2019 Holiday Exchange!
A New and Exciting Beginning
The End of an Era
  • posted a message on Nuking The Oil Spill
    Actually, I read that the Russians use this to stop some of their oil leaks. However, I believe that they only used it on land, and not in the water.

    I also don't see any corporation involved recovering in the event the government detonates a nuke to stop the leak.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on [Mini Game] Canada Mafia - Game Over!
    I'm curious why we (the town) have become so obsessed about trying to lose. Nom, if you are town, this will go down as one of the all time worst ideas ever. There's no way that claiming SK in a mini would make any sense whatsoever.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on [FTQ Game] The Asphodel Meadows - Game Over
    Quote from Cyouni
    Other than the fact that it's sitting in the place where an answer to your question (of why I was for the mass claim) should be? Does that mean nothing to you?
    I beleive I am saying your response was bad, not that it wasn't an answer.

    Other than the fact that I've been repeating that the quote's my answer? Does that also mean nothing?
    Repeating yourself does not constitute elaboration.

    If it can't be trusted, I really can't be sure. I'd say shibui, but I haven't got the odd feeling I got in response to him when he was scum in Normalville.
    In Normalville I stuck my neck out to try and keep my other scum buddies alive, and still no one attacked me outside of Seppel (who was still jumping player to player at that point) and AI (who vigged me). This is now the second time you have referenced Normalville, and this will be the second time you didn't actually use a meta argument.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Symbiote Mafia signup thread - signups closed!
    I need to get my name back... I'm not even sure why I chose to change it anymore.
    Posted in: Old Sign-ups
  • posted a message on [Mini Game] Canada Mafia - Game Over!
    Quote from Zebi
    I didn't really think of the fact that he could be lying scum, not sure why I didn't think that, but whatever. I think that I forgot we had a vig, and thought we could use him or something.

    Whats done is done.. We wait for him to post and then lynch him, really.
    ... this post is making my head hurt.

    Why is it so important that he's lying scum, should he live as the SK?
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Ought traffic cones be bright red instead of orange?
    Quote from Benalicious Hero
    I recognize that carcinogens cannot ultimately be escaped. This in no way depreciates the fact that modern society is responsible for a great amount of them, and given my inability to practically "escape" modern society because of its inherent chokehold nature, I feel it's well within my rights to be upset that I cannot avoid exposure to carcinogens and other harmful byproducts (or direct products) of society (for example: I can refuse to drive a car, and yet I cannot escape their pollution simply for the fact that everyone around will still drive cars and have for some time to the point that the atmosphere has become saturated with it).
    Actually (more a point of interest) I have personally met three people that live on sustainable farms or ranchettes and raise their own meat, crops, dairy, etc. They actually barter with local small farms to make up the rest of the goods they need (food wise, obviously they buy modern medicine and such). They did it with the specific intent to remove themselves from the negative health impact of modern society. They just have to deal with a 3 hour commute and a lot of work to do at home.

    And yet you go on to agree with me about pesticides and food additives. Let's not even delve into the can of worms that is food being an unjust commodity.
    Actually, I agree with you but find that it's a modern phenomena proving there are other methods to change the current institutions. Even the magnitude of the negative impact is still being determined. My point is just that it's a far cry from knowingly exposing the public to carcinogens.

    Valros proposed that harmful products without necessity shouldn't be produced. How does the public information of the harmful nature of cigarettes negate the value of the idea that they are clearly an unnecessary product produced despite the dangers?
    I disagree that everything bad for us should be banned - quite staunchly too. I also feel cigarettes have a purpose, even if it's not a good purpose.

    Spare me semantics. Also, spare me the "evil industry" lines; it doesn't in anyway benefit your argument to make me out to be an uneducated hippy stereotype, on the contrary, it makes me respect you less.

    Additionally, if you're trying to convince me that all industries in fact have our health in their best interests and have not only willingly, but eagerly complied with stricter health regulations in order to better preserve us, then you should know that that proposal is simply a lost cause where I am concerned.
    Semantics are a large part of the issue at hand. Both examples are drastically overstated because of semantics.

    I feel safe in saying that you have portrayed industry as an evil thing - that is you are saying they are knowingly exposing the public to carcinogens out of convenience. An embellishment, but I'm not calling you a hippie.

    I'm not trying to convince you industry has our health in mind, I'm saying that industry has standards. I'm also saying that those standards are driven by the consumer.

    The problem with your stance is that you assume everyone desires the perpetuation of modern life in its current manifestation.
    Then enjoy that computer while you can - you know, the one loaded with carcinogens both in process and in product.

    People have more options than they are willing to admit to.

    I certainly can't speak with very much educated authority about chemistry, but how exactly is this relevant in light of experience? I don't need a degree to recognize that I am being poisoned on a daily basis at a significantly faster rate than I would do myself in, from outside influences entirely beyond my control. Is industry entirely to blame? Of course not, but it makes for an easy target because there are clearly industries who don't care about my plight because
    A) I am not a consumer.
    B) I am a consumer, and my money is a higher priority than my health.
    It matters because you seem to not be able do distinguish the difference between carcinogens or our understanding of how they work. As it stands you are choosing to be paranoid about poisons entering your body killing you before you would have died had you been raised in isolation of them - speaking of which, there absolutely zero possibility of you knowing that whatsoever. Not even a little. This is a wild assumption you have made about life, and not something that makes sense.

    The problem with throwing around "carcinogen" this and "mutagen" that is that they are incredibly common to the point of absurdity. The concept of shutting off exposure is simply impossible, the concept of limiting your individual cancer risk based on family history is not only possible but encouraged. The thing is that it is up to an individual to determine those factors and act on them with the help of a doctor - not society, government, or anything else.

    What gives you the impression that I don't subscribe to this train of thought? My outrage issues from the fact that many industries along with numerous other facets of modern society don't share an interest in taking responsibility for the health of their consumers (and the non-consumers inadvertently and unavoidably exposed to their products).
    While I don't view those two sentences as opposing, they are not in step with each other. An individual proactively taking their health into their hands and working with a doctor to lower cancer risk is a far cry from being angry at modern life for giving you a poor lot in life in terms of cancer risk. You could substitute cancer for "prevolent disease of the time" and you can have any generation express outrage at the mismanagement leading to the problem, instead of being concerned about helping people lower their risk realistically you are expressing outrage over something that cannot be controlled completely (obviously it's not completely out of society's control, just mostly).

    It seems like the biggest issue you're having is that we see two different shades of gray.
    Quote from Valros
    I think the weirder thing about BPA is that it's potentially like estrogen, only way more potent. Chemicals mimicking hormones, IMO, is way worse than if they just caused cancer.
    Yeah, it's a defense mechanism in the human body to process anything it can't process as estrogen. It leads to early development in girls and less potent swimmers in guys. I found it awesome that our body does with with chemical warfare agents as well (obviously when there's not enough to kill you).

    I do wonder to what extent chemical carcinogens are responsible for total cancer cases as opposed to, say, poor nutrition, viruses, and heredity...
    ... stress, water intake, eating habits, sleeping patterns, etc. The list of causes of cancer is growing because it's so individual. Even taking actions into your own hands cannot guarantee anything.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on [FTQ Game] The Asphodel Meadows - Game Over
    Quote from Cyouni
    And your reasoning as to why this is bad? All you've said is that it's "lame". Oh, and...

    And to 'excuse my night actions'? **** no. I stand behind my choice of the shotgun, if you haven't noticed because you weren't reading.

    Wow. Really? According to this, I have not said why I was for the mass-claim. Especially when you read and ignored my answer, using it for something completely different.
    If you haven't noticed (which obviously you haven't), what I said was in response to you asking why I supported the mass-claim. Obviously they have nothing to do with each other.
    If I drew an incorrect meaning from what you said, you should be explaining what you meant. In no way shape or form did you directly address why you were for the mass claim. You said this:
    Quote from Cyouni
    One needs only to look at what I did with the ability. You know, that thing about the shotgun vs. the truth serum?
    That's it. There's no further elaboration on your part, only berating me for drawing a reasonable conclusion from the words you wrote.

    As it stands, you are still just complaining about me drawing what you feel is a wrong conclusion from what you said but have not attempted to clarify what you meant.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on [Mini Game] Canada Mafia - Game Over!
    I doubt SB's vote counted, but to be sure no one else should vote and let him replace the vote.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on Why can't my shovel be so awesome?
    The first video is just like my dad's shovel issued to him in Vietnam, except my dad's shovel is entirely steel - not just the head. It had all of the same functions, plus it had a basic flint lighter and kindling hidden in the handle.
    Posted in: Talk and Entertainment
  • posted a message on [The Family]: Blood (and Sniper Rifles) are Thicker than Water
    Quote from Bilbroxain
    When you give a person the role of Jester you crush their soul.
    No, you just crushed everyone else's soul. Jesters are entirely broken in ever conceivable way, but in the Jester's favor.
    Posted in: Retired Clan Threads
  • posted a message on Flag deemed "offensive" at an american school
    Quote from {mikeyG}
    Well, I can't argue with a history of abuse. These kids looked to intensify the acts of the previous year, and it was tolerated the first year already.

    Gotta change my point of view towards being behind the school.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Ought traffic cones be bright red instead of orange?
    Quote from Benalicious Hero
    Take into consideration my edits and you're left with a pretty solid foundation for American industry's stance on carcinogens.
    I would love for you to show a method of making many of the catalysts (industrial or otherwise) without using any carcinogens. Hell, I would love your justification of not using Nickel in anything. Hell, you might as well just ban chemistry.

    I would also love you to show how American industry is forcibly exposing people to carcinogens even though safer methods are known because of convenience.

    Quote from Benalicious Hero
    Cigarettes, disposable plastic, charcoal grills, and pesticides off the top of my head. Literally in ten seconds or less.
    -The cancerous effect of cigarettes is known and printed on the box because society won't let the government ban smoking. There have been a lot of underhanded and unethical practices in the manufacturing of cigarettes, and it's a black mark on industry. That said, if you have started smoking in the past 25 years you are purposely ignoring the immense risk and if you started smoking in the past 50 years you are less to blame but still had the knowledge needed to make a correct decision available.
    - "Disposable plastic" doesn't cause cancer, specific types have recently been correlated to causing cancer and the evil industry complex have switched their products over. Also, the most quoted of the chemicals from disposable plastics is BPA, whose carcinogenic effect was only really found in the past 5 years and is debated by major organizations such as WHO.
    - Charcoal grills are not carcinogenic, the char on the food is. If you see dark bits on your food, regardless of what you cooked it on, it's a carcinogen. It's also an effect of improper grill and food preparation.
    - Pesticides (I'm going to lump the additives for farm animals here too) are indeed the gorilla in the room. That is, a bad pesticide will kill anything exposed to it. Pesticides manufacturers have gotten away with a lot simply because all pesticides cause health problems, but they are required to maintain a food supply and for the agriculture industry to turn a profit even after subsidies. Recent biological and agricultural advancements globally have started to change the way people grow food and especially how they harvest it, and its beginning to proliferate the industry as people are demanding safer produce and meats. A big part of the problem is the consumerist nature of people and food (particularly in this country), where people eat too much and eat things that are not sustainable where they are. Globally there are many governments who allow the use of pesticides that can't even be owned legally in the US anymore.

    The problem with the stance you and WUBRG have taken is twofold:
    1. It ignores how vital and prevalent these evil chemicals and industries have been to modern life.
    2. It shows a lack of understanding in the field of chemistry.
    There's a reason my wife will have up to three years maternity and paternity leave if/when she gets pregnant, and it's because the risks of exposure to chemicals from her work. The child will also be bottle fed, and we will be making our own baby food (probably even from our own garden). It doesn't change the fact that what she does day in and day out that exposes her to risks isn't vital, we will just be approaching the matter intelligently.

    I also think, and have mentioned, that preventing cancer risks will have to be the responsibility of the individual at some point and time. Industry will never be able to release 100% safe no-long-term effect anything ever, and it's impossible to regulate industry to the point that they would privately pay for their own long-term testing to guarantee its safety. It's even less reasonable to expect them to be able to turn a profit at the same time. The government and science as a whole is responsible for making sure there isn't another DDT.

    Knowing your personal genetic history and limiting your own personal cancer risk based off that knowledge is your responsibility.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on Flag deemed "offensive" at an american school
    I don't see how you could not support the kids. Watching the video, these guys had ☺☺☺☺ING AMERICAN FLAG SHOES. No one buys shoes specifically to troll, and I highly doubt that was their intent. To call what they were wearing offensive is stupid. The American flag is not a symbol of hatred and injustice to the Mexican people, so to be offended simply because someone isn't a patriot of a different country from the one they live in on a non-national holiday for that country is showing an intolerance towards their own patriotism.

    Seriously, it's not even like they wore "Remember the Alamo" shirts.
    Posted in: Debate
  • posted a message on [Mini Game] Canada Mafia - Game Over!
    unvote, vote RafK

    That takes care of that, anyways.
    Posted in: Mafia
  • posted a message on [ImageCrafters+]Drawn and Buttered!
    I found this outstanding use of art and creativity in a torture museum of all places:
    Posted in: Retired Clan Threads
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.