KinleyArdal wrote:
consuming little to no beef to reduce flatulence
I tried a veggie diet and farted more than ever.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Amusement in the News
Amusement in the NewsFollow
I tried a veggie diet and farted more than ever.
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
KinleyArdal wrote:
consuming little to no beef to reduce flatulence
I tried a veggie diet and farted more than ever.
That's because you're full of ****.
*********** count it, *************
"I have lost my way
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
But I hear a tale
About a heaven in Alberta
Where they've got all hell for a basement"
Iamadam the Shady wrote:
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
[quote=KinleyArdal]consuming little to no beef to reduce flatulence
I tried a veggie diet and farted more than ever.
That's because you're full of sh*t.
[sm]@#%^ing count it, *********************
Eat me and die.
#30REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 02 2009 at 11:43 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) On a completely unrelated note, that cheerios avatar is the most amusing thing I've seen in weeks.
#32REDACTED,
Posted: Mar 02 2009 at 11:45 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I was thinking Forlornios, but that works too.
Uglysasquatch, ****** Superhero wrote:
Haha. If only opponents of global warming understood how it really works.
What do you mean by 'opponents' of global warming? I'm asking because you make it sound like its a 'policy' that someone is implementing.....
Just wondering.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
paulsol wrote:
Uglysasquatch, ****** Superhero wrote:
Haha. If only opponents of global warming understood how it really works.
What do you mean by 'opponents' of global warming? I'm asking because you make it sound like its a 'policy' that someone is implementing.....
Just wondering.
I think he meant skeptics. I think you know that too.
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Uglysasquatch, ****** Superhero wrote:
Haha. If only opponents of global warming understood how it really works.
What do you mean by 'opponents' of global warming? I'm asking because you make it sound like its a 'policy' that someone is implementing.....
Just wondering.
I think he meant skeptics. I think you know that too.
I dunno.... that pro-climate change faction is a tricksy lot.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Those that think global warming is a fallacy. Something made up to scare people. People who believe the world's not getting warmer simply because there was a snow storm somewhere there normally isn't one.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Samira wrote:
The Great BrownDuck wrote:
paulsol wrote:
Uglysasquatch, ****** Superhero wrote:
Haha. If only opponents of global warming understood how it really works.
What do you mean by 'opponents' of global warming? I'm asking because you make it sound like its a 'policy' that someone is implementing.....
Just wondering.
I think he meant skeptics. I think you know that too.
I dunno.... that pro-climate change faction is a tricksy lot.
I'm a 'man-made' global warming skeptic.
There is a difference.
There is a difference.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
paulsol wrote:
I'm a 'man-made' global warming skeptic.
There is a difference.
There is a difference.
paulsol wrote:
I'm a 'man-made' global warming skeptic.
There is a difference.
There is a difference.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
paulsol wrote:
I'm a 'man-made' global warming skeptic.
There is a difference.
There is a difference.
Sure. Pretty much.
We contribute our detritus into the environment. My disagreement lies with the amount of contribution we are making to climate change.
But I know theres a heap of things that we are doing that are affecting the planet in far more serious and immediate ways than a possible contribution to the causes of GW, that we could do something about right now.
And as long as we continue to spack out about GW and the effects it may (or may not) have on us in 2 or 3 or 4 hundred years (or 5000 yeras) from now, the less time we are spending on sorting out the things we could fix immmediatly.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Quote:
Sure. Pretty much.
We contribute our detritus into the environment. My disagreement lies with the amount of contribution we are making to climate change.
But I know theres a heap of things that we are doing that are affecting the planet in far more serious and immediate ways than a possible contribution to the causes of GW, that we could do something about right now.
And as long as we continue to spack out about GW and the effects it may (or may not) have on us in 2 or 3 or 4 hundred years (or 5000 yeras) from now, the less time we are spending on sorting out the things we could fix immmediatly.
First of all, the effects of global warming are not going to occur two or three hundred years--in fact, we are seeing the effects now and most signs point to the fact that it will get significantly worse in our lifetime. Second of all, why are you a skeptic? And why is it an either or proposition?
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Baron von Annabella wrote:
Second of all, why are you a skeptic? And why is it an either or proposition?
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Baron von Annabella wrote:
Second of all, why are you a skeptic? And why is it an either or proposition?
My impression has been that paulsol isn't a conservative in the American sense of that word. People say they are skeptics without going into any real reason why. He seems as if he is not only making an assumption that is untrue--i.e. global warming will be a problem in the long-distant future and keeps us from focusing on current problems-- but I'm not sure he is basing it on. Usually when someone challenges mainstream scientific thought, they should be able to provide their rationale--is it just wishful thinking or is there a real reason?
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Baron von Annabella wrote:
AshOnMyTomatoes wrote:
Baron von Annabella wrote:
Second of all, why are you a skeptic? And why is it an either or proposition?
My impression has been that paulsol isn't a conservative in the American sense of that word. People say they are skeptics without going into any real reason why. He seems as if he is not only making an assumption that is untrue--i.e. global warming will be a problem in the long-distant future and keeps us from focusing on current problems-- but I'm not sure he is basing it on. Usually when someone challenges mainstream scientific thought, they should be able to provide their rationale--is it just wishful thinking or is there a real reason?
Paulsol's never struck me as "anything" conservative, just some crazy vegetarian. Oh and I guess pretty anti-western politics in any form.
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Is the impact of global warming uncertain? Somewhat. Is it happening? Yeah, it seems so. Honestly, do you think people want to believe in global warming? There's no reason to believe this is the case unless you're going to give me some bullsh*t Al Gore conspiracy theory. Don't even think about it, you paint-sniffing mother@#%^er. Reasons why people would want NOT to believe in global warming? Yeah, there are lots. You can choose to believe that the vast majority of the relevant scientific community is totally wrong, which is possibly but highly, highly unlikely, if you really want to. I mean, sure, risking the fate of the planet because there's a tiny chance we're wrong (when the costs of action are minmal in comparison) is pretty damn stupid, but hey, if it helps you sleep at night, that's fine, really. None of us mind.
Yeah, that'd solve everything, you tepid mug of mother@#%^ing cocoa.
Right. You're the misunderstood intellectual here. I mean, sure, it looks like you're a slobbering plebtard who has so little knowledge about the subject that you don't know that "global warming" is somewhat of a misnomer, but that's just because we're all so closeminded, right? Right. Oh wait, no, you stupid @#%^. I promised to stop telling people to kill themselves, but you're testing the bounds of my self control.
OK. OK, I can do this. Here's a five step plan to improving your life:
1) @#%^ off.
2) Sort your life out.
3) Do what you allege to do already and read a scientific journal.
4) Don't come back, even if you become a reformed man. I don't like your manky little face.
5) Kill yourse- DAMN IT ALL.
Edited, Mar 2nd 2009 3:42pm by Kavekk
Edited, Mar 2nd 2009 4:08pm by Kavekk
Quote:
Used to be, when people believed their lives, their children's lives, and the future of their nation/planet was at stake, they'd get the guns and start shooting. I mean, honestly. We're gonna keep using oil for quite some time now, and by the time we're all old and gray, our children are going to be condemned to life in a world full of flooded shorelines and exponentially hotter seasons, throwing the ecosystem off balance and sentencing them all to death well before the expected expansion of the sun.
That seems a viable reason to me to break out the firearms.
That seems a viable reason to me to break out the firearms.
Yeah, that'd solve everything, you tepid mug of mother@#%^ing cocoa.
Quote:
I, personally, am not convinced in either direction. I like to read, and learn. Apparently, that attitude is not shared by all. Then again, I forgot that science isn't about accepting evidence contrary to your theory anymore, but demonizing everything that doesn't support you.
Right. You're the misunderstood intellectual here. I mean, sure, it looks like you're a slobbering plebtard who has so little knowledge about the subject that you don't know that "global warming" is somewhat of a misnomer, but that's just because we're all so closeminded, right? Right. Oh wait, no, you stupid @#%^. I promised to stop telling people to kill themselves, but you're testing the bounds of my self control.
OK. OK, I can do this. Here's a five step plan to improving your life:
1) @#%^ off.
2) Sort your life out.
3) Do what you allege to do already and read a scientific journal.
4) Don't come back, even if you become a reformed man. I don't like your manky little face.
5) Kill yourse- DAMN IT ALL.
Edited, Mar 2nd 2009 3:42pm by Kavekk
Edited, Mar 2nd 2009 4:08pm by Kavekk
Uglysasquatch, ****** Superhero wrote:
paulsol wrote:
I'm a 'man-made' global warming skeptic.
There is a difference.
There is a difference.
Because a diet that consists of large amounts of intensively farmed meat is provably bad for your health. The industry that produces factory farmed meat is bad for the environment because of its inneficient use of land and water, its pollution of land and water from feed production and by-product run-offs, and its haphazard use of antibiotics and other chemicals and drugs used in its production.
'Green footprint' and all that......
Annabella :
Quote:
First of all, the effects of global warming are not going to occur two or three hundred years--in fact, we are seeing the effects now and most signs point to the fact that it will get significantly worse in our lifetime. Second of all, why are you a skeptic?
If we assume that GW is happening, can you or anyone else, say how much 'we' are contributing to it? And if 'we' are contributing, how much 'we' are contributing? And how fast is our contribution causing the worlds climate change??
I can state categorically right now with 100% certainty that our use of oil to produce disposble items such as plastic bottles/bags, fertilizers, all that sh'it you find in stores that costs nothing because it was produced by indentured laborers in 3rd world countries working for a pittance without any safety considerations, and all the energy that is used to produce and transport cheap factory farmed meat from china to the US and europe, so that ignorant unhealthy peopple can continue 'consuming' at an ever accelerating pace, is DOING FAR MORE HARM TO OUR PLANET.
Can you categoricaly state, with absolute certainty, that our behaviour is doing something to the global climate, that the global climate isn't already doing for itself?
Hmmmm.....thought not.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
paulsol wrote:
Can you categoricaly state, with absolute certainty, that our behaviour is doing something to the global climate, that the global climate isn't already doing for itself?
Quote:
Can you categoricaly state, with absolute certainty, that our behaviour is doing something to the global climate, that the global climate isn't already doing for itself?
The consensus of the mainstream scientific community is that we are significantly contributing to global climate change that is not only occurring now but will worsen greatly in our lifetime. A few degrees difference in our oceans for instance will result in a massive loss of life. Your contention about other stuff being a problem goes back to two things: Not only is it not an either/or position but that the seriousness of the waste problem/meat production globally has nothing to do with whether mankind has caused global warming. A more correct statement would be that you think that global waste is a bigger problem than global warming and then everyone can debate it.
Really? I'm not sure why I am supposed to discredit the scientific community in favor of listening to some stoner vegetarian on the internet. When you make a statement that goes against mainstream scientific consensus, the burden is on you to make a case for it.
Edited, Mar 2nd 2009 3:55pm by Annabella
Turin wrote:
Seriously, what the f*ck nature?
Quote:
The consensus of the mainstream scientific community
Not so long ago, the concensus of the scientific community was that the human beings lungs would burst if we travelled faster than 60 mils an hour.
Far be it for me to dispute the findings of the scientific community tho........
Quote:
I'm not sure why I am supposed to discredit the scientific community in favor of listening to some stoner vegetarian on the internet.
You do what you like. But going along with the majority of the scientific community because they are the majority is not what debating is all about
Quote:
imo.
Your contention about other stuff being a problem goes back to two things: Not only is it not an either/or position but that the seriousness of the waste problem globally has nothing to do with whether mankind has caused global warming.
Your contention about other stuff being a problem goes back to two things: Not only is it not an either/or position but that the seriousness of the waste problem globally has nothing to do with whether mankind has caused global warming.
My opinion is that human propensity to 'consume' at an ever increasing rate increases energy use and fills a lot of landfills (and oceans) with our discarded stuff to make room in our homes for ever more stuff, and the environmental damage that inevitably follows on from the western 'religeon' of consumerism are inextricably linked.
I have never suggested otherwise.
"If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders". Carlin.
Recent Visitors: 262
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (262)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Amusement in the News
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC