And here's the interesting thing: those 1800's electric cars run on
modern lead/acid batteries. Battery technology has **not** progressed
very far in 200 years.
Lead/acid batteries are used in gasoline-powered vehicles to start the engine, etc. Electric vehicles use hydrogen cell batteries, an excellent improvement over the batteries of 200 years ago.
Actually, most of them run on lithium-ion batteries. Hydrogen cell technologie still is a niche and some keep claiming it already has/will fail. I don't think so, but currently it is insignificant.
Still, while there have been substantial advances in battery technology since the first cars, it is not as impressive as it needs to be. The
same reasons for which car makers in the beginning moved from
electricity to gasoline are still widely valid including
- lack of charging infrastructure
- long charge times
- limited range
- battery mass
- battery operating temperature issues
- aging of batteries
These things have gotten better, but still are not really on par with gas-powered cars.
I get the distinct feeling that some people won't be ready to accept electric
vehicles until they exceed the performance of gasoline vehicles in every regard. That is not necessary.
[...]I get the distinct feeling that some people won't be ready to accept electric
vehicles until they exceed the performance of gasoline vehicles in ev regard. That is not necessary.
Plus of course, for every supercar, even in the multimillion dollar range, there's now an EV that outperforms it at a fraction of the cost. Welcome to the future, all of y'all F-150 type gas guzzling loving
people (what minimal body-part are you compensating for?) to the new era of high performance, inexpensive cars.
I get the distinct feeling that some people won't be ready to accept electric
vehicles until they exceed the performance of gasoline vehicles in ev regard. That is not necessary.
Ahem. Haven't they outperformed already? I mean, every car interested person already know the difference from an ICE car engine installation, weighing in at some 350 kg and with a gazillion moving parts vs. an electric motor at 25 kg with just two moving parts.
The average service cost of an ICE car, often nearly EUR1k per year, EVs don't need service. Yeah, well, maybe changing tires every other
year and some windscreen fluid added once a year.
The EV owner never again has to stop at a gas station (and watch how much more the oil companies are charging), his car is always fully
charged at home over the night -- good bye bloody gas station stops.
Plus of course, for every supercar, even in the multimillion dollar range, there's now an EV that outperforms it at a fraction of the cost. Welcome to the future, all of y'all F-150 type gas guzzling loving
people (what minimal body-part are you compensating for?) to the new era of high performance, inexpensive cars.
I, for one, welcome our electric overdrives.
Jeff.
Also, from an ecological point of view, electic cars are horrible. Emissions fr
m production (particularly of the battery) add to the emissions from electricit
production (often fossil sources) and the fact, that the batteries make the car
s heavier and thus require more engery to move the car compared to fuel. Other >hings like heating just add to the bill.
- long charge times
At 240V, a Prius can charge in a little over 2 hours. That's perfectly adequate for a commute vehicle.
- battery operating temperature issues
This happens in harsh conditions, but not under normal operating conditions. Gasoline engines can also have overheating issues in harsh environments.
I get the distinct feeling that some people won't be ready to accept electric vehicles until they exceed the performance of gasoline vehicles in every regard. That is not necessary.
And then there is the disposal of batteries. That will be another ecological nightmare. Yes, it is currently a problem we already have,
but we are talking about making it worse not better as electric cars require larger/more batteries than gasoline ones do.
regard to weight, you should also consider the 325 kg of batteries that must go with that 25 kg electric motor.
A little more than just that needs upkeep in an electric, but...yes, certainly
cheaper than proper maintenance on a gas car, on any average year. That is...until those batteries wear out...($_$)
Provided that Mr. Eevee never goes on a 300+ km drive. Be realistic. A perfect example is my daily commute. I have to drive 100+ km each way.
Unless I allow my electrictian, my power company, and my city ordinance officer, to each help themselves to my wallet, I would not be able to
keep an EV fully charged.
Don't stereotype. Not everyone who prefers a gas car drives a gas hog.
I drive
a Mazda 3 with a SkyAktiv engine and get roughly 6l/100km (about 40 mpg for
the Americans), for instance. I'm UNDERcompensating. (o_-)
And again, 'a fraction of the cost' is verifiably false. The cheapest
gas car
in Canada, currently, is the Chevy Spark, at a bit less than $13k. The cheapest all-electric option is the Nissan Leaf at friggin $38k! That's almost exactly three times as much. So...the fact is, a gas car, at
least in this example, is 1/3 (a fraction) of the cost of an EV.
I wouldn't know if the price is different when you get into supercars. I don't wipe my butt with dollar bills, and I wouldn't waste them on a super(expensive)car, either.
At 240V, a Prius can charge in a little over 2 hours. That's perfectly adequate for a commute vehicle.
They would be great for a commuter-only vehicle. The original poster
(me) mentioned killing tourism, which insinuates longer hauls.
This happens in harsh conditions, but not under normal operating conditi Gasoline engines can also have overheating issues in harsh environments.
If their cooling systems fail, gas engines have overheating issues. If the cooling system is working, they normally do not. I am not aware of
any similar battery cooling systems.
I get the distinct feeling that some people won't be ready to accept ele vehicles until they exceed the performance of gasoline vehicles in every regard. That is not necessary.
They don't have to exceed, but I would like one that can get me across a desert, and other rural areas with limited charging opportunities,
without excess worry.
Forcing us into them *right now*, another concern voiced by the original poster (me) is not going to convince most of us that many of these
(still) legitimate concerns don't exist.
This happens in harsh conditions, but not under normal operating conditi Gasoline engines can also have overheating issues in harsh environments.
If their cooling systems fail, gas engines have overheating issues. If the cooling system is working, they normally do not. I am not aware of
any similar battery cooling systems.
I get the distinct feeling that some people won't be ready to accept ele vehicles until they exceed the performance of gasoline vehicles in every regard. That is not necessary.
They don't have to exceed, but I would like one that can get me across a desert, and other rural areas with limited charging opportunities,
without excess worry.
Forcing us into them *right now*, another concern voiced by the original poster (me) is not going to convince most of us that many of these
(still) legitimate concerns don't exist.
Nevertheless, it is not the technology of 200 years ago.
Still, while there have been substantial advances in battery technology
since the first cars, it is not as impressive as it needs to be. The
same reasons for which car makers in the beginning moved from
electricity to gasoline are still widely valid including
- lack of charging infrastructure
We have charging stations here (solar, even), and many electric vehicles can be charged from a wall outlet. As these vehicles get used more, the infrastructure will grow. People can charge money for it, and that's really about all you'd need for someone to offer services.
- long charge times
At 240V, a Prius can charge in a little over 2 hours. That's perfectly adequate for a commute vehicle.
- limited rangeTheir range is not all that limited anymore.
- battery massCompared to what? An engine block?
- battery operating temperature issues
This happens in harsh conditions, but not under normal operating conditions. Gasoline engines can also have overheating issues in harsh environments.
- aging of batteriesThey are generally improving in this regard.
These things have gotten better, but still are not really on par withThat would depend on the application. Not everyone needs a vehicle that can travel 800+ miles per day (including 1 charge) through the desert. Most people don't use their vehicles for anything near that.
gas-powered cars.
I get the distinct feeling that some people won't be ready to accept electric vehicles until they exceed the performance of gasoline vehicles in every regard. That is not necessary.
The largest ecological problem with disposing of gasoline-engine
batteries is their lead content.
The largest ecological problem with disposing of gasoline-engine batteries is their lead content.
To be clear, do you suppose that lithium from EV batteries is less of a problem? I would think this isn't true, especially given how many there are in a single car. Otherwise, why do each of my lithium packs have
that 'do not throw in trash' icon?
However, that is not the only thing that gets disposed of in a gas car. Lots of used oil comes to mind instantly...
regard to weight, you should also consider the 325 kg of batteries th must go with that 25 kg electric motor.
You are totally right. But then again, you must consider that a combustion engine at the most has a 30% efficiency as opposed to the
EV's 95% so the ICE vehicle must carry three times as much energy along.
A little more than just that needs upkeep in an electric, but...yes, certainly
cheaper than proper maintenance on a gas car, on any average year. Th is...until those batteries wear out...($_$)
We still don't know how long it'll take for a Tesla to wear out it's battery since there's still not a single Tesla that has even gone below 90% battery capacity, even after a million km. And even after 80%, how does that compare to an ICE car's performance after a million km? The Tesla will still run along, albeit with 20% shorter range, while the ICE car is ready for the scrapyard many years ago -- despite all the
thousands of dollars each year just to keep it going.
Provided that Mr. Eevee never goes on a 300+ km drive. Be realistic. perfect example is my daily commute. I have to drive 100+ km each way
A perfect example of how the USA has managed to scrap the socialist, commie crazy idea about investing in public transportation.
To a European having to *drive* 100+ km each way is so alien that nobody here, yes nobody, would ever accept such a job.
I drive 5 km each way to a free parking space and then (free to me as
a senior citizen) a bus into the city. I drive 5 km each way to get to
the city and from there the train that'll get me to anywhere in the
entire Europe I want. And to the airport it's a 30 km bus ride...
Unless I allow my electrictian, my power company, and my city ordinan officer, to each help themselves to my wallet, I would not be able to keep an EV fully charged.
Totally understandable. Someone told me that the best electrical installation you can get in the USA is a 2x110V <a shitload of amps> supply. Surely that cannot be true? In Sweden, where 60% of the citizens live in a single family home, the standard installation is a 3x380V 25A installation. So we can even keep our EVs fully charged from a household 10A socket -- but of course we prefer a standard 3x380V socket.
Don't stereotype. Not everyone who prefers a gas car drives a gas hog
Well, wasn't the F-150 the best selling vehicle for years?
I drive
a Mazda 3 with a SkyAktiv engine and get roughly 6l/100km (about 40 m for
the Americans), for instance. I'm UNDERcompensating. (o_-)
LOL! Three cheers from Sweden, it really seem you are.
As long as you only count the cost for the actual purchase, you are totally correct, but start with what that new car of yours is worth the moment you take out on the street. And of course if you are crazy enough to choose a frigging car that combines all the negatives from EV and
ICE, a hybrid, you'll not end up with a double negative in the
grammatical sense...
I wouldn't know if the price is different when you get into supercars don't wipe my butt with dollar bills, and I wouldn't waste them on a super(expensive)car, either.
LOL! Yeah. In Sweden you can get a 200 sqm family home for less than EUR100k -- a Tesla model S Plaid costs EUR120k. So I once again totally agree with you, you really must have your priorities here in life
twisted if you pay more for a car than for a family home. :)
To be clear, do you suppose that lithium from EV batteries is less of problem? I would think this isn't true, especially given how many the are in a single car. Otherwise, why do each of my lithium packs have that 'do not throw in trash' icon?
Lithium batteries and lead batteries both require specialized recycling procedures and should not be thrown into the trash.
However, that is not the only thing that gets disposed of in a gas ca Lots of used oil comes to mind instantly...
True, or boats. There were a few episodes of Mythbusters where they submerged boats into SF Bay (the "can you lift a sunken boat by filling
it with ping-pong balls" myth comes to mind). They did mention that they had to thoroughly clean the boat before submerging it, but I'm not entirely sure what all that entailed.
And then there is the disposal of batteries. That will be another ecological nightmare. Yes, it is currently a problem we already have,
but we are talking about making it worse not better as electric cars require larger/more batteries than gasoline ones do.
To a European having to drive 100+ km each way is so alien that nobody here, yes nobody, would ever accept such a job.
I drive 5 km each way to a free parking space and then (free to me as
a senior citizen) a bus into the city. I drive 5 km each way to get to
the city and from there the train that'll get me to anywhere in the
entire Europe I want. And to the airport it's a 30 km bus ride...
Totally understandable. Someone told me that the best electrical
installation you can get in the USA is a 2x110V <a shitload of amps>
supply. Surely that cannot be true? In Sweden, where 60% of the citizens
live in a single family home, the standard installation is a 3x380V 25A
installation. So we can even keep our EVs fully charged from a household
10A socket -- but of course we prefer a standard 3x380V socket.
I can't speak with certainty about the US, but that is true here, and sounds like the case for them, too. Our outlets are either 110 or 220 volts, and the 220 ones are used basically only for driers and ovens. These circuits are typically capped at 15A/30A each. It is possible to
use a standard 110V circuit to 'charge' an EV, but it would take an excrutiatingly long time. A 220V circuit, naturally, would do this significantly faster. But, for the same 'quick charge' capability that you're probably used to, I would have to tie two 30A 220V circuits together, which I am not qualified, and therefore not allowed, to do by myself.
I can't speak with certainty about the US, but that is true here, and sounds like the case for them, too. Our outlets are either 110 or 220 volts, and the 220 ones are used basically only for driers and ovens. These circuits are typically capped at 15A/30A each. It is possible t use a standard 110V circuit to 'charge' an EV, but it would take an excrutiatingly long time. A 220V circuit, naturally, would do this significantly faster. But, for the same 'quick charge' capability tha you're probably used to, I would have to tie two 30A 220V circuits together, which I am not qualified, and therefore not allowed, to do myself.
It is important not to mix the house connection with the individual sockets. In
Germany, 3 phases 380V is IMHO also the standard connection, but the normal socket provides 230V (used to be 220V) at a total of 3600W. Multiple phases are
AFAIK usually only used for cooking/oven and water heaters. Still, you
can have
3 phase 380V outlets (I have some in my workshop), but it is rather unusual. I have no idea, how US homes are connected.
However, that is not the only thing that gets disposed of in a g Lots of used oil comes to mind instantly...
True, or boats. There were a few episodes of Mythbusters where they submerged boats into SF Bay (the "can you lift a sunken boat by filli it with ping-pong balls" myth comes to mind). They did mention that t had to thoroughly clean the boat before submerging it, but I'm not entirely sure what all that entailed.
I am very familiar with that episode. I typically watch Mythbusters
reruns on my bedroom TV when doing my pre-sleep ritual...They also had
to remove the engine, drivetrain, fuel tank, and brake system from the car(s) they used in the episodes about escaping while underwater. But
they were doing that in a swimming pool.
On 03-15-22 20:26, Björn Felten <=-
spoke to Jeff Thiele about The myth about EVs vs. IC <=-
Plus of course, for every supercar, even in the multimillion dollar
range, there's now an EV that outperforms it at a fraction of the
cost. Welcome to the future, all of y'all F-150 type gas
guzzling loving people (what minimal body-part are you
compensating for?) to the new era of high performance,
inexpensive cars.
Ahem. Haven't they outperformed already? I mean, every car interested person already know the difference from an ICE car engine installation, weighing in at some 350 kg and with a gazillion moving parts vs. an electric motor at 25 kg with just two moving parts.
The EV owner never again has to stop at a gas station (and watch how much more the oil companies are charging), his car is always fully
charged at home over the night -- good bye bloody gas station stops.
weighing in at some 350 kg and with a gazillion moving parts vs. an
electric motor at 25 kg with just two moving parts.
You are ignoring the weight of the battery.
You are assuming that everyone owns a house with a garage, and that the
manufacturer of the car hasn't told them to park it outside, away from
all structures because it may burst into flames.
You are also assuming that the regional government hasn't told people to not charge their EV cars because the electric grid won't handle it, like has happened in California a few times.
The simple fact that a short trip to another state will require you to stop for a multi-hour charge each direction is a deal breaker,
regardless of anything else.
The largest ecological problem with disposing of gasoline-engine batteries is their lead content.
They don't have to exceed, but I would like one that can get me across a desert, and other rural areas with limited charging opportunities, without excess worry.
How often do you travel more than 400 miles in a hop?
Forcing us into them *right now*, another concern voiced by the original poster (me) is not going to convince most of us that many of these (still) legitimate concerns don't exist.
I don't recall anyone being forced into them *right now.* Companies are making more and more of them, and eventually we'll all have one, but no one's coming to take your pick-up truck (although, if your gun was in a gun rack in your truck, it would be kind of a twofer, wouldn't it? ;) ).
They don't have to exceed, but I would like one that can get me across a desert, and other rural areas with limited charging opportunities, without excess worry.
That is one of my sticking points as well; range anxiety isn't a fun emotion. As far as raw performance, though, some EV's aready exceed equivalent gas cars
Anyone who doubts this should look at the performance of the Tesla Plaid on the dragstrip.
Forcing us into them *right now*, another concern voiced by the original poster (me) is not going to convince most of us that many of these (still) legitimate concerns don't exist.
And that's a very logical point. Having a certain option forced upon you is going to make you more likely to question that option. However, I really don't think anyone is being *forced* into switching to EVs. Rather, many different factors are making gas-powered cars less and less attractive. Not quite the same, but possibly the same result...
It is important not to mix the house connection with the individual sockets. I
Germany, 3 phases 380V is IMHO also the standard connection, but the normal so
et provides 230V (used to be 220V) at a total of 3600W. Multiple phases are AF
K usually only used for cooking/oven and water heaters. Still, you can have 3 ase 380V outlets (I have some in my workshop), but it is rather unusual. I hav
no idea, how US homes are connected.
The largest ecological problem with disposing of gasoline-engine batteri their lead content.
While lithium is good for the environment?
Forcing us into them *right now*, another concern voiced by the ori poster (me) is not going to convince most of us that many of these (still) legitimate concerns don't exist.
I don't recall anyone being forced into them *right now.* Companies are making more and more of them, and eventually we'll all have one, but no coming to take your pick-up truck (although, if your gun was in a gun ra your truck, it would be kind of a twofer, wouldn't it? ;) ).
The original supposition was that the government is not doing much about gas prices because they are pushing an agenda. *IF* that supposition is true, then they are screwing up.
My daily/long-trip driver is not a pick-up. My assumption is that we got to talking pick-ups because you seem to be interested in them.
You are assuming that everyone owns a house with a garage, and that the
And you seem to assume that everyone who does not, have a gas station at home? The charging at home, at the superstore or at work is just the icing on the cake. Like gas stations, there's now charging stations all over the world.
manufacturer of the car hasn't told them to park it outside, away from
all structures because it may burst into flames.
Please don't use GM's fiasco for stereotyping all EV cars. And how about ICE cars, do they never burst into flames? You do know what the C
in ICE stands for?
The simple fact that a short trip to another state will require you to
stop for a multi-hour charge each direction is a deal breaker,
regardless of anything else.
You surely seem to live in the past. A Tesla e.g. takes less time to top up the "tank" than it takes for you to take a smoke, a piss, a burger or simply stretch your legs. I hope you do take regular breaks; else you're an unsafe driver and a fatal danger to the drivers around you.
How often do you travel more than 400 miles in a hop?
Often enough that I don't want to buy a weenie car to do it in. It does not have to have muscle, but I don't want to be worried about whether or not it will get me there.
or simply stretch your legs. I hope you do take regular breaks; else
you're an unsafe driver and a fatal danger to the drivers around you.
So, now the need to regularly stop for lengthy recharges is a SAFETY FEATURE?
Mike Powell wrote to JEFF THIELE <=-
While lithium is good for the environment?
You are ignoring the weight of the battery.
Why do you assume that? Do you usually compare the weight of all the various parts of a car?
However, taking all the various parts in consideration
-- making a true apple-to-apple compare -- an EV car usually weigh less than half of that of an obese USAian more, than an ICE car with the same performance.
You are assuming that everyone owns a house with a garage, and that t
And you seem to assume that everyone who does not, have a gas station at home? The charging at home, at the superstore or at work is just the icing on the cake. Like gas stations, there's now charging stations all over the world.
manufacturer of the car hasn't told them to park it outside, away fro all structures because it may burst into flames.
Please don't use GM's fiasco for stereotyping all EV cars. And how about ICE cars, do they never burst into flames? You *do* know what the C in ICE stands for?
You are also assuming that the regional government hasn't told people not charge their EV cars because the electric grid won't handle it, l has happened in California a few times.
I don't know everything about what corrupt US politicians are doing
I had the impression that California is ramping up its renewable electricity generation really impressively. As opposed to some states
that are doing it's best to ramp it down (Florida springs to mind). What regional governments are you talking about?
The simple fact that a short trip to another state will require you t stop for a multi-hour charge each direction is a deal breaker, regardless of anything else.
You surely seem to live in the past. A Tesla e.g. takes less time to top up the "tank" than it takes for you to take a smoke, a piss, a
burger or simply stretch your legs. I hope you *do* take regular breaks; else you're an unsafe driver and a fatal danger to the drivers around
you.
That is one of my sticking points as well; range anxiety isn't a fun emo As far as raw performance, though, some EV's aready exceed equivalent gacars
Anyone who doubts this should look at the performance of the Tesla Plaid the dragstrip.
During the earlier part of the discussion, "affordable" was thrown out there. I have not looked lately, but Teslas tend to be out of the range
I would call "affordable."
Since many companies have done away with cars that are not sports/performance, SUVs, or highly-marked-up pick-up trucks, there are a lot of gas models that I would no longer call "affordable."
And that's a very logical point. Having a certain option forced upon you going to make you more likely to question that option. However, I really don't think anyone is being *forced* into switching to EVs. Rather, many different factors are making gas-powered cars less and less attractive. quite the same, but possibly the same result...
I suspect our current US government is not doing much about the sudden rise in gas prices to intentionally make gas-powered things less attractive.
Back in 2017 or so, several Democrat congresspeople (like Chuck Shumer) wrote an open letter to Trump about how he'd better do something about
gas prices. Back then, the average was less than $3. Now that it has soared above that, I don't see them pestering Biden about it at all. So why is that?
Um...when discussing the total weight of the car? Yes! (o_O)
Can you back that statement up with researchable numbers?
suggesting. I mean, without the batteries, sure. But again, without the batteries, that EV isn't going *anywhere*...
I don't know the exact details, but the normal wall outlets, and the ones you plug your clothes dryer or oven into are different, both in voltage and the type of plugs that can be plugged into them.
In my US home anyway, it would be impossible to plug a normal appliance into a higher-voltage outlet and vice-versa, even by force. They won't fit.
I suspect our current US government is not doing much about the sudde rise in gas prices to intentionally make gas-powered things less attractive.In this case, I would think it's more about greed, rather than a push toward EVs. But, I'm not in the US government, nor even in the US. So, I definitely don't know what they're thinking. And, unlike some of our European friends, I am unwilling to make an @$$ of myself by making exaggerated assumptions about the US and its politics/politicians. (^_^)
Back in 2017 or so, several Democrat congresspeople (like Chuck Shume wrote an open letter to Trump about how he'd better do something abou gas prices. Back then, the average was less than $3. Now that it ha soared above that, I don't see them pestering Biden about it at all. why is that?
Things that make you go 'hmm...' (o_-)
The largest ecological problem with disposing of gasoline-engine ba their lead content.
While lithium is good for the environment?
Lithium is not considered a hazardous material, while lead is.
Can you back that statement up with researchable numbers?
Do you expect me to do your homework? Naughty!
suggesting. I mean, without the batteries, sure. But again, without t batteries, that EV isn't going *anywhere*...
I suggest that it goes exactly as long as an ICE without a petrol
tank. No? :)
No. I expect you to provide support to your claims.
The largest ecological problem with disposing of gasoline-engi their lead content.
While lithium is good for the environment?
Lithium is not considered a hazardous material, while lead is.
The hell it isn't! (@_@)
Oh...sorry, I guess you're actually right, there. They're both 'toxic' materials, as opposed to 'hazardous'...Technically, uranium isn't 'hazardous' either. Definitely bad for the environment, though, all
three.
While lithium is good for the environment?
Hmmm... You can get some lithium metal from United Nuclear.
"Ultra pure quantities of the element Lithium (atomic number 3), sealed under Argon gas.
[...]
Lithium is a very soft
metal that can easily be cut with a knife. It reacts violently with
water, liberating explosive Hydrogen gas. It is a flammable metal and
can cause severe burns if it comes in contact with the skin. Like all alkali metals, Lithium should only be handled by those familiar with its properties.
Not really something I'd like laying around.
But remember that Lefties can never see past their Narrative and can
never understand the consequences of their decisions.
But remember that Lefties can never see past their Narrative and can
never understand the consequences of their decisions.
No. I expect you to provide support to your claims.
Did the link I gave you help?
BTW, according to the nodelist, you live in Ottawa, so I was
surprised to hear about the absence of charging stations in your
vicinity. According to the map that I have, there's at least half a
dozen stations in downtown Ottawa -- and too many to count in Montreal.
So, where do you live? And how far away are the nearest gas stations?
I use plural, because you *do* compare prices?
I myself could easily drive tens of km extra to a cheaper gas station than the one I have ten km from home.
I'm really curious, not trying stir up something.
The largest ecological problem with disposing of gasoline their lead content.
While lithium is good for the environment?
Lithium is not considered a hazardous material, while lead is.
The hell it isn't! (@_@)
Oh...sorry, I guess you're actually right, there. They're both 'toxic materials, as opposed to 'hazardous'...Technically, uranium isn't 'hazardous' either. Definitely bad for the environment, though, all three.
Lots of things are toxic but not hazardous.
That's why the mercury compounds in some vaccines
aren't harmful, any more than the sodium (which, remember, is a
flammable metal!) in ordinary table salt isn't harmful.
Lithium is also used in lubricants (to include in the moving parts of gasoline-powered vehicles) and in medications addressing bipolar
disorder.
But remember that Lefties can never see past their Narrative and can never understand the consequences of their decisions.
In this case, there is far more nuance to the situation than Ron's either/or, black/white worldview allows for. It's his narrative that
can't be reconciled with reality. And, especially considering the long-term effects of fossil fuels on the environment and the primarily conservative opposition to curbing their use, it would seem that it is
not only the left that can fail to understand consequences of decisions.
On 17 Mar 2022, Ron L. said the following...
But remember that Lefties can never see past their Narrative and can never understand the consequences of their decisions.
Also:
"<Squawk!>Lefties can never do this!<Squawk!>Lefties can never do that!<Squawk!>"
Jeff.
I have never thought you were looking for trouble, despite my passing jokes
to the contrary. And I'm happy to explain my point of view, if you're willing to listen!
Lots of things are toxic but not hazardous.
And lots of (not all, because...things) humans are men but not women.
Your point? (o_O)
Lithium, in equal parts, is just as bad, if not worse, for the
environment as lead.
Really, it's the process through which each is exploited that is
harmful. Specific 'hazardous-ness' or toxicity is mostly irrelevant to
the harmful effects they both have.
That's why the mercury compounds in some vaccines
aren't harmful, any more than the sodium (which, remember, is a flammable metal!) in ordinary table salt isn't harmful.
Not to mention all that dihydrogen monoxide they put in those vaccines! Can you believe the nerve of those Big Pharma bastards? (@_@)
(sarcasm! (o_o) )
Lithium is also used in lubricants (to include in the moving parts of gasoline-powered vehicles) and in medications addressing bipolar disorder.
At some point, I knew the medicinal properties of litium would come up.
I was looking for the right time to do so myself. (^_^)
But remember that Lefties can never see past their Narrative and never understand the consequences of their decisions.
In this case, there is far more nuance to the situation than Ron's either/or, black/white worldview allows for. It's his narrative that can't be reconciled with reality. And, especially considering the long-term effects of fossil fuels on the environment and the primaril conservative opposition to curbing their use, it would seem that it i not only the left that can fail to understand consequences of decisio
Much better! *claps*
And...point proven...(-_-)
On 17 Mar 2022, Ron L. said the following...
But remember that Lefties can never see past their Narrative and never understand the consequences of their decisions.
Also:
"<Squawk!>Lefties can never do this!<Squawk!>Lefties can never do that!<Squawk!>"
I somehow *knew* that wasn't very far behind! That really made me laugh. Cheers!
Of course I'm willing to listen, you've never disappointed me. <3
Do you remember the old VW Beetle? Are you nearly (I'm going 74) as
old as I am, and into classic cars, surely you loved it?
Check out his channel, if you, like me, hate how all new cars look almost exactly the same, and love the old classics that stands out more and more today. I can almost guarantee that you will not be disappointed.
Lithium, in equal parts, is just as bad, if not worse, for the environment as lead.
There are different levels of toxicity. Lithium is less toxic than lead.
Really, it's the process through which each is exploited that is harmful. Specific 'hazardous-ness' or toxicity is mostly irrelevant t the harmful effects they both have.
"Hazardous-ness" is literally a measurement of the harmful effects something has.
or simply stretch your legs. I hope you do take regular breaks; else
you're an unsafe driver and a fatal danger to the drivers around you.
So, now the need to regularly stop for lengthy recharges is a SAFETY
FEATURE?
If you regard 15 minutes as lengthy, yes, I certainly do. Don't you?
If that is not the general practise in the USA, maybe it is one of the many reasons that Tesla cars drive ten times longer between accidents, according to NHTSA:
or simply stretch your legs. I hope you do take regular breaks; els
you're an unsafe driver and a fatal danger to the drivers around yo
So, now the need to regularly stop for lengthy recharges is a SAFETY
FEATURE?
If you regard 15 minutes as lengthy, yes, I certainly do. Don't yo If that is not the general practise in the USA, maybe it is one of th many reasons that Tesla cars drive ten times longer between accidents according to NHTSA:
The people I know who own and drive EV cars say that a 15 minute charge from near empty to full is a pipe dream.
If you're going to use the car just to drive a few miles to the grocery and back, an EV car may make sense. But any serious use is still not realistic.
The original supposition was that the government is not doing much about gas prices because they are pushing an agenda. *IF* that supposition is true, then they are screwing up.
The free-market enthusiasts are suddenly begging a Democrat president to live up to their generalizations about liberals and interfere in the free market. It's quite a conundrum.
My daily/long-trip driver is not a pick-up. My assumption is that we got
to talking pick-ups because you seem to be interested in them.
Nor mine. I use the pick-up for hauling things and for towing our pop-up camper, almost exclusively in-state. Given its age and mileage, I honestly wouldn't even trust it to make a 400-mile-both-ways trip without needing some kind of repair.
Often enough that I don't want to buy a weenie car to do it in. It does not have to have muscle, but I don't want to be worried about whether or not it will get me there.
And it's not like if you get stranded in the mountains that you can flag someo
down for a can of electricity.
Lithium is not considered a hazardous material, while lead is.
It reacts violently with water, liberating
explosive Hydrogen gas. It is a flammable metal and can cause severe burns if it comes in contact with the skin. Like all alkali metals, Lithium should only
be handled by those familiar with its properties.
Not really something I'd like laying around.
During the earlier part of the discussion, "affordable" was thrown out there. I have not looked lately, but Teslas tend to be out of the range I would call "affordable."
Moreso than an F-150!
Since many companies have done away with cars that are not sports/performance, SUVs, or highly-marked-up pick-up trucks, there are a
lot of gas models that I would no longer call "affordable."
Okay, never mind the F-150 then... (o_O)
I agree. Tesla especially, but *all* EVs are more expensive at the show-room than their gas equivalents. I did a comparison on the cheapest new gas vs EV car in Canada, earlier. The Chevy Spark costs nearly a third of a Nissan Leaf, at least at MSRP without any tax breaks or discounts.
I suspect our current US government is not doing much about the sudden rise in gas prices to intentionally make gas-powered things less attractive.
"Don't attribute to malice what stupidity can explain" -Unknown
In this case, I would think it's more about greed, rather than a push toward EVs. But, I'm not in the US government, nor even in the US. So, I definitely don't know what they're thinking. And, unlike some of our European friends, I am unwilling to make an @$$ of myself by making exaggerated assumptions about the US and its politics/politicians. (^_^)
The original supposition was that the government is not doing much gas prices because they are pushing an agenda. *IF* that suppositio true, then they are screwing up.
The free-market enthusiasts are suddenly begging a Democrat president to up to their generalizations about liberals and interfere in the free mar It's quite a conundrum.
Not so ironic if they believe that government interference with the free market partially lead to the issue at hand.
The people I know who own and drive EV cars say that a 15 minute charge from near empty to full is a pipe dream.
Lithium is not considered a hazardous material, while lead is.
See Ron's post about Lithium. Sounds hazardous to me. Even if it isn't, it is still something I would not want getting in the ground water.
It reacts violently with water, liberating
explosive Hydrogen gas. It is a flammable metal and can cause severe bur it comes in contact with the skin. Like all alkali metals, Lithium shoul only
be handled by those familiar with its properties.
Not really something I'd like laying around.
Considering how humid it can get here, neither would I.
And North America...? Well, I think you are not even at 5%, so maybe you have a lot of years ahead of you, before you have to bother about
the second hand value of your F-150s. There seems to still be a lot of ignorant people around, who will buy your pile of crap for many years to come.
And yet, virtually everyone has sodium and chlorine in their kitchen to add flavor to their food.
(Yeah, there may be a lot of corruption, but to assume that all of them are
corrupt is 'stereotyping')
LOL! You're da man for sure.
You are of course right, as usual. But then, when in the US, even the Dem POTUS, known to have received millions of dollars in donations (new
US English for bribes) from Big Pharma, and he suddenly will not make a move to at least get the cost of medicines down to even the same level
as in the country north of him, you must admit that it easy to
stereotype like that? :)
Hey, don't forget the cost of all that dihydrogen monoxide! (o_O)
Those times often involve overconsumption of concentrated ethyl alcohol...and plenty of dihydrogen monoxide the next day! (o_-)
Those times often involve overconsumption of concentrated ethyl alcohol...and plenty of dihydrogen monoxide the next day! (o_-)
I just remembered that I had some hydroxyethane solution in my
cupboard so I think I'll join you. Cheers. But I think I'll use coffee tomorrow, to cure the effects. :)
Oh, I'm not having any tonight! It's not the weekend yet, and when I get into the hooch, I typically need at least a full day off to recuperate. (^_^)
Oh, I'm not having any tonight! It's not the weekend yet, and when I into the hooch, I typically need at least a full day off to recuperat (^_^)
Ahhh... You must forgive this old geezer, retired since a decade ago. To me there's no longer any difference between one weekday from another.
I can even take a drink before noon if I feel like it. (^_^)
Lithium is not considered a hazardous material, while lead is.
See Ron's post about Lithium. Sounds hazardous to me. Even if it isn't, it is still something I would not want getting in the ground water.
And North America...? Well, I think you are not even at 5%, so maybe you have a lot of years ahead of you, before you have to bother about the second hand value of your F-150s. There seems to still be a lot of ignorant people around, who will buy your pile of crap for many years to come.
Shaun Buzza wrote to Jeff Thiele <=-
Oh...sorry, I guess you're actually right, there. They're both 'toxic' materials, as opposed to 'hazardous'...Technically, uranium isn't 'hazardous' either. Definitely bad for the environment, though, all
three.
Al Thompson wrote to Mike Powell <=-
I remember reading a couple of years ago that waters around San
Francisco were contaminated with high levels of lithium from all of the anti-depressants that people there were taking and it wasn't being filtered out by the water purification systems.
I remember reading a couple of years ago that waters around San
Francisco were contaminated with high levels of lithium from all of the anti-depressants that people there were taking and it wasn't being filtered out by the water purification systems.
What's your infatuation with the F-150? The current fad is the Escalade or the Expedition, unless you're on a farm.
The main problem with lithium is it's flammable - especially when doused with water.
But I don't believe it's toxic. However, it is used in psychiatric medications. So, unlike lead, we just may not have data on long term exposure to it in small doses.
My dad was a science teacher. One year, he wanted to get rid of the sodium that the state wouldn't take off his hands. (Sodium is right
below lithium on the periodic table.)
So he looked up in his books about how to dispose of it. It was actually simple: Bury a small amount and water the area. It will react
underground and everything's good.
The short story: One of the kids watered it before it was covered and they spent the afternoon stomping out grass fires.
The original supposition was that the government is not doing much
gas prices because they are pushing an agenda. *IF* that suppositi
true, then they are screwing up.
The free-market enthusiasts are suddenly begging a Democrat president t
up to their generalizations about liberals and interfere in the free ma
It's quite a conundrum.
Not so ironic if they believe that government interference with the free market partially lead to the issue at hand.
Have they any proof of this?
Don't forget, too, that sodium's partner in table salt is chlorine, and you definitely wouldn't want pure chlorine laying around!
And yet, virtually everyone has sodium and chlorine in their kitchen to add flavor to their food.
Not so ironic if they believe that government interference with the market partially lead to the issue at hand.
Have they any proof of this?
That people *believe* that? I think we've seen that voiced here, right?
Not so ironic if they believe that government interference wit market partially lead to the issue at hand.
Have they any proof of this?
That people *believe* that? I think we've seen that voiced here, rig
Without evidence, yes.
That people *believe* that? I think we've seen that voiced here
Without evidence, yes.
Erm....wouldn't the people voicing their belief be *precisely* evidence
of that belief?
Ohhh. Took me a second to get what you were saying. But...that happens a lot in religion, too. People often act based on beliefs despite any evidence either for or against said beliefs. That's the difference
between "I believe" and "I know", isn't it?
And that's exactly why I believe that religion, especially evangelical Christianity, primes people for authoritarianism.
And that's exactly why I believe that religion, especially evangelica Christianity, primes people for authoritarianism.
As opposed to political beliefs? Look around, man! (o_O)
As opposed to political beliefs? Look around, man! (o_O)
Exactly. Forgoing logic and reason in favor of faith is a hallmark of
both Christianity and right-wing politics. It doesn't matter if it makes sense if you just *believe*, right?
theYou are assuming that everyone owns a house with a garage, and that
And you seem to assume that everyone who does not, have a gasstation
at home? The charging at home, at the superstore or at work is justthe
icing on the cake. Like gas stations, there's now charging stationsall
over the world.
Perhaps, but your argument FOR EV cars was that you could recharge them overnight and thus wouldn't be disadvantaged by and hours-long charge during the day.
I don't have a charging station, and I don't know of anyone who has one at their work. The closest charging station to me is about 15-20 miles away. Hardly what I would call convenient.
or simply stretch your legs. I hope you do take regular breaks; else
you're an unsafe driver and a fatal danger to the drivers around you.
So, now the need to regularly stop for lengthy recharges is a SAFETY
FEATURE?
If you regard 15 minutes as lengthy, yes, I certainly do. Don't you?
If that is not the general practise in the USA, maybe it is one of the many
reasons that Tesla cars drive ten times longer between accidents, according
to NHTSA:
I don't think it would have mattered what kind of car that 13-year-old
was driving.
As opposed to political beliefs? Look around, man! (o_O)
Exactly. Forgoing logic and reason in favor of faith is a hallmark of both Christianity and right-wing politics. It doesn't matter if it ma sense if you just *believe*, right?
Let's be clear, this isn't specific to 'right-wing' or 'left-wing'. It applies to *all* extremists, be it politics or religion. I'm sure you can come up with at least one example of this in the liberal camp as well, yes?
If you opt to have your own charging station, you can go one of two
ways. The cheap route, which costs about $600, will get you a full
charge over the course of about 12 hours. The premium route will
cost you about $1000 more, but the benefit of getting a full charge
while you drink a cup of coffee would be possible.
I beg to differ. With a Tesla FSD it's highly unlikely. The FSDs have been driven more than 20 million km without a single severe accident.
At least one, yes. But the degree to which this is a hallmark of the
right is much, much greater.
As opposed to political beliefs? Look around, man! (o_O)
Exactly. Forgoing logic and reason in favor of faith is a hallmark of both Christianity and right-wing politics. It doesn't matter if it makes sense if you just *believe*, right?
Let's be clear, this isn't specific to 'right-wing' or 'left-wing'. It applies to *all* extremists, be it politics or religion. I'm sure you can come up with at least one example of this in the liberal camp as well, yes?
All politics. I point to the multiple gender belief as one the left
tends to forgo logic and reason in favor of belief/feelings for.
At least one, yes. But the degree to which this is a hallmark of the right is much, much greater.
I'm not entirely sure that's the case, but you spend a lot more time talking politics than I do. (o_-)
As opposed to political beliefs? Look around, man! (o_O)
Exactly. Forgoing logic and reason in favor of faith is a hallmark of bo Christianity and right-wing politics. It doesn't matter if it makes sens you just *believe*, right?
All politics. I point to the multiple gender belief as one the left
tends to forgo logic and reason in favor of belief/feelings for.
In the not too distant past, we had at least one left-leaning poster here whose beliefs seemed nearly all based on how they made him feel. No
logic would budge his beliefs/feelings about topics he did not like.
Erm, to be clear, no single Tesla has been driven that far.
Erm, to be clear, no single Tesla has been driven that far.
Single? Who's talking about a single car, or even model? FSDs, remember? As in plural. I suggest that you google for the model I was talking about...
How far have F-150s been driven?
I don't think it would have mattered what kind of car that 13-year-old
was driving.
I beg to differ. With a Tesla FSD it's highly unlikely. The FSDs have been driven more than 20 million km without a single severe accident.
If you opt to have your own charging station, you can go one of two
ways. The cheap route, which costs about $600, will get you a full
charge over the course of about 12 hours. The premium route will
cost you about $1000 more, but the benefit of getting a full charge
while you drink a cup of coffee would be possible.
I challenge this assertion on two fronts: the cost of a 'premium' charger, and the time it would take to charge an EV from dead to full using one.
Even just considering the material cost, ignoring labour or permits, it would
still be over $1600, at least in my situation. I'd have to have a custom circuit built to handle that much wattage.
And, I daresay the batteries would *not* be full after a cup of coffee, but
maybe I just drink mine faster...I've seen people take an hour to drink a single cup, but I wasn't aware that they were waiting for their car to charge...
The plan is for more charging stations to be made availabe. A lot more. And once those charging stations are in place, folks will flock to their nearest dealership and buy those electric cars in record numbers ...
If you opt to have your own charging station, you can go one of two ways. The cheap route, which costs about $600, will get you a full charge over the course of about 12 hours. The premium route will cost you about $1000 more, but the benefit of getting a full charge while you drink a cup of coffee would be possible.
Comparing an EV to a pickup
truck is akin to comparing a supercar to a minivan.
I did a little research today on "affordable" EV cars. The Nissan Leaf seems the cheapest starting just under $30,000.
I'll just hang on to my '98 Honda, for which I can easily find gas.
This was in Texas. When vehicles meet head-on in the middle of the
night in Texas, people die. Even a kid could do it. As demonstrated.
That still assumes that you have a garage or covered car park. Most apartment dwellers won't be able to do that, nor will many who are
cursed to live in a city.
I doubt many people would want to wait until they are totally out of
juice before tanking up. Going from half a tank, or from a quarter tank, is more likely. And then, not to "full" but rather to between 80% and
90%.
Even just considering the material cost, ignoring labour or permits, would
still be over $1600, at least in my situation. I'd have to have a cus circuit built to handle that much wattage.
I would go the "premium" route, even if the cost is a bit more than
my cited estimate.
And, I daresay the batteries would *not* be full after a cup of coffe but
maybe I just drink mine faster...I've seen people take an hour to dri single cup, but I wasn't aware that they were waiting for their car t charge...
By "full" I was meaning about 80 percent, topping off to 100 percent
is not practical or even desirable. Okay, I might grab a donut to go
with the cup of coffee. But still ...
Comparing an EV to a pickup
truck is akin to comparing a supercar to a minivan.
I wasn't comparing performance, I was comparing safety. Lee's Texas Massacre, remember?
If the cost of buying the car is all you care about, you obviously missed the best selling car in China, the Wuling miniEV, starting just under $5,000.
I'll just hang on to my '98 Honda, for which I can easily find gas.
How much does it cost to fill it up nowadays?
How much did you spend on repair and service last year?
A sales person comes up to your door and offers to install a tap in your garage that will deliver an unlimited amount of gas to you car, delivered from a non-profit company, that will only charge you the
actual cost for production and delivery (ATM it's around $8/brl all over the world, believe it or not).
If she tells you, that if you agree to an upgrade of your car, you
can enjoy taps at an increasing amount of your supermarkets, city
centres, workplaces as well as gas stations all along your road net.
What would you be willing to pay for that installation?
What would you be willing to pay for that update?
Dood! Don't insult our respective intelligence! Not cool!
You know full well that's not a good comparison.
Try "very limited", "very much
FOR-profit", and "actual cost plus separate markups from several separate entities along the way".
Do you have any idea how national electric grids work? (o_O)
But only at these 'taps', and nowhere else. If there aren't any nearby, here's
hoping you wear comfortable shoes, because you're gonna be walking. There's
no Good Samaritan with a full Jerry can to help you. These new 'taps' can't
be used to fill small containers.
as you are suggesting, especially in North America.
Dood! Don't insult our respective intelligence! Not cool!
Dude! I'd never do that, and I think you that.
If ever I made a performance comparison before Lee's Texas Massacre, surely you know that it was in a completely different ball game. No? ;) (no copyright violated?)
How much does it cost to fill it up nowadays?
Probably still less than 1% the cost of switching to electric?
How much did you spend on repair and service last year?
Far less than the cost of a battery repair/service, I'm sure.
Try "very limited", "very much
FOR-profit", and "actual cost plus separate markups from several sepa entities along the way".
Exactly, spot on. That's what you have now.
Do you have any idea how national electric grids work? (o_O)
Dude! Do you have any idea how national electric grids work in Sweden. Sorry, maybe I overestimated the similarities of our two countries. You are more US than Anglo-Saxon nowadays, no?
There's
no Good Samaritan with a full Jerry can to help you. These new 'taps' can't
be used to fill small containers.
Hmmm... So when you run out of fuel on your daily 100km drive now,
how does that differ?
How much did you spend on repair and service last year?
Far less than the cost of a battery repair/service, I'm sure.
How much have they told you that such an operation will cost, and
after how many miles, and at what level of battery degradation it will
be necessary?
And also compared to how many miles an ICE engine will run until it needs to be replaced. The cost of that? Not worth it, just scrap the entire car, no? Since you are *sure*
How come you do not want to admit to how much your old ICE car
actually costs you every year? Have you even kept track of it.
My advice is: don't! I did a few years ago, and I changed my entire life after that... ;)
Shaun Buzza wrote to Dr. What <=-
Um...it's reactive, but that's not the same as flammable. Gasoline
vapour is flammable, because it reacts explosively to the introduction
of flame. This is not the case with lithium.
Thank you, sir. I am quite familiar with the Periodic Table, and I know exactly what (and where) the alkali metals are. I don't understand, though, why the state would refuse to take away a dangerous substance, especially when freely offered.
Hah, smart teacher, and dumb kids!
He could also have used a sufficiently large amount of water, in a sufficiently strong container, and simply dumped the stuff in and
waited a few seconds...I would imagine that would have been far more entertaining than burying it. (o_-)
All politics. I point to the multiple gender belief as one the left tends to forgo logic and reason in favor of belief/feelings for.
Oh, don't even get me started on that particular subject! Last I checked, we humans have one of only two sets of gender-specific organs...Hang on, I'll call one of my 'lady friends' and make sure my information is...updated... (o_-)
As opposed to political beliefs? Look around, man! (o_O)
Exactly. Forgoing logic and reason in favor of faith is a hallmark of b
Christianity and right-wing politics. It doesn't matter if it makes sen
you just *believe*, right?
All politics. I point to the multiple gender belief as one the left tends to forgo logic and reason in favor of belief/feelings for.
Why must everyone be forced to adhere to strict gender guidelines? This smacks of the days when women couldn't own property, couldn't vote, and couldn't get credit card without their husbands' permission.
It's only the right that sees these things as an affront to God and nature, but in reality these are just man-made constructs.
In the not too distant past, we had at least one left-leaning poster here
whose beliefs seemed nearly all based on how they made him feel. No logic would budge his beliefs/feelings about topics he did not like.
"Seemed."
If a guy wants to wear a dress or a woman a suit, what's it to me? Absolutely nothing. If a trans woman wants to be addressed using feminine pronouns, or a trans male using masculine pronouns, what's it to me? Absolutely nothing.
At least one, yes. But the degree to which this is a hallmark of the
right is much, much greater.
I'm not entirely sure that's the case, but you spend a lot more time talking politics than I do. (o_-)
Authoritarianism is very much a hallmark of the right in the US.
Um...it's reactive, but that's not the same as flammable. Gasoline vapour is flammable, because it reacts explosively to the introductio of flame. This is not the case with lithium.
You are correct that lithium is not as explosive as gasoling. But
lithium reacts violently with water. Hydrogen gas is released from that reaction. So, yes, it's explosive.
I don't understand,
though, why the state would refuse to take away a dangerous substance especially when freely offered.
It was a political issue. The state came through one year and took all the "dangerous" chemicals out of his lab. They forgot to take the
sodium. When my dad let them know of their mistake, their response was along the lines of "We already have it marked down as taken, so you are trying to get us to dispose of personal property" and refused to take it.
But he did expect them to follow instructions. IHMO: I think the kid
just wanted to see sodium explode. It's not like there was YouTube back then with dozens of sodium-in-the-lake videos.
Ya, but the police station was next door and they might not like
something like that.
Some people can be born with both.
Biology and physiology can be ignored by some when the science of "feelingsology" contradicts them. In this particular case, those "some" are not on the political right.
If a guy wants to wear a dress or a woman a suit, what's it to me? Absol nothing. If a trans woman wants to be addressed using feminine pronouns, trans male using masculine pronouns, what's it to me? Absolutely nothing
I really don't care, either, but I am basing that opinion on feelings and the belief that they are free to do what they want. My opinion here is completely without basis in biology, logic, or even politics or religion. I am willing to admit this. If I were a left-leaning person, based on my interactions with such people, I am guessing I would never be willing to admit this.
This was in Texas. When vehicles meet head-on in the middle of the
night in Texas, people die. Even a kid could do it. As demonstrated.
Not this kid, ms. FSD. She is a 13yo driver, who, just like that Texas kid,
still is a long time from getting her driver's licence.
But she's learning from the experience by her (ATM) 60,000 siblings. And, unlike your average teenage new learner, she's already far more experienced, and she improves every second of 24/7 driving by all her 60k siblings. Plus of course, she never gets tired, no matter how long she drives.
You really should Google "Tesla FSD", a robot option you can get from only *one* car company for decades to come. Unless of course the other sleepers admit to their failure and license the FSD robot.
Welcome to the future...
Some people can be born with both.
Erm, I'm willing to challenge that assertion. Perhaps born with a genetic abberation that makes one set appear to resemble the other. But born with a fully functional pair of ovaries AND testes? I think not.
Biology and physiology can be ignored by some when the science of "feelingsology" contradicts them. In this particular case, those "some" are not on the political right.
And that's the bigger problem. "How dare you assume my gender! These aren't tits, they're 'breasticles'!" [insert 'triggered' meme here]
I did say 'don't get me started', didn't I? Why the F didn't you listen? (Q_Q)
Erm, I'm willing to challenge that assertion. Perhaps born with a geneti abberation that makes one set appear to resemble the other. But born wit fully functional pair of ovaries AND testes? I think not.
Fully functioning, maybe not, but hermaphrodites do naturally occur.
And that's the bigger problem. "How dare you assume my gender! These are tits, they're 'breasticles'!" [insert 'triggered' meme here]
I did say 'don't get me started', didn't I? Why the F didn't you listen? (Q_Q)
I think we were already started into it. :)
Erm, I'm willing to challenge that assertion. Perhaps born with a g abberation that makes one set appear to resemble the other. But bor fully functional pair of ovaries AND testes? I think not.
Fully functioning, maybe not, but hermaphrodites do naturally occur.
Come on, man! Don't be a Jeff (or a Ron, since I don't want to offend Jeffie). When I said 'no human is born with two sets of sex organs', functionality was very much implied!
Erm, I'm willing to challenge that assertion. Perhaps born wit abberation that makes one set appear to resemble the other. Bu fully functional pair of ovaries AND testes? I think not.
Fully functioning, maybe not, but hermaphrodites do naturally oc
Come on, man! Don't be a Jeff (or a Ron, since I don't want to offend Jeffie). When I said 'no human is born with two sets of sex organs', functionality was very much implied!
So if someone is born with one set, but that one set is not fully functional, they are of no gender? If ou can ignore a
non-fully-functional set when there's more than one set, it seems like
you should ignore that same non-fully-functional set when there is only the one set.
Also, genitalia are not the be-all-end-all of human sexuality. Human sexuality is a spectrum that often defies simple classification.
Erm, I'm willing to challenge that assertion. Perhaps bor abberation that makes one set appear to resemble the othe fully functional pair of ovaries AND testes? I think not.
Fully functioning, maybe not, but hermaphrodites do natural
Come on, man! Don't be a Jeff (or a Ron, since I don't want to o Jeffie). When I said 'no human is born with two sets of sex orga functionality was very much implied!
So if someone is born with one set, but that one set is not fully functional, they are of no gender? If ou can ignore a non-fully-functional set when there's more than one set, it seems lik you should ignore that same non-fully-functional set when there is on the one set.
Um...yes? Both are genetic abberations. And neither can effectively procreate.
Clearly, this is a subject that we are not going to agree on. In this case, I *do* believe in a 'black-and-white' definition. You're either
man or woman. Or genetic abberation, a different topic entirely.
Not to mention the many times that the Good Book says 'Thou shalt not lie with another man, and neither shall a woman lie with another woman.' (except in porn...that's kinda hot! -McD)
Like I have often reminded you, I am liberal on some things, and conservative on others. In this case, I am...conservative? Liberal?
<o_O? Sometimes, I don't even know which is which!
Except, I know which side of the line you've placed yourself. And in this case, I fully disagree with you.
Um...yes? Both are genetic abberations. And neither can effectively procreate.
Then already you have 3 genders: male, female, and no-gender.
Clearly, this is a subject that we are not going to agree on. In this case, I *do* believe in a 'black-and-white' definition. You're either man or woman. Or genetic abberation, a different topic entirely.
I think you're already agreeing more than you intended to.
Not to mention the many times that the Good Book says 'Thou shalt not with another man, and neither shall a woman lie with another woman.' (except in porn...that's kinda hot! -McD)
Not everyone subscribes to the Bible, and of those that do, not everyone gives the laws of the Old Testament the same authority as the New, especially in terms of bacon and shrimp. Or bacon-wrapped shrimp. Yow.
Like I have often reminded you, I am liberal on some things, and conservative on others. In this case, I am...conservative? Liberal? <o_O? Sometimes, I don't even know which is which!
Indeed, you sound a bit confused. If you don't want to violate your God's laws, then don't violate your God's laws. It's as simple as that. What makes you think that you've been put on this Earth to impose your God's laws on others?
Please? Man to man: let this go, and don't bring it up again. Thank you
in advance.
Um...yes? Both are genetic abberations. And neither can effectiv procreate.
Then already you have 3 genders: male, female, and no-gender.
Incorrect. Male, female, and 'non-human'. Non-human is not a gender. Please, I'm begging you, don't! I really don't like talking about this!
Clearly, this is a subject that we are not going to agree on. In case, I *do* believe in a 'black-and-white' definition. You're e man or woman. Or genetic abberation, a different topic entirely.
I think you're already agreeing more than you intended to.
I think you're an a-hole. Neither of us is correct. (o_-)
Not to mention the many times that the Good Book says 'Thou shal with another man, and neither shall a woman lie with another wom (except in porn...that's kinda hot! -McD)
Not everyone subscribes to the Bible, and of those that do, not every gives the laws of the Old Testament the same authority as the New, especially in terms of bacon and shrimp. Or bacon-wrapped shrimp. Yow
Not everyone subscribes to POLITICS, either. What's your point?
Speaking as a Christian, I really need to try bacon-wrapped shrimp, ASAP!
You're either athiest, or agnostic, aren't you? You literally have no
idea where Judaism ends and Christianity begins. Please restrict
yourself to topics you actually know about in the future, just as I do.
Mike needs to put a stop to this conversation! Religion is supposed to be taboo!
Indeed, you sound a bit confused. If you don't want to violate your G laws, then don't violate your God's laws. It's as simple as that. Wha makes you think that you've been put on this Earth to impose your God laws on others?
Have I done so? Even when abortion came up, did I do so? I think not, but please correct me.
I'm a Christian, not a 'bible thumper'. I literally do not care what anyone else believes. Their beliefs do not affect my Gift! And, clearly, my beliefs don't affect their sinful ways. And that's okay! Everyone was given that choice by God Himself!
Mike, please step in at any time! I am really trying to be nice here, but Jeff is pushing buttons I would rather he didn;t...
I love you, Jeff, in a totally heterosexual way. But, please...don't... This really is a sensitive subject for me...And religion has no place in this echo.
<Squawk!>Blah, blah, blah.<Squawk!>
How much does it cost to fill it up nowadays?
Probably still less than 1% the cost of switching to electric?
How much did you spend on repair and service last year?
Far less than the cost of a battery repair/service, I'm sure.
How much have they told you that such an operation will cost, and after
how many miles, and at what level of battery degradation it will be necessary?
And also compared to how many miles an ICE engine will run until it needs to be replaced. The cost of that? Not worth it, just scrap the entire
car, no? Since you are *sure*
How come you do not want to admit to how much your old ICE car actually
costs you every year? Have you even kept track of it.
My advice is: don't! I did a few years ago, and I changed my entire life after that... ;)
If the cost of buying the car is all you care about, you obviouslyjust
missed the best selling car in China, the Wuling miniEV, starting
under $5,000.
Which goes all of 35 kph and has a range of about 50 km? You get what you pay
for, there.
For the record, that's an exaggeration of both top speed and range. I think
it's closer to 80 kph and 150 km...There are some cheap-as-a-$5-hooker EVs coming out of China that aren't worth buying...Wuling sits at the top of that
list.
Dood! Don't insult our respective intelligence! Not cool!
Dude! I'd never do that, and I think you that.
If ever I made a performance comparison before Lee's Texas Massacre, surely
you know that it was in a completely different ball game. No? ;) (no copyright violated?)
I doubt many people would want to wait until they are totally out oftank,
juice before tanking up. Going from half a tank, or from a quarter
is more likely. And then, not to "full" but rather to between 80% and
90%.
Isn't that a minus for EVs, though? A gas tank has none of these restrictions.
I mean, it's not really good for the pumps and filters to completely drain the tank, but there's no need to keep that tank in the 'butter zone'.
It won't harm it to fill it up to the point gas is spilling out, and there's
no major, long-term harm in draining it completely.
The same can't be said for any lithium-tech battery.
Not to mention, if one is strictly adhering to the 25%-80% region, one is basically giving up roughly 1/4 of the total range...and range is already a
problem!
permits,Even just considering the material cost, ignoring labour or
a cuswould
still be over $1600, at least in my situation. I'd have to have
circuit built to handle that much wattage.
I would go the "premium" route, even if the cost is a bit more than
my cited estimate.
Well, I'll do the same, as long as *you* pay for it! (o_-)
coffeAnd, I daresay the batteries would *not* be full after a cup of
to dribut
maybe I just drink mine faster...I've seen people take an hour
car tsingle cup, but I wasn't aware that they were waiting for their
charge...
By "full" I was meaning about 80 percent, topping off to 100 percent
is not practical or even desirable. Okay, I might grab a donut to go
with the cup of coffee. But still ...
"But still" my butt.
You can't change the story that much and still have a valid point.
"The sky is purple...What I meant is that it's *rarely* purple, and only under certain conditions. But still..." (o_O)
I did a little research today on "affordable" EV cars. The Nissan Leaf
seems the cheapest starting just under $30,000.
If the cost of buying the car is all you care about, you obviously missed the best selling car in China, the Wuling miniEV, starting just under $5,000.
I'll just hang on to my '98 Honda, for which I can easily find gas.
How much does it cost to fill it up nowadays?
How much did you spend on repair and service last year?
This was in Texas. When vehicles meet head-on in the middle of the night
in Texas, people die. Even a kid could do it. As demonstrated.
Not this kid, ms. FSD. She is a 13yo driver, who, just like that Texas kid, still is a long time from getting her driver's licence.
But she's learning from the experience by her (ATM) 60,000 siblings. And, unlike your average teenage new learner, she's already far more experienced, and she improves every second of 24/7 driving by all her 60k siblings. Plus of course, she never gets tired, no matter how long she drives.
You really should Google "Tesla FSD", a robot option you can get from only one car company for decades to come. Unless of course the other sleepers admit to their failure and license the FSD robot.
Welcome to the future...
That still assumes that you have a garage or covered car park. Most
apartment dwellers won't be able to do that, nor will many who are
cursed to live in a city.
And how many apartment houses are there, with less than some 10km away from the city centre, where you live?
Close your eyes for a moment, and imagine this scenario:
A sales person comes up to your door and offers to install a tap in your garage that will deliver an unlimited amount of gas to you car, delivered from a non-profit company, that will only charge you the actual cost for production and delivery (ATM it's around $8/brl all over the world, believe it or not).
What would you be willing to pay for that installation?
If she tells you, that if you agree to an upgrade of your car, you can enjoy taps at an increasing amount of your supermarkets, city centres, workplaces as well as gas stations all along your road net.
What would you be willing to pay for that update?
A sales person comes up to your door and offers to install a tap in your garage that will deliver an unlimited amount of gas to you car, delivered from a non-profit company, that will only charge you the actual cost for production and delivery (ATM it's around $8/brl all over the world, believe it or not).
And also compared to how many miles an ICE engine will run until it needs to be replaced. The cost of that? Not worth it, just scrap the entire car, no? Since you are sure
How come you do not want to admit to how much your old ICE car
actually costs you every year? Have you even kept track of it.
I love you, Jeff, in a totally heterosexual way.
Shaun Buzza wrote to Dr. What <=-
No, sir. It is hydrogen that is 'explosive'. Except it isn't; it's just extremely flammable. A hydrogen 'explosion' cannot be compared to that
of ANFO or dynamite.
That makes perfect nonsense, which is what I would expect from anyone working for the government. (o_-)
Yep. As the old saying goes, "Curiosity killed the kid!" Or was that...cat?
Is that the system that, in addition to the cost of the Tesla car, you have to pay a monthly subscription fee to use.
Perhaps borErm, I'm willing to challenge that assertion.
otheabberation that makes one set appear to resemble the
not.fully functional pair of ovaries AND testes? I think
naturalFully functioning, maybe not, but hermaphrodites do
to oCome on, man! Don't be a Jeff (or a Ron, since I don't want
orgaJeffie). When I said 'no human is born with two sets of sex
functionality was very much implied!
fullySo if someone is born with one set, but that one set is not
seems likfunctional, they are of no gender? If ou can ignore a
non-fully-functional set when there's more than one set, it
is onyou should ignore that same non-fully-functional set when there
the one set.
Um...yes? Both are genetic abberations. And neither can effectively
procreate.
Then already you have 3 genders: male, female, and no-gender.
Clearly, this is a subject that we are not going to agree on. In this
case, I *do* believe in a 'black-and-white' definition. You're either
man or woman. Or genetic abberation, a different topic entirely.
I think you're already agreeing more than you intended to.
Not to mention the many times that the Good Book says 'Thou shalt notlie
with another man, and neither shall a woman lie with another woman.'
(except in porn...that's kinda hot! -McD)
Not everyone subscribes to the Bible, and of those that do, not everyone gives the laws of the Old Testament the same authority as the New, especially
in terms of bacon and shrimp. Or bacon-wrapped shrimp. Yow.
Like I have often reminded you, I am liberal on some things, and
conservative on others. In this case, I am...conservative? Liberal?
<o_O? Sometimes, I don't even know which is which!
Indeed, you sound a bit confused.
If you don't want to violate your God's laws, then don't violate your God's
laws. It's as simple as that. What makes you think that you've been put on this Earth to impose your God's laws on others?
Except, I know which side of the line you've placed yourself. And inthis
case, I fully disagree with you.
Not so much as you might think. We're up to 3 genders.
fullySo if someone is born with one set, but that one set is not
seems likfunctional, they are of no gender? If ou can ignore a
non-fully-functional set when there's more than one set, it
is onyou should ignore that same non-fully-functional set when there
the one set.
Um...yes? Both are genetic abberations. And neither can effectively
procreate.
Then already you have 3 genders: male, female, and no-gender.
Don't be silly. There are five sexes of man. Everybody knows that.
In case you (and others) don't, here they are -
I'll just hang on to my '98 Honda, for which I can easily find gas.
How much does it cost to fill it up nowadays?
How much did you spend on repair and service last year?
Last year I had to buy a new battery for it (about $35). The year before that, I changed the oil ($50).
It holds 15 gallons, I think. Since gas is just under $4 now, that would be
$60 to fill it from empty (or, if we take Lee's suggestion of limiting the range by filling it when it gets to a half tank and only filling it to 80% of a tank, it would be $18.
I love you, Jeff, in a totally heterosexual way.
Did you just assume his gender?
:)
Is that the system that, in addition to the cost of the Tesla car, yo have to pay a monthly subscription fee to use.
No. Either you buy it or you rent it.
'monthly subscription fee'...'rent'...isn't that the exact same? (o_O)
'monthly subscription fee'...'rent'...isn't that the exact same? (o_O
I guess that, if you think that a monthly subscription fee to Netflix is the exact same as renting Netflix, you may have a semantic point.
(0_-)
It's not semantic, you're being pedantic! (^_^)
I was kind of really only interested in cars that might be for sale
here. What they have in China is of zero interest to me. Besides, at that price, I picture something with the relibility of a Yugo.
It's not semantic, you're being pedantic! (^_^)
Probably. But then you probably know what they say about us Germanic people. It's probably something in our genes... (-_o)
Was that the third bottle of Abolut Vodka I owe you now? All
available for pick-up at an airport nearby ESGP (one click away from my home).
So if someone is born with one set, but that one set is not fully functional, they are of no gender? If ou can ignore a non-fully-functional set when there's more than one set, it seems like you should ignore that same non-fully-functional set when there is only the one set.
Also, genitalia are not the be-all-end-all of human sexuality. Human sexuality is a spectrum that often defies simple classification.
Then already you have 3 genders: male, female, and no-gender.
Incorrect. Male, female, and 'non-human'. Non-human is not a gender.
Please, I'm begging you, don't! I really don't like talking about this!
Not everyone subscribes to POLITICS, either. What's your point?
Speaking as a Christian, I really need to try bacon-wrapped shrimp, ASAP!
Mike needs to put a stop to this conversation! Religion is supposed to be taboo!
I love you, Jeff, in a totally heterosexual way.
Did you just assume his gender?
Whether it's "explosive" as in "can blow some fingers off" or "will blow you into little pieces", it's still dangerous.
If it makes you uncomfortable, you can feel free to drop it and not
answer any more of Jeff's queries about it. If if it a sensitive topic for you, you should probably ignore him when it comes to this topic.
So if someone is born with one set, but that one set is not fully functi they are of no gender? If ou can ignore a non-fully-functional set when there's more than one set, it seems like you should ignore that same non-fully-functional set when there is only the one set.
True.
Also, genitalia are not the be-all-end-all of human sexuality. Human sexuality is a spectrum that often defies simple classification.
Yes, but acceptance of this involves someone's feelings more than acceptance of biological science, which is something only right-leaning persons do, right?
genetiErm, I'm willing to challenge that assertion. Perhaps born with a
born witabberation that makes one set appear to resemble the other. But
fully functional pair of ovaries AND testes? I think not.
Fully functioning, maybe not, but hermaphrodites do naturally occur.
Come on, man! Don't be a Jeff (or a Ron, since I don't want to offend Jeffie). When I said 'no human is born with two sets of sex organs', functionality was very much implied!
Hermaphrodism is exactly what I said: a genetic abberation.
Same as in marijuana, same as in fruit flies. Too many X's, or not enough Y's, depending on which particular plant/animal (plantimal?).
These areAnd that's the bigger problem. "How dare you assume my gender!
tits, they're 'breasticles'!" [insert 'triggered' meme here]
listen?I did say 'don't get me started', didn't I? Why the F didn't you
(Q_Q)
I think we were already started into it. :)
I really do try to avoid this subject, Mike.
As a Christian, I have some pretty strong feelings about it (along with 'gender preference' in sex).
It's not like I *want* to piss everyone off, and I'm already pissing plenty
of people off without even mentioning this! (o_O)
AbsolIf a guy wants to wear a dress or a woman a suit, what's it to me?
pronouns,nothing. If a trans woman wants to be addressed using feminine
nothingtrans male using masculine pronouns, what's it to me? Absolutely
I really don't care, either, but I am basing that opinion on feelingsand
the belief that they are free to do what they want. My opinion hereis
completely without basis in biology, logic, or even politics orreligion.
I am willing to admit this. If I were a left-leaning person, basedon my
interactions with such people, I am guessing I would never be willingto
admit this.
Well said, and exactly how I feel, about this and many other topics. Let each
person choose for themself how they wish to live. In smaller terms, I am pro-choice...Lee...(o_O)
But, again, this isn't restricted to either side of the coin. There are just
as many close-minded conservatives as there are liberals. This is one reason
why I am...both? Neither? Not sure which of these apply...
Some people can be born with both.
Erm, I'm willing to challenge that assertion. Perhaps born with a genetic abberation that makes one set appear to resemble the other. But born with a
fully functional pair of ovaries AND testes? I think not.
Biology and physiology can be ignored by some when the science of"some"
"feelingsology" contradicts them. In this particular case, those
are not on the political right.
And that's the bigger problem. "How dare you assume my gender! These aren't
tits, they're 'breasticles'!" [insert 'triggered' meme here]
I did say 'don't get me started', didn't I? Why the F didn't you listen? (Q_Q)
Some people can be born with both.
Erm, I'm willing to challenge that assertion. Perhaps born with a genetic
abberation that makes one set appear to resemble the other. But born with
a
fully functional pair of ovaries AND testes? I think not.
Fully functioning, maybe not, but hermaphrodites do naturally occur.
Biology and physiology can be ignored by some when the science of
"feelingsology" contradicts them. In this particular case, those
"some"
are not on the political right.
And that's the bigger problem. "How dare you assume my gender! These
aren't
tits, they're 'breasticles'!" [insert 'triggered' meme here]
I did say 'don't get me started', didn't I? Why the F didn't youlisten? (Q_Q)
I think we were already started into it. :)
effectivelyUm...yes? Both are genetic abberations. And neither can
procreate.
Then already you have 3 genders: male, female, and no-gender.
Incorrect. Male, female, and 'non-human'. Non-human is not a gender. Please, I'm begging you, don't! I really don't like talking about this!
thisClearly, this is a subject that we are not going to agree on. In
eithercase, I *do* believe in a 'black-and-white' definition. You're
man or woman. Or genetic abberation, a different topic entirely.
I think you're already agreeing more than you intended to.
I think you're an a-hole. Neither of us is correct. (o_-)
shalt notNot to mention the many times that the Good Book says 'Thou
woman.'with another man, and neither shall a woman lie with another
(except in porn...that's kinda hot! -McD)
Not everyone subscribes to the Bible, and of those that do, noteveryone
gives the laws of the Old Testament the same authority as the New,Yow.
especially in terms of bacon and shrimp. Or bacon-wrapped shrimp.
Not everyone subscribes to POLITICS, either. What's your point?
Speaking as a Christian, I really need to try bacon-wrapped shrimp, ASAP!
You're either athiest, or agnostic, aren't you?
You literally have no idea where Judaism ends and Christianity begins.
Please restrict yourself to topics you actually know about in the future, just as I do.
Mike needs to put a stop to this conversation! Religion is supposed to be taboo!
But...until then...
Liberal?Like I have often reminded you, I am liberal on some things, and
conservative on others. In this case, I am...conservative?
<o_O? Sometimes, I don't even know which is which!
Indeed, you sound a bit confused. If you don't want to violate yourGod's
laws, then don't violate your God's laws. It's as simple as that.What
makes you think that you've been put on this Earth to impose yourGod's
laws on others?
Have I done so? Even when abortion came up, did I do so? I think not, but please correct me.
I'm a Christian, not a 'bible thumper'.
I literally do not care what anyone else believes.
Their beliefs do not affect my Gift!
And, clearly, my beliefs don't affect their sinful ways.
And that's okay!
Everyone was given that choice by God Himself!
Mike, please step in at any time!
I am really trying to be nice here, but Jeff is pushing buttons I would rather he didn;t...
I love you, Jeff, in a totally heterosexual way. But, please...don't...
This really is a sensitive subject for me...And religion has no place in this echo.
Please? Man to man: let this go, and don't bring it up again. Thank you in advance.
On 21 Mar 2022, Lee Lofaso said the following...
therefullySo if someone is born with one set, but that one set is not
seems likfunctional, they are of no gender? If ou can ignore a
non-fully-functional set when there's more than one set, it
you should ignore that same non-fully-functional set when
is on
the one set.
effectivelyUm...yes? Both are genetic abberations. And neither can
procreate.
Then already you have 3 genders: male, female, and no-gender.
Don't be silly. There are five sexes of man. Everybody knows that.
In case you (and others) don't, here they are -
The 3 wasn't intended to be a comprehensive list; it was simply a set of 3 on which we could agree, 3 being one more than the 2 which were previously stated as constituting the comprehensive list.
Mike needs to put a stop to this conversation! Religion is supposed to b taboo!
# You can discuss religion in here but no proselytizing (see the next
policy).
# No personal attacks against one's person, their family, or their beliefs. This goes with the policy above.
In the realm of how it influences one's politics, it is not taboo. So, "I don't believe in 'X' because it goes against my religious beliefs," that is completely OK. It is also OK for someone to question that stance. Now, if you were to start posting about how "we all need to convert to
'X' religion because 'Y,'" that crosses over into taboo behavior. So
does "You are a dummy if you do/don't believe in 'X' religion's
beliefs!" So, if you question someone's religion-based political
stance, you cannot call them names or insult their intelligence.
If it makes you uncomfortable, you can feel free to drop it and not
answer any more of Jeff's queries about it. If if it a sensitive topic for you, you should probably ignore him when it comes to this topic.
If it makes you uncomfortable, you can feel free to drop it and not answer any more of Jeff's queries about it. If if it a sensitive top for you, you should probably ignore him when it comes to this topic.
Agreed. However, I stopped replying to the conversation two requests ago.
Jeff Thiele wrote to Mike Powell <=-
Also, genitalia are not the be-all-end-all of human sexuality. Human sexuality is a spectrum that often defies simple classification.
Yes, but acceptance of this involves someone's feelings more than acceptance of biological science, which is something only right-leaning persons do, right?
One person's refusal to accept reality has absolutely no bearing on reality itself. It's rather widely established that human sexuality is
a spectrum and is not limited to heterosexuality for the purpose of procreation.
Lee Lofaso wrote to Shaun Buzza <=-
shalt notNot to mention the many times that the Good Book says 'Thou
woman.'with another man, and neither shall a woman lie with another
(except in porn...that's kinda hot! -McD)
Not everyone subscribes to the Bible, and of those that do, noteveryone
gives the laws of the Old Testament the same authority as the New,Yow.
especially in terms of bacon and shrimp. Or bacon-wrapped shrimp.
Jesus was not Christian. His father was not Christian. His mother
was not Christian. His closest friends and followers were not
Christian.
There is no evidence to support claims he traveled anywhere
outside the land of Palestine. It is doubtful he could read or write. Nobody knows who wrote the gospel accounts, as not many people in his
day could write. There is much to question what he said or taught.
You literally have no idea where Judaism ends and Christianity begins.
Jesus was Jewish. As was his mother. And father. And family.
And friends. And followers. None of them started a new religion.
Nor did they want to. So what do we have today? A false religion?
Whatever it is, it isn't what Jesus had in mind.
Indeed, you sound a bit confused. If you don't want to violate yourGod's
laws, then don't violate your God's laws. It's as simple as that.What
makes you think that you've been put on this Earth to impose yourGod's
laws on others?
Have I done so? Even when abortion came up, did I do so? I think not, but please correct me.
I'm a Christian, not a 'bible thumper'.
You don't even know what a Christian is, or is supposed to be.
I literally do not care what anyone else believes.
Vladimir Putin claims to be a Christian. He might even honestly
believe he is a Christian. But is he really and truly a Christian?
Their beliefs do not affect my Gift!
Adolf Hitler was a lifelong Catholic, and was never excommunicated
by the RCC. Not many Jews accepted his rule as being legitimate ...
God did not give Ukrainians a choice when Putin came knocking
on their door.
I personally believe
that God created man and woman in His image. I believe that is a hard fact.
Hello Al,
I'll just hang on to my '98 Honda, for which I can easily find gas.
How much does it cost to fill it up nowadays?
How much did you spend on repair and service last year?
Last year I had to buy a new battery for it (about $35). The year
before
that, I changed the oil ($50).
It holds 15 gallons, I think. Since gas is just under $4 now, that
would be
$60 to fill it from empty (or, if we take Lee's suggestion of limiting
the range by filling it when it gets to a half tank and only filling it
to 80% of a tank, it would be $18.
15 gallons at $4/gallon = $60
Miles per gallon = 25.7
Total number of miles on 15 gallons of gas = 385.5 Cost per mile = $0.15
Average miles per gallon equivalent for EVs = 97 Driving 100 miles = 34.7 kWh
Cost per mile = 0.347 kWh
In Louisiana, the cost of kWh = $0.09/kWh. The average cost in USA is $0.12 (still much cheaper than gas). That is about $8.73 for 385.5 miles for EV. Compared to $60 for gas, and even more for diesel, a real steal.
And at $5 per gallon for gas, it pays even more to go electric. So what
is there not to like?
'monthly subscription fee'...'rent'...isn't that the exact same? (o_O)
I guess that, if you think that a monthly subscription fee to Netflix is the exact same as renting Netflix, you may have a semantic point.
(0_-)
I was kind of really only interested in cars that might be for sale
here. What they have in China is of zero interest to me. Besides, at
that price, I picture something with the relibility of a Yugo.
So you don't know that the Wuling miniEV was the best selling GM EV
car in the world? While GM at home managed to sell 26 (yes not millions, not thousands, but single) cars in Q4 2021?
You see all those fashion models on runways and on television? Most of them are pseudo-hermaphrodites (with XY chromosomes) but with female anatomy. Some are declared female at birth, others as males. Almost all are raised as girls, and identify as girls. But technically, having XY chomosomes, they are male.
Then already you have 3 genders: male, female, and no-gender.
Incorrect. Male, female, and 'non-human'. Non-human is not a gender.
Please, I'm begging you, don't! I really don't like talking about this!
Calling them "non-human" means you are losing me here. They are human but not able to pro-create.
For the purpose of creative-activity, they are non-gendered.
Since it was not their choice, that means that either
science, nature, or God decided they should be that way.
Not everyone subscribes to POLITICS, either. What's your point?
Speaking as a Christian, I really need to try bacon-wrapped shrimp, ASAP!
Yes, you do indeed. I am trying to remember some other bacon-wrapped snack
that I had some of at a pot luck before the pandemic, but I cannot remember
what it was now!
Mike needs to put a stop to this conversation! Religion is supposed to be
taboo!
# You can discuss religion in here but no proselytizing (see the next
policy).
# No personal attacks against one's person, their family, or their beliefs.
This goes with the policy above.
In the realm of how it influences one's politics, it is not taboo. So, "I don't believe in 'X' because it goes against my religious beliefs," that is
completely OK. It is also OK for someone to question that stance. Now, if
you were to start posting about how "we all need to convert to 'X' religion
because 'Y,'" that crosses over into taboo behavior. So does "You are a dummy if you do/don't believe in 'X' religion's beliefs!" So, if you question someone's religion-based political stance, you cannot call them names or insult their intelligence.
If it makes you uncomfortable, you can feel free to drop it and not answer any more of Jeff's queries about it. If if it a sensitive topic for you, you should probably ignore him when it comes to this topic.
No names were called in the making of this thread. In my opinion, the "taboo"
problem arises when someone takes any criticism of their religion or religious beliefs as proselytization for atheism, which is not the intention
in my case.
If it makes you uncomfortable, you can feel free to drop it and not
answer any more of Jeff's queries about it. If if it a sensitive topic
for you, you should probably ignore him when it comes to this topic.
Agreed. However, I stopped replying to the conversation two requests ago.
One person's refusal to accept reality has absolutely no bearing on reality itself. It's rather widely established that human sexuality i a spectrum and is not limited to heterosexuality for the purpose of procreation.
I agree that reality is NOT at the whim of belief. I personally believe that God created man and woman in His image. I believe that is a hard fact. If I find out I'm wrong one day, then so be it, but it's the
Truth as I understand it.
If it makes you uncomfortable, you can feel free to drop it and answer any more of Jeff's queries about it. If if it a sensitiv for you, you should probably ignore him when it comes to this to
Agreed. However, I stopped replying to the conversation two requests
This is true. But it also begs the question, why not the first time?
(o_-)
Björn Felten wrote to Jimmy Anderson <=-
I personally believe
that God created man and woman in His image. I believe that is a hard fact.
You *do* know how crazy the above statement is? Your belief is a
hard fact? Based on what facts?
I personally believe
that God created man and woman in His image. I believe that is a hard fact.
You *do* know how crazy the above statement is? Your belief is a hard fact? Based on what facts?
"Is?" You're saying it's an incorrect statement?
I can't prove it with facts, but you also can't disprove it.
Honestly, because I thought you were joking. We were having a conversation, you brought a thing up, and when I replied to that thing, you flipped out, hard. Exclamation points and everything. It took a
little bit to figure out that you were being serious.
Oh, don't even get me started on that subject!
gas.I'll just hang on to my '98 Honda, for which I can easily find
How much does it cost to fill it up nowadays?
How much did you spend on repair and service last year?
Last year I had to buy a new battery for it (about $35). The year
before
that, I changed the oil ($50).
limitingIt holds 15 gallons, I think. Since gas is just under $4 now, that
would be
$60 to fill it from empty (or, if we take Lee's suggestion of
itthe range by filling it when it gets to a half tank and only filling
to 80% of a tank, it would be $18.
15 gallons at $4/gallon = $60$0.15
Miles per gallon = 25.7
Total number of miles on 15 gallons of gas = 385.5 Cost per mile =
Average miles per gallon equivalent for EVs = 97 Driving 100 miles =34.7
kWh
Cost per mile = 0.347 kWh
In Louisiana, the cost of kWh = $0.09/kWh. The average cost in USA ismiles
$0.12 (still much cheaper than gas). That is about $8.73 for 385.5
for EV. Compared to $60 for gas, and even more for diesel, a realsteal.
And at $5 per gallon for gas, it pays even more to go electric. Sowhat
is there not to like?
What's not to like? Maybe the fact that there's noplace close to my home to
charge it, or the fact that I would have to do a lot of research to see if a longer distance trip was even possible, or if I would have to re-route my
trip to be a series of tangential trips to available commercial charging stations, thereby greatly increasing the distance and time it would take to
get where I want to go.
Or, more basically, if it's 10 below, and I need the defroster, heater, headlights, and wipers, can I make it to even the closest city? If the answer is no, or even maybe, then I'm not in the least interested.
Is your 9 cents/kwh what commercial charging stations charge, or is that only what you pay for your household service?
You see all those fashion models on runways and on television? Most of
them are pseudo-hermaphrodites (with XY chromosomes) but with female
anatomy. Some are declared female at birth, others as males. Almost all
are raised as girls, and identify as girls. But technically, having XY
chomosomes, they are male.
I'm going to need to see your sources for this information, especially since
none of them display any secondary male attributes.
HumanAlso, genitalia are not the be-all-end-all of human sexuality.
sexuality is a spectrum that often defies simple classification.
Yes, but acceptance of this involves someone's feelings more thanright-leaning
acceptance of biological science, which is something only
persons do, right?
One person's refusal to accept reality has absolutely no bearing onis
reality itself. It's rather widely established that human sexuality
a spectrum and is not limited to heterosexuality for the purpose of
procreation.
I agree that reality is NOT at the whim of belief. I personally believe that God created man and woman in His image. I believe that is a hard fact. If I find out I'm wrong one day, then so be it, but it's the
Truth as I understand it.
shalt notNot to mention the many times that the Good Book says 'Thou
woman.'with another man, and neither shall a woman lie with another
(except in porn...that's kinda hot! -McD)
Not everyone subscribes to the Bible, and of those that do, not
everyone
gives the laws of the Old Testament the same authority as the New,
especially in terms of bacon and shrimp. Or bacon-wrapped shrimp.
Yow.
Sadly, this is very true... Something we've been talking about in
church lately is people saying, "well, we all sin," as if that's
a reason in and of itself to excuse whatever you are doing. True repentance is to admin, then turn away from it, then STAY turned
away from it.
Jesus was not Christian. His father was not Christian. His mother
was not Christian. His closest friends and followers were not
Christian.
Christian is a term derived later - means Christ-like,
or to put it more bluntly, to TRY and follow His teachings. WWJD and
all that.
But yeah, they were Jews.
There is no evidence to support claims he traveled anywhere
outside the land of Palestine. It is doubtful he could read or write.
Nobody knows who wrote the gospel accounts, as not many people in his
day could write. There is much to question what he said or taught.
Choosing to believe the Word or not is a personal thing. The only 'evidence' I need I take on faith, and of course it's not up to
me to 'prove' it to you or anyone else. :-) The Holy Spirit calls
one to repentance.
You literally have no idea where Judaism ends and Christianity begins.
Jesus was Jewish. As was his mother. And father. And family.
And friends. And followers. None of them started a new religion.
Nor did they want to. So what do we have today? A false religion?
Whatever it is, it isn't what Jesus had in mind.
Well, I personally disagree. :-)
Indeed, you sound a bit confused. If you don't want to violate your
God's
laws, then don't violate your God's laws. It's as simple as that.
What
makes you think that you've been put on this Earth to impose your
God's
laws on others?
Have I done so? Even when abortion came up, did I do so? I think not,but
please correct me.
I don't see how being anti-abortion imposes God's laws on others... This country was built on freedom, but also built on Christianity. Abortion
is murder, which is supposed to be illegal, both God's laws AND the laws of this country, but that has been changed.
Supporting representatives that share your belief is not imposing God's law, it's 'imposing' majority rule. Sometimes that is for God's law, and most of the time it's against it...
I still remember when stores closed on Sunday around here. Not any more!
I'm a Christian, not a 'bible thumper'.
Bible Thumper - LOL - haven't heard that in a while. I've always seen
that as a derogotory term. :-)
You don't even know what a Christian is, or is supposed to be.
I literally do not care what anyone else believes.
Amen, brother. I agree mostly. I do care, in the sense that I don't
want to see anyone face the Wrath, but others don't have to believe
what I believe.
I'm reminded of what Morpheus said when Locke said, "not everyone
believes as you do." He answered, "my beliefs don't require them
to." :-)
Vladimir Putin claims to be a Christian. He might even honestly
believe he is a Christian. But is he really and truly a Christian?
Could be - not for me to say. Christians can do right or wrong, and
can be affected by angels or demons...
Their beliefs do not affect my Gift!
Again, amen. :-)
Adolf Hitler was a lifelong Catholic, and was never excommunicated
by the RCC. Not many Jews accepted his rule as being legitimate ...
Not every Christian accepts the RCC as 'Christian.'
God did not give Ukrainians a choice when Putin came knocking
on their door.
Are the Ukranians really that much different than Putin?
onOne person's refusal to accept reality has absolutely no bearing
sexuality ireality itself. It's rather widely established that human
ofa spectrum and is not limited to heterosexuality for the purpose
procreation.
I agree that reality is NOT at the whim of belief. I personallybelieve
that God created man and woman in His image. I believe that is a hard
fact. If I find out I'm wrong one day, then so be it, but it's the
Truth as I understand it.
First of all, great! Believe what you want to believe, but understand that others may have different beliefs and your beliefs don't trump theirs simply
because you believe yours to be "the Truth."
Secondly, when talking about gender, doesn't it seem a little absurd to hear
yourself saying, "I personally believe that God created man and woman in His
image?" How many sets of genitalia do you suppose God has? Why does He even
need them? With whom does He procreate (except for that one time, but as far
as we know no genitalia were involved)? If we use the pronoun "He," do we then
assume that He is male,with male genitalia? How, then, did He create women in
His image?
Secondly, when talking about gender, doesn't it seem a little absurd hear
yourself saying, "I personally believe that God created man and woman His
image?" How many sets of genitalia do you suppose God has? Why does H even
need them? With whom does He procreate (except for that one time, but far
as we know no genitalia were involved)? If we use the pronoun "He," d then
assume that He is male,with male genitalia? How, then, did He create in
His image?
Don't you get it, man? God is a true hermaphrodite.
And Jesus was His/Her only begotten Son, born of a Virgin.
Oh my ...
Last year I had to buy a new battery for it (about $35). The year
before that, I changed the oil ($50).
Yes, but acceptance of this involves someone's feelings more than acceptance of biological science, which is something only right-leaning persons do, right?
One person's refusal to accept reality has absolutely no bearing on reality itself. It's rather widely established that human sexuality is a spectrum and is not limited to heterosexuality for the purpose of procreation.
No names were called in the making of this thread. In my opinion, the "taboo" problem arises when someone takes any criticism of their religion or religious beliefs as proselytization for atheism, which is not the intention in my case.
If it makes you uncomfortable, you can feel free to drop it and not answer any more of Jeff's queries about it. If if it a sensitive topic for you, you should probably ignore him when it comes to this topic.
Agreed. However, I stopped replying to the conversation two requests ago.
Yes, but acceptance of this involves someone's feelings more than acceptance of biological science, which is something only right-lea persons do, right?
One person's refusal to accept reality has absolutely no bearing on real itself. It's rather widely established that human sexuality is a spectru is not limited to heterosexuality for the purpose of procreation.
Widely extablished by the science of feelingsology? I never said it was limited to heterosexuality or procreation, by the way. But someone's sexual preference is not their gender nor their sex. So a homosexual man is still a man, for gender purposes, just as is a
hetero/homo/bi/nonsexual man who decides he likes to wear women's
clothes.
Meanwhile, a man who claims his "gender" is being attracted to kids
should be a man in jail, but he is still a (bad) man.
<squak> refusal to accept reality <squak> refusal to accept reality <squak>.
No names were called in the making of this thread. In my opinion, the "t problem arises when someone takes any criticism of their religion or religious beliefs as proselytization for atheism, which is not the inten in my case.
If it makes you uncomfortable, you can feel free to drop it and not answer any more of Jeff's queries about it. If if it a sensitive t for you, you should probably ignore him when it comes to this topic
Agreed. However, I stopped replying to the conversation two requests ago
Yeah, you all seemed to be conversing a lot in the 24 hours between the last time I read anything, so I was no doubt behind. Since I was asked
to step in I wanted to point out the rules in question and why they had not (yet) apparently be broken.
<squak> refusal to accept reality <squak> refusal to accept reality <squak>.
absurdSecondly, when talking about gender, doesn't it seem a little
womanhear
yourself saying, "I personally believe that God created man and
does HHis
image?" How many sets of genitalia do you suppose God has? Why
time, buteven
need them? With whom does He procreate (except for that one
"He," dfar
as we know no genitalia were involved)? If we use the pronoun
createthen
assume that He is male,with male genitalia? How, then, did He
in
His image?
Don't you get it, man? God is a true hermaphrodite.
And Jesus was His/Her only begotten Son, born of a Virgin.
Oh my ...
That's one possibility. However, it fails the "in His own image" test. If God
is a hermaphrodite and we aren't, then clearly we were not made in His image.
"In his own image" is all well and good while we're talking about arms and legs and ears and nostrils, but it definitely falls apart when it comes to genitalia. And tits. Does God have tits? Maybe just one tit, like an Amazon?
Lee Lofaso wrote to Jimmy Anderson <=-
What does God look like?
Have you seen the face of God?
Please. Tell me. I really want to know. Draw me a picture.
Or paint me an image of His face. Does He really have a
beard? Is that dude on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel
really God Himself? And who says God is a He?
For all we know, God could be some kind of Holy Cockroach.
Lee Lofaso wrote to Jimmy Anderson <=-
Jesus was not Christian. His father was not Christian. His mother
was not Christian. His closest friends and followers were not
Christian.
Christian is a term derived later - means Christ-like,
or to put it more bluntly, to TRY and follow His teachings. WWJD and
all that.
His teachings were rejected. By his own people. Jews rarely read
the New Testament, or even menition his name. It is considered taboo.
But yeah, they were Jews.
Two different religions. Jews look backwards to a world that was. Christians look forwards to a world they hope might be.
There is no evidence to support claims he traveled anywhere
outside the land of Palestine. It is doubtful he could read or write.
Nobody knows who wrote the gospel accounts, as not many people in his
day could write. There is much to question what he said or taught.
Choosing to believe the Word or not is a personal thing. The only 'evidence' I need I take on faith, and of course it's not up to
me to 'prove' it to you or anyone else. :-) The Holy Spirit calls
one to repentance.
To believe is to doubt. And one must doubt to believe. It cannot be
any other way. Jesus does not believe in God. He knows he is God. At
least that is what he claimed. Which is why many in his day thought
he was total bonkers.
I don't see how being anti-abortion imposes God's laws on others... This country was built on freedom, but also built on Christianity. Abortion
is murder, which is supposed to be illegal, both God's laws AND the laws of this country, but that has been changed.
There is nothing in Judaism that condemns abortion. Jesus never
condemned any woman who had an abortion, or considered getting an abortion. So why should Christians condemn what Jews do not?
What are God's laws? A group of men ganged up on a woman fixing
to stone her. Jesus stopped them in their tracks and challenged
them, first by drawing a few lines in the sand,
then by saying
"Let the man without sin throw the first stone!" Almost all of
them dropped their stones and walked away. The few stragglers
needed a bit more convincing, so Jesus drew a few more lines and
they all went away after that.
What did the woman do? She was with another woman. Had she been
with a man who was not her husband it would have been okay for
others to stone her. But since she was a woman with another woman,
then it stands to reason everything was okay. It is all explained
in the Book of Leviticus, which is part of the Torah.
A Jewish rabbi explained it to me some time ago. It really wasn't
so much about religion, but rather what women want.
Supporting representatives that share your belief is not imposing God's law, it's 'imposing' majority rule. Sometimes that is for God's law, and most of the time it's against it...
There is also tyranny of the minority, when a small group holds
the majority hostage. Such as when a group of Republican Senators
keep a Democratic President's nomination for USSC justice from
even getting a hearing.
I still remember when stores closed on Sunday around here. Not any more!
Blue Laws still exist in some parts. Mostly in the South.
I'm a Christian, not a 'bible thumper'.
Bible Thumper - LOL - haven't heard that in a while. I've always seen
that as a derogotory term. :-)
Have you ever attended Mass in an RCC church? Every part of the
Mass (except for one line) is taken directly from the Bible.
You don't even know what a Christian is, or is supposed to be.
I literally do not care what anyone else believes.
Amen, brother. I agree mostly. I do care, in the sense that I don't
want to see anyone face the Wrath, but others don't have to believe
what I believe.
I care very much what others believe. If Vladimir Putin is truly
a madman, we should all care very much what he believes.
Vladimir Putin claims to be a Christian. He might even honestly
believe he is a Christian. But is he really and truly a Christian?
Could be - not for me to say. Christians can do right or wrong, and
can be affected by angels or demons...
You do realize angels do not have wings. Just look at the ceiling
of the Sistine Chapel. None of those angels have any wings. As for
demons, those are really dragons in disguise ...
Widely extablished by the science of feelingsology? I never said it was limited to heterosexuality or procreation, by the way. But someone's sexual preference is not their gender nor their sex. So a homosexual man
is still a man, for gender purposes, just as is a hetero/homo/bi/nonsexual man who decides he likes to wear women's clothes.
Things are not so cut and dry when you consider a person's gender identity, which may differ from your definition of gender.
Meanwhile, a man who claims his "gender" is being attracted to kids should be a man in jail, but he is still a (bad) man.
Not necessarily. It depends on whether he acts on it or not. And the same for a woman who is attracted to kids. You are assuming that he can can control his thoughts, which he may not be able to, and those thoughts don't necessarily make him "bad." But he should be able to control his actions, or he should be removed from society.
How would you like to be judged by every thought you ever had?
<squak> refusal to accept reality <squak> refusal to accept reality <squak>.
How did Ron get in here?
<squak> refusal to accept reality <squak> refusal to accept reality <squak>.
Heh heh heh...Before Jeff gets the chance, it's 'squawk'. (o_-)
What does God look like?
Impossible to describe with human terms, I think.
Have you seen the face of God?
No.
Please. Tell me. I really want to know. Draw me a picture.
Can't do it - won't try.
Or paint me an image of His face. Does He really have a
beard? Is that dude on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel
really God Himself? And who says God is a He?
LOL - that is someone's interpretation and representation, just
like the convict that has come to be known as what Jesus
looked like.
For all we know, God could be some kind of Holy Cockroach.
I don't think so, because man is not in the image of a cockroach.
The bible says God is the great I Am, and that He made man and
woman in His image. I don't think that's a direct 'carbon copy'
of what He looks like, but is an earthly representation of the
form or type of presence.
I also beleive we have a soul and that one day when I go to
Heaven I'll have a glorified body that will never age or die.
Another way of looking at it is I don't look like a carbon
copy of my earthly father, but I have some of his physical
traits, as do my sons of me, so in a sense we are all in
the image of our own father, but not a picture perfect
copy.
Jesus was not Christian. His father was not Christian. His mother
was not Christian. His closest friends and followers were not
Christian.
Christian is a term derived later - means Christ-like,
or to put it more bluntly, to TRY and follow His teachings. WWJD and
all that.
His teachings were rejected. By his own people. Jews rarely read
the New Testament, or even menition his name. It is considered taboo.
Not by all. The Apostles, for example, were Jewish and they believed,
but again not ALL beleived, and not all that hear about Him today
believe.
But yeah, they were Jews.
Two different religions. Jews look backwards to a world that was.
Christians look forwards to a world they hope might be.
Not sure I follow your point...
There is no evidence to support claims he traveled anywhere
outside the land of Palestine. It is doubtful he could read or write.
Nobody knows who wrote the gospel accounts, as not many people in his
day could write. There is much to question what he said or taught.
Choosing to believe the Word or not is a personal thing. The only
'evidence' I need I take on faith, and of course it's not up to
me to 'prove' it to you or anyone else. :-) The Holy Spirit calls
one to repentance.
To believe is to doubt. And one must doubt to believe. It cannot be
any other way. Jesus does not believe in God. He knows he is God. At
least that is what he claimed. Which is why many in his day thought
he was total bonkers.
Please clarify what you mean. Are you saying that I doubt because I say
I believe? I could just as easily say "I know that I am a Christian and that Jesus died for my sins," but I choose to say I beleive so that I
can still communicate with non-believers. To say "I know it even though you say it's not true" might shut the door on someone hearing what I
have to say.
I don't see how being anti-abortion imposes God's laws on others...This
country was built on freedom, but also built on Christianity.Abortion
is murder, which is supposed to be illegal, both God's laws AND thelaws
of this country, but that has been changed.
There is nothing in Judaism that condemns abortion. Jesus never
condemned any woman who had an abortion, or considered getting an
abortion. So why should Christians condemn what Jews do not?
So murder is okay then, since 'abortion' is not listed as a sin?
Then let me go murder someone and call it, oh, I don't know, a
clensing of the street. That makes it okay?
What are God's laws? A group of men ganged up on a woman fixing
to stone her. Jesus stopped them in their tracks and challenged
them, first by drawing a few lines in the sand,
I heard a preacher say he thinks that Jesus might have been writing
the 10 commandments in the dirt, so they could all see that they themselves are not 'free from sin.'
then by saying
"Let the man without sin throw the first stone!" Almost all of
them dropped their stones and walked away. The few stragglers
needed a bit more convincing, so Jesus drew a few more lines and
they all went away after that.
What did the woman do? She was with another woman. Had she been
with a man who was not her husband it would have been okay for
others to stone her. But since she was a woman with another woman,
then it stands to reason everything was okay. It is all explained
in the Book of Leviticus, which is part of the Torah.
I have never read where she was with a woman...
John 8 says, in the King James, she was 'taken in adultery, in the very act.'
Verse 5 says Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?
So where in this story is 'everything okay?' Jesus forgave her, He
didn't tell her it was okay and 'not wrong.'
Verse 7 - And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee:
go, and sin no more.
Note He does NOT say, "it's okay, it wasn't wrong." No, He FORGIVES
her for what she did.
A Jewish rabbi explained it to me some time ago. It really wasn't
so much about religion, but rather what women want.
Supporting representatives that share your belief is not imposing God's
law, it's 'imposing' majority rule. Sometimes that is for God's law, and
most of the time it's against it...
There is also tyranny of the minority, when a small group holds
the majority hostage. Such as when a group of Republican Senators
keep a Democratic President's nomination for USSC justice from
even getting a hearing.
Even then, regardless of which side of the aisle it's on, it should be representative of the people. If you don't like what your representative is doing, replace them!
I still remember when stores closed on Sunday around here. Not any more!
Blue Laws still exist in some parts. Mostly in the South.
I'm in the south... nothing around here like that! And people laugh
about Chick Fil A and Hobby Lobby not opening on Sunday... Not so much
any more, but they used to...
I'm a Christian, not a 'bible thumper'.
Bible Thumper - LOL - haven't heard that in a while. I've always seen
that as a derogotory term. :-)
Have you ever attended Mass in an RCC church? Every part of the
Mass (except for one line) is taken directly from the Bible.
No, I have not, to answer your question.
You don't even know what a Christian is, or is supposed to be.
Enlighten me on your belief then.
I literally do not care what anyone else believes.
Amen, brother. I agree mostly. I do care, in the sense that I don't
want to see anyone face the Wrath, but others don't have to believe
what I believe.
I care very much what others believe. If Vladimir Putin is truly
a madman, we should all care very much what he believes.
If he's not a madman then it doesn't matter what he believes?
I meant more specifically people that I talk to. Obviously I care about what other people believe if they believer that it's okay to hurt me
or my family, or hurt children, or kill babies. But WHY they believe
it? I don't lose sleep over that... Each person is ultimately responsible for
their own actions.
Vladimir Putin claims to be a Christian. He might even honestly
believe he is a Christian. But is he really and truly a Christian?
Could be - not for me to say. Christians can do right or wrong, and
can be affected by angels or demons...
You do realize angels do not have wings. Just look at the ceiling
of the Sistine Chapel. None of those angels have any wings. As for
demons, those are really dragons in disguise ...
I've not seen an angel 'in the flesh,' so to speak. They may have wing
and they may not. Not something I'm privy to. I beleive they have the ability to travel anywhere they want, so I know they don't need
'wings of a bird' to fly.
Dragon is another term for Satan, a fallen angel.
Things are not so cut and dry when you consider a person's gender identi which may differ from your definition of gender.
How this discussion started was that one of us claimed it was predominantly people on the right that had beliefs based on feelings and not logic or science. "Gender identity," if it is different than "gender," is not based on logic or science but on a person's feelings
and others accepting those feelings. It is a belief that is very predominantly held by non-right people, nor is it held by a small group
of them.
As I mentioned before, my belief is that it is for the most part their business, but that belief is not based on science. It is based on my feelings about personal freedom.
Meanwhile, a man who claims his "gender" is being attracted to kids should be a man in jail, but he is still a (bad) man.
Not necessarily. It depends on whether he acts on it or not. And the sam a woman who is attracted to kids. You are assuming that he can can contr his thoughts, which he may not be able to, and those thoughts don't necessarily make him "bad." But he should be able to control his actions he should be removed from society.
How would you like to be judged by every thought you ever had?
My assumption is that we are talking people who have a "gender identity" and actually openly pursue that identity. So, we are not talking a Thought Police situation here.
<squak> refusal to accept reality <squak> refusal to accept reality <squak>.
How did Ron get in here?
I don't remember Ron being the one that immitates a parrot. :)
How this discussion started was that one of us claimed it was predominantly people on the right that had beliefs based on feelings and not logic or science. "Gender identity," if it is different than "gender," is not based on logic or science but on a person's feelings and others accepting those feelings. It is a belief that is very predominantly held by non-right people, nor is it held by a small group of them.
Inasmuch as science is the study of observed phenomenon, gender identity is very much based on science.
Inasmuch as science is the study of observed phenomenon, gender identity very much based on science.
You could use that logic to make a lot of beliefs "science based," even conservative beliefs that you would otherwise point to as "detached from reality," so I would be careful using that as your proof.
Inasmuch as science is the study of observed phenomenon, gender identit
very much based on science.
You could use that logic to make a lot of beliefs "science based," even conservative beliefs that you would otherwise point to as "detached from reality," so I would be careful using that as your proof.
Conservative beliefs that are "detached from reality" are not the study of observed phenomenon, since they seek to prove a pre-determined outcome rather than follow where the science leads them.
Conservative beliefs that are "detached from reality" are not the study observed phenomenon, since they seek to prove a pre-determined outcome r than follow where the science leads them.
Which is the same thing I would say about multiple gender identities that break away from biological gender. Most people I know who believe that are not basing it on following any science or observing any phenomenon. They are basing it on what they are told by people who share their political beliefs.
Which is the same thing I would say about multiple gender identities that
break away from biological gender. Most people I know who believe that are not basing it on following any science or observing any phenomenon. They are basing it on what they are told by people who share their political beliefs.
Humans espousing different sexualities and gender identities *are* observed phenomenon. The study of these phenomena is done primarily by psychiatrists, as in: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-d
sphoria
Humans espousing different sexualities and gender identities *are* obser phenomenon. The study of these phenomena is done primarily by psychiatri as in:
https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-ge sphoria
But yet if I were to espouse an opinion that these people need
psychiatric or psycological assistance, what would your response be?
What if someone were to take it a step farther and suggest that they need treatment to the point where their psychiatric issue is not noticable to others? That is what is often done with persons with other psychiatric disorders.
Even then, your response does not address my original point... there may be science behind it, but most people who believe in it, and that it is something we all need to be touchy-feely about, are doing so solely based on their political beliefs and/or feelings. There are probably some things that conservatives believe, which can be proven by science, but
you and I both know that is not why they believe them. The same is true of left-leaning people... the difference being that their beliefs are less-likely to be religion-based, and more likely to be feelings-based or politically-based (vs. religion-based).
Humans espousing different sexualities and gender identities *are* obse
phenomenon. The study of these phenomena is done primarily by psychiatr
as in:
https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-g
sphoria
But yet if I were to espouse an opinion that these people need psychiatric or psycological assistance, what would your response be?
I would defer to the psychiatric and psychological professionals, much as I did in presenting the link above.
Gender dysphoria is defined in the DSM-5 as causing "clinically significant distress." Sounds like they should seek assistance, if they are truly gender dysphoric.
However, as we've been talking about people who believe in multiple, and fluid, genders, I don't think that is what we are talking about. Gender dysphoric people believe they were born into the wrong gendered body at birth. Multiple gender believers believe it is a "gender" when people
are sexually attracted to, or identify as, things that would not have
been biologically possible for the person to have been born as.
Gender nonconformity, which is what that is, is not the same as gender dysphoria.
Gender nonconformity can include people who are gender dysphoric, but can also include people who have confused their sexual orientation as their gender and/or want their sexual orientation to be treated as their
gender, or that simply don't want to be labeled. This is where the fluidity comes in as, for example, if one is attracted to/identifies as
a male, female, and some other nonhuman being/object, they may identify
as that orientation, and mislabel it as their "gender," differently depending on what they are feeling at that moment.
People who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria have a geniune medical diagnosis. People who are self-diagnosed with gender dysphoria, people who are gender nonconformist, people who mislabel their non-binary sexual orientation/identiy as a "gender," and people who feel like they should
be able to go to work dressed as they would to a cos-play or furry convention, may or may not have a genuine, scientific medical condition.
I may "feel" like my gender is a potato, and that my pronouns are "tater/tater," but there is no biological, psycological, physiological,
or psychiatric scientific proof. Now, yeah, maybe you could observe it, and call it "science," but you would have to stretch into the social sciences, which are all about feelings.
On 03-31-22 17:18, Shaun Buzza <=-
spoke to Mike Powell about Re: Feelings-based belief <=-
How the fudge is this topic still continuing? (Q_Q)
identitInasmuch as science is the study of observed phenomenon, gender
very much based on science.
You could use that logic to make a lot of beliefs "science based,"
even
conservative beliefs that you would otherwise point to as "detached
from
reality," so I would be careful using that as your proof.
Conservative beliefs that are "detached from reality" are not the study of
observed phenomenon, since they seek to prove a pre-determined outcome
rather
than follow where the science leads them.
Which is the same thing I would say about multiple gender identities that break away from biological gender.
Most people I know who believe that are not basing it on following any science or observing any phenomenon.
They are basing it on what they are told by people who share their political
beliefs.
identities thatWhich is the same thing I would say about multiple gender
break away from biological gender. Most people I know who believe
that
are not basing it on following any science or observing any
phenomenon.
They are basing it on what they are told by people who share their
political beliefs.
Humans espousing different sexualities and gender identities *are*
observed
phenomenon. The study of these phenomena is done primarily by
psychiatrists,
as in:
https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-d
sphoria
But yet if I were to espouse an opinion that these people need psychiatric or psycological assistance, what would your response be?
What if someone were to take it a step farther and suggest that they need treatment to the point where their psychiatric issue is not noticable to others? That is what is often done with persons with other psychiatric disorders.
Even then, your response does not address my original point... there may be
science behind it, but most people who believe in it, and that it is something we all need to be touchy-feely about, are doing so solely based on their political beliefs and/or feelings.
There are probably some things that conservatives believe, which can be proven by science, but you and I both know that is not why they believe them.
How the fudge is this topic still continuing? (Q_Q)
Gender dysphoria is defined in the DSM-5 as causing "clinically significant distress." Sounds like they should seek assistance, if they are truly gender dysphoric.
They probably should. And their state governor should not send CPS to their home if their parents allow them access to such assistance.
However, as we've been talking about people who believe in multiple, and fluid, genders, I don't think that is what we are talking about. Gender dysphoric people believe they were born into the wrong gendered body at birth. Multiple gender believers believe it is a "gender" when people are sexually attracted to, or identify as, things that would not have been biologically possible for the person to have been born as.
They are related, in that a person is not comfortable with the gender roles that society imposes on them. If gender dysphoria exists, then it would follow that gender is fluid.
They are related, in that a person is not comfortable with the gender roles that society imposes on them.
They are people who don't want to be labelled as the gender that a largely conservative society imposes on them. There are instances in nature of living things having more than two, and in some cases thousands, of genders, and also instances of living things that can change gender after having been born.
People who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria have a geniune medical diagnosis. People who are self-diagnosed with gender dysphoria, people who are gender nonconformist, people who mislabel their non-binary sexual
orientation/identiy as a "gender," and people who feel like they should be able to go to work dressed as they would to a cos-play or furry convention, may or may not have a genuine, scientific medical condition.
The furry thing is a red herring. Conservatives have even falsely claimed, with an entirely straight face, that schools are installing litter boxes for kids who identify as "furries."
However, until the people you describe have been diagnosed with a genuine, scientific medical condition, I don't think we should treat them as if they have been. Decades ago, women wearing pantsuits to work was a horrendous upheaval of societal gender expectations, but now it's no big deal.
I may "feel" like my gender is a potato, and that my pronouns are "tater/tater," but there is no biological, psycological, physiological, or psychiatric scientific proof. Now, yeah, maybe you could observe it, and call it "science," but you would have to stretch into the social sciences, which are all about feelings.
I'm not sure that "potato" is a gender, but if you're attracted to them then more power to you, I guess.
How the fudge is this topic still continuing? (Q_Q)
You are the one that wanted traffic. :)
We seem to be keeping it civil so far.
Gender dysphoria is defined in the DSM-5 as causing "clinically significant distress." Sounds like they should seek assistance, if are truly gender dysphoric.
They probably should. And their state governor should not send CPS to th home if their parents allow them access to such assistance.
On the surface, that sounds like a waste of money (sending CPS in).
OTOH, there are some whack jobs that have likely caused "gender
dysphoria" in their children, either by being overly strict in
suppressing anything they see as a behavior a kid of that gender should not do, OR by deciding that, since they have two boys, one should be a "girl" and the parent decides which one.
So maybe, if the kid is under 18 and gives some indication that the parents may be causing the "clinically significant distress," they
should at least visit once to determine that the kid is not dysphoric
due to things done to them against their will/knowledge.
I suspect you are referring to governors doing that for other reasons
that I am not aware of.
They are related, in that a person is not comfortable with the gender ro that society imposes on them. If gender dysphoria exists, then it would follow that gender is fluid.
Gender dysphoria, again, usually involves people who believe they are
sex A trapped inside the body of sex B, and are clinically significantly distressed as a result. Anyone I have known of who believes that, dysphoric or not, are not fluid in that belief, i.e. they don't go from believing they are male to female to "other gender(s)" and back. They believe they are physically A and mentally/emotionally B and stick with it.
They are related, in that a person is not comfortable with the gender ro that society imposes on them.
Gender roles <> gender. If I don't like my male gender roles, and chose not to accept them, I am still male-gendered but am not observing traditional male roles. Not observing those socially-defined roles does not change my gender. And since gender ROLES are socially-defined, they are (mostly) not restricted by biology or physiology.
Expanding to multiple genders is some way of trying to legitimize non-traditional behaviors that, so long as they are not interfering with the lives or rights of others, should probably not need that much legitimizing.
They are people who don't want to be labelled as the gender that a large conservative society imposes on them. There are instances in nature of l things having more than two, and in some cases thousands, of genders, an also instances of living things that can change gender after having beenborn.
What other genders, besides male, female, both, and non-gendered, do
these 1000-gendered beings have?
I am aware that some beings, including humans, are born with characteristics of both, and that other beings can change from male to female to non and (maybe) both. At most, that is four. Humans are not able to change their biological gender (on their own) as those beings
can.
The furry thing is a red herring. Conservatives have even falsely claime with an entirely straight face, that schools are installing litter boxes kids who identify as "furries."
I have actually never heard that false-sounding claim, re: litter boxes for furry kids. I am talking about adults and was being quasi-facetious (but not entirely).
However, until the people you describe have been diagnosed with a genuin scientific medical condition, I don't think we should treat them as if t have been. Decades ago, women wearing pantsuits to work was a horrendous upheaval of societal gender expectations, but now it's no big deal.
Well, that actually brings me to a point. A woman wearing a pant-suit does not assume a new gender. At that time, she was going against society's view of normal gender behavior, but she is still female-gendered.
If one were to assert to a woman that they were no longer a woman for wearing such an outfit, or while wearing one, I would not want to
witness the results. I doubt either of us would make such a mistake. I prefer not to have the snot slapped out of me, or to be verbally abused, for making such an error.
I may "feel" like my gender is a potato, and that my pronouns are "tater/tater," but there is no biological, psycological, physiologi or psychiatric scientific proof. Now, yeah, maybe you could observ and call it "science," but you would have to stretch into the socia sciences, which are all about feelings.
I'm not sure that "potato" is a gender, but if you're attracted to them more power to you, I guess.
If there are multiple genders, defined by whatever one wants to imagine for themselves, you have to accept that potato could be one of them. Based on your response, you are making the common mistake that sexual attraction/ orientation = gender, which it does not.
It's a political move to ingratiate himself with conservatives, nothing more. We've got Allen West and others trying to primary Abbott, and he's got to woo that ultra-conservative crowd if he wants to remain governor.
I suspect you are referring to governors doing that for other reasons that I am not aware of.
Nope. He's doing it for the very reason I laid out. There was even an article about a family that invited him to dinner so that he could see that they were normal people and discuss the situation with them. They got CPS called on them.
Gender dysphoria, again, usually involves people who believe they are sex A trapped inside the body of sex B, and are clinically significantly distressed as a result. Anyone I have known of who believes that, dysphoric or not, are not fluid in that belief, i.e. they don't go from believing they are male to female to "other gender(s)" and back. They believe they are physically A and mentally/emotionally B and stick with it.
It is fluid in that the gender they identify with may not be the gender their physical gender.
xample).They are related, in that a person is not comfortable with the gender
that society imposes on them.
Gender roles <> gender. If I don't like my male gender roles, and chose not to accept them, I am still male-gendered but am not observing traditional male roles. Not observing those socially-defined roles does not change my gender. And since gender ROLES are socially-defined, they are (mostly) not restricted by biology or physiology.
Mmm, not so much. It can definitely cause friction that would not be there if there were not rigid gender roles (such as who can wear a dress, for
Expanding to multiple genders is some way of trying to legitimize non-traditional behaviors that, so long as they are not interfering with the lives or rights of others, should probably not need that much legitimizing.
I think you're right that it's at least partially due to that friction. So
to a certain degree, in trying to stop it conservative society is actually encouraging it.
argThey are people who don't want to be labelled as the gender that a
eeconservative society imposes on them. There are instances in nature of things having more than two, and in some cases thousands, of genders,
also instances of living things that can change gender after having
born.
What other genders, besides male, female, both, and non-gendered, do these 1000-gendered beings have?
I have no idea. I have difficulty wrapping my mind around fungal spores that apparently have 20,000 genders (not all, I don't think; just particular species). I am comfortable with my gender and have never explored other possibilities. I'm not really a hyper-aggressive, testosterone-fueled, "macho" example of my gender, nor do I wish to be, but I'm comfortable with who I am.
I am aware that some beings, including humans, are born with characteristics of both, and that other beings can change from male to female to non and (maybe) both. At most, that is four. Humans are not able to change their biological gender (on their own) as those beings can.
We are not, that we know of. That's not to say that we can, but I believe that the science indicates that those creatures which are capable of it do not do it on a whim, but that it is triggered by environmental stressors. Perhaps we're just not stressed enough yet. ;)
laimThe furry thing is a red herring. Conservatives have even falsely
oxewith an entirely straight face, that schools are installing litter
kids who identify as "furries."
I have actually never heard that false-sounding claim, re: litter boxes for furry kids. I am talking about adults and was being quasi-facetious (but not entirely).
I've heard of it, too, more as some kind of sexual practice than as a lifestyle choice. The people claiming litter boxes in schools were apparently quite serious about it.
enuiHowever, until the people you describe have been diagnosed with a
orrendouscientific medical condition, I don't think we should treat them as if have been. Decades ago, women wearing pantsuits to work was a
upheaval of societal gender expectations, but now it's no big deal.
Well, that actually brings me to a point. A woman wearing a pant-suit does not assume a new gender. At that time, she was going against society's view of normal gender behavior, but she is still female-gendered.
It was considered gender-inappropriate, just as a man in drag is today by many conservatives. It certainly caused speculation as to what gender they thought they were, or were trying to be.
Jeff Thiele wrote to Mike Powell <=-
If one were to assert to a woman that they were no longer a woman for wearing such an outfit, or while wearing one, I would not want to
witness the results. I doubt either of us would make such a mistake. I prefer not to have the snot slapped out of me, or to be verbally abused, for making such an error.
We live in different times today. The pantsuit women, among others,
were pioneers for a less gender-structured future.
If there are multiple genders, defined by whatever one wants to imagine for themselves, you have to accept that potato could be one of them.
Based on your response, you are making the common mistake that sexual attraction/ orientation = gender, which it does not.
I don't pretend to know what people who claim to be non-traditional genders think those genders are, or what they're based on, but am not
so ignorant as to dismiss their claims as nonsense. They're obviously going through something I have no concept of, and science is on it.
Did a bag of potatoes make eyes at you? <rimshot>
| Sysop: | Xerxes |
|---|---|
| Location: | Azle, Texas |
| Users: | 119 |
| Nodes: | 10 (0 / 10) |
| Uptime: | 89:01:10 |
| Calls: | 3,016 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 154 |
| U/L today: |
0 files (0K bytes) |
| D/L today: |
0 files (0K bytes) |
| Messages: | 293,535 |
| Posted today: | 0 |