Jump to content

Trollanator

Member
  • Content Count

    494
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Trollanator last won the day on November 21 2014

Trollanator had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

248 Excellent

About Trollanator

  • Rank
    Champion
  • Birthday 03/31/1999

Profile Information

  • Name
    Connor
  • School
    New Trier
  • Location
    Illinois
  • Occupation
    Eating is definitely a job
  1. Flowing VDebates and openevidence won't get you anywhere because you aren't actually listening and you likely take more time than you will ever have to write things down. In fact, that might actually hurt your flowing capabilities. Most online debates will be tough to flow, I'd maybe try to look at the websites of some camps and see if there are demo debates for campers from past years. Otherwise, learning to flow online seems pretty tough.
  2. My understanding of the actual argument behind the fun stuff is that its about including lots of different perspectives on things (somebody correct me if that isn't right). You should probably say A. Governments need to make decisions without looking at every possible viewpoint B. It's basically a link of omission dressed up to look nice
  3. Romantizing the pirate allows the pirate to enact violence. Idk how it does anything to help the sovereign...
  4. Unless its the pirates pic
  5. Trollanator

    CFL

    I was. I wish I knew those people were there.
  6. I don't know a whole lot about how the senate works, but if this article is right then next year will be radically changed. Snark is right though that it doesn't destroy the topic at all. http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2015/05/20/sens-paul-and-wyden-may-be-stopping-clean-reauthorization-of-section-215-right-now/
  7. Eliminating is just decreasing completely. Curtail for sure means decrease but that a decrease to 0 is still a decrease. Anything else is like saying "OSW isn't T because it increases too much."
  8. I assumed the aff was to make a law banning bird tags. I said T-Its because universities and research institutions would be the ones doing the "surveillance."
  9. psh that malthus card is real good
  10. PEPSI IS BETTER Pepsi uses aborted babies Staneck 12 (Jill Staneck is the CEO of Pepsi. http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2013/09/if-you-are-still-drinking-pepsi-you-are.html) I have received a few requests from pro-lifers like Vicki:¶ Can you provide some clarity to the Pepsi/cells from aborted babies controversy. I cannot sort out whether this is valid or not.¶ Yes and No¶ Bottom line: There are no aborted embryonic or fetal cells in any of PepsiCo’s final products.¶ But: Aborted cells are used in the development of artificial flavor enhancers by biotech company Senomyx, with which PepsiCo signed a four-year, $30 million agreement in 2010 for research and development. No Pepsi products containing Senonymx flavor enhancers should be expected until 2013.¶ Senomyx’s disputed cell line is HEK-293, derived from the kidney cells of an aborted baby. We could go into the weeds at this point, but Wikipedia offers an easy explanation:¶ Senomyx develops patented flavor enhancers by using “proprietary taste receptor-based assay systems.” These receptors are made from HEK293. HEK stands for Human Embryonic Kidney cells. These cells, which were cloned, originally came from healthy, electively aborted human embryos. Using information from the human genome sequence, Senomyx has identified hundreds of taste receptors and currently owns 113 patents on their discoveries.¶ Ick factor¶ A little more on those taste receptors from cogforlife.org, which originally made the connection between PepsiCo, Senomyx, and aborted cells:¶ These… taste receptors… produce a chemical signal that lets Senomyx researchers know they have achieved the exact flavor they are trying to develop.¶ Snopes concurs… sort of¶ Snopes, in a post last updated on March 18, basically comes to a similar conclusion as the aforementioned, calling the claim that “Pepsi uses material from aborted fetuses in its products” a “mixture” of “false” and “undetermined.”¶ Snopes states it is “false” to claim Pepsi products contain aborted baby cells, but it is “undetermined” whether Senomyx uses aborted cells in R&D, basically because Senonymx won’t answer the question.¶ But Snopes goes into great detail, citing articles by CBS News, Forbes, and Miami New Times, to corroborate that Senomyx indeed does. There is actually no question on that point, so Snopes should change “undetermined” to “true.”¶ Plot thickens with help by Obama administration¶ LifeSiteNews.com reported on March 5 that shareholders shall remain in the dark, thanks to the SEC:¶ In a decision delivered Feb 28th, President Obama’s Security and Exchange Commission ruled that PepsiCo’s use of cells derived from aborted fetal remains in their research and development agreement with Senomyx to produce flavor enhancers falls under “ordinary business operations.” Abortion key to solving overpopulation Ehrlich and Ehrlich 97 (Paul and Anne, Prof of Population Studies + Senior Research Associate in Biological Sciences @ Stanford, Winter, 27 Envtl. L. 1187, lexis) The key to any humane management of human population size is regulation of birth rates. The objective is to avoid a death-rate solution to the population outbreak in which billions of people perish prematurely and in misery. This means that people must have both the knowledge and means to control their reproduction. Human beings have exercised some control over their reproduction for at least thousands and perhaps hundreds of thousands of years. 48 The techniques employed have ranged from crocodile dung suppositories in ancient Egypt 49 to infanticide from hunter-gatherer times up to 1979 in China, 50 and have varied in both their efficacy and social acceptability just as modern techniques do. In the 20th century, the story of birth control in the now-industrialized nations has been one of gradual acceptance of modern forms of contraception, strongly associated with the movement for women's liberation and an assertion of women's rights to determine the number and timing of children they bear. 51 Mathus Hadas (Edward, a mathusy kind of dude. http://blogs.reuters.com/edward-hadas/2011/11/02/7-billion-reasons-why-malthus-was-wrong/) A child is born. For almost every parent, everywhere and always, the entry of a new person into the world is a welcome wonder. But economists generally have a different outlook on births. They prefer hard numbers to hope. And this week they have a big demographic number to discuss: the world’s population has just reached 7 billion.¶ When economists talk about demographics, Thomas Malthus usually comes up. The early 19th century British thinker decided (without providing any reasons) that people would always have more children than the physical world could possibly support. Population growth would always be restrained by death from want. At the time he wrote, the world’s population was about 1 billion. By the 1960s, the population had increased to about 3 billion people, and Malthus’s gloom was often cited. Some ecologists then claimed that the combination of industrial production and overpopulation would inevitably lead to environmental catastrophes – and many deaths from want.¶ And yet up to now, Malthus has been wrong, in two basic ways. First, human resourcefulness has proved much greater than he imagined. The economic story of the last two centuries has been one of increase – of people and production. The most recent years have been particularly impressive. The 135 million births this year will be almost 30 percent more than 50 years ago, according to UN data. Those lives will be longer; this year’s children can look forward to an average 68 years of life, 18 more than newborns a half-century ago. And the current crop will receive much more of the goods of industrial prosperity, from clean water and adequate food to free education and mobile phones.¶ Second, Malthus was wrong to assume that women would always bear just about as many children as physically possible. In the last 40 years, the total fertility rate, the number of children the average woman could be expected to bear, has declined from five to 2.5. The fertility reversal has reduced the annual rate of global population increase from 2 to 1.3 per cent since 1980. The UN expects that to fall to 0.1 per cent by 2085. An absolute population decline is quite possible. It is happening already in Japan and Russia.¶ Still, it cannot be proven that Malthus was wrong, that the world will never run out of stuff or that humanity’s resourcefulness will always rise to environmental, economic and social challenges. And yet – even though there is no way to persuade fervent Malthusians – after two centuries of steady progress the dire predictions look unduly pessimistic. The demographic slowdown reduces the danger of exhausting the earth’s physical resources. And while grim environmental forecasts are still easy to find, demographers these days talk more about the stresses that come with ageing and declining populations.¶ There will be shrinking pains, of course, and the economic and political standing of low fertility nations is likely to fall. Still, the practical challenges can be met easily. Prosperity has freed up so much labor that unemployment is now a more serious problem than poverty in most of the world. Some of those searching for work can find it caring for the old and weak. Pension promises made when populations were increasing quickly will have to be reduced, but that requires little toil; financial arrangements can be changed with a stroke of the pen.¶ Instead of worrying, economists should take the latest demographic milestone as an opportunity to stop thinking like Malthus – that when it comes to people, more is generally worse than less.¶ A good starting point would be to stop relying on GDP per capita when comparing the wealth of nations. In this calculation of average income, population is the denominator. If that increases, the per capita GDP will fall, unless the numerator – production – increases commensurately. In effect, this measure makes each new person an economic drag.¶ That is unfair. A new person is indeed a consumer who will need to work to avoid being a net drain on the world’s resources. But he or she is also a wonder worth celebrating. Parents know it, and economists should recognize that reproduction is a sort of production – brought forth through maternal labor and parental care. Economic activity should aim at the promotion of life, not merely at the production of stuff. John Ruskin, a fierce 19th century critic of Malthusian thinking, declared, “There is no wealth but life… That country is the richest which nourishes the greatest number of noble and happy human beings”. The parents of Danica May Camacho, the Philippine infant identified by the UN as the 7 billionth, would surely agree.
×
×
  • Create New...