Green activists don't like the truth, i.e., their mindless asinine antinuclear anti development activities have undisputedly caused or created hunger, illness, hardship and climate change related death tolls!

Be it tons of mud sweeping down deforested hillsides, accompanied by rocks bigger than cars, flattening/burying all before it, including a widowed mum and her quite charming twin daughters!

And all it took or has ever taken is the word NO erupting from the mouths of implacably opposed anti development antinuclear activists who always retreat to? This is unprovened or untested and or never ever commercialized! Omitting the salient fact, even though essentially possible, officially refused and prevented.

And when asked/held to account, retreat behind some mythical law.

Look, If we would just allow testing R+D and a few pilot projects, inside a decade we could be rolling out around the impoverished third world, waste burning thorium reactors. While we clever folk continue to mine and burn 19th century coal to power 19th century technology.

And where we've sent those mass produced reactors, enable deionization dialysis desalination to provide endless affordable, potable water.

And resisted by "green" activists whose goal is depopulation by, wait for it, natural attrition, that like Pontius Pilate, they can wash their hands of!

Even though that's the only possible outcome of their callous indifference, doggedly determined opposition to development and genuinely affordable energy for all!

So Yes, just saying no to nuclear, with a single mass murder voice, changes the weather, further impoverishes the poor and even buries them beneath mudslides from denuded forests! That could have been saved/prevented by the provision of affordable, carbon free, clean safe, energy! And thereby, allowed other commercial export incomes, [recycling perhaps?] to replace the forest industries that logged/clear felled those forests!

NNN/NNS/ Nutin but a nutin, not a thing at all?

Needs to understand he alone is not accused nor individually, personally responsible, and not what I said or implied! Just part of a mindless "green" anti development antinuclear herd that surely is!? And from which I don't rezile.
Alan B.

To ALTRAV.
Hi.
Is my understanding of your argument and that of Banjo's correct....?

1 Banjo argues that homosexuality exists. Because it exits it must therefore be 'in nature' or natural.
2 In reply you argue that homosexuality cannot be natural because A. nature requires all creatures to reproduce. B. A homosexual couple (assuming to the exclusion of any others)cannot procreate. C. Therefore homosexuality is not natural.
3. Because homosexuality is not natural it is a state of being best described as a "disorder".
4. Further, homosexuality is in a minority (of the human experience)
5. As a minority homosexuals should demand pity.
6 Our pity (for homosexuals) should be of the same kind we extend to midgets and albinos

Ashbo, you seem to have my comments down pat. Except for #5. They should not 'demand' pity; but to pity them as they are an exception to the norm and as such cannot experience what it is like to be 'normal'. In which case they are not capable of 'normal' interactions with humans on a level playing field. Whether their 'playing field' is higher or lower than normal people matters not. Suffice that they cannot 'play'. They can only be fully understood or at ease with others of the same persuasion. This is the way it has been for as long as society has existed. If you don't like the word 'pity' I will change it to 'feel sorry'. In some circles being Gai is aligned with being handicapped. I know, many would dis-agree, but, it is still another description of these types of people, yet I can see where they are coming from. Anyone who lacks any of the human faculties, for whatever reason or is unable to function as per the specifications of homo-sapiens, and what is considered normal historically, is by definition, abnormal.

ALTRAV
The fallacy in your argument is that you reckon that Homosexuals cannot reproduce. This is an error that a lot of people make and it needs to be corrected. That really pulls the rug out from under your argument. Sorry about that.

David

David, don't try reaching or deflecting. You know very well what I mean. Once you break the caveat of normality, anything is possible. But now you have stepped into the world of abnormality! I will not facilitate a discussion based on an abnormal hypotheses. Two queers of the same sex, no I'm not going there. You must be an argumentative twat or a queer yourself. Let me simplify it for you. It is because this couple are not normal or against the laws of nature or whatever other examples, they cannot fucck EACH OTHER and produce a child. If you're suggesting IVF, then that's cheating. Even a normal couple who can't conceive, having IVF is an act of abnormality. If you're going to debate something then let's abide by the rules. IVF is a man made procedure. Nature intended for this particular union to not spawn an off-spring. It is a selfish decision to continue even though nature said they couldn't. And why can't they, because they are ABNORMAL!

Daffy makes the baseless statement “we were all taught to hate.”
Speak for yourself, Daffy, no one taught me to hate him. By whom, and how, were you taught to hate him? What makes you think that we have your strange mentality, and also hate him?
Or would you like to withdraw your nonsensical statement, along with the nonsense link purporting to support the specious and flawed argument against capital punishment?
The link states in part:” Murder and revenge are inherently morally wrong and never justified. Therefore, capital punishment is morally wrong and is never justified.”
The writer gives no rational basis for this absurd generalisation.
Of course the state has the right to impose the death penalty where it is appropriate, such as in the case of paedophiles, who, like many classifications of perverts, are incapable of rehabilitation.
Lennie Lawson is a clear example.
“He was sentenced to death but this was commuted and he became a popular prisoner, embracing Catholicism and painting murals of Biblical scenes in the chapel at Goulburn jail. He was released after seven years.
Finding work as a commercial artist, he settled at Collaroy and befriended a neighbour named Mrs Bower, who (knowing nothing of his past) allowed him to paint her 16-year-old daughter. During a private sitting in his flat in 1961, Lawson raped and murdered the girl.”
http://www.sydneycrimemuseum.com/crime-stories/the-crimes-of-lennie-lawson/
If the death penalty had been carried out, it would have saved a number of innocent lives.
The State has a duty, and a right to impose the death penalty to protect the community.