logo Sign In

RicOlie_2

User Group
Members
Join date
6-Jun-2013
Last activity
13-Sep-2025
Posts
5,624

Post History

Post
#709618
Topic
The Value of All Terrestrial Life
Time

I think I agree with most of your post, Bingowings. I do eat meat at almost every meal, but I am against animal cruelty and recognize that meat should be the smallest part of the meal, since it is less essential to our bodies than the other stuff (unless you count desert).

I am frequently called upon to kill insects that have invaded our house, and only very rarely do I kill them just because. I either feed them to our fish, since the bugs are good for them, or I release the creature outside where it can live and die naturally. Many people show a strange aversion to bumblebees, which are almost entirely harmless, and show no hesitation in stepping on them, but when those things get in the house I always capture them rather than kill them.

When I was younger, I always used to rescue bugs from the rain barrel. I remember one time (when I was five or six) I rescued a drowning horsefly in a bucket, which to my surprise, ungratefully bit me and made me cry. Rather than leaving it to die, I tipped the bucket over and let it go. Another time, I just about burst into tears because I killed a small fly without thinking. Though I don't cry when I step on ants anymore, I still feel slightly guilty if I do it intentionally.

Unless an animal is a pest, I never kill it. Even if it is a pest, I usually try to remove it rather than ending its life, so I fully understand your point of view, Bingowings.

It might seem inconsistent that I eat meat but rescue bugs, but I certainly wouldn't purchase or eat meat that was from a cruelly treated animal. It's natural for humans to eat meat, and many animals eat meat as well, so I have no problem with it.

As you know, I value human life at any stage of development far more than any animal, but that's partly because I recognize that the potential for a human embryo is greater than that of an adult Blue Whale. The Blue Whale will swim around in the ocean its whole life, not contributing anything to the world besides another Blue Whale or two (if that) while a human baby will grow up to become a member of a planetary society and could have a huge impact on the world (even a small impact would be better than the Blue Whale could manage).

I'm not an advocate of animal equality, and/or their equality with human beings, but I do support animal rights to some degree. Hunting shouldn't be for sport, animals should be kept in healthy, safe environments, they shouldn't be treated cruelly, and they shouldn't be slaughtered for no good reason.

Post
#709608
Topic
Random Thoughts
Time

Same here. As much as I like some of these films, and the reboots are often improvements over the originals, or the previous reboot, or the seven previous reboots before that, I want to see something new. Why must all the superhero movies be based on the comics? Why can't we build on the story the comics established rather than reusing the comics' ideas and telling the same story over and over again with new actors? Invent some new superheros and villains already.

Post
#709514
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

I have yet to see any evidence that the small depletion away from the poles is any cause for concern. I'll believe it if you can give me the actual evidence (graphs and whatnot) rather than a vague statement about it. I did indirectly acknowledge that there is ozone depletion away from the poles in writing that "almost all" and "most" of it happens over the poles.

Post
#709500
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

Here we go, Frink:

The Ozone "hole" is caused by the Polar Vortices which occur at the poles, obviously. The one at the North Pole isn't strong enough to carry CFCs and other chlorine atoms up to the stratosphere. The South Polar Vortex is far stronger, and longer lasting, but still only occurs between the months of August and November, in normal cases.

Source (specifically the second and third sections):

http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/vortex_NH.html

Here is a source that describes the ideal situation for ozone destruction created by the Polar Vortex (particularly the section called "The Ozone Hole"):

http://chemwiki.ucdavis.edu/Physical_Chemistry/Kinetics/Case_Studies%3A_Kinetics/Depletion_of_the_Ozone_Layer

The following graph charts ozone depletion throughout the year. As you can see, it occurs from August to November before stabilizing again, rather than continuing to drop over the years.

The Polar Vortex pushes ozone away from it, as well as carrying chlorine particles into the stratosphere. This decreases the concentration of ozone over the South Pole even more than chlorine atoms do, as well as creating a greater concentration of ozone outside the Polar Vortex:

So the ozone hole is limited to Antarctica, and to a far lesser extent, the Arctic.

Post
#709404
Topic
If you need to B*tch about something... this is the place
Time

TV's Frink said:

RicOlie_2 said:

I can say for sure that there are many scientists who have completely bizarre ideas about global warming. I was listening to a scientist on the radio talking about how the ice cap over the North Pole is going to disappear in a year! One, freaking year! That's so incredible it almost causes me to reject everything scientists say on global warming entirely, but I do recognize that there is some truth in it.

Some of it is political though. Look at what happened with the banning of CFCs. CFCs were banned by politicians who didn't know their facts. The ozone hole cannot spread away from Antarctica, and cannot occur outside of the months of August to November (I think it's those months), because it's creation is dependent on the Polar Vortex which only occurs in that place during those months. CFCs are responsible for only a minute amount of the damage caused to the ozone hole, which has been occurring since long before humans were able to affect it at all.

Many, though not all, scientists think the ozone hole is a serious problem, but they don't seem to have any evidence for it and it was an initial misinterpretation of the data that led to the misconceptions about the ozone hole.

I think the same goes for global warming.

 Citation needed!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/05/100505-science-environment-ozone-hole-25-years/

 I'll get back to you on this tonight. I didn't think the science textbook in which I learned all that would be the best source, but I've contacted the author of the textbook and he's explained himself further. I'll post some illustrative charts later along with a link or two supporting the bit about the Polar Vortex.

Post
#709401
Topic
Episode VII: The Force Awakens - Discussion * <strong>SPOILER THREAD</strong> *
Time

Octorox said:

Jesus christ you guys are picky. The OT was full of silly looking muppety creatures, that's part of the charm imo.

Honestly, the above porcine looks more fake than the one everyone is whining about. I never liked them, and think they shouldn't have made them into the movie. I think the new pig creature looks more realistic, so they could probably make it look just fine in the movie.

Post
#709235
Topic
Episode VII: The Force Awakens - Discussion * <strong>SPOILER THREAD</strong> *
Time

I think the pig looks kind of silly, but most of the cantina aliens looked silly and fake. So did most of the creatures in Jabba's palace. So did Jabba. However, with the right lighting, most of them looked pretty good. Not all of them did (that elephant guy, anyone?) but I have confidence that they'll do better than that in a 2015 movie.