Terrible for the same reason that hate crimes legislation is questionable: You cant figure out the justification groups hold.

PETA could easily say "well, we want to protect animals because (insert animal name) is a keystone species, and its extinction would devastate the biosphere, threatening human life because our ecological stability is lost.  Here's a study we conducted about (insert animal name)."

Then again, desiring to protect humanity is a moral.  I believe that the Earth going extinct is bad because... well... life is good!

Quite frankly, everything is rooted in some moral belief, whether that moral is equality, Christianity, utilitarianism, or just wanting whatever is best for you.

> avogadro wrote:

> > xeno syndicated wrote:

> The classification of higher needs is rather dubious.  But self-actualization is one, esteem is another, belonging, and security.

so you think self-actualization, esteem, belonging, and security are needed inorder for an individual to be happy?

To clarify what xeno is trying to explain, he's basically arguing Maslow's hierarchy of needs:

Physiological needs
Safety/Security
Love, friendship, belonging
Esteem
Self-actualization

You probably know the theory, but I'll just clarify it in case anyone is reading, yet doesn't know it:

That list is the order of what we, as humans, strive for, starting with what is on the top of the list and moving down.  Once we find one need met (for example, if you've established a financial future that ensures a safe retirement, satisfying the physiological and a good portion of safety/security needs), we begin to look toward the next item up on the list (love, in this case).  However, while one doesn't need to 100% satisfy one need as a prerequisite to step up toward the next level, a devastation of one level would foil attempts to satisfy the other levels in the hierarchy (for example, a person trying to establish a secure retirement fund will find it very difficult if they're suddenly laid off and have little prospects for income, jeopardizing their short term physiological needs).  But personally, I think that ordering can get into a real gray area when you get higher on the scale (can someone else love you if you don't love yourself?).

> You_Fool wrote:

> what is interesting here is the different view points on the world, but that has always been the case... left wing dreamers wanting a better, but impossible, world for all of us, and right wing realists seeing only the bad in the world...

Then explain me. 

Harding?

Do you ever read a person's post, and try to visualize that person's face as they were typing that message?  It's fun! 

I thought it was Mohammad.

> Justinian I wrote:

Glad you had a good time in the snow Zarf. Btw, we get icey roads too. People skidding around, and the noob 16 year olds zomg. However, you live through it. Black ice is the real annoyance, but we get used to that too. Nonetheless, the ice doesn't last long because the government melts it with mad salt.

Have you ever driven in Las Vegas?  It's a uniquely bad traffic hellhole anyway. 

> Destroyyoutoo wrote:

> Note:  Places in the south don't have as many snow plows/salt/sand as places in the north.  For good reason; because they normally don't need it.  That's why, not because they are wussies

Oh yeah, that too.  Las Vegas owns absolutely NO snow plows.

> Justinian I wrote:

> LOL.

Talk about snow here in MN. Dude, last night I couldn't open my garage to buy groceries.

But I love it when only 3 inches of snow closes highways and schools in Las Vegas and the South. It's so funny, since not even 8 inches would close highways or schools over here. They're such wussies.

Okay, in our defense (yeah, I'm one of those Las Vegas wimps), our snow is more dangerous than your snow.

Las Vegas snow happens while weather is just slightly below the freezing point, which makes the snow sit in that middle ground between freezing and not freezing.  That means the water turns to ice when it hits pavement.  Iced roads=bad.

And by the way, yes, I did have fun in the snow.  It's like the first snow I've seen in years and I had a free day. 

As a little side note... school was closed today, yet by about 9 am everything was bone dry. 

> V.Kemp wrote:

> >>When I use "reality," it simply means "is feasible."<<

I was talking about reality, not the future. I dispute your claims that we'll be manipulating individual atoms in the next ten years or twice that time, but claiming something "is a reality" just because you personally think it'll exist in the next few decades is an assault on the English language and the rational use of that language. When you have to say things like "Define 'reality' within that statement" you're way too vague and crazy for me.

I may destroy English, but you destroy science.

According to you, atoms weren't real until we proved they were real.  Cells weren't real until we decided they were real.  The world was flat until we realized it wasn't.

Considering that language is a subjective entity anyway, I would rather be the one who mangled English than the one who mangled physical science. 

EDIT: Let me explain this better, because it sounds ridiculous when I originally said it. 

You base your stance in the infallibility of the English language.  X means X.  Y means Y.  "Chair" means "chair."  Sounds straightforward and logical enough.  However, the English language (and all language, for that matter) doesn't work that way because it's entirely subjective.

However, the sciences are an absolute.  The world is round.  Gravity exists.  Atoms exist.  Natural sciences are rooted in physical realities that just are true.

Your stance (that something which can be possible in the future, but isn't around now, can't exist) creates a fundamental disconnect between what science would say about the world around us and the reality of the world around us.  People who claimed that living things were made of cells would be ridiculed as idiots.  People who claimed they could split the atom would be laughed at.  Hell, people who claimed the atom existed would be laughed at.

So... it's a question of what should be preserved more: science or English.  My vote is science because English is pretty screwed up anyway. 

Nope!

Unknown?

Yup