Foucault - the dude who may or may not have invented the one thing at the science museum I find slightly interesting. I mean, like, seriously!; How does it knock down all those dominoes??
Is trysts, trysts?
Sort:
oinquarki wrote:
You can tell a geezer is super-pissed-off when they start using the word "dude" in argument.
And that would be electicpawn, right squirt.
Oh on the studies of plants and pain...when I quote and mention things like that, I may not necessarily believe in them, but I like people to think about a different view of things. By looking at the different views you can have a better understanding of the world around you.
All I am doing is debating philosophy, that's all. I have a friend who is also a vegetarian and we have had multiple debates on our differing lifestyle choices.
May 18, 2011
0
#225
LisaV wrote:
@trysts #259 in case i'm too slothlike yet again.
lol I understood purely in a linguistic way. ;)
Sexuality, insanity....oooh, this sounds awesome. Google, get ready. How about...Sharon, adopted daughter of Foucault?
Oh my god, you are hysterically funny!
Hu Flung Pu?
May 19, 2011
0
#227
Conquistador wrote:
Oh on the studies of plants and pain...when I quote and mention things like that, I may not necessarily believe in them, but I like people to think about a different view of things. By looking at the different views you can have a better understanding of the world around you.
All I am doing is debating philosophy, that's all. I have a friend who is also a vegetarian and we have had multiple debates on our differing lifestyle choices.
That's fair and all, but its the internets and you never know who you're chatting to. Some of the people here might have a phd in plant psychology right.
There's a lot to debate about pain and what it is, and it all ties in neatly to the philosophy of mind, which is by no means an exhausted topic. Fact is that to define pain as any stimulus preceding physical harm sounds odd to me.
I don't really believe the cold fusion conspiracy. If we were really able to do that, scientists worldwide would be all over it. All experiments that have shown it have turned out to be bogus.
I'm also sceptic about the most enthusiastic car efficiency stories. You can calculate the definite amount of energy available in one gallon of gasoline, and depending on car weight, air resistance and ground resistance its not so hard to come up with the maximum attainable distance on that gallon. Diminishing that by the expected engine and transmission efficiency, its possible to come up with a benchmark for the highest somewhat realistic mileage. There's even tech competitions where they build very weird cars that aim at the highest efficiency.
Tech conspiracies are usually not so convincing if you actually look into the tech. They might have not mass produced efficient cars earlier, but there really aren't hiding alien technology super ultra efficient cars that would eat the prius alive.
trysts wrote:
electricpawn wrote:
It's unfortunate that things aren't always rewarded in proportion to their beauty.
What does that mean?
The study of human language is beautiful. Lisa has an advanced degee in it, which is laudable. I will leave her to her pursuit of other fine things.
HessianWarrior wrote:
oinquarki wrote:
You can tell a geezer is super-pissed-off when they start using the word "dude" in argument.
And that would be electicpawn, right squirt.
If the science is wrong, lil' fella, I've spent a lot of time reducing the emmissions of VOC into the atmosphere for no reason. You may not take it seriously, but I can assure you that various governmental regulatory agencies do.
oinquarki wrote:
Flamma_Aquila wrote:
dannyhume wrote:
Vegetarians are cruel to vegetation, which are living creatures.
In fact, if one is a "moral" vegetarian (as opposed to a "health" vegetarian), then s/he should support "inorganic" chemically loaded synthetic foods as nutrients of choice. I guess you could also eat freshly dead-of-natural-or-accidental-causes carcasses. Accidental-dead carcasses are better because they are probably younger healthier meatier specimens.
Vegetarians actually kill far more animals than meat eaters. For every acre of wheat or corn they eat, many field mice, snakes, etc. die. So for humanitarian reasons, eat cows.
That's different; mice and snakes piss us off, whereas cows don't, therefore manufacturing cows and eating them is not ok. If the cows were released into the wild because people stopped eating them, then they would start to piss us off, and only then would it be ok to eat them. Also, we don't kill mice and snakes directly or for any selfish purpose, that way it's not as morally disconcerting. If we actually gave the mice a clean, painless death and took care of them insead of just letting them starve, and we made use of them in death, then it would be morally wrong.
Nah. I've been way more pissed off because of cows--and pigs--than any other animal, particulary wild ones. Horses too. Some of them are real smart asses.
I'll never forget Rose of Sharon. She was an all black holstein. She wasn't crazy; just mean. Most dairy cattle that hurt you in the process of gleaning their natural resources do so because they're crazy. You'll hurt 'em a little and they'll kick hell out of ya'.
Not Rosie, she picked her spots. When you were walking, innocuously, behind her. Whammmmo! Welcome to the world of pain.
She pissed me off way more than any mouse or snake. I've even been bitten by a poisonous snake. It was my own damned fault, I can't blame the snake.
I sure can blame Rose, though, for those times she kicked the shit out of me.
TheGrobe wrote:
Any mammals we feed them -- pigs are omnivorous just like us. Note that we also have a history of supplementing herbivore feed with animal proteins as well, which is what led to the whole mad cow scare.
I think, actually, that we may still do this, but now largely use menhaden (fish) instead of protien from cows, sheep or pigs for cattle -- these land-based animal protiens may still be used for chicken feed, however, as there's no known human health ramifications of doing so.
On a side note, in the case of Canada's biggest serial killer/pig farmer, the mammals they ate included people.
Fishmeal's been around for decades. I never could bring myself to feed it to cattle. Never fed the pigs meat, either. They get mean...'er.
Conquistador wrote:
I find it funny that the U.S. is still using coal to make electricity, which has been done since the 19th century! Talk about backward!
You, sir, are definitely the Classical Conquistador. That thread questioning your identity is absurd. Nearly as absurd as declaring the burning of coal to produce enrgy as "backward".
Coal is readily available and abundant! I do realize that coal production in 2000 BC China outstripped that of Britain in 1870, but hell, man! If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
Coal gasification has been around for a long time too. That's 'cause it works rather easily.
An anti-hippie, such as you, should stand firmly behind the coal industry. Any neighborhood that has coal burns coal.
Burnin' rocks is cool.
You can tell a geezer is super-pissed-off when they start using the word "dude" in argument.