Jump to content

dpowers

Member
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

48 Good

About dpowers

  • Rank
    Registered User
  • Birthday 03/02/1992

Profile Information

  • Name
    Dan
  1. East: Atlantic: 1. Boston (3) 2. New York 3. New Jersey 4. Philadelphia 5. Toronto Central: 1. Chicago (4) 2. Milwaukee (6) 3. Detroit 4. Indiana 5. Cleveland Southeast: 1. Miami (1) 2. Orlando (2) 3. Atlanta (5) 4. Washington (7) 5. Charlotte (8) West: Northwest: 1. Portland (1) 2. Utah (3) 3. Oklahoma City (5) 4. Denver 5. Minnesota Pacific: 1. Los Angeles Lakers (2) 2. Los Angeles Clippers 3. Sacramento 4. Golden State 5. Phoenix Southwest: 1. San Antonio (4) 2. Houston (6) 3. Memphis (7) 4. Dallas (8) 5. New Orleans Playoffs: East: 1 Miami defeats 8 Charlotte 4-0 2 Orlando defeats 7 Washington 4-1 3 Boston defeats 6 Milwaukee 4-1 4 Chicago defeats 6 Atlanta 4-2 1 Miami defeats 4 Chicago 4-0 3 Boston defeats 2 Orlando 4-2 1 Miami defeats 2 Boston 4-1 West: 1 Portland defeats 8 Dallas 4-1 2 Los Angeles Lakers defeats 7 Memphis 4-2 3 Utah defeats 6 Houston 4-1 4 San Antonio defeats 5 Oklahoma City 4-3 1 Portland 4 San Antonio 4-3 2 Los Angeles defeats 3 Utah 4-3 1 Portland defeats 2 Los Angeles 4-3 1 Miami defeats 1 Portland 4-2
  2. Chicago over Seattle New England over Baltimore Giants over Detroit Atlanta over Philadelphia Pittsburgh over Cleveland Green Bay over Miami San Diego over St. Louis Tampa Bay over New Orleans Houston over Kansas City San Francisco over Oakland Broncos over Jets Dallas over Minnesota Indianapolis over Washington Tennessee over Jacksonville Also, above poster forgot to bold.
  3. Jacksonville over Buffalo Tampa Bay over Cincinnati Atlanta over Cleveland St. Louis over Detroit Kansas City over Indianapolis Green Bay over Washington Carolina over Chicago Baltimore over Denver Houston over New York Giants New Orleans over Arizona San Diego over Oakland Dallas over Tennessee New York Jets over Minnesota San Francisco over Philadelphia
  4. Week 2: Atlanta over San Francisco Jets over Buffalo Cincinnati over Cleveland Green Bay over Detroit Tennessee over Denver St. Louis over Seattle New Orleans over Carolina Baltimore over Pittsburgh Indianapolis over Jacksonville Houston over Oakland San Diego over Arizona Washington over Philadelphia Chicago over Giants New England over Miami
  5. Could the trade offers be reviewed before tomorrow? I know it was just accepted today, but I'd like to use the player I get before next week.
  6. San Francisco over Kansas City New England over Buffalo Atlanta over New Orleans Tampa Bay over Pittsburgh Tennessee over Giants Minnesota over Detroit Baltimore over Cleveland Cincinnati over Carolina Dallas over Houston Washington over St. Louis Philadelphia over Jacksonville San Diego over Seattle Oakland over Arizona Indianapolis over Denver Miami over Jets Chicago over Green Bay
  7. I'll join again. Team is Timecube.
  8. Looking to trade Forsett for WR.
  9. Houston just signed Ariza (http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=4303862). I'm not sure how much of an impact Artest will have in LA. Artest averaged more shot attempts per game than everyone on the Rockets and everyone but Kobe on the Lakers last year. It probably won't be an issue if his attempts are cutting into some of the lesser players on the Laker's roster, but if he's trading off with Gasol or even Kobe it could become a problem.
  10. dpowers

    nba finals

    Magic in 6. Besides the better depth of the Magic, the Lakers are weak in the paint and especially at the 3 point line (http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/05/31/death-by-three-for-the-lakers/#cont). This is not a very good matchup for the Lakers, and I expect the Magic to continue to get inside and make points and be able to pass the ball effectively for open 3s like they've been doing all series. I also think Gortat might get some minutes if Howard ends up drawing 2 more technicals or gets in foul trouble early. Either way, he's been playing well when he's been in and Bynum has not played consistently. Read an interesting article today saying Jameer Nelson might actually play in the finals (http://nba.fanhouse.com/2009/05/31/report-jameer-nelson-might-return-for-finals/). If he's still playing well and is actually put in (less than likely), it should give the Magic even more depth at a position where the Lakers are weak. Edit: Sorry for multpiple posts, tried posting at night and the servers were acting up.
  11. dpowers

    Christianity Bad

    Aside from the whole Christianity bad debate, how is this predictable at all? What qualifies as spiritual poverty would be defined differently for each religion and each denomination of each religion. Limiting the definition to one particular perspective on Christianity is pretty arbitrary and unpredictable and opens the door for an infinite number of cases to try to address "spiritual poverty." I don't see how you would win that poverty = spiritual poverty (as defined by Christianity) is more predictable/fair than poverty = material poverty or an offensive reason why this definition should be preffered (you could probably advocate some sort of Christian ethic through addressing material poverty).
  12. Ok, lets go along with the idea that the factory farm is the primary cause of these problems. First, The reason that the factory farms feed animals ridiculous amounts of crops and grains is because that is the only way to fatten them up quickly enough for rising consumer demand. Continuing the consumption of meat while hoping that businesses will switch to a sustainable food model, especially when demand for meat is rising and meeting this demand would be impossible without current feeding practices, is a highly unrealistic idea. Second, the idea that a switch to non-factory farms would address these problems is also highly unrealistic. Right now, global grain production is decreasing as meat demand is rising with starvation rates. This means that the US will be forced to continue current practices of importing meat from starving nations to have any hopes of meeting demand in the US. The only result of continued meat production is rising starvation in other nations. A surplus is impossible when you already need to import from poor nations to meet demands and when you use up massive amounts of grains to produce meat more quickly. Finally, the idea that a collapse of the meat industry would kill the entire agrarian economy is fairly absurd. Businesses produce goods to meet consumer demand. By buying meat at a restaurant or super market, you are giving your support for the practices that went into making that meat. If people did not buy meat, then businesses that produced meat would not have a market for their products = they would have to switch to non-meat products because there would be no demand for meat. And it's not like if we switched off meat there would be massive starvation around the US -- we already feed most of our grains to animals overbred for consumption that would be almost immediately available after a switch away from animal consumption. Also, it does seem like this has turned from a discussion on the capacity of shellfish to feel pain into a veg vs. non-veg debate. I personally find reformist efforts to be kindof hollow. While I would support less cruelty towards animals in modern farming, I don't think that resolves the ethical dilemmas involved with actually taking the life of an animal or the realistic problems involved with enforcing reforms around factory farms (since they aren't currently) or actually enacting widespread reform of farms. My problems with PETA primarily stem from their methods of advertising vegetarianism, which tend to focus on superficial/controversial ads designed to garner attention rather than actual problems associated with meat consumption that go completely ignored by the media. As for hunting, I would oppose this on the ethical grounds that we shouldn't slaughter animals, although this has been discussed in other veg threads on cross-x.
  13. First on starvation since that seems to be the most important issue you have with vegetarianism. Animals do not exist as a mere limitless food supply -- the meat you see on shelves and restaurants needs to be prepared for consumption. The way this meat is prepared involes fattening up the animals to meet rising demands in the US and other richer nations. To meet this demand, animals are stuffed with grains and other crops, a process that is highly inefficient and actually wastes far more food than it produces. Not only is the net food that is actually produced from animals negative, but the actual land use is more inefficient -- the amount of food that comes from land used to produce meat is far less than the amount that is produced from grains. And finally, because keeping animals on regular food patterns is impossible to meet demands in the US, the animals become sick from the food that is fed them. As a result, they are fed numerous antibiotics, contributing to growing antibiotic resistances in diseases and using up a large supply of antibiotics. Domestic meat production still fails to meet demands however, so the US and other rich nations import meat from the leaders of starving countries. Here are some statistics on this (http://www.vegsource.com/how_to_win.htm): Number of people worldwide who will die as a result of malnutrition this year: 20 million Number of people who could be adequately fed using land freed if Americans reduced their intake of meat by 10%: 100 million Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by people: 20 Percentage of corn grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 80 Percentage of oats grown in the U.S. eaten by livestock: 95 Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90 How frequently a child dies as a result of malnutrition: every 2.3 seconds Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 40,000 Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 250 Percentage of U.S. farmland devoted to beef production: 56 Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce a pound of edible flesh from feedlot beef: 16 For the culture issue: yes you will take alot of abuse for being a vegetarian. However, this alone does not justify the practice of eating meat. If eating meat is a harmful practice to humans and animals, then local culture or the bonds we can form with other humans is outweighed by the harmful ethical/human implications. The bonds that can be formed over exerting superiority over another being (such as Southern slave owners bonding over the status provided by owning a slave) don't justify mistreatment of such creatures. Also, bonds formed over harmful practices are designed to exclude certain groups. Forming a bond over slave ownership ignores the thoughts and emotions that other human beings have, just as a bond formed over meat consumption ignores the capacities of animals to experience pain or emotion. Finally, vegetarianism still allows you to connect with other people, but expands the field to incorporate animals. On the ethics of meat consumption: I'd advise you to look at some of the other threads since alot of the discussion on them revolves around this issue. However, I would agree with Scu here on the way the disavowal of the face of the animal. You would never advocate slaughtering dogs because the face of your dog represents more to you than food on your table, it represents the bonds and emotions that you have with your own dog and other people have with theirs. Yet the face of other animals remains constantly hidden from the public view. The face of a cow tends to bring images of a docile, dumb creature existing for the entirety of it's life eating grass before being consumed. Yet the cow (and other animals) are not purely dumb, docile creatures, but create their own social bonds and experience their own emotions. For more on this, I would advise you visit the "Meet the animals" section here http://www.goveg.com/factoryFarming.asp. Since you seem to have a genuine interest in this, you may want to visit some of the cross x threads specifically on animal rights (http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=977349, and http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showthread.php?t=989387) since alot of the issues you may have may have already been discussed there.
  14. From the website: Professor: "You missed the midterm, Bill." Bill: "I know. I think you should let me take the makeup." Professor: "Why?" Bill: "I was hit by a truck on the way to the midterm. Since I had to go to the emergency room with a broken leg, I think I am entitled to a makeup." Professor: "I'm sorry about the leg, Bill. Of course you can make it up." The above example does not involve a fallacy. While the professor does feel sorry for Bill, she is justified in accepting Bill's claim that he deserves a makeup. After all getting run over by a truck would be a legitimate excuse for missing a test. The same article he posted to define fallacious arguments specifically points out instances of pain as an acceptable basis for sympathy and as a non-fallacious argument. Pain is hardly an aribtrary standard for ethics/sympathy and is the only way to take into account the interests of all those involved in an ethical system. I doubt many people here would call a person who tried to help genoicide or crime victims an irrational idiot. Also, if you feel so confident that pain is an arbitrary standard for sympathy, why did you stop responding on the other thread on vegetarianism where pain as a standard for ethics was discussed?
×
×
  • Create New...