Nonsense. Pre industrial agriculture wasn’t very damaging in most cases…and when it was it was on a minuscule scale compared to industrial agriculture.
Pre industrial building wasn’t excessively environmentally damaging in most cases, certainly not to the point where it endangered the planet or it’s atmosphere.

It's utterly ridiculous hyperbole to say we have to be cavemen to not destroy our environment. We don't even have to revert to pre industrial methods, we just have to be responsible with our actions and lower the population massively. With minor exceptions, pre industrial farming caused little to no permanent damage, and it was almost all easily repairable damage. (With a few exceptions like Rapa Nui that may not have been over farming but cultural damage, we aren't exactly certain what happened there).

I eat berries now, don't you? I grow raspberries, blackberries, black raspberries, blueberries, strawberries, and Tay berries myself. People would be healthier if they ate berries, and they're tasty too. What?!

Yes, around 7 billion need to die (without procreating first). Better than all 9 billion.

There’s a huge difference between being occasionally deadly and so insanely toxic we destroy our own planet in under 200 years to the point where our own existence is seriously threatened.
Edit: toxicity levels matter as much as exposure levels. Cavemen impacted their environment at levels well below sustainability (mostly….the idea they killed the mammoths or mastodons off by hunting is, I believe, a myth….natural environmental changes seem much more likely to be the major influence in their extinction.). Per capita, modern humans have a much larger, more detrimental footprint than premodern humans, exponentially larger….and there’s like a hundred thousand times as many of us (or more) too. We need to reverse both those trends drastically if we are to survive long term.

Yes, progress includes risk, but risk can be managed, minimized, and not taken when it’s a risk of total destruction. We totally ignore risk if there’s profit involved.

This is a night time comedy show, not a science class. I think you expect WAY too much. It points out that there is a problem, it doesn’t have the time, or the audience to delve into the intricate chemical processes involved in the manufacture, use, and disposal of them. It touched on them, and more importantly pointed out how they’ve been flushed into the environment Willy nilly by almost everyone who manufacturers with them.

I've often wondered about that theory. If you blow the body up into small enough bits, won't they just burn up on entry? Only large pieces would make it through, causing far less impact over a somewhat larger area, so locally it might cause more damage (larger area of total destruction from impact), but globally it should cause less, no?

Hmm, so Stewart and Wilmore seem to be saying that the U.S. couldn't have ended slavery in the same way that New York, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maine, New Jersey, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and all of the other Northern states did (not to mention the British empire, the Spanish empire, the French, the Danes, the Dutch, the Swedes, and many many others during the nineteenth century), namely, peacefully. (For reference, see Jim Powell's Greatest Emancipations: How the West Ended Slavery; and Joanne Pope Melish's Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and Race in New England, 1780-1860).

Rather, Stewart and Wilmore seem to be saying that 750,000 dead Americans (and even more than double that number maimed for life), to say nothing of the total destruction of the voluntary union of the founders, was in fact the only way to end slavery. Southerners (only six percent of whom actually owned slaves) were, according to Stewart and Wilmore, "willing to die to preserve slavery" and so, therefore, the Great Oz (er, I mean, The Great Abe) did what was necessary...

So says this renowned historical sage, Jon Stewart, and his cast of clowns...

Isn't it fascinating how every four years, we seem to always be at a tipping point between total destruction and prosperity?

There should be a study done or something...for some reason, every four years, our union is just a heartbeat away from being completely and totally annihilated by a mustache twirling villain who conspires to put you in chains and shoot your dog too.

Amazing that we've survived this long. Every four years, somehow we've managed to avoid the total collapse of the United States.

Someone should look into that.

TOTAL DESTRUCTION!!

enoch -

On the basis of your last comment, you have my respect. I will not presume to debate you on any personal conclusions you've drawn from your first-hand experiences. I am thankful and appreciative to people like you that I have not personally faced the same dilemma.

I do encourage you to further evaluate the conclusions you're drawing from Scripture. "You shall not murder" is indeed the sixth commandment. Take note, however, that the 10 commandments were delivered to God's people BEFORE the conquest of the Promised Land. There were wars following this commandment, and they were clearly under God's direction. Some of these battles did result in total destruction, as you've described.

Jesus clarified that this commandment forbids hatred in our hearts, which is pure spiritual poison. He summed up the 10 commandments and all the laws and the prophets with the command to love. Again, this is on a personal level. Your video reference is ironic. Handing out Bibles instead of bullets? Is that not preferable?

In this context, yes semitic means Jewish.

Are there Israeli settlers? Yes. Have they sometimes had government support and sometimes not? Yes. Do some of those settlers think they have a divine right to settle in the West Bank and Gaza strip? Yes.
However, the State of Israel has never claimed a divine right to take something away from the Palestinians. Israel does claim a right to exist, which is not recognized by Hamas.

The Nazis weren't about "taking something away from others" - that's simply thievery; they were primarily focused on the extermination of inferior races and persons, even to the detriment of their war effort.

Yes, if someone is dead, they are dead, but it does matter how they died.

And finally, there are certainly plenty of individuals involved in this conflict who believe that peace is attainable without the "total destruction of the other side."

semetic does not equal jewish.

claiming to have divine right of your race to take something away from others is about as close to nazi as you can get. both sides go that route as the heart of the argument, but israel is in the wrong now.

now it's just a numbers game with body count. pretty cut and dry. a person is dead no matter how you kill them or what your intent is.

there is no solution in any of their (islamist/jewish) minds except total destruction of the other side... so the solution is to swat both of their behinds equally. i vote the chinese settle this. they have the manpower.

>> ^JTZ:
You need a Ork tag as they do the Waaaaagh! and a TAU tag on there! For the greater good, of course.


Done

^ Short answer: no.

Long answer is that Hillary's trying to make the case that since no one will be able to reach an absolute majority of delegates with the kind you get by people voting, that the superdelegates will decide the nominee. Since superdelegates can vote for whoever they want, based on any criteria they want, all she needs to do is put together a convincing argument for them.

The arguments she's made are long and ridiculous now. Most of it hinges on Michigan and Florida, who'd been stripped of all their delegates for moving their primaries up before Feb 5th. Those states held their primaries, but no one campaigned in either state, and Obama & Edwards weren't on the ballot in Michigan. Hillary won both states by a wide margin, and insists those results stand, and be counted in their full strength. That won't happen, since it'd erase the penalty for those states, but we'll know more about those after the rules meeting on May 31st. Even if you added the delegates (or popular vote) that way, Obama still has the lead in pledged delegates, though it shrinks considerably.

She also makes electibility arguments about big states and swing states, and most recently about Obama's "problems with working class whites", with a lot of subtle and not so subtle tones of "white people won't vote for him".

She's earned a lot of ire for all of the above, though lately she seems to be coming to grips with the facts that she won't win, no matter what she says or does. Her only hope is that something totally destructive happens to Obama before the convention.

If "Presumptive Nominee" didn't have a strict definition of "the candidate who's mathematically locked up the nomination through absolute majority of delegates", we'd all be calling Obama the Presumptive Nominee, because he's 99% likely to be the nominee now.

The media is now pretty clear in saying: it's over.