PETROLEUM FUELS AND BIO FUELS - A CONTRAST
How are petroleum fuels and bio fuels different?
Petroleum fuels are made by refining the residues of living things that died millions of years ago. These fuels are used, among many other uses, to increase the efficiency of food harvesting.
Bio fuels are made by refining the residues of living things that we must first grow, then kill. Bio fuels are made of food, and diminish the food harvest (because the food is being refined into fuel).
Once again, your Ostrich Killer has shed illuminating light on what many think is a complex subject.
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
THE ABORTION ISSUE SIMPLIFIED
Well, fellow ostrich hunters, you knew this topic would have to come up, didn't you? After all, it's an election year and some will try to capture the female vote by shouting 'Woman's Right to Choose.' You hear it every day, it seems.
But it begs the question of 'What would the child choose?' Of course, that's an easy question to answer. All you have to do is ask yourself if you'd like to be aborted right now. Your answer is obviously 'NO!' And why? Because even the most pathetic existence is better than death. With life there is hope. Not so, death. Death is pretty permanent.
Right there almost a quarter of you stopped reading because you say 'it's not a child, it's a fetus.'
Let's explore that, and if you're still reading maybe you'll think that 'it's not a child' concept over a bit more. Ready?
When do the products of conception become a human? I'm not talking about what some legislator might say, or what this or that statute might dictate, or what some court might have ruled. I'm talking about biologically. You know. From a purely scientific point of view, when does that mass of cells in the woman's body become a human, the type of animal that it is against the laws of every country to kill?
Well, maybe DNA testing will tell us. - - Oh. Wait. The DNA of even the very earliest of undifferentiated cells in the woman's belly is 100% human.
Okay. Well how about the 'soul'? When does that collection of otherwise unremarkable cells get a soul? - - No one knows. For that matter, no one has ever pointed conclusively to a soul. It's a matter of faith (or lack of it) that the soul exists or doesn't. So that argument is pointless, lacking tangible evidence either way.
So those who are 'for a woman's right to choose' come up with other benchmarks: it isn't human until month number x, where x is a variable between 3 and 6, depending on who is talking. Obviously this means that the number is a matter of philosophy, not science. A scientist might say something like 'it's all human but statistically not viable until month number y'.
Not viable? That is code for 'if the fetus were thrust into the world outside its mother's womb, it would die.' Logical, right? But what's logical about saying that since it would die, it's okay to abort (kill) it?
So ask a hundred people - scientists, doctors, philosophers, politicians, mothers, sluts - when human life begins, and you're likely to get dozens of different answers.
Bottom line: no one knows, unless you accept the simple results of DNA testing.
If no one knows, then no one knows when a murder is being committed by an abortion. No one wants to think of themselves as a murder, much less actually commit one on purpose. But when is it safe to abort, the confused woman might ask, if we don't know when human life begins?
Exactly.
If the woman doesn't actually know when the child within her becomes a human being, doesn't she run the risk of being wrong about when it's safe to abort? She might be right, she might be wrong.
But she has no way of knowing which, even after the fact (unless you count the psychic damage she'll suffer the rest of her life.) So, from a purely logical perspective, the only civilized thing to do is refuse to take the chance of being wrong. Put another way, if the woman might err, should't she err on the side of life?
Doesn't that make sense?
Once again your favorite Ostrich Killer has clarified and resolved what many others consider a difficult issue. You're welcome.
Well, fellow ostrich hunters, you knew this topic would have to come up, didn't you? After all, it's an election year and some will try to capture the female vote by shouting 'Woman's Right to Choose.' You hear it every day, it seems.
But it begs the question of 'What would the child choose?' Of course, that's an easy question to answer. All you have to do is ask yourself if you'd like to be aborted right now. Your answer is obviously 'NO!' And why? Because even the most pathetic existence is better than death. With life there is hope. Not so, death. Death is pretty permanent.
Right there almost a quarter of you stopped reading because you say 'it's not a child, it's a fetus.'
Let's explore that, and if you're still reading maybe you'll think that 'it's not a child' concept over a bit more. Ready?
When do the products of conception become a human? I'm not talking about what some legislator might say, or what this or that statute might dictate, or what some court might have ruled. I'm talking about biologically. You know. From a purely scientific point of view, when does that mass of cells in the woman's body become a human, the type of animal that it is against the laws of every country to kill?
Well, maybe DNA testing will tell us. - - Oh. Wait. The DNA of even the very earliest of undifferentiated cells in the woman's belly is 100% human.
Okay. Well how about the 'soul'? When does that collection of otherwise unremarkable cells get a soul? - - No one knows. For that matter, no one has ever pointed conclusively to a soul. It's a matter of faith (or lack of it) that the soul exists or doesn't. So that argument is pointless, lacking tangible evidence either way.
So those who are 'for a woman's right to choose' come up with other benchmarks: it isn't human until month number x, where x is a variable between 3 and 6, depending on who is talking. Obviously this means that the number is a matter of philosophy, not science. A scientist might say something like 'it's all human but statistically not viable until month number y'.
Not viable? That is code for 'if the fetus were thrust into the world outside its mother's womb, it would die.' Logical, right? But what's logical about saying that since it would die, it's okay to abort (kill) it?
So ask a hundred people - scientists, doctors, philosophers, politicians, mothers, sluts - when human life begins, and you're likely to get dozens of different answers.
Bottom line: no one knows, unless you accept the simple results of DNA testing.
If no one knows, then no one knows when a murder is being committed by an abortion. No one wants to think of themselves as a murder, much less actually commit one on purpose. But when is it safe to abort, the confused woman might ask, if we don't know when human life begins?
Exactly.
If the woman doesn't actually know when the child within her becomes a human being, doesn't she run the risk of being wrong about when it's safe to abort? She might be right, she might be wrong.
But she has no way of knowing which, even after the fact (unless you count the psychic damage she'll suffer the rest of her life.) So, from a purely logical perspective, the only civilized thing to do is refuse to take the chance of being wrong. Put another way, if the woman might err, should't she err on the side of life?
Doesn't that make sense?
Once again your favorite Ostrich Killer has clarified and resolved what many others consider a difficult issue. You're welcome.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
HOW LONG CAN BIDEN LAST?
Those of you who are smiling at my 'The math is easy' comment about Barack Hussein Obama HAVING to choose Mrs. Bill Clinton as his running mate might want to save the smile for election eve.
Biden has proven himself to be one of the perpetual 'almost good enough' politicians. Almost good enough to run for President. Almost good enough to write papers in college or speak before groups without plaigarizing. Almost good enough to make the bottom third of his graduating class.
Almost good enough to keep from boring the voters to death.
Stay tuned to the Dem squirming that is still to come. Even the DNC is capable of at least detecting the obvious: it's Mrs. Bill Clinton for VP or lose a few million fem voters.
Your Ostrich Killer sticks to his original prediction that Mrs. Bill Clinton will be the Dem VP nominee. Your Ostrich Killer is incapable of believing even liberal Democrats are stupid enough to knowingly - nay, intentionally - lose a couple million voters.
Those of you who are smiling at my 'The math is easy' comment about Barack Hussein Obama HAVING to choose Mrs. Bill Clinton as his running mate might want to save the smile for election eve.
Biden has proven himself to be one of the perpetual 'almost good enough' politicians. Almost good enough to run for President. Almost good enough to write papers in college or speak before groups without plaigarizing. Almost good enough to make the bottom third of his graduating class.
Almost good enough to keep from boring the voters to death.
Stay tuned to the Dem squirming that is still to come. Even the DNC is capable of at least detecting the obvious: it's Mrs. Bill Clinton for VP or lose a few million fem voters.
Your Ostrich Killer sticks to his original prediction that Mrs. Bill Clinton will be the Dem VP nominee. Your Ostrich Killer is incapable of believing even liberal Democrats are stupid enough to knowingly - nay, intentionally - lose a couple million voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)