beds and their forests and their farm lands, and if we don't help them then we can't stop them from repeating our mistakes. Last edited by Mazer : 02-05-07 at 09:39 AM. |
02-05-07, 05:14 PM | #84 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,522
|
Thank you... Common sense isn't so common is it. Maybe you can take a class. Maybe you can get someone to pay for it as it's obvious that you haven't been able to afford it
__________________
May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink: |
02-05-07, 07:00 PM | #85 |
flippin 'em off
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,232
|
He's really not that smart multi. Don't let him intimidate you.
|
02-05-07, 07:53 PM | #86 | |
flippin 'em off
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,232
|
Quote:
Large parts of the world would be much better off today if not for all that "humanitarian" help. |
|
02-05-07, 11:38 PM | #87 |
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
That's because humanitarian efforts have been spearheaded by well meaning imbeciles up 'til now. They've tried to provide what in America would be called welfare, and you're right, their booming populations can no longer sustain their former standards of living (which weren't very high to begin with). Now they haven't a choice, they must industrialize just to survive. Helping them to do so wouldn't be charity because we'd be profiting from it, but it would be the right thing to do, assuming we don't patronize the kinds of business that use slave labor or dump raw sewage into rivers. Since we can't undo the disruptions all our humanitarianism has caused then we may as well invite the rest of the world to join the twenty first century.
|
03-05-07, 09:50 AM | #88 | ||||||
Formal Ball Proof
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
|
Quote:
But, while hardly an absolute, I must admit it is an excellent portrait of Bush and his supporters over the past years. Quote:
Quote:
This is from the EPA "State of Knowledge" site: Quote:
That global warming is alarmism and stupid and thought up by manipulative hypocrites isn't evidence pertaining to your premise, but that seems to be all you got. Lack of evidence for one thing is not evidence for another. You're still just chattering about your beliefs like a little monkey. Quote:
And 'improved significantly' isn't really science either, is it? Sounds more like a parrotsquawk to me. Mazer, charming rhetoric and point well taken, but various estimates show that 70%+ of the total global deforestation, for instance, is the direct result of commercial logging, farming and ranching. Greed is absolutely part of the equation. You can "put the argument to bed" all you want, but the reality ain't goin' to sleep. Quote:
You guys are talking about Iraq, right? Glad to see it finally sink in! HAR HAR HAR |
||||||
03-05-07, 02:46 PM | #89 | |
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
Well, I was talking mostly about African nations, but the same does apply to Iraq. I'm hopeful our troops will no longer need to be stationed there and our mission there will become a humanitarian one. Domestic politics will of course make that next to impossible after 2008. But aside from Iraq, Africa has the greatest number of people with the greatest need and we can't ignore that forever.
Quote:
There are a lot of good reasons to limit the spread commercialism, but the fear of greed is just not one of them. We've shown the impoverished people of the world that they can have more if they want it, and guess what, they do want more and there is nothing wrong with that. Greed is necessary to motivate people to get themselves out of poverty. It's a vice and a sin, but it is like you say a fundamental part of the equation, and we can't balance that equation if we try to limit commercial greed. |
|
04-05-07, 03:46 AM | #90 | |||||||||||||||
flippin 'em off
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,232
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
|||||||||||||||
04-05-07, 11:30 PM | #91 | |
Just Draggin' Along
Join Date: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,210
|
Well, settling this "discussion" should be easy.
Quote:
COLDER IS NOT WARMER, PERIOD. Thank You for demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that the global warming theory is 100% fallacy.
__________________
Copyright means the copy of the CD/DVD burned with no errors. I will never spend a another dime on content that I can’t use the way I please. If I can’t copy it to my hard drive and play it using the devices I want, when and where I want, I won’t be buying it. Period. They can all take their DRM, broadcast flags, rootkits, and Compact Discs that aren’t really compact discs and shove them up their bottom-lines. |
|
05-05-07, 09:40 AM | #92 | |
Formal Ball Proof
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
|
Out of context:
Quote:
So, for the last time, while I know we are causing changes to the environment (fact), I have no evidence that global warming is either occurring or not, nor do I know what the subsequent consequences of global warming would be. MY POINT IS THAT NEITHER DO YOU. And yet you've just insisted, again, that it's fallacy. Seems you're willing to gamble with the future of the planet. Based on what? Even if such 'ice age' theories are wrong and completely outrageous this does not in itself 'demonstrate' that global warming isn't occuring, nor would it indicate that all other probable results would be insignificant. What we've established beyond a reasonable doubt that little albed's opinion about global warming isn't based on a single indicator germane to climatic research but is, as I postulated a few posts ago, based solely on his disdain of a political group he associates with the concept, I felt this was important to make explicitly clear for my own sake because ignorant asshats much like our little albed have the potential to influence others into believing that the possibility of global warming and its consequences are nothing more than a liberal agenda, a concern only for mindless hippies and tree huggers and absurdly power mad presidential wannabees, and 'no big deal' for supposed 'rational people' who may not only arrogantly absolve themselves from concern about the issue itself, but should be ready to reject or at least deride any and all countermeasures entailing even the most subtle changes to the status quo. This is most unfortunate as there is only one planet and we all have to live on it, even those with no respect for it. But if such "conservative" and technological changes serve the future, regardless of whether or not the globe gets warmer or colder, we will ultimately have done the right thing to anticipate the need anyway. There are more of us every day, and the question of global warming is really just an aspect of the larger question of critical mass itself. |
|
05-05-07, 09:54 AM | #93 | ||
Formal Ball Proof
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
|
Quote:
But of course I think I know what you mean, humanitarian being more like food, clothing, shelter, aid and education and not, like, shooting and car bombs. ...But isn't that the kind of humanitarian aid you were just bemoaning? Seems like a cascade of contradictions there. Quote:
|
||
05-05-07, 02:17 PM | #94 | ||
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
05-05-07, 03:33 PM | #95 | ||
Formal Ball Proof
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
|
Pfft. Well, at least I got one of you fuckers to actually look at a website and learn a pretty new word, instead of standing there with a wrinkled nose going "NUH-UH" over and over because someone told you it was "unscientific."
Of course now you're an expert all over again. LOL. As far as my explanation, from your own link: Quote:
Quote:
|
||
05-05-07, 06:48 PM | #96 |
flippin 'em off
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,232
|
So all that heat stays in the tropics and part of the world gets warmer while another part gets cooler and you somehow make that into "global cooling".
Have you no reasoning ability at all? |
05-05-07, 07:27 PM | #97 | |
flippin 'em off
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,232
|
Quote:
I can imagine you driving down the road and slamming on your brakes every 10 yards because someone might possibly pull into your path or cross into your lane and cause a crash. Even though there's no evidence, it still a possibility and being the irrational nutcase that you are, you think your behaviour is perfectly sensible and moreover that everyone should drive like you. |
|
06-05-07, 09:50 PM | #98 |
Earthbound misfit
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
|
You can't take credit for that. This is an issue I've studied since before multi started this thread. But this is a political forum and we're here to talk about our opinions. When I want to talk about the science behind this issue I normally go elsewhere to do it (it's a lot easier to do when people don't assume that your skepticism is politically driven). I don't come running to this place with links to every web page I read, it's not my mission to correct every factual mistake others post here, and I only did so yesterday because you were turning this valid scientific theory into sensationalist bullshit, it was embarrassing. You come to this discussion with no real understanding of the issue and then you have the gall to say that none of the rest of us understand it either? This is a side of you I've never seen before, Ramona. It's disappointing, I gotta tell ya.
|
07-05-07, 11:17 AM | #99 |
Formal Ball Proof
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 2,948
|
Wow, I feel really bad to be the one responsible for bringing the intellectual caliber of this forum so far down. Suppose I should just let you and your egghead conservative science critic buddies get back to jokes about the weather and asserting that global warming can't exist because Al Gore's electric bill is so high and other real science. And I would like to apologize unreservedly for stooping to the sensationalist bullshit of maintaining that data pertaining to the consequences of global warming are inconclusive.
I usually go elsewhere for an intelligent discussion myself. It's not just easier to do when people don't assume that your skepticism is politically driven, it's possible. |
07-05-07, 06:06 PM | #100 |
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,522
|
Well, even though I never expected it, that's big of you and probably right too.
__________________
May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink: |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|