10,801 Forum Posts by "Light"
At 1/24/14 09:20 PM, Light wrote:
It's also said that
*sad.
At 1/24/14 05:17 PM, DarkOasis wrote:
Yes, I'll agree coming in here thinking I could get some lazy atheists to see there is something better was a bit naive.
I think it's naive to expect atheists to adopt your views because you trot out the same, refuted arguments that theists use over and over again in an attempt to prove God's existence while belittling them.
I'm always open to discussion about this kind of subject matter, but I don't really take kindly to any undeserved condescension from theists such as yourself.
It's also said that, like other stereotypical theists, you start a discussion and express a desire for civil discussion but as it progresses, you come to disdain because we aren't persuaded by your arguments.
Why wouldn't you want to believe in a god that promises a better future, who wants only for you to not only make the world a better place, but wants you to spend eternity after doing so at his side in a perfect realm?
There's no evidence for it. It's as simple as that.
And no, your arguments simply don't count. Moreover, believing in something because it's pleasant to believe isn't rational. Believe in it because it is true or probably true. The idea of an afterlife is somewhat appealing to me, but I don't believe there is one because I've seen no evidence for one. That's all that matters, really.
Even if it's all fake, the character you'd get from it is definably better than what I see right now. Intolerance, racism, war, random violence, genocides, SWAG(I dislike this one almost as much as war), it's all just horrendous. Truth, hope, pure happiness, inspiration; this is what comes with the holy package.
The world is a better place now than it ever has been and it only continues to improve. Poverty is being eradicated around the world, education levels are going up, crime is going down, and war is less common than ever. The world is far from perfect, but it sure beats living in the 19th century.
And again, I'm not going to believe something that probably isn't true because it makes me feel good. That's irrational.
So to reiterate, why not?
That's not the rational thing to do. I try to live my life by the dictates of reason, not faith or emotion. Reason tells me not to bet against the belief that this life is the only one I will ever have.
At 1/21/14 11:14 PM, TheKlown wrote: I hope someone kills the President.
(NOT A THREAT, LET ME REPEAT NOT A THREAT NSA, FBI, OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY TRYING TO SHUT MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH DOWN. i DO NOT OWN ANY WEAPONS, BUT IF YOU WANT TO WASTE MORE OF OUR HARD-EARNED TAX PAYING MONEY TO FIND OUT MY INFORMATION, IP, AND MY BACKGROUND, THEN DO ENJOY WASTING YOUR TIME AND OUR MONEY.)
I'm sorely tempted to report your dumbass to the Secret Service.
They really make it easy to contact them if you see anyone threatening the President of the United States and I mean, really easy.
At 1/21/14 08:51 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: There should be smoking on campus mainly outside in designated areas with those things where you put your cig butts in. I think that's a favor Compromise. Of course I light up where ever I go in public.
That's how it is on the campus of the school which I attend; smoking is only allowed on several of the outermost areas of campus.
At 1/21/14 04:16 PM, Saen wrote:At 1/20/14 03:50 PM, Light wrote:If you're just going to stick with observation, isn't it obvious that the person smoking him/herself filters out most of the carcinogens and other particulates, making secondhand smoke just smoke? You can stick to observations all day, I'll be using the scientific method.
It's worth taking in to consideration that the levels of carcinogens in secondhand smoke is roughly the same, if not greater, than in firsthand smoke. Given this fact, it should be pretty obvious that secondhand smoke is dangerous. There hasn't been a determined safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
What part of "levels of carcinogens in secondhand smoke is roughly the same, if not greater, than in firsthand smoke" do you not understand? Any filtering of smoke going on here is insignificant.
Still not experimentation, merely observation.
Studies show that people who are exposed to smoke for even a short time in the work place and elsewhere are more likely to die from heart disease and other ailments.
I'm fairly certain that there's some kind of experimentation going on here since these these people's chances of developing cancer, heart disease, etc. are being compared to the chances of developing cancer in people observed not to be inhaling secondhand smoke.
Scientific consensus isn't built on mere observation because of the possibility of mistaking correlation with causation, confounding variables, etc. Experimentation proves or disproves scientific hypotheses. You're a biology major, so you should know better than to think that multiple scientific and medical organizations would ever reach a long-established consensus that is predicated on shitty research methods.
I'm so glad you made this point, it applies to this entire discussion and it's an important principle of biology itself. The human body can tolerate certain doses of toxins and carcinogens and recover from prior exposure. In the case of secondhand smoke, if it was actually harmful the body is easily able to recover from the amounts it's exposed to on a daily or weekly basis. I.e. small doses require a shorter recovery period, larger doses require a longer recovery period.
Well, it's been shown that the body recovers almost completely from the effects of firsthand tobacco smoke after 10 years of cessation. 20 years after the cessation of smoking would definitely classify your dad as a nonsmoker for logical and empirical reasons because he doesn't smoke(duh) and would be almost biologically indistinguishable from those who've never smoked. I think you're overstating any methodological flaws here.
Many people are exposed to secondhand smoke in varying amounts. Some more, some less. Their risk of developing certain cancers and other diseases is not as high as that of firsthand smokers for obvious reasons, but it's known that their risk increases nonetheless And that's what I've been arguing all along as sufficient to minimize the public's exposure to this toxic substance.
Furthermore, you body develops cancer cells every day and your immune system kills them off. When the frequency of cancer development exceeds your body's capacity to find and destroy cancer cells before they replicate uncontrollably, that's when cancer develops. Your body is exposed to carcinogens and toxins within nature and human goods on a daily basis and it has a certain capacity to filter them out and fight infections/mutations/damage. Secondhand smoke isn't even a blip on the radar when compared to the amount of preservatives, radiation, pathogens, and toxins your body regulates on a daily basis.
lol, considering the number and toxicity of carcinogens in secondhand smoke, as well as the frequency at which people are exposed to it, I'm just going to say right now that this is bullshit.
The fact remains, my dad smoked from his teens until his 30's and his respiratory and circulatory system will never quite be in the condition if he hadn't smoked. There are people included in these secondhand smoke studies (couples for example) who just recently quit smoking and are classified as non smokers.
Are you insinuating that the vast majority of these studies have this methodological flaw?
All of these studies are based on observation and data collection not on experimentation. We were able to determine that smoking itself was harmful through experimentation between smokers and nonsmokers. Nonsmokers were the control and the frequency of smoking was the variable. This is not the case for secondhand hand smoke studies, there are no controls.
As if there are no studies on brief exposure to secondhand smoke in these environments. I linked you to the website of the U.S. Surgeon General and it said that even brief exposure is harmful. Our knowledge of secondhand smoke's effects on the body is multifaceted and I'm surprised that someone who's done some research on the subject didn't know that already.
Are you serious? Multiple studies have been commissioned on the effects of secondhand smoke and it's pretty easy to set up "controls" which I'm 99.9999995% they did. This is what they almost certainly did:
1. Compare cancer rates in workers whose workplace allows smoking with workers whose workplace doesn't. Those who worked in smoke-free workplaces had lower rates of cancer.
2. Compare cancer rates in nonsmokers(The kind who never smoked, just in case you're wondering) who live with a smoker with cancer rates in smokers who live with smokers.
The very fact that I'm debating the effects of secondhand smoke with you should be eye opening.
The only thing that is eye-opening here is your unsettling devotion to convincing others that secondhand smoke is harmless that borders on loyalty to the tobacco companies.
You proved my point yet again, "estimates", purely observation and data collecting.
Which has been shown to increase my chances of developing cancer. The EPA estimates that thousands of people die from car emissions every year. Or are you going to deny that, too?
lol, ok then.
Cancer cells develop from cell damage. Mercury causes neurological cell damage, therefore mercury exposure increases the risk of developing brain cancer, that is if you don't die from mercury poisoning first.
Carcinogens aren't mercury. Even the slightest exposure to carcinogens increases one's chances of developing cancer.
Well, the chemicals in secondhand smoke definitely cause cell damage so I don't really see what point you're trying to make here.
There's always someone pocketing from lobbying certain legislation. Whether through nicotine pills/patch sales, "smoke free" organization contributions, or simply votes, there is always a group that profits as a result.
This would be a good point if secondhand smoke were completely harmless. But hey, all those medical organizations I mentioned earlier with no vested interest in destroying the tobacco companies are probably wrong.
Usually, lobbyists don't enjoy the support of the entire scientific community. Those lobbyists who oppose the tobacco companies are the exception.
And tell me, how do the thousands of independent scientists around who've checked the work done in these studies benefit from claiming that secondhand smoke is bad for you?
I don't think I need to lecture you on the self-correcting nature of scientific research. But in a nutshell, studies that conclude something are replicated by other scientists who have no conflict of interest to see if they're right. Such is the case with studies that claim secondhand smoke is harmful. And those scientists have verified that the methodology in those prior studies was sound and that the conclusions reached were correct. That is why no major medical authority says secondhand smoke is A-OK to inhale.
At 1/20/14 01:34 PM, Saen wrote:
Other suggestions of systematic bias have been made concerning the epidemiological information pub- lished on the association of environmental tobacco smoke with can- cer. These include misclassification of smokers as nonsmokers; factors related to lifestyle, diet, and other exposures that may be common to couples living together and that may influence lung-cancer inci- dence; misdiagnosis of cancers that metastasized from other organs to the lung; and the possibility that epidemiological studies examin- ing small populations and showing no effects of environmental to- bacco smoke would not be published (publication bias).
Right, so just about every study on this issue is flawed in one way or another, all 10,000+ studies, all conducted over 2 decades or more. M'kay.
It's worth taking in to consideration that the levels of carcinogens in secondhand smoke is roughly the same, if not greater, than in firsthand smoke. Given this fact, it should be pretty obvious that secondhand smoke is dangerous. There hasn't been a determined safe level of exposure to secondhand smoke.
Two, these studies are all based on observation and data collection from households, not experimentation. An example of an experiment would involve gathering volunteers and organize them into various age groups and exposing each of those groups to measured levels of secondhand smoke. Experimentation requires controls while simply observing populations and collecting data has little to no controls, which leads to flawed, indirect, and inconclusive results.
Studies show that people who are exposed to smoke for even a short time in the work place and elsewhere are more likely to die from heart disease and other ailments.
Furthermore, what exactly classifies a nonsmoker? My dad was a social smoker over 20 years ago and hasn't smoked since, if he was involved in a secondhand smoke household case study and contracted lung cancer, he would be labeled as a non-smoker, which is clearly biased.
Well, it's been shown that the body recovers almost completely from the effects of firsthand tobacco smoke after 10 years of cessation. 20 years after the cessation of smoking would definitely classify your dad as a nonsmoker for logical and empirical reasons because he doesn't smoke(duh) and would be almost biologically indistinguishable from those who've never smoked. I think you're overstating any methodological flaws here.
Finally, lets step back and look at a realistic picture here. All of these studies involve secondhand smoke at the household level with secondhand smoke constantly being inhaled while inside the house. This is an unprecedented level of exposure compared to the majority of us who are labeled as nonsmokers. More realistic exposure experimentation should be equivalent to daily exposure from walking on an inner city sidewalk, waiting in line to order food outside, waiting outside a building, etc.
As if there are no studies on brief exposure to secondhand smoke in these environments. I linked you to the website of the U.S. Surgeon General and it said that even brief exposure is harmful. Our knowledge of secondhand smoke's effects on the body is multifaceted and I'm surprised that someone who's done some research on the subject didn't know that already.
You are exposed to carcinogens and toxins on a daily basis.
I don't even know how you can straight-facedly say that being exposed to carcinogens doesn't harm you.
Which has been shown to increase my chances of developing cancer. The EPA estimates that thousands of people die from car emissions every year. Or are you going to deny that, too?
What matters is the amount you are exposed to, how frequently, and in some cases your body weight. E.g. when you eat a can of tuna you expose yourself to a specific level of mercury. Eating a can of tuna a week is harmless, but eating large amounts of tuna on a daily basis puts a person at risk of neurological damage.
Carcinogens aren't mercury. Even the slightest exposure to carcinogens increases one's chances of developing cancer.
Well, if secondhand smoke weren't harmless, I wouldn't care. But that is sadly not the case.Oh you already understand the point I made earlier.
And even if secondhand smoke were as harmless as, say, marijuana smoke(Not completely harmless, but it hasn't really been shown to cause cancer despite having carcinogens in it. Some scientists speculate that it might have to do with the THC in marijuana), it should still be regulated. Smoke stinks and it's extremely annoying. You don't have a right to annoy people with your smoking habit, regardless of how medically benign it may be.
Well fuck you have no right to eat your stinky curry near me, regardless of how harmless it actually is it makes my eyes water and its extremely annoying.
This would be a good point if secondhand smoke were completely harmless. But hey, all those medical organizations I mentioned earlier with no vested interest in destroying the tobacco companies are probably wrong.
Jesus Christ, the level of retardation in this thread has approached 2006-BBS levels; the BBS userbase was completely retarded back in those days. Just look at the BBS in the Internet Archive if you don't believe me.
But this brings back memories because it's so funny like it was in 2006. Not as funny, but still funny. Carry on then.
Oh no, young boys not conforming to outdated gender role expectations.
Stop being so ignorant.
At 1/19/14 11:19 PM, Camarohusky wrote:
My opposition to the death penalty is entirely functional, not moral. (I ain't one of those weepy types.)
That hurts, man.
At 1/19/14 11:17 PM, Saen wrote:At 1/19/14 03:31 PM, Light wrote:That would be fair if my behavior was relevant to the topic at hand.
So? Your behavior is childish and you need to know that.
Since it's making me and others a lot less sympathetic to your point of view, which, presumably, you want us to adopt, it's extremely relevant.
I don't know what's so hard to understand about that.
You're going to have to source those two statements.
Well, secondhand smoke is pretty dangerous. The Surgeon General, the EPA, the American Lung Association and pretty much the whole medical science community say that there are no safe levels of exposure to secondhand smoke. It makes sense, really: If there are carcinogens in the smoke that kill the person who smokes it, those same carcinogens are going to pose a danger to people in the vicinity of the smoker, even though they don't expose themselves to secondhand smoke as often as the smoker exposes him/herself to the smoke in the cigarette. You don't even need empirical data to confirm this. It's just basic logic.
Here's what the U.S. Surgeon General said on the matter::
Secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke. Supporting Evidence:
Secondhand smoke contains hundreds of chemicals known to be toxic or carcinogenic (cancer-causing), including formaldehyde, benzene, vinyl chloride, arsenic, ammonia, and hydrogen cyanide.
Secondhand smoke has been designated as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Toxicology Program and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health has concluded that secondhand smoke is an occupational carcinogen.
Children exposed to secondhand smoke are at an increased risk for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), acute respiratory infections, ear problems, and more severe asthma. Smoking by parents causes respiratory symptoms and slows lung growth in their children. Supporting Evidence:
Children who are exposed to secondhand smoke are inhaling many of the same cancer-causing substances and poisons as smokers. Because their bodies are developing, infants and young children are especially vulnerable to the poisons in secondhand smoke.
Both babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant and babies who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth are more likely to die from sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) than babies who are not exposed to cigarette smoke.
Babies whose mothers smoke while pregnant or who are exposed to secondhand smoke after birth have weaker lungs than unexposed babies, which increases the risk for many health problems.
Among infants and children, secondhand smoke cause bronchitis and pneumonia, and increases the risk of ear infections.
Secondhand smoke exposure can cause children who already have asthma to experience more frequent and severe attacks.
Frankly, this is sufficient for me to conclude that secondhand smoke is a toxic substance that must be regulated by society for medical reasons. If the U.S. Surgeon General's own report on the dangers of secondhand smoke isn't enough for you, I can cite the opinion of the American Cancer Society, American Heart Association, World Health Organization, American Medical Association, American Lung Association, or the bazillion other medical organizations that say secondhand smoke is pretty dangerous.
If that isn't enough for you, I can cite the studies upon which the aforementioned scientific consensus is predicated.
As for it "making sense", it also "made sense" in the past that smoking was good for you,
There was no scientific evidence that tobacco smoke was good for you back then, though, just like there isn't any now.
But let's use a thought experiment here: if we assume for the sake of argument that firsthand tobacco smoke is actually as good for you as the tobacco companies wanted you to believe back in the 1950s and 60s, wouldn't it logically follow that secondhand smoke also be good for you? I certainly think it would. But that's not the case. It isn't good for you to smoke it because it has carcinogens in it and presumably, you don't want to have cancer. Secondhand smoke has been proven to have these same carcinogens(There's dozens of them in tobacco smoke in case you didn't already know), so it logically follows that secondhand smoke is bad for you. Unsurprisingly, the empirical data show that secondhand smoke is harmful. Being exposed to carcinogens in any form is, by definition, harmful.
I don't even know how you can straight-facedly say that being exposed to carcinogens doesn't harm you.
even the indians thought it had medical properties. You know how wrong that turned out. Now once again you think you know better when it comes to secondhand smoke, but actually you are on the verge of a huge misunderstanding.
Yeah, I guess I am pretty ignorant about the complete harmlessness of secondhand smoke.
Few things to sort out, one if cigarette smoke itself was a carcinogen, no questions asked smoking itself would be banned or thoroughly regulated. Two, cigarette smoke is not dangerous is you don't have asthma (that being said dust and "regular" smoke is just as dangerous to an asthma patient).
Yeah, I outlined the dangers of secondhand smoke by copy-pasting an excerpt from the Surgeon General's report which refutes this claim, so whatever.
Finally, yes you absolutely need valid scientific research to prove your claim don't be ridiculous. Actually try and find some peer reviewed scientific literature on secondhand smoke directly causing any kind of illness and you'll see the point I'm making here.
Well, the copy-pasta earlier in this post is based on peer-reviewed research and that research is why 99% of doctors in America think secondhand smoke is harmful as well as the World Health Organization, the EPA, the American Cancer Society and so on.
If you want, I can spend 20 seconds finding peer-reviewed literature in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world since I have a subscription to one of them. Somehow I don't think I'll come up short if I search for it.
Here's a thought, what if secondhand smoke is just smoke?
Well, if secondhand smoke weren't harmless, I wouldn't care. But that is sadly not the case.
And even if secondhand smoke were as harmless as, say, marijuana smoke(Not completely harmless, but it hasn't really been shown to cause cancer despite having carcinogens in it. Some scientists speculate that it might have to do with the THC in marijuana), it should still be regulated. Smoke stinks and it's extremely annoying. You don't have a right to annoy people with your smoking habit, regardless of how medically benign it may be.
If we assume that the death penalty is morally permissible(It isn't, of course), then I'd say that the best way to carry out that method of punishment is by subjecting the convicted criminal to a fatal amount of carbon monoxide. Carbon monoxide poisoning is obviously somewhat uncomfortable but the symptoms associated with acute CO poisoning are comparable to the symptoms associated with the flu.
It'll basically feel as if you suddenly developed a strong flu infection before dying. I'd say that's not too bad.
At 1/19/14 02:42 PM, Saen wrote: Light you analyzed a general statement and my behavior rather than contributing to what this thread is actually about.
So? Your behavior is childish and you need to know that.
Here are a few of my main points about "tobacco free zones", and secondhand smoke.
-Stop using the notion that you find secondhand smoke personally disgusting as a way of labeling it as pollution. Fag smoke emits C02, which yes is a form of pollution, however tobacco plants themselves are plants which convert C02 into oxygen.
Well, secondhand smoke is pretty dangerous. The Surgeon General, the EPA, the American Lung Association and pretty much the whole medical science community say that there are no safe levels of exposure to secondhand smoke. It makes sense, really: If there are carcinogens in the smoke that kill the person who smokes it, those same carcinogens are going to pose a danger to people in the vicinity of the smoker, even though they don't expose themselves to secondhand smoke as often as the smoker exposes him/herself to the smoke in the cigarette. You don't even need empirical data to confirm this. It's just basic logic.
-If your main goal of restricting smoking on campus is to reduce pollution, there are much greater sources of pollution on campus such as generators and power plants. By the way just because emissions don't "smell" doesn't mean it isn't pollution come on guys seriously.
This isn't really a logical form of reasoning. Saying that there are greater dangers than secondhand smoke that need to be addressed doesn't refute the claim that secondhand smoke is dangerous and should therefore be regulated by society or, in this case, a university.
-Money is being spent to create a tobacco free campus, nothing is free guys.
Tell me something I don't know.
At 1/19/14 01:21 AM, CiviLies wrote:At 1/19/14 01:01 AM, Clamstuffer wrote: Oops.im dtf u can hav any part of me u want, bby
Ok, I would be like, "Hey aren't you the guy who made a thread about this?" Then you would be like, "No I'm this other guy." Then rape you in the butthole.
Except now I'm waking up next to myself.
You seem like an interesting person to wake up in bed with/have casual unprotected sex.
At 1/18/14 04:31 PM, Entice wrote:At 1/18/14 06:05 AM, Light wrote: But since polygamy is illegal everywhere and for everyone, it is, in a way, more fair....but only polygamous people will ever want to be in polygamous relationships.
It's kind of like saying that illegalizing homosexuality is fair because it's illegal for everyone, not just gay people. There's still a specific group of people who will be needlessly punished. They're just not distinctive from everyone else in a way that's obvious.
That is a good point. My argument is flawed so I'll abandon it.
Still, it seems people in polygamous relationships aren't fighting for a right to have their relationships recognized as marriages by American society. I can only assume that most of them don't really mind not being able to enjoy such a benefit.
At 1/18/14 10:55 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
It sounds more like you're using the regular versions of the word law and theory.
The scientific usage of law and theory are almost entirely interchangeable. They both involve a hypothesis that has been tested and observed to the point of being considered fact. Both theories and laws are falsfiable. As far as I can find, they tend be be named a law or a theory more based upon which type of science it falls under, rather than by any other method.
So when the word 'theory' is used in science it doesn't mean "an idea that is suggested or presented as possibly true but that is not known or proven to be true" and should not be treated as such.
My former astronomy professor once told me that the main difference between a "law" and a "theory" is that a law describes a phenomenon for which science has no explanation. In essence, a "law" is a confirmed observation about a scientific phenomenon that we know little about. He used Newton's Laws of Motion; they describe phenomena but don't explain why they happen. Theories, on the other hand, go one step further and explain how and why these phenomena occur. Later scientific theories explain Newton's Laws pretty well. If we didn't know how and why evolution occurred but knew about its existence, we'd call it the "Law of Evolution." But we know a lot about the phenomenon and why it occurs, so we call it a scientific theory instead.
I have no problem with polygamy, but we all know that won't be legalized in the U.S. any time soon. It can't really be framed as a civil rights issue the same way that gay marriage can be. It sucks for those people who want to enter in to group marriages recognized by the state, but oh well.
Now, if polygamous marriage was the law of the land but only if people could marry members of the opposite sex, I'd have a problem because it'd treat one class of citizens differently from the other for no good reason. But that wouldn't be the case. If polygamous marriage could only be between members of the same race, I'd have a problem for the same reasons I mentioned earlier. But since polygamy is illegal everywhere and for everyone, it is, in a way, more fair. There also obviously aren't many people fighting for the right to marry multiple people; activism for the legalization of polygamy is almost nonexistent. This indicates to me that American society is collectively okay with polygamy being illegal. If polygamous activism ever becomes a significant force in American politics(It probably won't) as activism for gay marriage has, then we should legalize it. Until then, polygamy will always be illegal. Just my two cents.
At 1/17/14 07:45 AM, Saen wrote:At 1/17/14 03:09 AM, Light wrote:Only for this particular issue you are a selfish little bitch if you disagree with me, I've already made my case.
Any contributions you're making to this thread of yours are severely undermined by acting like a butthurt 16-year-old kid who's learned that smoking in public is not looked kindly upon by society.
Anyone who disagrees with you is a "pussy ass bitch" in your view. Get over yourself, grow the fuck up, and realize that there are people in life who disagree with you. It doesn't mean they're awful people, and I'd say that the guy who's throwing the first insults on a public forum is the real "pussy bitch," whatever that means.
lol, OK then.
If you reject evolution you are an inbred redneck
I acknowledge the theory of evolution as truth but rejecting does not making you an inbred redneck. You know that to be true.
and if you mix evolution and religion you are a religious nut job.
I'm an atheist and I have no problem with people who try to reconcile their religious beliefs with the phenomenon of evolution. It shows that they acknowledge the scientific fact of evolution and that's all that really matters to me.
I don't know why you're so bitter and so inclined to pass judgment on all segments of the population who disagree with you. That's not something a mature adult would do.
For god's sake, you're a 21-year-old college student, according to your profile, anyway. Act like one.
Actually if you don't believe men as a sex themselves are currently facing some injustices themselves you are most likely ignorant or you could be a spoon fed pussy as well.
Uh-huh.
Men are so oppressed and someone needs to fight for their rights. When will those dastardly women start to treat men with the respect they deserve? :'-(
Yes, there are double standards that harm men, but they pale in comparison that women deal with on a daily basis.
I make my case before I start labeling people,
Your problem is that you're labeling people at all who don't deserve it.
but hey I see it's working you guys are paying close attention.
It's the politics forum. I read any thread and most of its content if it even slightly interests me. Don't overestimate the worth I place on this individual thread because I deplore your petty name-calling habit.
At least Camaro has the decency and ability to counter my points before whining about name calling.
Camarohusky is doing a superb job refuting every one of your points, so I don't see a reason to jump in to this debate. I'm just watching from the sidelines.
And another thing: Camarohusky and I agree on a lot of issues, but we do still have our disagreements, namely on marijuana legalization and the death penalty. We've had some interesting but civil debates on the matter without ever resorting to juvenile name-calling. The result of these debates has always been that we left with our views mostly unchanged, but I'd like to think they were still stimulating and good for the mind. Why can't you be mature enough to treat Camarohusky and others with the respect they deserve? Camaro could easily retaliate and gratuitously call you a bitch/asshole/idiot/dumbass/moron/whatever, but I see that he hasn't. He's taken the high road and contends every one of your points civilly. That's why he's a well-respected member of this forum. At least, I respect him for it.
I don't even know what the point of your debate is if you're going to insult people like the way you do. Surely you know that it makes it less likely that we'll take your argument into serious consideration, correct? If so, you're just wasting a lot of time being bitter and angry that some people don't agree with you 110% of the time, and that's just pathetic.
You can insult me after reading all or part of this post, but I don't really care what you think of me. I have no reason to. So either take my advice to heart or call me a pussy one more time. It's your call.
At 1/17/14 12:56 AM, Saen wrote:At 1/17/14 12:51 AM, Korriken wrote: Aww, sounds like some poor tarlung is all cranky because he has to leave campus to have his fix.Thanks for contributing to the discussion.
and yes, this is all the respect you're gonna get out of me considering you call anyone who doesn't agree with you a "Pussy bitch" which is kind of funny, since you come off as one yourself.
Any contributions you're making to this thread of yours are severely undermined by acting like a butthurt 16-year-old kid who's learned that smoking in public is not looked kindly upon by society.
Anyone who disagrees with you is a "pussy ass bitch" in your view. Get over yourself, grow the fuck up, and realize that there are people in life who disagree with you. It doesn't mean they're awful people, and I'd say that the guy who's throwing the first insults on a public forum is the real "pussy bitch," whatever that means.
Seeing the general forum try and have a discussion on political issues is like forcing a sleep-deprived kid with Down Syndrome to try and do calculus problems. It's painful.
At 1/11/14 05:15 PM, Ranger2 wrote:
So is this the death of a hero, villain, or more likely, a bit of both?
I don't know much about this Ariel Sharon fellow, but from what I've read of him in the wake of his death suggests to me that historians will have mixed feelings of him.
At 1/10/14 11:13 PM, Xenomit wrote:At 1/10/14 10:26 PM, Light wrote: I wouldn't go near Bitcoin and honestly, neither should any of you.I love you
Who doesn't?
At 1/10/14 11:15 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:At 1/10/14 11:06 PM, Addict wrote:A simple economics course says otherwise the US dollar has intrinsic value and its up to the Federal Reserve (a non government entity) to regulate it.At 1/10/14 11:03 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: I like how people say that bit coin is unstable and speculative, they should look at the US dollar which isn't backed up by anything as a fiat currency which is no better than monopoly money.you're an idiot
I took "a simple economics course" in college and I learned that fiat money is popular because it has proven effective and convenient for the economic needs of nation-states.
Go ahead. I dare you to make the argument that we should return to the gold standard. There's a reason most countries have abandoned it.
Quite a few economists(Nobel laureate Paul Krugman being one of them) believe Bitcoin is just another bubble waiting to burst because of its speculative nature. It also doesn't help that the value of Bitcoin is very unstable and very mutable. The same can't be said of the U.S. Dollar, the Euro, the Japenese Yen, the Chinese Yuan, or any other stable and well-known currency.
I wouldn't go near Bitcoin and honestly, neither should any of you.
At 1/10/14 01:38 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
There are some rural counties nearby that are begging for juvenile defense attorneys (as conflict require a high amount of them even for a small amount of cases) and my year's worth of experience already places me among the top among all attorneys in terms of experience in this particular niche.
I'm glad to hear that there are good jobs available for you. Not every lawyer or law school student can say that, unfortunately.
At 1/9/14 11:24 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/9/14 03:42 AM, Light wrote: Lord knows being an entrepreneur is hard work.It does sound quite fun though. Structuring your own little world in among the current system.
So much in rewards, yet so risky. Probably attractive to entrepreneurial types for that reason.
When my time comes if there are no jobs available, I will be creating my own firm. The prospect both worries and excites me.
I always thought only the more experienced lawyers could pull that off after working in another firm. Best of luck, though.
It worries me as I'll be completely on my own with no back up or resources. Yet it excites me as it will be all mine and everything that comes of it would be my creation.
You're going to need a partner or two.
At 1/9/14 05:54 PM, Light wrote:
I should add that we've observed the creation of some animal species and new strains of bacteria through natural selection. I'd say these events constitute instances of macroevolution.
Ugh, meant to include the fact that the creation of these species and strains(Mostly strains, though) are events that have been observed in the lifetimes of the scientists who observe them.
At 1/9/14 05:52 PM, Light wrote:At 1/9/14 03:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote:Macroevolution has already been proven true. Logically and empirically speaking, macroevolution is just microevolution on a long time scale.At 1/9/14 03:18 PM, Saen wrote: It doesn't matter what you believe, evolution is true.No it's not. It's not definitively true. We have definievely proved the concept of micro-evolution. Through this we have definitevely proven the possibility of macro evolution. However, until we master time, we will be unable to prove our genetic ancestry. We have ton sof evidence and clues, but until we can make a direct family tree back to another species we will have not proven evolution as true.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution and I personally treat it as fact, and I see those who don't not believe it as well, pretty dumb, but I am not one to say we have definitively proven it, because we have not.
I should add that we've observed the creation of some animal species and new strains of bacteria through natural selection. I'd say these events constitute instances of macroevolution.
At 1/9/14 03:40 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/9/14 03:18 PM, Saen wrote: It doesn't matter what you believe, evolution is true.No it's not. It's not definitively true. We have definievely proved the concept of micro-evolution. Through this we have definitevely proven the possibility of macro evolution. However, until we master time, we will be unable to prove our genetic ancestry. We have ton sof evidence and clues, but until we can make a direct family tree back to another species we will have not proven evolution as true.
Don't get me wrong, I believe in evolution and I personally treat it as fact, and I see those who don't not believe it as well, pretty dumb, but I am not one to say we have definitively proven it, because we have not.
Macroevolution has already been proven true. Logically and empirically speaking, macroevolution is just microevolution on a long time scale.
In regards to the OP, I just say that I "accept" evolution as truth, because it is.
I wish you the best of luck, Korriken. Lord knows being an entrepreneur is hard work.
At 1/7/14 08:50 PM, Entice wrote: Dear Diary,
Today I found out that many people think a word means what it does mean and I was very mad.
Fuck this gay Earth
You gotta love that Xenomit ignored your first post earlier in this thread that completely refuted one of his claims about music and all that stuff.
