“they don’t have any instinct because they’ve been raised in captivity”
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
An “instinct” is something one is born with. It is the OPPOSITE of something one learns - ie not something one gains when one is “raised” (wherever and whoever is doing the raising).
RadCap
rad5cap
“running in the jungle with high heels”
Of ALL the stupid, inane, and outright ridiculous things in the movie, THAT’S your problem with JW?
Bwahahahahahah!!!!
Put in simplier terms, your premise is that killing raises moral questions, whereas not killing doesn’t raise any moral questions. Of course, whether one agrees or disagrees with the first part of your premise, the actual problem is in the second part of your premise. It is false.
You claim by not killing, no moral…
Actually, given that ‘Global Warming’ seems to be forestalling the next Ice Age, the fight against ‘Global Warming’ is actually working against man, not for him.:
It was discovered that NOAA did “tamper with figures” and flipped an enormous amount of temps so that they went in the opposite direction than they actually were.
I’m sorry you feel the need to ignore evidence.
“Well, considering you didn’t answer any of my questions I’ll hold off on answering yours.”
Your questions were immaterial because the point you were trying to make with them is that you consider the line between justified and unjustified killing to be “morally gray”. You then claimed that NOT killing doesn’t share…
“The scientific discovery that the Earth is warming because of human emissions of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels has bupkis to do with politics.”
THAT’S your ‘arguement’? What am I saying, of course it is.
“See, for example, large numbers of political parties around the world which have no stated…
“Superman is supposed to be a symbol of always finding another way to stop the foe without killing”
Again, this is the very question under consideration. WHY? And why is this supposedly good? What makes this “pure”? What makes it an ‘unsullied’ good? What makes REFUSING to kill under ANY circumstance good? Why is such…
That’s how you want to play it? Evasion? Well, that’s certainly the approach you took with your reply to Robbie about RicemanFTW’s post. But hey, why expect you to be forthright in your responses when a quick logical fallacy is so much easier and satisfying, eh?
Since you knew my reply to you addressed your post…
LOL - as much, and in the -same- manner, as you ‘addressed’ Robbie’s comment.
Come on, seriously? There’s seriously people who think that politics are somehow separate from science, especially government-funded science?
Funny, these same people are always the ones to attack scientists if they are funded by private interests or concur with business’ conclusions on anything. So obviously they DO…
This is the view that industry will always be able to produce, no matter what shackles, chains, stab wounds, amputations, and torture the government inflicts upon it.
At least he recognizes the fact that his joy is “sick”.
Not at all a fan of Obama, but that struck me odd as well. Quite unusual for the NYT.
“a symbol of pure heroism that should never be sullied”
Of course this already begs the question being asked - what makes killing anti-heroic? In other words, you are indicating it is not moral to kill, whereas Timm is indicating that it can be. So it is only by your ethic that it would ‘sully’ a hero. That if a hero…
Coming Soon: Sky High prices for everything!
“Your whole top post outlines a sea man narrative about what feminists want to promote”
Actually, my post wasn’t about what “feminists want to promote” at all - but was about competing priorities when it comes to pushing Narratives by those reviewing Tomorrowland. Apparently you saw some ‘trigger’ words, went all red…
Its always funny how people who are DESPERATE to disagree but have -no- rational argument simply make shit up and try to pretend its something an opponent said. Straw men are like a kid’s blankey - mighty comforting for the child, but useless for anything else.
Do get back to us when you have a logical argument to…
Uncleduke has no argument to present so he engages in personal attacks? What a surprise!
“which would require more than 1,000 times the amount of fuel the probe can carry”
Actually, it could have been designed to use unconventional fuels etc and thus COULD have gotten there fast AND stopped. But that’s more a mission/budget/politics/philosophy issue than a technology issue.