No consideration of personal freedom in that line of thought, Mom? Sounds like you haven't quite left your old, Democrat statist ways behind you. Ah, yes, words of wisdom from someone who cannot grasp the concept that our bodies are formed on the basis of CO2 (no exceptions).
You might try studying Buddhism. Then you can start to explore the concept that life is not about absolutes, but about balance. Your right to do whatever you want (be stoned all the time, commit murder without restriction, rob from convenience stores, etc.) is balanced against the rights of the rest of the population who does not want to pay for your drugged up lifestyle, does not want to be killed for your pleasure, does not want sky-high prices at the local shop, etc. If your chosen lifestyle did not affect other people, I doubt anyone would care what you do.
If your chosen lifestyle did not affect other people, I doubt anyone would care what you do.Once upon a time, the line drawn was when you caused actual harm to a person. Now, the Left has so screwed up the entire mechanics of, well, everything, that now people (including jurists) behave as if a lifestyle "affecting" another is the same as a grievous injury. Using that as the measuring stick, anything and everything is a crime... which is what the Statists want. "You don't eat enough soy-bacon, ergo you are causing food prices to rise and healthcare costs to rise, thus you must be punished... and 'enough' is whatever we decide that amount is, an on ever-changing basis."
Sorry, mom... you still have a long way to go before truly expunging the insanity of the Left.
From Atlas Shrugged (which I suggest you read):
“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
"Ah, yes, words of wisdom from someone who cannot grasp the concept that our bodies are formed on the basis of CO2 (no exceptions)."
Mom, are you still unable to admit that you made mistakes in our conversation about CO2? Seriously? After all of your errors that I have pointed out and documented to you? Oh well, lets run through it quickly one more time, just for fun.
Your original error that started our conversation on CO2 was your statement that every bit of food on your friend's friend's table was atmospheric CO2 just a few short months before.
Quote:
"Wonderful. Just keep reminding her that every bit of food on the table was atmospheric carbon dioxide just a few short months ago."
I simply pointed out that your statement was overly broad and gave you two examples of food that was
not atmospheric CO2 just a few short months ago. Namely,
1. A long dead tree in my backyard being consumed by Turkey Tail mushrooms (an edible species) - none of that tree was "atmospheric carbon dioxide just a few short months ago."
2. Oceanic plant life that consumed CO2 spewed out by undersea volcanoes - CO2 which had never been in the atmosphere.
Do you remember how you simply ignored my first example of your
mistatement and how in attempting to refute my second example you provided me with a
cute little graphic showing how undersea volcanoes emit CO2 from subducted limestone?
Did you really think that I didn't know (or maybe you didn't know) that volcanoes also emit CO2 sourced from non-sedimentary rocks - CO2 that was never, at any time, a part of the atmosphere?
Do you remember how you ignored that evidence of your error and simply went on to berate me as being scientifically ignorant and unable to converse with you in a scientific manner? You are so funny Mom. A true govt
scientist bureaucrat!
You made several other errors in the conversation that followed - mostly of the overly broad ("no exceptions") variety that you are so fond of. How about we go over one more?
Do you remember your statement that:
"Again, no exception. Anaerobes use biomolecules to form their bodies, and, just as with aerobes, those biomolecules were originally formed from CO2 through the process of photosynthesis."
Which I disproved with a link to
Professor Taylor's paper, "Life Underground" [
link] which states, quote:
"Recent research on deep rocks on Earth has shown that bacteria can live kilometers beneath the surface. Some bacteria live on nothing but rock and water, extracting energy from chemical reactions rather than from sunlight."
Yep. Biomass using energy derived from chemical processes far below the earth's surface and
not from photosynthesis. I forget Mom, did you ever admit to making that "photosynthesis - no exceptions" error? Okay, that's not true. I
know you never admitted to making that error. You wouldn't be the wonderful person that you are if it wasn't for your inability to admit mistakes.
That really was a fun conversation Mom, as all of ours are, but, as usual, after I clearly demonstrated that you are in fact capable of making errors in your scientific pronouncements - you simply abandoned the conversation instead of admitting your errors and now here you are, coming back later with a confabulated account of how you were right all along and I am an ignorant fool.
This time you have conveniently decided to forget your original misstated facts and pretend that I am unable to
"grasp the concept that our bodies are formed on the basis of CO2" when that is not at all the case. But, I guess you do whatever it is that you have do to keep your fragile ego intact, right Mom?
Ah, but enough reminiscing about our past pleasures Mom, let's talk about your latest bit of hubris.
When you said,
"You might try studying Buddhism. Then you can start to explore the concept that life is not about absolutes, but about balance." after I simply pointed out that your statement about criminalizing the use of marijuana
lacked any consideration of personal freedom. You know, a slightly more
balanced view than your completely unbalanced view. LOL You're fun Mom. I love talking to you. Let's do it again soon!