General Chat / Global Warming

No, I think humans/people/organisms with capacity to think/derive morals/act based on judgment/have a soul are infintitely more important than all others.

Where are your morals and your thinking then? Your morals are to kill everything that YOU deem not as good as you.

Well kevin, whether you believe it or not, ecosystems are important to our own survival. At some point, all this "kill anything that gets in our way" thinking will be analogous to shooting ourselves in the foot.

If anything, humans are just virus's for planets, really.

Oh, and the bears that do come? They don't shoot them... they airlift them out:

1) Because it's considered endangered and thus against the law to kill them.

2) Because the bears are how that place makes its money. I thought you were at least fiscally enlightened enough to see how slaughtering the cow = no more milk.

3) Because that would be aiding in destroying a fragile arctic ecosystem, which, by the way, our fishing lanes depend on. Scientists have estimated the effects, and from what they can tell, the disappearance of polar bears in such a sparse ecosystem would have epic repercussions. You want to see the fish market fall apart and tens of thousands of people lose their jobs? There are real implications here.

I think the point Kevin is trying to make is that if you, your dog, and your brother were in a burning building, you should probably save your brother before the dog. Then again that has nothing to do with this really because he's talking about just shooting animals for no real reason.

^ I'd save my dog. But I know that I should save my brother but still. He's worthless and I'd be more upset at the loss of my dog especially since I don't even have one.

^ I think I'd save my brother, no matter how much I hated him.

Well. He doesn't even exist to me so he might as well be dead he will be soon with all his drinking and smoking anyways.

Make a topic about which came first, the chicken or the egg, and I'll put money down that Kevin will piss everyone off.

It's just a running joke at this point.

The egg did. It's called evolution.

^Exactly. I don't even know why people see that as a difficult question anymore.

As for marsh's first post: I knew it was a fake immediately. How did I know? All 110 words are spelled correctly. Especially "inconvenient." That should've given it away to Kevin right off the bat.

As for global warming, yes, it's a serious problem. Anyone who doesn't realize that, or can't effectively argue against it with well thought out, logical counterpoints, doesn't deserve to live on Earth. Go live on the moon or something.

The egg did. It's called evolution.

Surely then its a trick questions... the single celled organism came first

Anyway what the house on fire analogy is alright but its not what kevin seems to be saying.
He seems to be more on the "I didn't feed my dog, so its annoying me for food, so I'll shoot it"
Its very much a case of denial to the extreme

^ No. Cos the question isn't what was the first ever thing but which out of the two, chicken and egg came first.

^ No. Cos the question isn't what was the first ever thing but which out of the two, chicken and egg came first.

in that case neither

but yeah its a classic argument and if u have to pick one then egg is the right answer as when a first chicken appeared it must of come from an egg

As for marsh's first post: I knew it was a fake immediately. How did I know? All 110 words are spelled correctly. Especially "inconvenient." That should've given it away to Kevin right off the bat.

Yea! nobody noticed that?

As for saving my brother or a dog, id save the dog,even though i dont have a brother, but if i did, id try to save bothth

and who cares about if a chicken or an egg came first? will it solve all of eathes problems?? NO!
and see ^^^ i spelt earths wrong, who could belive that i spelt inconviant rihgt

Edited by marsh, 08 November 2008 - 11:28 PM.

yeah it's funny that xin spelt spelt wrong

in that case neither

but yeah its a classic argument and if u have to pick one then egg is the right answer as when a first chicken appeared it must of come from an egg

No, the argument is that eggs existed well before the first chicken ever came along. Reptiles lay eggs. Reptiles existed before birds evolved. And there's nothing in the question that specifies a chicken egg.

-ACE

its funny how we go from
Global Warming, to
saving your dog or your brother, to
did an egg or a chicken come first?

As for the egg/chicken, it depends on what you belive in,
if you belive in eveloution, then the egg came first,
if you belive in god, then the chicken came first

Where are your morals and your thinking then? Your morals are to kill everything that YOU deem not as good as you.

No, my morals are killing something that is not as good as a human is not a tragedy, travety or wrong.

^ I think I'd save my brother, no matter how much I hated him.

Ahhh, we agree.

Well. He doesn't even exist to me so he might as well be dead he will be soon with all his drinking and smoking anyways.

Well if he was your brother wouldn't you try and help him?

Make a topic about which came first, the chicken or the egg, and I'll put money down that Kevin will piss everyone off.

It's just a running joke at this point.

The chicken.

What joke?

^Exactly. I don't even know why people see that as a difficult question anymore.
...
As for global warming, yes, it's a serious problem. Anyone who doesn't realize that, or can't effectively argue against it with well thought out, logical counterpoints, doesn't deserve to live on Earth. Go live on the moon or something.

You are easily more judgmental and condescening than me. Believe it or not, some people don't accept evolution, or at least macro-evolution, or whatever the FLYING FUCK the one where we came from single-celled organisms are called, anyways, some people don't accept it, so it is a diffciult question.

So your standards for living on Earth are:
A) Agreeing with you, and/or
Being an effective debater?
What the fuck is your problem? You are worse than a Mediaeval Christian, you want to deport people who are not one of these things to the moon, where they would die, why not just gas chamber them like a Nazi? What if a retarded kid was a creationsist, would you kill him becaues he couldn't argue his point? Your first criterion makes you a zealot, and you're second point makes you a meritocrat (which isn't as bad, in some senses, but in the sense you use it, yeah, it's a big deal).

Honestly, I think its sad people like me are called intolerant bigots when posts like this go unnoticed. You remind me of a tyrant.

It's more of an understanding than a belief

*coughkevinisanassholecough*

You are easily more judgmental and condescening than me. Believe it or not, some people don't accept evolution, or at least macro-evolution, or whatever the FLYING FUCK the one where we came from single-celled organisms are called, anyways, some people don't accept it, so it is a diffciult question.

So your standards for living on Earth are:
A) Agreeing with you, and/or
Being an effective debater?
What the fuck is your problem? You are worse than a Mediaeval Christian, you want to deport people who are not one of these things to the moon, where they would die, why not just gas chamber them like a Nazi? What if a retarded kid was a creationsist, would you kill him becaues he couldn't argue his point? Your first criterion makes you a zealot, and you're second point makes you a meritocrat (which isn't as bad, in some senses, but in the sense you use it, yeah, it's a big deal).

Honestly, I think its sad people like me are called intolerant bigots when posts like this go unnoticed. You remind me of a tyrant.

Okay, first off, you wouldn't argue about global warming with a mentally challenged person. I'm talking about people like you, Kevin. You are an intelligent person (or seem to be) and you spew shit and don't back it up effectively. Everyone else here could easily think of a decent counterpoint to global warming without resorting to conspiracy theories or God. Your reasoning for animals being less than humans: "they don't have souls" and/or "they aren't intelligent." You cannot effectively defend your positions, and thus, you should go live on the moon.

That is the point I was trying to make. And it doesn't just apply to you, either. It applies to everyone. If you cannot effectively argue your views, then fuck off.