Oh boy...yes, the five years of serious discussion instigated by Rev. Blackthorn. It was imperative that we consider that meat eaters consume animal feces, that there is a divine assembly line producing souls which then adopt their parents, and that cell phones cause teenagers to microwave kittens using evil, mind controlling cancer rays. How could we have possibly made any headway without first considering the point of view of crazy people? Isn't that how the geniuses of history have made their great discoveries?
(Now, devil waits patiently for it to be explained to his dumb *** that geniuses through history were really crazy people in disguise because humanity was too morally corrupt to accept them in their true form...)
I rarely instigate. I respond to someone else instigating.
I just tend to make an argument memorable that someone else started.
Colon germs do indeed tenderize meat, and as outlined in the movie Fast Food Nation, it would seem that meat eaters do indeed consume actual feces, and not just germs.
There is no "divine assembly line" as you put ity. I never declared that there was.
Cell phones don't CAUSE any particular behavior, other than death.
Hold on. I forgot about the pleasure response of plants to being eaten, clearly demonstrating that it is moral to slay them to fulfill your own nutritional needs. That one is particularly close to the place in my heart reserved for serious intellectual pioneering.
Studies have shown that plants do respond to the intents of humans, and will react with stress to being burned, but will become soothed when about to be eaten. If you dissagree, bring it up with the carrot from the study, not me. Although that carrot was likely eaten...
And time travel. And musicians not deserving to be paid for recordings. And faster driving not alleviating traffic congestion. And colors dictating psychological states.
I just said there was no proof that time travel couldn't happen, and not that there was that it ever did happen.
I said that modern musicians deserve no better than musicians that existed before the existence of music recording, because modern musicians are no better than those past musicians, such as Beethoven and Bach.
Musicians should sing for their supper just like every other musician before them, and every person in every other job. If modern musicians get additional income from recordings, that is great, but they aren't entitled to better than anyone from 200 years ago. If they can invent recordings that can't be copied, like vinyl records, that is great.
If they make cheaper recordings that costs the record companies so much less in the name of profit and then that technology can be easy to copy, shame on the record companies.
Modern musicians still make more money because of recording technology, and they should grateful for that, and not feel entitled to every red cent they assume they would get from it, even though most people who get free copies would never actually buy a recording if there was no other way in the first place.
Most people would just listen on the radio when it came on, like when only vinyl records and 8 tracks existed. They aren't missing out on as much potential revenue as they claim to be missing out on from music sharing.
Most people simply wouldn't pay, which would result in fewer people listening to their music, and fewer people being turned on to it, and less chance of people buying concert tickets, which is how musicians make the most money.
The record companies make the most money off of recordings, not the musicians.
Faster driving cannot prevent traffic congestion, because that just makes people drive into each other, because they lack the skill to drive at that speed. The acceleration and braking delay due to flawed human response time is compounded the more cars there are, which results in slower traffic.
Driving faster would just cause more accidents. If all cars were on rails and operated automatically like in those old would be future movies, going faster would work. It's called mass transit. It's called rail lines and the subway.
Regular cars with regular human beings cannot reduce traffic congestion by merely going faster. It's impossible. There is only so fast a car can go safely, anyway, which is partly why speed limits were developed.
Only less traffic and more efficient roadways can reduce traffic congestion. More synchronized traffic lights would help, except that then, people would have to use less gas and brakes, which would reduce the profits of the oil companies and automakers.
Synchronized lights would actually help, and it is clear that they aren't as synchronized as they could be, which causes you to wonder why. It's money. A lot more gas is used when cars are in traffic than when they are not. A lot more profit for the oil compnies is the result. Most people's driving is done to and from work, so it stands to reason that reducing traffic congestion by better street light operation would cost the oil companies money.
I thought you were in favor of pure unadultertated capitalism at the expense of the masses? I thought you loved the idea of the rich financially explioting the multitudes just to make more money for the sake of "the American Way". I would think you would be happy about traffic congestion. Don't you see how elegant the racket that they have is? Maybe you should buy stock in the oil companies and campaign for less efficient traffic lights instead, for MORE traffic. Then you too, could profit from this.
