Phi for All

It seems to me there are at least two distinct issues here. Cruelty before slaughter and production processing. For cruelty, "He uses a long knife and must hit exactly the right spot to kill the animal humanely. He hits that spot again and again" after the cattle have been knocked unconscious suggests they are efficient and have minimized any trauma to the animal simply because it would disrupt the line if they didn't. I have no problem with having someone "reach inside cattle and pull our their kidneys with his bare hands, then drop the kidneys down a metal chute, over and over again, as each animal passes by him", or rivers of blood cascading down on the slaughterhouse workers. How else are they going to do it? If you eat the beef you have to accept that the animals must be killed and there seems to be no unnecessary cruelty in the slaughtering process. The misleading vividness of the blood and the saws and making it seem like the cows are "tricked" into walking obligingly to their deaths is hand-waving to me. Production process is where I have a big problem. I once read that one out of every nine cows you see in fields in the US was destined for McDonald's. McD is known for using every bit of the cow in their ground hamburger, including hooves faces and tails (but not intestines). All ground hamburger has fat added to it (no more than 30%) and contains some less than desirable bits; ground beef does not. I always buy beef from stores that offer organically fed cuts from cows that weren't fed antibiotics or hormones. If it's ground I buy ground sirloin or ground chuck so I know which parts are in there.

BLASPHEMY!!! From As You Like It: All the world's a stage And all the men and women merely players: They have their exits and their entrances; And one man in his time plays many parts, His acts being seven ages. At first the infant, Mewling and puking in the nurse's arms. Then the whining school-boy, with his satchel And shining morning face, creeping like snail Unwillingly to school. And then the lover, Sighing like furnace, with a woeful ballad Made to his mistress' eyebrow. Then a soldier, Full of strange oaths, and bearded like the pard, Jealous in honor, sudden and quick in quarrel, Seeking the bubble reputation Even in the cannon's mouth. And then the justice, In fair round belly with good capon lined, With eyes severe and beard of formal cut, Full of wise saws and modern instances; And so he plays his part. The sixth age shifts Into the lean and slippered pantaloon, With spectacles on nose and pouch on side, His youthful hose, well saved, a world too wide For his shrunk shank; and his big manly voice, Turning again toward childish treble, pipes And whistles in his sound. Last scene of all, That ends this strange eventful history, Is second childishness and mere oblivion, Sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans every thing. -William Shakespeare

People, people, people, the OP clearly states that her specific survey question asks ONLY those who are OPPOSED to abortion if they would consider allowing them in the case of rape victims. There are other threads to discuss other aspects of abortion.

This is the assumption that always spoils the whole God concept for me. I think if God exists It exists as the most powerful being, but not an "All Powerful" being. Omnipotence gives credence to the six day creation, the notion that God could wave his hands and right all wrong, and brings up the paradox of imperfection from a perfect creator. Why can't God work within the boundaries of the universe and physical laws? It would have to possess knowledge of those laws that we don't in order to do the things God is attributed with, but does It have to be capable of circumventing physical laws? As to the OP's question, doesn't Revelation end with Jesus saying the time of his coming is near and that when that happens everything prophesied about him will come true? I think that's supposed to mean his side wins.

Now you're just copy/pasting from other websites, and not even giving them the credit. This is not your work and is a violation of the copyright laws and forum policy. What I'm looking for is a discussion of the information you present, started by you as the original thread starter. Posting up facts you glean from other sources as some sort of academic course is NOT what this forum is all about. If you're going to post the work of others, please give them credit and a link, and if you're going to post facts as threads then we want some comments from you that give direction to a discussion. If we wanted to learn the above facts we could just go to OnlineConversions.com.

Just make sure you learn enough to be absolutely certain you can't change or help it, then you can let it go. If depression isn't physiologically linked to some disorder or imbalance, then you can fight it with laughter and positive thinking. I believe you can make yourself addicted to negativy in the same way an alcoholic will drink so he can blame booze for all his problems. Pile up all the negative things that happen to you in a day and you can get sympathy from some p[eople, and blame your lack of progress on society and circumstances. Or.... You can pile up all the great things about you and your life and realize that it's all perspective. You're a magnet and it's up to you whether you present the positive or the negative end of yourself. You will attract what you look for.

The fact that 15% of your time here at SFN was wrapped up in one thread that got closed may justify the huff in which you find yourself storming off, but I feel you're leaving for the wrong reasons. I think tempers have calmed now. You should accept Dave's offer of speaking privately about your reasons for re-opening the thread. I've seen other members successfully plead their case regarding uinfinished discussions and none of them were lawyers like you.

With talk like this it's a wonder Santa hasn't gone postal like in Weird Al Yankovic's The Night Santa Went Crazy: There's more but it ain't pretty.... Seriously, just because science deals in facts doesn't mean the full truth about every subject needs to be told to every child. How graphic do you want them to be when a child asks questions about a dead relative or the effects of a bomb?

Out of how many papers and exams? You noticed a trend after a couple of coincidences and now you add any new 79 to the list and reject anything that isn't a 79. In your mind you are turning these exam numbers into a curious statistical anomaly. It's not a large enough sampling to justify any conclusions.

First off, Santa is not omniscient, kids write letters to tell him what they want. Second, he doesn't need the speed of light to deliver gifts to all the good girls and boys, he only needs near-light speed, so it's entirely possible. And third, what's wrong with a science teacher being politic with a 7-year-old by answering the question, "Is Santa Claus real?" with a statement like, "I've never actually seen him but there is anecdotal evidence to support the possibility of his existence."

I'm not sure I like this "Facts (?) of Physics Form (sic) Me" series. They don't invite much discussion, the OP doesn't respond when asked pertinent questions, and they seem to be riddled with errors and misspellings. A little more attention to detail and perhaps some dialogue-inducing comments would be appropriate in the future.

Laughter is good, ignorance is just lazy. Many people think a lack of confrontation is a good thing and they live their lives looking for the status quo. I look at every mistake, difficult situation and confrontation as a chance to learn a little bit more. You take everything as seriously as it merits, and you smile about the rest. In business I've gone into meetings with clients who are purple-in-the-face mad at something that's happened. I know as long as I just face the problem head-on and listen to their version I can not only fix the problem but usually walk away with an even better relationship with that client. It's obvious you don't know our AzurePhoenix. "Serious" is just a tighter grip on your throat for Azure.

If you're here to discuss ideas then welcome. If you joined solely to direct traffic to your blog then we're not interested in marketing for you. I objected most to the wording in your other thread: like you just happened across it and had nothing to do with blogging it in the first place.

vurdlak, if all your posts are going to be aimed at your blog (and so far they are), you will be deemed inconsistent with our purpose and banned.

Because you make fun of janitor/ballerinas! My performance in Swab Lake paid for my college tuition, buster!

Suction cups moving your windshield into place would be attached on the outside, and the fog from your heater is forming on the inside. The circles may have been from manufacturer's information stickers which were removed either at the factory or the dealership. Have you tried cleaning the inside of the windshield with ammonia or vinegar? There could be some kind of film caused by off-gassing from your carpet or vinyl dashboard. Perhaps the film formed before the stickers were removed and now you see it when it fogs up.

This reminds me of a guy I know who is a nuclear physicist down at Los Alamos National Laboratory. When he and his wife visit here in Colorado he just loves to wear his bib overalls into a small town bar and tell people who ask that he's a rocket scientist.

I sell various products and services using an online database and a VOIP phone line that gives me unlimited long distance calls. I make a base pay plus commissions and benefits. I work from home so I love the lack of micromanagement. I don't get much office socialization but I see my family a lot more and the time I save driving to an office is spent socializing with the neighbors.

I love the way author James Burke relates history to science and traces the pathways of how one thing led to another. Like how banana republics got their name or how ether first became recognized as an anesthetic agent. He's a clear example of how one can take the pieces of a broad education and fit them together like a jigsaw puzzle to explain the world around us.

I see where you're coming from on consistency, but does it stop with the web or do you ban ALL pictures of kids without their clothes?

If you are truly looking out for yourself, you will realize that a statement like, "I will not use it later on in life" is pure conjecture. Trying to relate history to hard science can be difficult but one can gain a better perspective of both by doing so. Since you take things by the perspective of power, how much more power will you have (or not have) over your colleagues in the work force by knowing more or having a better grasp of a situation because your knowledge base is broader?

I'm pretty sure ku is talking about sites on the web. He even mentions pictures. But I do find it confusing that he talks about sites and pictures and ends with a general question about banning all nudism. I would say that you can only go so far in policing what is in people's minds. I personally find some pictures of women in lingerie to be more erotic than total nudity. Similarly, I'm sure many pedophiles prefer pictures of kids in their underwear. Should we ban all the department store ads for Underoos? I don't mean this as a strawman. The intent of the viewer is an important part of the issue here, as well as the law. Sexually explicit pictures of kids are quite a bit different than pictures of kids playing on the beach who happen to be nude. I know it's a Slipperry Slope argument, but keep up this line of thought and parents will soon face jail for owning photos of their kids in the bath tub.

This year, both Groundhog Day and the State of the Union Address fall on the same day. For those who have trouble telling them apart, one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of scant intelligence for a forecast of future events, and the other involves a groundhog. This has been Views on the News, please resume thinking.