Dead Oceans by 2048?

[jessemoore97 1,289]

 

I also wouldn't be surprised if humans join that number some day. Far stronger species than we have fallen by the wayside over time and over the last 100 years, you could argue that we have grown weaker as a species overall because far too many of us rely on someone else growing or raising what is needed for our sustenance. Feral creatures are more likely to survive because they use the same instincts to survive that they did hundreds, thousands, in some cases millions of years ago. In developed countries, our instinct is to go to the grocery store or a restaurant. If the s*** hit the fan, what percentage of those people could manage to sustain themselves?

 

Cues up "Country Boy Can Survive" lyrics....)

[ND3 0]

OK, this conversation is getting a little out of hand.

 

1) Yes, the Earth will absolutely eliminate us before we can do anything to the planet. The entire point of the climate change debate is to try to prevent us from accelerating our demise. The end game is that hopefully we can develop the technology to prevent it before we become extinct as a species.

 

2) I'm not really sure why the evidence we are presenting against climate change is weather-based rather than climate-based.

 

3) We are in the middle of an extinction event right now called the Holocene extinction. We can debate the exact causes all day, but the ultimate culprit is absolutely mankind. So while I can agree that most species have gone extinct without the help of us (there have been 5 major extinction events in the past), it doesn't mean that we aren't the ultimate cause of many, many species going extinct right now.

 

4) Yes, there are scientists who don't buy into climate change. This is also how Christians try to convert me... "Here are one or two smart guys that believe what I believe"... The fact is, the scientific community overwhelmingly supports climate change.

 

5) "Far stronger species than we have fallen by the wayside over time" No, there has never a species on Earth better equipped for survival than mankind.

 

6) Of course there's money to be made in "going green". There's money to be made in anything if you're a smart investor.

 

I won't make a big argument in support of climate change because I've done it before on this board and it won't change anybody's mind. It's a waste of my time. It does seem like we are all fully on board with the idea of "environmental stewardship", so I'll take that as a step in the right direction. Even if you don't think pollution causes climate change, it's undeniable that it causes severe negative health effects to our population, and it is something that we need to find solutions for.

[piratey 6]

1) Yes, the Earth will absolutely eliminate us before we can do anything to the planet. The entire point of the climate change debate is to try to prevent us from accelerating our demise. The end game is that hopefully we can develop the technology to prevent it before we become extinct as a species.

 

The entire point of climate change debate is to keep it going because they're in too deep and the money is too good. Man made climate change is a farce. We'll go extinct as a species from nuclear holocaust, sentient AI, super virus or scientific disaster(Be it trying to make a blackhole, unleash killer nanomachines, or create a super predator) before "climate change."

 

2) I'm not really sure why the evidence we are presenting against climate change is weather-based rather than climate-based.

 

Because your side tried to make it weather based 10 years ago with Al Gore's mockumentary that said we were causing Hurricanes and Tornados.

 

3) We are in the middle of an extinction event right now called the Holocene extinction. We can debate the exact causes all day, but the ultimate culprit is absolutely mankind. So while I can agree that most species have gone extinct without the help of us (there have been 5 major extinction events in the past), it doesn't mean that we aren't the ultimate cause of many, many species going extinct right now.

 

What does that have to do with climate change? What does that have to do with Americans? You got beef with the continuation of an extinction event THAT STARTED AT THE END OF THE ICE AGE(so I fail to see how it's the middle of it), go take it up with poachers in Africa and China.

 

4) Yes, there are scientists who don't buy into climate change. This is also how Christians try to convert me... "Here are one or two smart guys that believe what I believe"... The fact is, the scientific community overwhelmingly supports climate change.

 

The fact is, the scientific community is fueled by hubris and needs to have answers to questions, even if they are wrong. The scientific community overwhelmingly supported the notion that matter was lost in a blackhole...until now they don't. All these folks threw their hat in back when Mann's hockey stick was considered "Fact" and now they don't know what to think. I bet more scientists would come out with skepticism if they weren't facing ostracization.

 

5) "Far stronger species than we have fallen by the wayside over time" No, there has never a species on Earth better equipped for survival than mankind.

False.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-dg3MyZHBAGc/TjjDdVITvDI/AAAAAAAARWY/fTKpINRIlcw/s1600/awesome+dinosaurs+lasers.jpg

 

But in all seriousness, we're actually a pretty ****** species in terms of survival. We don't adhere to survival of the fittest, meaning we're an evolutionary stagnant species. Not only that, but we're the only species with a worthless "hide", our skin sucks so much as a protectant. We're the only species that gives birth to offspring completely incapable of doing anything for itself for at least a year. Human babies can't even hold their heads up, that's an easy dinner. We're cunning and intelligent but we aren't built for sustainability. There'll come a day that due to our reliance on antibiotics and vaccines, a virus will come along immune to everything and our bodies will have no means of fighting it off. You want a cause of extinction? Try the super flu. There was no global economy in 1918, if 5% of the worlds population was killed like with the Spanish flu, economies would crumble. Not only that but 5% would be low end...the amount and speed of travel these days? Doom.

Edited May 9, 2014 by piratey

[ND3 0]

The entire point of climate change debate is to keep it going because they're in too deep and the money is too good. Man made climate change is a farce. We'll go extinct as a species from nuclear holocaust, sentient AI, super virus or scientific disaster(Be it trying to make a blackhole, unleash killer nanomachines, or create a super predator) before "climate change."

 

So we shouldn't prepare for/research climate change at all? That seems short-sighted for a potential preventable worldwide disaster.

 

Because your side tried to make it weather based 10 years ago with Al Gore's mockumentary that said we were causing Hurricanes and Tornados.

 

People on "my side" of many issues make ridiculous claims I don't support. I can't do anything about that unfortunately.

 

What does that have to do with climate change? What does that have to do with Americans? You got beef with the continuation of an extinction event THAT STARTED AT THE END OF THE ICE AGE(so I fail to see how it's the middle of it), go take it up with poachers in Africa and China.

 

This part had nothing to do with climate change. It was in reference to the poster who claimed that mankind had little effect on the environment, but I can see where the confusion came from. Also, I guess using "middle" was poor diction, as we have no idea when it will end, but there is certainly an extinction event in progress caused by mankind.

 

The fact is, the scientific community is fueled by hubris and needs to have answers to questions, even if they are wrong. The scientific community overwhelmingly supported the notion that matter was lost in a blackhole...until now they don't. All these folks through there hat in back when Mann's hockey stick was considered "Fact" and now they don't know what to think. I bet more scientists would come out with skepticism if they weren't facing ostracization.

 

Scientific opinion changes as we gain more evidence on the matter. That's how the entire process works. We make the best hypothesis based on available data- sometimes the hypothesis changes as we gain more data. Right now, according to the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, climate change is likely happening.

 

False.

 

But in all seriousness, we're actually a pretty ****** species in terms of survival. We don't adhere to survival of the fittest, meaning we're an evolutionary stagnant species reliant. Not only that, but we're the only species with a worthless "hide", our skin sucks so much as a protectant. We're the only species that gives birth to offspring completely incapable of doing anything for itself for at least a year. Human babies can't even hold their heads up, that's an easy dinner. We're cunning and intelligent but we aren't built for sustainability. There'll come a day that due to our reliance on antibiotics and vaccines, a virus will come along immune to everything and our bodies will have no means of fighting it off. You want a cause of extinction? Try the super flu. There was no global economy in 1918, if 5% of the worlds population was killed like with the Spanish flu, economies would crumble. Not only that but 5% would be low end...the amount and speed of travel these days? Doom.

 

Not 100% sure what the starred out word is but I'm guessing "fudged"?

 

We've been the dominant force on Earth since we harnessed the power of fire. I think we'll be fine even if a survival situation occurs where an inordinate amount of people are killed in one event. We have the thinking/brain capacity to continue to be the dominant force on Earth unless virtually everyone is wiped out in a single World War Z type situation. It would be rough and many, many people would die, but our superior intelligence would give us a major leg up.

Edited May 9, 2014 by ND3

[1qa 0]

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud20010117en.html

 

"Unfortunately, if we scan the regions of our planet, we immediately see that humanity has disappointed God's expectations. Man, especially in our time, has without hesitation devastated wooded plains and valleys, polluted waters, disfigured the earth's habitat, made the air unbreathable, disturbed the hydrogeological and atmospheric systems, turned luxuriant areas into deserts and undertaken forms of unrestrained industrialization, degrading that "flowerbed" - to use an image from Dante Alighieri (Paradiso, XXII, 151) - which is the earth, our dwelling-place."

 

I think what we are missing is we are the stewards of this Creation and its denizens. We have the means and capacity for all (man, animal, fish, bird, insect, flora) to flourish.

 

Whether you accept whether man is responsible for climate change, i think there can be no doubt we are responsible for pollution, poaching and wholesale ravaging of ecosystems for our material comfort and pleasure.

 

I am by no means less guilty... my family and I consume way more than the average human. I do try to lessen my impact and do things more locally... I eat less (almost zero) fish, cut back on beef (and bacon, sniff)... and when I do, it is locally raised.

 

The problem is there are 6.8 billion people who want to live as i do... and they don't necessarily see themselves as the stewards of God's creations like I do.

 

I think it is just hubris and denial that makes one think that our collective consumption is not responsible for changing climate, environmental collapses and mass extinction.

 

Sure, the Earth will survive, as will humans, but at the end of days, the creation will be diminished, and it will be our shame. Fortunately, for many, pride will brush aside any sense of responsibility... we are the "chosen" ones after all.

[nd1baby 0]

Hmmm, I see the chosen ones at Harvard are having a black mass. I wonder what the horned one has to say about taking care of the earth?

[piratey 6]

So we shouldn't prepare for/research climate change at all? That seems short-sighted for a potential preventable worldwide disaster.

 

 

 

People on "my side" of many issues make ridiculous claims I don't support. I can't do anything about that unfortunately.

 

 

 

This part had nothing to do with climate change. It was in reference to the poster who claimed that mankind had little effect on the environment, but I can see where the confusion came from. Also, I guess using "middle" was poor diction, as we have no idea when it will end, but there is certainly an extinction event in progress caused by mankind.

 

 

 

Scientific opinion changes as we gain more evidence on the matter. That's how the entire process works. We make the best hypothesis based on available data- sometimes the hypothesis changes as we gain more data. Right now, according to the overwhelming majority of the scientific community, climate change is likely happening.

 

 

 

Not 100% sure what the starred out word is but I'm guessing "fudged"?

 

We've been the dominant force on Earth since we harnessed the power of fire. I think we'll be fine even if a survival situation occurs where an inordinate amount of people are killed in one event. We have the thinking/brain capacity to continue to be the dominant force on Earth unless virtually everyone is wiped out in a single World War Z type situation. It would be rough and many, many people would die, but our superior intelligence would give us a major leg up.

 

I have no problem with continuing research. What I have a problem with, is the approach to the matter. This is what I have a problem with this quote from Stephen Schneider, former Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute

And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This ‘double ethical bind’ we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means both.

 

Not when billions of dollars are on the line. Not when it dramatically lowers my standard of living because of increased energy bills, gas cost and taxes.

 

And as for death of humanity...For all our intelligence, a virus could easily wipe us out. Read some pretty cool science fiction books that touched on this, one was Plague Year by Jeff Carlson. The premise was nanomachines being developed to fight cancer had been released from the lab they were being developed in...they destroyed all living cells below 10,000 feet. Pretty cool premise. But I could see something like 12 monkeys...or Andromeda Strain...Y:The Last Man... Super virus is the most plausible scenario for the end of mankind

[Jim2Dokes 3]

As a man of science I always have to go with someone with actual research versus tv/radio blowhards. So I believe that climate change is happening and is man-made. But is this really worth the constant debate? Even if you did not believe, why wouldn't you want cleaner air, better food, and overall more sustainable lifestyle?

 

I liked McCain's stance on this in 2008, whether it is man-made or not there is no reason to not improve our environment and create alternative energies.

 

I live in Oregon, I drive around the countryside all of the time and see 1000's of free-range grazing cattle, I take a few whiffs and what do smell? Nice clean country air.

 

I step foot in Idaho and it smells like **** with their industrial farms.

 

So where should one want to live?

[nd1baby 0]

Even if you did not believe, why wouldn't you want cleaner air, better food, and overall more sustainable lifestyle?

 

Ah yes, why not believe in God and just follow a moral life full of peace and contentment.

 

People can not even follow the basic commandments not to kill, rob and rape. Look at that insanity with the mass girl kidnapping in Africa. So sad.

[ND3 0]

I have no problem with continuing research. What I have a problem with, is the approach to the matter. This is what I have a problem with this quote from Stephen Schneider, former Co-Director at the Center for Environment Science and Policy of the Freeman Spogli Institute

 

 

Not when billions of dollars are on the line. Not when it dramatically lowers my standard of living because of increased energy bills, gas cost and taxes.

 

And as for death of humanity...For all our intelligence, a virus could easily wipe us out. Read some pretty cool science fiction books that touched on this, one was Plague Year by Jeff Carlson. The premise was nanomachines being developed to fight cancer had been released from the lab they were being developed in...they destroyed all living cells below 10,000 feet. Pretty cool premise. But I could see something like 12 monkeys...or Andromeda Strain...Y:The Last Man... Super virus is the most plausible scenario for the end of mankind

 

I get it. It's just tough for me to get worked up about spending our tax dollars on it at this point. There are so many things that our government spends money on that range from worthless to self-harming that climate change funding feels like a drop in the bucket- and, comparatively, a great use of our money. We're already spending 3/4 of a trillion dollars annually on the defense budget, does a little climate change research really make a difference?

 

Do I wish that it could be headed up by private institutions without government intervention? Absolutely. Do I think that will reasonably happen any time soon? No way.

 

Do you really think a super virus could completely wipe out humanity, though? I mean, the Black Plague left most of Europe's population alive, and that's the epitome of a decimating pathogen in world history. People had no idea how the disease spread- they literally shat next to where they ate- and, while it was devastating, it was also recoverable. There's enough genetic diversity in the human population that we can survive something like that, with natural immunities and whatnot. I don't think any single pandemic would devastate our population. Maybe if we had several Black Plague-like pandemics in a row, but that just seems too unlikely to even consider as a realistic possibility. Related: The issue of antibiotic resistance is extremely alarming (antibiotics don't kill viruses of course, but you get it), but even that will only set us back to the pre-antibiotic days, which we easily survived as a species.

 

As a huge Asimov fan, I do have some sci-fi-based worries of our technological advances eventually being our demise, but I think we're a loooooong way away from that being a legitimate concern. I mean, there's some crazy shite the military is working on right now, but nothing that I have seen or heard leads me to think that our technology is anywhere close to destroying us. #FamousLastWords

[VCDomer 68]

My .02 cents in this debate....

 

SOYLENT GREEN! Its not just food... its a solution.

 

[Jim2Dokes 3]

Ah yes, why not believe in God and just follow a moral life full of peace and contentment.

 

People can not even follow the basic commandments not to kill, rob and rape. Look at that insanity with the mass girl kidnapping in Africa. So sad.

 

These are two separate issues but I could compare the industrialized farming system to this, but I will not go there.

 

A better comparison would be Mike Vick and how he treated the dogs versus how millions of animals are treated by corporations. Mike Vick= Horrible, jail ect. Industrialized farms= Wealth, acceptance ect.

 

**** fighting illegal? Oh, but we can stick them in small spaces, cut of there beaks so they dont go crazy and start killing each other. The biggest thing that kills me about this world is the hypocrisy.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Jim2Dokes

[jessemoore97 1,289]

As a man of science I always have to go with someone with actual research versus tv/radio blowhards. So I believe that climate change is happening and is man-made. But is this really worth the constant debate? Even if you did not believe, why wouldn't you want cleaner air, better food, and overall more sustainable lifestyle?

 

I liked McCain's stance on this in 2008, whether it is man-made or not there is no reason to not improve our environment and create alternative energies.

 

I live in Oregon, I drive around the countryside all of the time and see 1000's of free-range grazing cattle, I take a few whiffs and what do smell? Nice clean country air.

 

I step foot in Idaho and it smells like **** with their industrial farms.

 

So where should one want to live?

 

From what I've seen here, no one is arguing about not having those things and the support is there because its in our best interest. Those things were "common sense" even before all the climate change garbage got thrown into the mix. I'd think you have a hard time finding folks who actually want to drink contaminated water, live in smog infested cities, etc.

 

Alternate energies would be a great thing! A few weeks ago there was an article discussing research that the Navy was conducting, it centered around making a form of diesel fuel from sea water that could run the ships in the fleet. The predict it'll be another 10 or so years before they may be able to incorporate it effectively, assuming everything goes their way. How big of a game changer could that be?! If its successful the technology could hopefully be replicated for civilian use and plants or whatever could be established along the coastal areas to covert the sea water into a readily available, hopefully cheaper, and greener source of energy.

 

Solar energy would be fantastic as well if the dilemma of a more efficient collection and storage method could be overcome. As it is now its an extremely low rate of usable energy that is collected/converted from the current solar cell technology as I understand it. Wind energy is nice in theory. Living in Iowa I've seen the large wind turbine farms in the northern part of the state and in southern Minnesota. Not exactly pretty IMO. I know that there are new turbines out there which are on a much smaller scale comparatively and designed for individual use. However they are still on the large side for everyone plopping one in their yard, and I've seen resistance to these locally with regard to zoning ordinances, neighbor complaints, etc.

 

I'm totally in support of alternate energies, if for nothing else than to rid ourselves of energy dependance from other countries and to seize our own destiny again.

[piratey 6]

I get it. It's just tough for me to get worked up about spending our tax dollars on it at this point. There are so many things that our government spends money on that range from worthless to self-harming that climate change funding feels like a drop in the bucket- and, comparatively, a great use of our money. We're already spending 3/4 of a trillion dollars annually on the defense budget, does a little climate change research really make a difference?

 

Do I wish that it could be headed up by private institutions without government intervention? Absolutely. Do I think that will reasonably happen any time soon? No way.

 

Do you really think a super virus could completely wipe out humanity, though? I mean, the Black Plague left most of Europe's population alive, and that's the epitome of a decimating pathogen in world history. People had no idea how the disease spread- they literally shat next to where they ate- and, while it was devastating, it was also recoverable. There's enough genetic diversity in the human population that we can survive something like that, with natural immunities and whatnot. I don't think any single pandemic would devastate our population. Maybe if we had several Black Plague-like pandemics in a row, but that just seems too unlikely to even consider as a realistic possibility. Related: The issue of antibiotic resistance is extremely alarming (antibiotics don't kill viruses of course, but you get it), but even that will only set us back to the pre-antibiotic days, which we easily survived as a species.

 

As a huge Asimov fan, I do have some sci-fi-based worries of our technological advances eventually being our demise, but I think we're a loooooong way away from that being a legitimate concern. I mean, there's some crazy shite the military is working on right now, but nothing that I have seen or heard leads me to think that our technology is anywhere close to destroying us. #FamousLastWords

 

I never directly see the effects of defense spending, they borrow from themselves to pay for themselves. Where I do see the cost is at the gas pump. In Michigan, there is a 60cent tax on each gallon, California is 71. So that means to fill my 15 gallon tank costs an extra 9 bucks. Granted $5 of which is going to roads. And then the price of a barrel goes up from the taxes the evil oil companies pay Then there is your energy bill for your house...

 

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/quote-words-shortly-before-being-fatally-wounded-by-a-bullet-during-the-civil-war-spotsylvania-va-8-john-sedgwick-310161.jpg

 

I'm not so much worried about Skynet, as I am what's going on at the CDC and FDA...You hear about the nut bags in China?

http://www.wired.com/2013/05/h5n1-h1n1-reassortment/

Now a team of Chinese scientists has investigated that in their lab by creating a new hybrid virus. They combined H5N1 avian influenza, which is highly lethal but doesn’t transmit easily between people, with the highly contagious H1N1 swine flu strain responsible for infecting tens of millions of people in 2009.

Dafaq?? Imagine the stuff they've made that we don't know...

 

I'm sure as hell not a "don't vaccinate your kids" loony...but I am wary of getting flu shots or taking much medication. The only thing more shady that Global Warming based companies is the FDA and pharmaceutical companies. You want a conspiracy? How about this one...If scientists found a cure for the common cold, it would cripple entire sectors of industry and put millions out of work. Kleenex? Vicks? P&G needs people to get sick, the workers at the Kleenex factory need you to get sick. Because if people don't get sick, who's buying tissues? Who's buying cough medicine?

[jessemoore97 1,289]

These are two separate issues but I could compare the industrialized farming system to this, but I will not go there.

 

A better comparison would be Mike Vick and how he treated the dogs versus how millions of animals are treated by corporations. Mike Vick= Horrible, jail ect. Industrialized farms= Wealth, acceptance ect.

 

**** fighting illegal? Oh, but we can stick them in small spaces, cut of there beaks so they dont go crazy and start killing each other. The biggest thing that kills me about this world is the hypocrisy.

 

Unfortunately, factory animal farms or even cooperate farms are the reality of the situation. Its too bad that the boon in farming prices didn't happen in the 80's, when a majority of farmers went under. My mother's side of the family had a diary, and they all pretty much farmed. Now, no one does from my immediate family, and I only have a couple cousins and a great uncle who continue to do so. I distinctly remember those hard times when I was very young and was there when the diary herd was auctioned off. It was tough, and I remember my mother being very upset by it because it was the way of life she grew up with, but was no longer viable for the family. They continued to raise some beef cows and hogs as well as field work. But the farm died a slow death, and when my grandfather passed 9 years ago it was completely sold off, but some stayed within the family among the few that still did strictly field work.

 

I worked on farms through my teens and in college during the summers and on breaks from school. Back then I was making $5 an hour which was more than minimum wage back then. I loved being outdoors. The work was hard and exhausting at times. But the way of life it represented, the work ethic I established, and the knowledge I gained was invaluable to me. I wish I could have continued to do it even today in the form of a small family owned farm. Unfortunately it is extremely hard to get started unless you had the family ties, land, equipment, etc already going for you.

[nd1baby 0]

These are two separate issues but I could compare the industrialized farming system to this, but I will not go there.

 

A better comparison would be Mike Vick and how he treated the dogs versus how millions of animals are treated by corporations. Mike Vick= Horrible, jail ect. Industrialized farms= Wealth, acceptance ect.

 

**** fighting illegal? Oh, but we can stick them in small spaces, cut of there beaks so they dont go crazy and start killing each other. The biggest thing that kills me about this world is the hypocrisy.

 

Right. People want what they want. Girls just want to have fun. The industrial farms are giving the people what they want just like the porn industry. Change human nature from within or stomp on it using the boot of big brother. That is the choice.

[Jim2Dokes 3]

Unfortunately, factory animal farms or even cooperate farms are the reality of the situation. Its too bad that the boon in farming prices didn't happen in the 80's, when a majority of farmers went under. My mother's side of the family had a diary, and they all pretty much farmed. Now, no one does from my immediate family, and I only have a couple cousins and a great uncle who continue to do so. I distinctly remember those hard times when I was very young and was there when the diary herd was auctioned off. It was tough, and I remember my mother being very upset by it because it was the way of life she grew up with, but was no longer viable for the family. They continued to raise some beef cows and hogs as well as field work. But the farm died a slow death, and when my grandfather passed 9 years ago it was completely sold off, but some stayed within the family among the few that still did strictly field work.

 

I worked on farms through my teens and in college during the summers and on breaks from school. Back then I was making $5 an hour which was more than minimum wage back then. I loved being outdoors. The work was hard and exhausting at times. But the way of life it represented, the work ethic I established, and the knowledge I gained was invaluable to me. I wish I could have continued to do it even today in the form of a small family owned farm. Unfortunately it is extremely hard to get started unless you had the family ties, land, equipment, etc already going for you.

 

I do not think it has to be or is in some areas a firm reality. Your right the 80s and even into the 90s the small farms were taken out due to the mass consumption of fast food and the need for mass produced meat. However, going back to Oregon outside of fast food most restaurants serve meat from local farms. I think that it can change and more small family owned farms like your family can be a reality again, as it should. It would raise wages, spur the economy, create a healthier environment, reduce meat consumption, and create a more diverse market. Of course with the current climate this may take a long time to develop. You need people to start eating better foods and new laws. Unfortunately, mass public perception does not seem to change fast unless new laws and restrictions are in place.

[VCDomer 68]

Right. People want what they want. Girls just want to have fun. The industrial farms are giving the people what they want just like the porn industry. Change human nature from within or stomp on it using the boot of big brother. That is the choice.

 

I always opt for the boot.

[IrishGuy 178]

[nd1baby 0]

An actual debate:

 

[ame]

[/ame]