Moontanman

May I inquire as to where you live and have never heard of Star Trek? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Trek

The whole idea of not paying for birth control is smoke and mirrors to cover up religious control and or persecution. Insurance with birth control is cheaper or exactly the same as health insurance without birth control. In fact I have had insurance providers (friends who worked at them) say that most of the time birth control must be written out of most plans to prevent it from being covered not added. Not to mention that health insurance with birth control is actually cheaper. Any argument that claims to worry about costs is either dishonest or ignorant of the facts. No one would want to exclude birth control for costs, it's strictly people imposing their religious beliefs on others...

Can you cite any of those peer reviewed articles?

Do you have any scientific evidence of what you claim from a neutral source?

Using religious"freedom" as an excuse to implement your religious beliefs on others is not religious "freedom" it is religious "persecution". http://www.phillyvoice.com/trevor-noah-drags-pro-life-pennsylvania-rep-who-urged-mistress-to-get-an-abortion/ It would be funny if this attitude of do as I say not as a do wasn't so serious and used to persecute people. I have little doubt there are people who oppose abortion, I do, but taking steps to force my views on others is quite unconstitutional. It's a backdoor method for people to persecute others. Not being allowed to persecute others over religion is not an infringement on religious freedom. It makes very little business sense to not provide birth control if you are providing health insurance to your employees. This unholy union of religion and politics called the republican party is IMHO unconstitutional. The idea of religious freedom trumping reality is one of the major problems in our society today. From parents letting their children die because they don't believe in medical care to the slimy con artists who get fabulously wealthy off the hopes and fears of the poor this attitude of "religious freedom" has been distorted out of shape. This distortion is not accidental, it is actually a real political power play being played out by christian dominionists . Their goals and methods have been known for decades but no one really thought this tactic would work. But religion, basically being the dishonest quest for power over others, has used this strategy to garner support from normally "reasonable" theists due to the general idea of "if it's god's work it has to be good" Few mainstream christians are willing to speak out against this perversion of our laws for fear of persecution themselves and the biblical idea of judge not lest ye be judged. It a very effective and powerful scam mostly because questioning the christian religion is difficult for other christians, when a christian leader is found out to be committing some crime the idea of forgiveness reigns over justice in many christian communities. I personally know of christian leaders, locally, who have been caught doing everything from child molestation to theft of church money and the congregations made it almost impossible to prosecute these crimes. The Problem these people have with birth control is that is allows sexual congress with no consequences, it is especially loathsome for women to be sexually active and not suffer the consequences of pregnancy and the biblically decreed pain and suffering of sexual activity.

My bad I was trying to compare the energy of neutrinos with the energy of photons being emitted. If you could collect the energy being given off in neutrinos would it compare to what a solar panel collects..

A significant number of humans are born intersexed, neither male not female and possesing genitalia parts from both sexes. How does your friend dismiss this?

There are some theoretical possibilities from a quark star to a preon star. It would appear there is a official possibility. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N6946-BH1

The best thing to do is go to an exit and put an exhaust fan. The fan will allow fire fighters to enter the building and fight the fire with much less water and put it out from the bottom instead of putting water on top of it... I used to work for DuPont, we had a fire brigade, it was part of a training program that sucking out or blowing in, the hot gases and following the fire to it's source with water will put it out far faster. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ventilation_(firefighting)

https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/102592208660177072021/photos/photo/111273953323011908818/6469085285026238210 A gif, I couldn't get it to display..

Detonating a moderate sized nuke in low earth orbit above the USA would be catastrophic...

Somewhere many years ago I saw a study of doing this to the mouth of chesapeake bay, I'm not sure how big the bomb was but it generated a tsunami that pretty much wiped out everything in and hear the bay. Yes, A fusion bomb could very well be orders of magnitude bigger than a fission bomb. http://www.nucleardarkness.org/include/nucleardarkness//images/high_yield_vs_low_yield_4_bombs_750.jpg Actually if "rocket man" was serious about dealing a real blow to the entire US without killing anyone directly with a moderately large device he is on the verge of being able to do it. Anyone want to guess what that would be?

Think of an asteroid strike in the ocean, the Tsunami would be epic, same thing for a nuke just on a slightly smaller scale..

You are assuming that the nuke was stolen, North Korea has done business with islamic terrorists in the past. Setting a bomb off in a harbor would multiply the effect somewhat more than setting one off at ground level on land. Underwater is even better but your point is taken...

Let me dance with the devil here. My main concern is not a missile attack from the NPRK, that is silly, "rocket man" is smarter than that, he enjoys poking the bear far to much to take the lock off the bear's cage. ISIS? That is problematic from many reasons but this maybe the most likely way such an attack could occur. ISIS would have to have three things to destroy a US city with nukes. A nuke, a delivery method, and lack of respect for their own lives. Wahabism has already shown they are willing to die to kill their enemies, a possible delivery system is an old diesel submarine, and of course a Nuke. Train a group of men to pilot a diesel sub who are willing to die for their cause and obtain a submarine and a bomb. I would imagine the submarine is the hardest thing to obtain in secrete and train men to operate it in secretly. But a moderate nuke detonated at some depth offshore of a US coastal city would be a disaster. A radioactive wave would surge inland do damage far outside the scope of a bomb smuggled into a city.

Nice song... I loved steppenwolf back in the day!

My point about definition is a lot like my definition of porn, I know it when I see it. Are we going by a human definition of sodomy? Sodomy in Fruit bats is actually necessary for them to reproduce. Is sodomy anything other than man on top get it over with quick? Does sodomy include oral sex? Mutual masterbation? Anal sex only? Who decides?

Even among hunting circles killing for fun, fun is defined as killing an animal but not using or having any use for the corpse/body. Even among experienced hunters this is often frowned on with extreme prejudice. Hunters often share the meat of the kill with everyone who participated, with soup kitchens, or with friends and family. I have a small store of venison in my freezer and I do not hunt. Fishing is a bit less clear due to the fact that fish can and often are released unharmed if they are not going to be cooked for food. Commercial fishing is a problem, due to bycatch and fact that bycatch is often killed by the nets and wasted...

I would conduct Miller–Urey experiment type experiment using chemicals other than the main ones used by Miller-Urey, Maybe Boron instead of carbon, ammonia instead of water, or methane replacing water...

Again we have failed to define sodomy, are we going by the old "I can't define it" but I know it when I see it" adage? Here is the dictionary definition: Dictionary sod·om·y ˈsädəmē/ noun sexual intercourse involving anal or oral copulation. Fruit bat females perform felletio on males to insure a successful mating. Male bull elephants often have anal intercourse among themselves, only the largest and strongest getting to mate with females. These are not isolated cases, this behavior in some form occurs all across the animal. When two female whip tailed lizards mimic mimic sex so they can lay eggs sodomy? There are no males in that species, so sexual contact between females is necessary. IMHO sodomy is archaic word that was made up by people who thought they had the right to say how people should sex. So far I have seen no data that would indicate sodomy is any more or less likely to transfer STDs...

Are we talking about survival, self defence or just for fun?

I am really beginning to like this new format! Great job "We've"!

Close enough for government work...

IMHO You would have to define sodomy a little more clearly before we can even talk about the subject. Again, let's define what is meant by sodomy and how they transfer disease more often than any other contact? Dogs have an infectious cancer that they can get from sniffing another dog's anus. does that count? Please define sodomy...