Mitchell’s Comments (group member since Dec 31, 2008)

Mitchell’s comments from the Debate group.

The point you missed was that I don't think you should use 'gay' as an insult or to indicate you think something is bad. Also relaying the fact that terminology changes over time and as new baggage or connotations get added we have to be more sensitive. Where I am at "Shut Up" is almost a swear word, while calling something 'gay' because you don't like it is very acceptable. I don't agree with that use of gay, but that is the way the term is used here.

Lauren wrote: ""Why can't it be gay! '

Because the meaning of the word, over time, has changed drastically. Go to a gay pride rally and say something stupid is "gay" and see how far you get. Things change. "

You totally missed my point BTW. I said I am against just casually using the term 'gay' to insult, or denigrate something. But you are totally right. Language evolves and connotations change. What may be completely harmless to you may have all kinds of baggage for me.

J wrote: "Basically nobody uses the word gay to mean happy. Lauren is right, things change."

Actually you called me a happy cigarette. Fag is an outdated term for cigarette. Faggott is a bunch of sticks

Plus in The Hobbit Or There and Back Again, the elves put a thong Thorin and throw him in the dungeon. Boy, that one has changed too.

What I find ridiculous and hard to understand is that using gender and racial slurs such as 'gay' or the 'N' word or any other racial or cultural epithet (look it up) as an insult is debated and discussed but no one has a problem dropping the 'F' bomb whenever they want to. I especially note this to those all the 7th graders here. You all know you have heard language that would make your mother get out the soap and wash some mouths in the hall, but a teacher asks a class to "Shut Up" and they were swearing in class. Well.... I did have a fellow teacher who did swear in class but that's a different topic.

Anyway, my opinion. We should do our very best to not intentionally slur or insult others and I am against the use of the word 'gay' as an insult, but if something is bright and happy and upbeat Why can't it be gay!

BTW Riley ya freaked me out. When I got your message I thought I was the @##hole you were upset with. Hope I'm still welcome.

I find it humorous that the infamous 'Bobo of inane comments" is such a fool. Bobo means fool or idiot in Spanish. By the way Welcome all.

Riley wrote: "With the electricity, we need to burn fossil fuels. Just wanted to throw that in there."

Absolutely true, right now we burn fossil fuels to generate electricity. However, even now, it is easier to burn fuels cleanly in a power plant than 10,000 cars. Additionally, if we make a switch to electric vehicles it would be possible to generate electricity locally in clean renewable ways. For example solar in Arizona and tidal in Maine.

Petrina I kinda agree with you in principle. There are excesses that are absolutely obscene. But trying to redistribute the wealth is tricky at best. I have no problem with people owning 2 or 3 jets and 10 of the best cars, but I am against it when there are people who are starving. If everyone has their needs taken care of I have no problem if people with talent and skill making lots and lots of money. I just feel like it is usually done by exploiting the lower class.

But my issue is with the auto-bailout. They are not successful. Why should we bail them out? If they want to make a profit do it the same way Toyota and Honda have. Build good cars that people can afford and want to buy.

~Al {Writer of Worlds}~ wrote: "Chandani wrote: "~Al {Manda Lee}~ wrote: "Ok, Chandani, I see all of yer points, and they're good ones, but I still don't get how chimpanzes' brains went STRAIGHT to humans' brains cuz they're way..."

Micro-evolution happens all the time and is well documented. Just recently two groups of lizards were isolated and released on separate islands in a Croatian River. Because of the wars in the area they were abondoned for 30 years. One species evolved into plant eaters with larger jaws, and neck muscles. For more see: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=m...

Macro-evolution is also well documented in the fossil record.

I believe in God. I just don't presume to require that he manifests himself in a way that coincides with my on prejudices. I strive to see his miracles in the workings the world around us. Why must it be an either or. Evolution doesn't preclude the existence of God neither does the existence of God rule out the reality of science.

Emma the Dork wrote: "that was uncalled for a rude, sorry to say sara. what about buddhists? jews? hindus? baptists? mormons? etc?"

Emma, Baptists and Mormons both believe in Christ as the Savior of the world. Most Buddhists, Jews and Hindus also accept him as a real person and a wonderful teacher.

Yeah, 3 cheers for everybody!

Sarah jean wrote: "put a hamster in a fish bowl filled with water. does it evolve gills? does it evolve fins. i think not!


- i am america and so can u :)"

ooooh that is so mean. Do you expect the hamster to evolve in seconds? You creationists are always so quick. Put a hamster in a fish bowl. Of course it will drown. Mean, mean, mean, mean. Now, put a cow near the water and leave it there long enough ant eventually maybe some of it's great great great great great.... grandkids will eventually have more flipper like hooves especially if there is some advantage to having them so they can get food in the water that isn't available to the critters without the fins. This gradual change in offspring over vast(although sometimes not so vast time) is evolution (noticed not spelled 'evil'ution) Does the fact that species evolve necessarily mean that there can be no God. I don't think so. Also, just because your hamster baptism failed to create a tiny seal doesn't mean that evolution isn't real.

*SaRa (who loves taylor lautner)is an Honorary Guy wrote: "so mitchell what is your opinion"

umm sorry, I thought I just pointed out that I am both a believer in God and a follower of science.

I truly and faithfully believe that God exists and that at some point what we know about him will harmonize with what our senses, reason and tools tell us about the world.

Until such time I am withholding full judgement. True science requires that you accept certain assumptions to be true and keep an open mind until enough data is available to answer your question. True religion (IMHO) requires that you have faith in certain doctrines but be open, understanding and most of all tolerant of other viewpoints.

Sharkgrl920 wrote: "what happened to the reduction debate"

I'm sorry but it was reduced.

Welcome back Roni
Welcome Agne You may notice proper English is optional in this debate group. It appears though that slight craziness is required.

Sorry Emma the Dork, I think there may be some grammar booboos in there but I wrote this on the moving bus. Isn't wi-fi excellent

Wow this has been a lively debate! I got the email digest version of it and couldn't wait to weigh in. Many people are kind of spouting out diatribe at each other, this is a debate, back up your opinions with reasons and evidence.

Having said that, here is my diatribe *checking definition of diatribe on www.m-w.com *mm maybe that isn't quite the word, oh well, here goes anyway.

I find it interesting as a believing scientist or maybe it is as a reasoning believer that both Science and Religion have a lot in common. I know this is specificially Evolution and creation, but it's worth pointing out. Science depends on accepting certain widely held ideas as true, all other work, research and ideas essentially build on those. Authority is bestowed on some because their ideas are more widely accepted and supported and those who propose contrary ideas are often ostracized, shunned and excluded. People who don't accept the ideas of the Scientific Community are considered small minded. There are rules that one must follow to be part of the Scientific Community, and if you don't your work and life are discredited. Now go back through that and subsitute Church for Science. Essentially every system begins as a rebellion against the dominant system and then develops it's own set of rules and becomes a system itself.

I like most of all a scripture in the LDS Canon(there's a ten dollar word for ya)
Doctrine and Covenants 10:2 Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart.

LDS doctrine tells you that something will both feel right and be reasonable or you can be assured it isn't true.

Juxtapose that with this quote:



“When I'm working on a problem, I never think about beauty. I think only how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong.”

Richard Buckminster Fuller

I don't know if there is a way to harmonize science and religion, evolution and creationism. I do know my life woiuld be less complete and less full without both

Ummm... I'm still reeling from the whip image.

Welcome Annie come join the debate. Check out my rants on Electric Cars! And uhhh... *looks around dazedly* hi Emma the Dork and Emma are you suffering from Multiple Personality disorder or are there really two of you?

Well personally, I think it has to do with greed and power. Electricity can be produced cleanly and sensibly locally. grrrr... I know the movie pointed to lots of reasons for the failure of the electric car, but realistically whenever there is an entrenched system it is the most resistant to adapting a new way of doing things.

The car companies and oil companies are the best placed to develop a new transportation paradigm, but they are the most resistant to it because they are making lots of money doing things the way they are and change is hard.

Anyway, Fuuture commentors: Should Government mandate/legislate a change away from petroleum based transportation?

I am so angry. I just watch Who Killed the Electric car and it just aggravates me. Why did they have to kill it. I was getting really excited about some of the new plug-in hybrids until I read up on what a great car the GM EV1 was. It was amazing. It had 150 mile range, 0 to 60 in 8 seconds, and a top speed limited at 90 mph. That was built more than 10 years ago and it was just abandoned. Not to mention the Toyota Rav4 EV, and the Ford Ranger EV. Why are we going backwards?

Chandani wrote: "xD"

I am just being silly. Freyda (my dog see above postings) weights 130 pounds which is 9.2 stone. I used www.convert-me.com to find out her weight in a bunch of different standards.

I still want to know how big Onyx is that Freyda is a mini version???

Riley wrote: "That's good.
your dog is adorable Mitchell! She looks like a mini version of Onyx."

Ok, Who is Onyx and how could my 9.2 stone dog be a mini version of him/it/her? Just how big is this Onyx creature?

By the way even though this discussion has been threadjacked we do welcome all new members to the group.