dimreepr

London and Dresden seem, to me at least, to be pseudo-military targets in the absence of a decisive way to strike real military targets but when you have a weapon like a nuke any target is just a way to demonstrate its power.

Only me as far as I know. Admittedly the original design was not due to revenge but a sincere need to beat the enemy to it. Why was it used on a city rather than a military base? And whilst a dubious argument could be made for the first drop I can think of no other reason to drop the 2nd on a city rather than a military target.

They only work as a deterrent because of the revenge factor. I'm not suggesting we can, at present, eliminate all such weapons but surely there’s room to reduce the numbers by at least a factor of ten.

Since they’re only purpose is revenge, why do we need so many?

Good post +1 It seems to me that a potential pitfall is somewhat similar to the OP’s conclusion “You are already obsolete, have a nice day.” not that we’ll become obsolete obviously ridicules, but more that we may lose our sense of purpose at least in part. Even if we can overcome the, seemingly, insurmountable problem that money not only equals power but also bragging rights. A job, for most, fills a great deal of our time and while we dream of retirement and a chance to relax, put our feet up and just chill. What, after all, is life without contrast and purpose?

It reminds me of Pink Floyd’s “The Wall”; the animated part where the phallus was devoured after its seductive dance, I was actually disappointed at the successful mating.

Since robots are only superior in repetitive basic tasks, the haphazard nature of human talents is clearly superior since that nature includes the invention of robots.

Oh please, I made this statement in post #28: “Of the 600,000 or so food products currently available in the US, apparently, roughly 80% contains added sugar” You’re reply in post #29 seemed to argue that point, so I provided a link to support my claim in post #30 (clear for all to see in the 2nd section 3rd bullet point is the above quote) did I really need to re-quote or have you just run out of ideas?

http://michelle-maclean.com/the-sugar-facts/

Of the 600,000 or so food products currently available in the US, apparently, roughly 80% contains added sugar.

The lack of citations aside, are you really trying to argue, that, because starvation kills more children than obesity, we should ignore the obesity problem? If obesity is so easily remedied why does bariatric surgery so often fail? Maybe someone has done you a disservice, MonDie, but the minus one speaks volumes.

Nope that’s a miss please try again, maybe with a citation that actually supports your claim. So far I have provided 13 links in support of my position (not all as dubious as the 4 you’ve picked out) you’ve provided 2 that only support a part of your claim (the only part of your claim BTW that I agree with). If you want to sink a battleship you need to work much harder.

I have no doubts that starvation kills children but that’s only one side of your claim. “Obesity only kills the aged” I also need a citation for this claim, along with another that supports: “More live-years are lost.”

Are you sure about that? I look forward to reading your citations. edit. whatever the source.

On top of the advertising are the outright lies, like promoting lean products as healthy; when a product that contains half the fat, in order to make it palatable, also contains twice the sugar. Also the label, due to lobbying, displays a percentage of recommended daily intake for everything other than sugar (ergo their trying to hoodwink).

So it’s the addicts fault? Their moral fortitude is the problem rather than the advertising designed to get them hooked early and once hooked surround them with more advertising and product placement. In a free bar, they can't escape, how many alcoholics do you think would stay sober? http://metro.co.uk/2011/09/22/world-now-has-more-people-dying-from-obesity-than-malnutrition-160264/ http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article3630642.ece It maybe unclear, that sugar is addictive, in your terms but it does seem a reasonable explanation for the obesity epidemic. http://samples.sainsburysebooks.co.uk/9781134365654_sample_535837.pdf http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272523109000471 http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/WeightManagement/Obesity/Understanding-the-American-Obesity-Epidemic_UCM_461650_Article.jsp http://www.theobesityepidemic.org/

On reflection/hindsight I realise the topic title was a mistake (my apologies), since my intention has been neatly captioned by iNow (thank you), a more appropriate title maybe “More people die from obesity than starvation”. I struggle to understand why people are willing to allow industry to buy rewrites to important government documents like the McGovern report or be allowed to self regulate when, we all know, nothing will change (other than more child targeted adverts)?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9742960/Obesity-killing-three-times-as-many-as-malnutrition.html http://metro.co.uk/2011/09/22/world-now-has-more-people-dying-from-obesity-than-malnutrition-160264/ https://fullfact.org/factchecks/first_year_that_more_people_worldwide_died_obesity_malnutrition-28558 http://authoritynutrition.com/10-disturbing-reasons-why-sugar-is-bad/

That may well be true but it doesn’t stop me thinking that way; I therefore maintain my position. We think what we think because we think it, whatever the reason; we act on that thinking for a reason and that’s the difference.

“Sugar is a dose dependant chronic hepato toxin” so fuel yes but only in the right amount. http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/05/07/the-sweetener-that-is-more-dangerous-than-alcohol.aspx http://imgur.com/gallery/qnMLBt2 I’m not trying too (someone else did) I just use it for emphasis.

Well when I see a pretty shapely young lady, I may think, wouldn’t it be great if I could have sexual congress with her without the moral and legal consequences? That doesn’t mean I would, even with her insistence, because any reasonable person understands the moral imperative to resist, not mentioning the legal consequences. Unvirtuous isn’t necessarily the antipode of virtuous. IOW my actions are virtuous whilst my thoughts, sometimes even disgusts me “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”; honesty with others is but a mask and meaningless but honesty with yourself is crucial.

A thought isn’t unvirtuous acting on the thought certainly is.

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2015/02/26/study-sugar-is-eight-times-more-addictive-than-cocaine/ And just, if not more, dangerous to our health, yet one is illegal and the other is freely advertised/promoted ubiquitously throughout the world. Is the mighty dollar really so powerful as to seduce the world with such a drug and are we all equally culpable; given our collective need to accumulate imagined wealth?

Fair point. I think it is the whole point but I don’t think the cheerleaders mind, given the clothes girls of this age choose to wear, and even enjoy that kind of sexual attention (don’t we all) it only becomes a problem when the attention is inappropriate.

You surely aren’t trying to suggest the leotard has no sexual aspect? Does not the male version exaggerate maleness?