Jump to content
Welcome to InsanelyMac Forum

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About gwprod12

  • Rank
    InsanelyMac Deity

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Seattle, Washington
  1. Global Warming

    Granted, you could have meant something entirely different. What exactly DO you think we ought to do?
  2. Global Warming

    So, what you're saying is that China should be restricted to a bicycle/agrarian economy, and the US should use their share of wood, oil and coal. Makes sense. The average American has a carbon footprint 10 times larger than the average Chinese person. The US is mostly to blame. Should we go back to the 18th century so everyone else can advance? Of course not. That's the argument disingenuous people make against the Kyoto accords, that being forced to cap emissions would destroy the US economy. We should figure out a way to get the same goods and services without destroying the world. Obviously. Why to we burn coal (which produces CO2, unless you sequester it) when our energy needs can come from something that doesn't give off CO2? Waste Management (the company that deals with my garbage) has turned landfills into power plants by capturing Methane (a far worse greenhouse gas) and using it to generate power. Companies should be encouraged to figure out ways to fix the problem, instead of pretending it doesn't exist until the world is unlivable. Global warming is happening, it's probably being enhanced by humans, and we might be able to do something about it.
  3. Global Warming

    How can we attack China if all of our military hardware is dependent apon Chinese parts to function?
  4. Global Warming

    Carbon Dioxide absorbes and reflects infrared radiation (read: heat). The more there is, the more heat emanating from the planet (either from the core, power plants, or sunlight being converted into heat) is retained. Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere any time there is a difference in ratio between release of carbon dioxide and carbon sequestration. Thus global warming. It happens all the time, true. But this time it is happening because human beings are causing it. To resolve the problem, we need only cut back on carbon dioxide release(stop burning fossil fuels) and increase carbon sequestration (stop killing trees and promote their growth). Human beings also respirate a significant portion of the carbon dioxide increase. However much killing half of the world's population would fix the problem, I don't advocate it.
  5. Church Shootings Today

    Ad hominem is forbidden by Forum Guidelines. And it's just sad practice. Stop.
  6. [Poll] Are you homosexual?

    Bisexuality might be fun. I've never considered it before. Anyone wanna be bisexual with me? =]
  7. Steve Jobs is an Arab-American?

    koumed: there are quite a number of successful arab-americans in the United States. Sorry to contradict your prejudice.
  8. Steve Jobs is an Arab-American?

    Steve Jobs is half syrian. There ya go.
  9. Steve Jobs is an Arab-American?

    It shouldn't. If you must judge people, judge them for their actions, not the accident of birth.
  10. How is the geforce 7900 with leopard? Good?
  11. Church Shootings Today

    I'm only going to address one point, and that is the crux of the matter. You say that religion doesn't trump reason. I agree that it shouldn't. Unfortunately, it quite often does. (Some) People do things constantly which they believe to be right, but reason would tell them damages society, disadvantages them, can lead to their own personal injury, etc. It's probably just an issue of perspective. What is Christianity useful for if it must bow down before reason? That's my overriding point. I guess, if you took The Bible and stripped away every part that had to do with how to behave, you wouldn't have much besides "Believe in me... you will go to heaven... if you don't... you won't" because everything else has been subjugated to common sense and self-interest. Or, maybe a better way of putting it is... what is the difference between myself, who acts out of reasonable self-interest and a Christian missionary who acts out of reasonable self-interest? Aside from the "God's great, let's sing" part, there isn't much. I'm not a religious scholar, or a historian by profession. But did not Jesus get crucified because instead of being reasonably self-interested and shutting up, he antagonized the powers that be to spread a message? I guess it's overly simplistic, and 3nigma would say "You're not a Christian, therefore you're ignorant and stupid", but that's the main theme I get.
  12. Please see Argumentation Guidelines Sticky.
  13. Church Shootings Today

    Adhom. Stop.
  14. Ten Commandments In The Courthouse

    "I am the lord your god, who brought you out of the land of egypt, thou shalt have no other Gods before me" "Thou shalt make no idol in the likeness of anything in heaven, on the earth, or under the sea" (paraphrased) Those are good principles to live by? Do you live by them? Depending on who you are, an Idol might be a golden calf, or it might be any representative image. Who decides which is right?
  15. Church Shootings Today

    PHP: I'm not implying anything. At all. All implications you are reading are coming from you. In no way am I stating that people should do stuff that is unsafe or against common sense. In fact, I'm stating that people SHOULD do stuff that is safe and pro-common sense. Giving all of your goods to people who need them is against common sense, and against the giver's material existence. So, if I'm going to behave reasonably and keep what I need to survive for me alone, would it be equally reasonable to instruct other people to do the opposite? (such as donate their material posessions to the church I'm on a mission from?) I don't think letting crazy drunk homeless people inside my house is a good idea. I don't think anyone should do that. Should I deny crazy homeless people my food and shelter, but instruct other people to give crazy homeless people food and shelter? That is against reason. You attack me for saying that these folks should have let a crazy, violent homeless person inside their house. I've NEVER said that. If you want to attack me, attack me for saying that they shouldn't let crazy homeless people in their house, AND shouldn't advocate a belief system that implores it's followers to let crazy homeless people inside their house. People can believe as they like. If God or whomever implores you to tend to the sick etc, then that's fine. There may be consequences, and people should know there are, and accept them as part of the job (like being a firefighter or policeman). If God or whomever implores you to spread his belief, that's fine too. If God implores you to tell other people how they should love one another and tend to the sick etc, that's good stuff! But to spread the message of peace and compassion to the masses, while having none yourself... that's dispicable. And charlatanism. With any luck, you'll finally get what I've just said, and stop saying "You just contradicted yourself, you keep saying reasonable people let danger into their house, and I say that's a logical falacy". As for lumping everyone into a specific belief system. I haven't and dont. I don't assume all Christians are bloodsucking vampires with more false piety than good works. I don't assume all Christians are sheep eagerly bleating to be fleeced. I don't assume all Christians hate their neighbours. I don't assume all Christians are hypocrites. I don't even assume these specific Christians are hypocrites. I think it merely looks that way. And so you don't choose to define "not all" as "almost all", I will define ALL as "any specific" and you can adjust the word order and agreement to make that make sense. As for people believing the Bible in it's entirety is the unblemished word of God, is totally inerrant and relevant... then all pieces are totally inerrant and relevant. Not just the ones we like and dislike. When someone quotes the leviticus passage about homosexuality as factual and true, but wears a polyblend, I call them a hypocrite. I do not propose that all people believe the bible is inerrant and relevant. I propose that some people believe the bible is inerrant and relevant. I also do not propose that all people take passages from the bible, twist and turn them until they prove what they want to do is "God's word". I only propose that some people do that. So, please stop twisting my words into what you can call false. Call what I say false, or correct, or say nothing. For the love of Buddha. As for 3nigma's comment about twisting the bible to suit your own position. That wasn't what I had intended, only as evidence that different passages CAN be interpreted in wildly differing ways, and thus have no real scope in the temporal plane. I'm done and moving to other topics. Thanks