Posts by kizzichan

Original Post by monarch777:

Well, then, perhaps if they had a Conservative biracial pregnant trans-gender Westboro Baptist ...it would do them some good.

Can you be conservative and trans-gender?

Al-Anon!  I've never been, but my mom grew up in an alcoholic household and I saw the same thing happening to my family.  I got really sad when I would see my brothers binge drinking because I love them so much and it was really painful to see them doing that and not being able to stop.  Alcoholism runs in our family.  Anyway the advice my mom told me was from when she had been to Al-Anon, and it's really good.  They are apparently really supportive and give you lots of good strategies for getting over the guilt of living with an alcoholic (can you believe that I at 16 felt like an enabler for the alcoholism of 2 20 year old men?) and working through it.  Good luck!

Not without consequence.  I agree with change and action - however, not in the form of population control.  Humans created the problem - and only if this were a logic problem would this make sense - removing humans is the solution?  If you think about what that's saying, it's insane.  We are the most intelligent species on the planet - and we don't want our race here.  Humans may be the species causing the most damage, but imagine a world without them.  It wouldn't be much of a world.  And I know that population control doesn't entail eradication of the human race (OBVIOUSLY), but I wonder where you draw the line.  Maybe we'll take the China approach and every couple will get a permission slip to have one child?  Maybe it'll only be white couples, next.  Maybe it'll only be rich couples.  When you mess around with it - when you give the control to someone other than the people themselves - you lose control entirely.  This has derailed slightly from its original intention, but my point is, the growing support for population control has me worried.  I worry that today it's choice - and more people are looking down on the choice to have one child - or more - and tomorrow it's not choice - that's just how it IS, and we CAN'T have one child or more.  I don't think it's naive - that's falling more in line with conspiracy theory, in my opinion.  But there are plenty of such theories, and maybe mine deserves no credit.  Maybe it does, though.  I think it's a real possibility, but we'll see in time.  No sense arguing it now.

The Kyoto Protocol is pro-global warming, yes, I know.  But isn't the point of the Kyoto Protocol that we clean up the earth?  Who cares whether it's for some reason like global warming?

What about solar power?  No, we don't have technology today, but we probably will in the future.  Is that not sustainable?

The scientific theory - I know that there are mountains of studies done on weather.  However, these are fairly recent and show a slight increase in temperatures.  As I pointed out, weather is cyclical.  When you apply the studies in recent years of the weather patterns, they seem to show a trend, which can be used to support global warming.  I don't believe it comes anywhere near being enough to make global warming as proven as the theory of relativity.

^ I agree 100%.  But I was responding to the poster who said that it was ridiculous that anyone could debate whether or not global warming exists.  I don't think it does; that does not mean I don't support being environmentally friendly.

Edit - it was to boxer

I can't disprove climate change.  However, as you said, pg, you can't prove it either.  I hardly think that climate change is as certain (however uncertain it may be) as the sun coming up tomorrow.  Weather is a cyclic thing - back in the 70s people were freaking out because they practically thought a new ice age was coming.  Now it's armageddon by warmth.  I seriously wonder whether scientists have anything better to do with their time than create theories that can't and won't be proven or disproven for another hundred years... or more, if you want to be accurate about it.  How long have weather patterns been studied?  100, 150 years max?  In the grand scheme of things, isn't that a few too few years to start saying we now know of "record high temperatures" and whatnot?  Personally, I won't buy into it - not now and probably not later, but I accept that a lot of people are going to believe in climate change.  If I didn't, I'd be naive to think that something that's become so disproportionately publicized wouldn't be believed.  But I have read plenty of studies both meant to prove and disprove global warming.  My friend and I used to enjoy discussion of it - she was a believer - and we would trade off books and such.  I know plenty ABOUT it, I just don't believe in it.  (On another note - what do you think of #1 global warming advocate Al Gore and his energy inefficient home?)

Jules - keep the argument to the topic.  If you must get personal keep it to yourself and say nothing; your emotional response to argument is more than a little juvenile.

Edit: I have a question for the last person who posted (sorry it doesn't let me see names when I edit) and I wonder - wouldn't you say that the world had quite a bit of pollution back in the day, too?  You know, the giant oil spill in '89 (I realize it doesn't affect global warming), fewer clean-burning engines... I realize that production only increases, but in light of all the global warming hype, people have become more conscious of making things more efficient and more environmentally-friendly.  Compare it with 30-40 years ago and I'd say we're making great strides towards solving the pollution problem.  Yes, it still exists, but industry is making progress.  (Think Kyoto Protocol.)  I realize your point, but I think, if anything, the problem would be getting better, not worse.  Therefore I'm not convinced.

Original Post by alibsam:

"waterborne diseases were estimated to cause 1.8 million deaths each year while about 1.1 billion people lacked proper drinking water"

1/6 of the population don't have proper drinking water. I'd say it's a serious problem.

 

You can't base everything on religion, kizz. Sometimes you have to open your eyes to what is really going on. You may not believe in carrying capacity but there are thousands of experts on the subject who can prove you wrong.

Just because there are problems in the world doesn't mean the answer is to try to diminish the human race.  There are experts on virtually everything out there - both pro and against every issue.  Global warming - plenty of people on both sides claiming it does exist, it doesn't exist.  I know what's going on, but I also know population control is a crappy solution.  I also know it's the wrong solution.

However I should add you're right it is a problem, but it's a problem more like getting proper drinking water to those who need it rather than recognizing there's a problem and trying to reduce the number of people affected by it rather than targeting the actual problem.  That, to me, is the real problem with this solution.  It doesn't change anything that's wrong with the world except the number of people in it.

@jules: Wtf?  There is no scientific evidence for global warming, just a lot of people who say it exists.  Some may be scientists, but the fact remains that there are plenty of scientists on both sides.  They can't BOTH be right - I'll leave it up to you all to duke it out who's right, because I guess we'll all see in 15 years.  (Anyone remember global cooling in the 70s?)  I'm pretty sure the same thing goes for carrying capacity.  And I doubt Jesus' #1 solution to the world's problems was population control.  Therefore I'm not quite sure what your argument is.

O.M.G.  The oncoming water shortage?!?!  I'm dying right now, I really am.

*rolls eyes*

edit: I realize this really only opens this topic up to more non-gay-rights related discussion, so I'm going to say that I personally don't think we should meddle around with population control in general, but I'll even go ahead and say go on and make the choice for yourself.  But don't tell me that I should have only one kid or none at all because it's selfish and cruel.  I know people from really big families and I really doubt any of them think it was selfish or cruel of their parents to have so many kids.  At least give other people the benefit of deciding for themselves how many children to have (some of us don't support population control in all its various forms).  Just because you feel one way doesn't mean everyone agrees with you.  I'm gonna say most people on here will probably agree with you, but with that said, I'm done with this argument because I think it's going to just be one of those going-in-circles-I-have-my-ideas-and-you-have -yours arguments that will never go anywhere.  I base my beliefs on my religion and I don't believe in population control and I really don't believe in global warming and carrying capacity.  But you can, go right ahead, you can talk about it all you want, but don't say I'm naive.

I'm sure its members are thinking of various ways to torture you with punctuation in retaliation right now.

Hahahaha... what's a cheat day?  YESTERDAY.

600 cals for breakfast and lunch, doing good, then onto an 800 calorie dinner with about 400-500 calories worth of snacks.  It was a maintainence day, but it was not good.  And I feel like a lard.

Original Post by pgeorgian:

y'know, peaches, this self-appointed defender-of-the-ignorant-conservatives role does not serve you well.  how about you let people speak for themselves.

Whoa, whoa.  That wasn't nice.  Being conservative doesn't make you ignorant.  I'm a moderate-to-conservative and I consider myself informed.  My opinion is usually different, but we can all make our points of view understood from an informed standpoint.

If that's not what you were implying, disregard this, however you may want to consider rephrasing that, because it's kind of insulting to the informed right-wingers.

Original Post by santonacci:

Original Post by kizzichan:

I can see not knowing if there is something or hoping there is and believing in that but I just don't understand how people can be SO SURE that nothing's out there.  

I ask this in all seriousness as an example:  Do you believe in the existence of Vishnu?  If not, how can you be SO SURE that he does not exist?  You have not been to all the far reaches of the earth and space to determine he is not there.  Do you simply consider yourself an agnostic with regards to Vishnu, or do you not believe he exists?

It is not always about certainty.

I never thought about it like that.  I really did mean what I said originally as something I wanted a real answer to, not as an inflammatory statement.  I mean I still would want to live the way I am, you just made a good point.

No, I mean it strictly on the premise that if I didn't believe in anything I'd probably say I didn't know.  Seems safer that way.  Just because you can never be sure.  I figure if I believe in Christianity, good for me, if I die and I'm wrong, no harm done, if I die and I'm right, good things happen to me.  But saying I don't believe in anything would be like... you get nothing out of it, right?  I guess you get nothing out of saying you don't know, but then at least I feel like if I died saying that I wouldn't have angered whatever gods may or may not exist.  You were just kind of like, huh, god... interesting concept.  Moving on.  Otherwise it's like, nope, no god, not for me, and then what happens if there was a god?  Whoops.  That's how I'd be, speaking if I didn't believe in anything.  So it's something that I don't really understand.  It just seems safer.  I mean I guess you could believe that there's no reason to worry so why be safe, there's no god, but if you can't prove it, then why not be safe?  Probably because they really DON'T believe, but still, that's why I wonder.

edited to add: this was at yachtracer, too many people posting at once haha

I guess I don't really get why someone would call themselves an athiest over an agnostic.  How can you be so sure there's nothing?  I can see not knowing if there is something or hoping there is and believing in that but I just don't understand how people can be SO SURE that nothing's out there.  Don't take it as an attack, I just want to know, so if someone can explain that to me that would probably be good.

@coffincritter - Excellent post.

Moving on, if I hear someone's an atheist I kind of wish they weren't but I'm not going to try to convince them not to be.  I don't want them trying to convince me to be one.  It goes both ways.  I'm sure a lot of atheists (as coffincritter said in her post) wish people weren't religious, too.  We all believe what we believe and since we believe it it means we think we're right.  That means we want to tell other people how right we are.  But atheism vs. religion - that situation does NOT lend itself to telling people how right we are.  Not unless you haven't seen a good fight in awhile and wanna be one of the main features in it.

Personally, I live by actions speak louder than words.  If I'm so sure there's a God, then maybe I can convince someone else of that by living as the best person I can be.  Maybe I can't.  But either way, I'm a better person for it.  And maybe they are, too, because they were inspired to do good.  I don't think you can go wrong with being a good person.  Whether you believe in God or not, you can be a good person.  Atheists who demonstrate this show the rest of us that, if nothing else, you do not need religion to do good in the world.  Now that doesn't fall in with any faith, but that's the truth.  I still would want the people of the world to be believers in God, but I won't deny that there are some very good non-religious out there - and some very bad religious.  It's not about what you preach but what you practice.

edited for clarity

Yay go me I gained 0.4 lbs.  -_-

Congrats to all of you who did lose, especially Monica!

CW: 140.4 lbs

edited to add cw