We're predators, sweety.
Have you ever seen the Lion King? Because it really is the circle of life, and it moves us all. Would you rather feed a lion tofu? Would you like sharks to go around chanting, "fish are friends, not food!"? Or would you like to embrace the real world that we all know, love, and evolved into?
Because Disney mimics life, life doesn't mimic Disney.
Legality I agree with. But why do they have to learn English? Why can we kick them out if they do something illegal? Why do they have to be skilled at something?
Either we treat immigrants as equals and grant them full citizenship, or we treat them as second class citizens. That doesn't sound right to me. Once someone immigrates they should be able to live just like any other citizen. Freedom of speech would dictate they can speak whatever language they please. They can break the law if they wish, and be punished for it, too. And I doubt every American is skilled at something... we need people to fill labor jobs, and they would have the opportunity to pursue school here.
That may be how you see it, but I don't see children as an inconvenience.
I'd rather have prospective parents wanting the children. But, again, it is not an easy decision. There is a lot to think about, and no woman simply shrugs it off as an "inconvenience."
You don't have to be married to be a selfless person... I get hit on by a lot of married guys... they seem to be pretty selfish. Marriage is pretty frivolous these days...
A life is priceless. If we had universal health care, this wouldn't be an issue. I would forfeit half my income on an annual basis to ensure better health care (amoung other things). So I suppose the answer is 20,000 a year. But it wouldn't be one life saved, it would be millions.
I believe you're thinking of Japan, not China. On top of that, your misconceptions about global warming are not relevent to this debate. The plants have been breathing for millions of years, they don't need humans to help them.
The world cannot support humanities' numbers as they are now, let alone more. I mentioned global warming or other events. So a lack of food, or other resources is what I meant. This is not a debate about that. Please respect that.
Oh dear. You're mistaken. We should take land from national parks? Are you trying to be funny? Or are you seriously serious? If you are, that is scary.
We need to control the population. We cannot grow exponentially as a species without incurring consequences of global warming or other events. If we don't control the population we will all suffer together. So this debate is about how, not if.
Pssshh.
Meat is murder, but hey, it's natural. We eat meat, we also eat plants. We shouldn't eat as much meat as we do, and we should treat our live stock better. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't eat meat. It's part of of our natiral diet.
It's not the next step, it was the last step.
We are not a manogamous species, but the social contraints of society make women terretorial over men. Men are programmed to wonder and procreate. It's their nature.
I think monogamy is a choice that someone has to make for themselves, and no one should be forced into that role until they want it. Otherwise you're holding humans, who are essentially animals when sexually arroused, to unatainable standards.
they use everything. You may stay intact if you go to like a medical student, but you could also be cut up and sent to specialists.
I read this book called stiff and found that my favorite use for my cadaver would be decomposition research. They lay you out in a field and let you rot.
I am a healthy, young, non smoker. Yes, I am a registered donor, and I am proud of it.
But my donor registration states that I don't want my body used for plastic surgery instruction. If I ever finally get fake boobs, I want to be able to enjoy them.
It's bad for your posture, and your wrists and phalanges. It's bad for your eyesight, which can't be avoided by exercise. It's bad for your social life and probably takes away from your responsibilities.
If you are on the computer for more than 3 hours a day for recreational use, you need a new hobby.
They don't have to be religious stances, but they are. It wouldn't even be a question if it weren't for religion.
And it's fine that you believe that. But who does your belief effect? Everyone.
You, as a religious person, have a choice. I as a non-religious person have a choice. That's how it should be. I'm not religious. So why do I have to conform to your religious point of view?
Democratic ideals understand that it's a diverse world out there. Not everyone is religious, and we shouldn't have to be.
I would like abortions to stop. I would like for people to not have to make that choice, or to not make that choice. I personally wouldn't abort a child no matter what my circumstances. But I personally love children, and have a stable life. I couldn't speak for someone in another circumstance.
I don't believe that religious teachings belong in politics, and it's a religious belief that abortion is wrong. I'm not anti-religion. I'm anti-religious interference in political opinions that govern over non-religious persons.
It's that lack of religious influence that I believe makes democratic logic more sound.
"Democrats is that they are so ready to abort babies but won't execute guilty murderers or wage war against an evil nation."
Democrats aren't all like "Go abortion, do it!!!"
We just want to have the choice. Please stop saying that democrats want people to have abortions. That's false.
Also, what war? Oh... the one were finally buckling down on, and finishing?
Well this is a silly debate. This is really a question that someone should ask themselves introspectively.
But I am a Democrat, and feel that right now the Democratic party is more cohesive and unified than the Republican party. I also agree more with the Democratic ideals.
Duh.
Yeah, you can never justify your views, because they're based on biblical law that not everyone should have to abide by. But you do want to remove freedoms!
That 'fearmongering' is based on fact, and I think it's a message that needs to be spread.
The point is that I believe in global warming and in the pollution of the planet. And so being gluttonous with respect to resources is a 'sin' to me.
This isn't harmless, and the freedom to neglect our environment should be taken away.
Everyone knows it....
"See it's not so bad is it? (;"
It's great, but you don't paraphrase me correctly, so I had to ask you to quote me instead. If you didn't weaken or change my arguments while paraphrasing me, I wouldn't have a problem with it.
"I don't have a problem with recycling. What I do have a problem with is people saying that I have to recycle because I don't. And I shouldn't have to."
Why not? If you shouldn't have to be recycle, because this is such a free country, then I should be able to marry a woman. That's how you're being hypocritical.
"...Some way to dessolve or discentigrate it. So that we can just send it to the dump and they make it go away."
Well, they're working on it. But as of right now... the only economical way is to burn it, and what do you get when you burn anything? Ding.
But oh wait, you don't believe in global warming. So I guess it doesn't exist because you don't believe it. So yeah! Lets Burn it!!! Global Bon Fire?
Yeah, no... The only thing we can do right now, because we don't have that technology and there is no way that it would be economically possible to apply that technology to all the trash, we need to have as many people as possible working to conserve.
PS Your never answered leadheads question up there:
You never explained how you can justify removing freedoms that don't harm anyone, but allowing freedoms that do harm others.
Now a movie for the kiddies here.
I didn't like it when uneducated people Voted Bush into Office, but it happened.
The point is, Jake, that you do advocate to restrict the freedoms of a lot of people. But you turn a blind eye to those freedoms because you don't believe in them.
Basically what we're trying to help you understand is that you're being severely hypocritical by saying... and I paraphrase:
Gays can't get married, but you have the freedom to trash the planet because freedoms are important.
I just don't think it's realistic to think that we can get everyone to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle without some pretty strong incentives... and it's only logical that those incentives be fines.
Fines will help pay for the damage done, and encourage people to act more wisely.
But if you disagree, how would you propose that we go about it?
You want a break? What you need is a reality check. I'm calling a spade a spade. You need to hear it.
Having to decide what to do with the landfills is a direct result of people not recycling.
And do you know what we can do with the landfills?! Nothing but wait for those to decompose for years while you build more landfills. That doesn't sound like a solution to me at, just another big problem.
The answer here is mandatory Reducing, Reusing and Recycling.
How is that possible? How can you force people to recycle? What are you gunna give everyone a ticket if they don't recycle?, or if they leave their AC on!?
Yes, exactly.
At Ikea they charge for plastic bags, I love that idea. To conserve water in southern California they charge up the ass for going over your alloted amounts.
They even have people here who go through your recycling to make sure you're doing it properly.
You think the ocean is full of trash because consumers themselves put it there? That is soooo cute! And stupid, too. Your plastic bag finds it's way to the ocean.
You should encourage people to reduce their usage.
The phrase is Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. But in reality you need to reduce your usage. If you need to use something, reuse it as much as possible. And after all that, if you can't reuse it anymore... recycle it. It's not if than or or whatever.
Even if you don't litter, you're still filling landfills and the ocean with this excess garbage. It's still detrimental to the environment.
There is government needed. Because at this moment people are being encouraged to reduce, reuse and recycle and yet they don't.
I hate having to repeat myself, but you never listen so:
Regulations are put in place to govern people too ignorant to govern themselves. The police arrest people who are stupidly driving drunk, and now I believe we should be able to punish people to ignorant to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.
I'm ecstatic that you do what you can. Thank you. But being in Texas, I bet you leave your AC on all day in the summer... there are other things you probably do that you don't even think about.
Some people just don't give a damn. Those are the people I'm worried about.
Well you just contradicted yourself. I know you love to point out when people do that, but you seem to love to do it too.
If you really make a difference here you should go after the grocery companies to stop using plastic bags all together.
You want people to conserve on their own, but you wont not use plastic bags unless they make you?
I'm going to, for once, pretend that I agree with you. Global warming doesn't exist.. cough sorry I just threw up in my mouth a little.
Anyway. That doesn't mean that other symptoms of global warming don't exist. Americans produce way too much trash. Our landfills are over flowing. Our oceans are seas of plastic bags and chemicals that the wildlife is suffering and dying. Our air is polluted so much that in some part of the world people can't breathe. The oil reserves are dwindling, and pretty soon we will need alternative resources anyway.
Weather we all die of global warming is futile, if this other stuff persists it will make earth unlivable.
Think WALLE.
Tapout, now darlin'.
Now listen, if we don't enforce that people recycle and whatnot, then many wont. And the effect of people abusing the environment does add up. These are facts. It's only logical that guidelines be set for people to abide by so that global warming can be slowed.
I never use plastic bags, and the other day the checkout lady asked me, "why? it's too late anyway." But no... it's not too late as long as we're still trying.
Regulations are put in place to govern people too ignorant to govern themselves. The police arrest people who are stupidly driving drunk, and now I believe we should be able to punish people to ignorant to Reduce, Reuse and Recycle.
