I'm feeling especially haughty today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sycophant
Printable View
I'm feeling especially haughty today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sycophant
Mmmvelopes are envelopes that taste like bacon.
They're also marbled white and pink.
Mar-mitts! Marmite flavoured gloves that are 'completely unsuitable for human consumption'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mara
I don't get it.
Back when I was on the radio, stations everywhere (including ours) opted to remove Cory Lee's "No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service" because its lyrics were a) sexist, and b) promoted incredibly shallow, poor values in young girls. Here's a snippit of the lyrics...
No shoes, no shirt, no service
No game, no gold, no me
No cash, no car, no coochie
'Cause no one comes for free
But there's a song I've heard on the radio several times and only today have I paid attention to the lyrics. In my opinion the lyrics are just as bad as Cory Lee's song, yet it plays on a few stations here, and is apparently quite popular. And it's from 2006, so obviously it's not going to be taken off the air now. It's "Crazy Bitch" by Buckcherry...
Hey! You're a crazy bitch
But you fuck so good I'm on top of it
When I dream I'm doin' you all night
Scratches all down my back to keep me right on
Now I'm personally not an advocate of anything being censored/removed from the public eye, but it strikes me as weird that these two songs (which came out around the same time) evoked such different responses, when they both preach really f***ed up morals.
I dunno about that. One says all girls put out for money, the other says crazy girls are great in bed. It's kind of obvious which one's more offensive.
He obliged with a late night of work and girl troubles. This God guy's got a sick sense of humor.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead & Messed Up
I'm still playing around with my new phone, but I synced all my Facebook friends onto my contact list. I now have a lot of Match Cutters and RTer's phone numbers...
Who to prank call first....
What do we think of recycling? I'm interested in hearing both sides, which is why I'm asking you guys to refute Penn & Teller's evidence against it. They said it's actually worse for the environment as it costs more energy to process waste by way of recycling than simply trashing them. They claim that it's cheaper to make new plastic products than to reuse old ones. They also refuted the whole argument that we're running out of space to put trash, as well as the whole sanitary argument against the growing landfills, showing that the methane produced is captured and used to heat homes.
It is also cheaper to just kill a sick person than pay for treatments that may not work. But we don't do that, because money is the least of the problems in the matter.
That's not really the angle. One of the reasons people recycle is because they think it saves money. Apparently, it doesn't. The government charges us 8 billion dollars a year for it and there seems to be a worthy argument against it.Quote:
Originally Posted by [ETM]
That thought has never even crossed my mind because it's ludicrous. I had no idea people thought that. I thought we all agreed that plastic, for example, should be recycled because it is made of petroleum, and we don't have an abundance of it, paper should be recycled because we don't have that many trees left either etc. But "we have enough space for landfills"?! Well, I totally agree with that, hell, the Grand Canyon could hold a few centuries' worth of rubbish alone.:crazy:Quote:
Originally Posted by Brightside
Keep in mind that the show is called Bullshit. Its job is not to argue why we shouldn't recycle, it's to call bullshit on many of the arguments and stigmas for recycling, like the cost, the landfill space, and the willingness to follow directions (as with their 8 trash bins experiment).
The one argument they made for not recycling was paper. The more we use paper = the more trees paper companies plant to keep their supply going. Recycling stops the growth of trees.
If I remember correctly, they also said that recycling cans is the one that's actually worthy.
I'm going to guess that Penn & Teller did the same thing here that they did with global warming: cherry-pick their data and then misconstrue its implications. First off, recycling isn't an either-or proposition. We can decide what we want to recycle, what we want to incinerate, what we want to send to the dump, etc. It's drastically more efficient to recycle aluminum than to mine for ore and then extract it from that, while the benefit of recycling stuff like glass and glossy paper is less obvious. So we could opt to just recycle the stuff that's more obviously beneficial to recycle. In addition to the varieties of materials, there are also the varieties of cities to consider. Recycling and other methods of waste-disposal will cost different amounts (in terms of energy, resources, and money) in different cities, with different population densities, proximities to landfills, recycling systems, etc. So different cities should have different programs tailored to their situations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brightside
However, even accounting for the differing materials and for the variety of situations, in most cases (83%, according to a study cited on Wikipedia), recycling is less expensive than sending stuff to a landfill. Also, Penn & Teller are probably referring to direct costs, neglecting external costs, which are the main concern when we're talking about environmental policy. Similarly, you can't just say it takes more energy at one stage of production: you need to do a complete lifetime analysis. So without some more evidence, I'm not buying their argument.
And finally, just because recycling methods right now might be inefficient in certain cases doesn't mean that we should give up on recycling. The overarching goal of recycling seems quite obviously desirable. By putting money into it and spurring on recycling initiatives, we have been creating, and continue to create, more efficient recycling technology.
Regarding the methane thing, that seems like a great idea, but it's a recent one. Most gas from landfills is vented or burned. And I'd guess that a lot of money and effort has to go into making sure that the environmental impact of a landfill is minimized, though even when minimized it's obviously negative.
It would help if they only used the trees they planted for paper production.Quote:
Originally Posted by number8
But I forget - the show is not aimed at me.
He doesn't like being called out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dead & Messed Up
I don't think tree farming has the same ecological benefits as natural-growth forests, since it has less biodiversity, less prevention of soil erosion, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by number8
Aaaand the lowest age of consent in the world goes to:
http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm?12
Tip: Scroll down to V.
Wow. Tied with Zimbabwe. Nicely done Catholics.
Whoa. I didn't know it was 14 here.
Hey, Zimbabwe at least has provisions. They're 12/16.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kurosawa Fan
Hmm... I wonder if I put mine on there or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watashi
I know Montenegro is trying to attract tourists, but let's set some standards, huh?Quote:
Originally Posted by [ETM]
I'm thinking that can't actually be right. I'll look into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mara
Oh, I'm sure you will.....Quote:
Originally Posted by [ETM]
I always worry that I will someday be falsely accused of a perverse crime and when they search my google history it's gonna be full of "can you eat an ostrich" and "legal age of consent in Montenegro."
But a quick search makes it look like 14. Culturally that may be very unacceptable, but it looks like it's legal. Do you know any people who have ever gotten prosecuted for statatory rape?
(I have. Several. One spent about three years in prison. But he's a bastard and kind of deserved it.)