Martin Pribble
- 48 comments
- 88 likes given
- 14 likes received
Bio not provided
Martinspribble is a moderator of:
@Mork Actually, not necessarily. Some claim that organic foodstuffs are better for you based on the fact that they are more nutritious. This is not necessarily so, but what organic farming DOES is ensure that you are not eating masses of pesticides, and that pesticides which are harmful to the beneficial creepy-crawlies around the place aren't being used.
It is about treating your world with a little
respect. While the chemicals used in mass crop farming may not harm
humans, they are bad for the environment.
For instance, a chemical used in the drenching of lettuce is only
slightly toxic to humans, and only in large doses. However, according to
the report on Confidor's active ingredient, Imidacloprid, "It is highly toxic to earthworms and very highly toxic to bees by oral and contact
routes." Organic foods are not only about human health. They are about
the health of the environment AND humans. Without our environment, we
die.
Link to PDF report: http://www.apvma.gov.au/registration/assessment/docs/prs_imidacloprid.pdf
My latest conversation: TheGreatFlood2
No it's nothing like that at all. It is much more like ignoring the wrongdoings of a banana manufacturer and buying their products in spite your knowledge of their behaviours and denial of human rights to their workers.. It is quite simple to buy from people whose behaviours you agree with, and boycott those with whom you disagree. BSA is a brand whose behaviours I disagree with, and the franchisees seem able to make their own decisions about how to enact these behaviours.
Don't make excuses for BSA's wrongdoings simply because the money goes to the troop themselves. The troops themselves need to stand up for what is right, and if they don't then they are either ignoring or backing the prejudice of the the BSA themselves.
@LaughPurgatory @reasonbeingblog
My latest conversation: BSA_Header2
@blamer Be that as it may, it just goes to show the hypocrisy with which people deal with their faith. The monotheistic religions of Islam and Christianity both implicitly state that their way is THE ONLY WAY, and all others are doomed to hell. The modern Christian may say that "there are many paths to God", but unfortunately their bible says otherwise.
My latest conversation: ManyFacesOfGod2
@Jaros No I'm not conflating issues, simply showing my support for this campaign. It is not my campaign, I didn't start it. I am merely showing support. If you want an anti-violence campaign of your own, go ahead ans start one. I will support that too. You act as though this is the only campaign I support. I don't get it. I agree with your version of the oath also, but this is *specific to this campaign*.
My latest conversation: WhiteRibbonDay2
@Jaros There is no doubt that individualised violence against all people should stop. But this campaign fights at a dual level against sexism and misogyny AND violence. Men are the ones causing the problems in most cases, so to say "It's not alright" to men, and to have men stand up, sometimes against what their society and upbringing might have taught them, is of paramount importance.
I think this campaign, given its origins in the Montreal Massacre of 1989, highlights not only inequity between the sexes, but the fact that women are treated like second-class citizens from the outset, and that many could feel threatened by empowered women, or equal women, or women garnering respect.
I see your point, and I agree to the premise, but that is not what we are talking about here. What's the old adage? "Think global, act local"? Women have been disenfranchised worldwide, but I cam make a larger difference here among people I actually come into contact with than with people in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan.
So I take it that you think the issue of ending violence against women excludes men? It does the very opposite, since most violence against women comes from men. Change the attitude toward violence toward one, and I think you'll find the change is carried on to other areas of a person's life.
My latest conversation: WhiteRibbonDay2
Please, if you have any suggestions for "must-read" online essays and blogposts, feel free add them here in the comments section. SHARE SHARE SHARE!
@innomind Yes that certainly is an interesting project. It shows to me that "truth" is more subjective than I showed in my blog.
My latest conversation: TheTroubleWith2
@AlbertJ OKAY ALBERT. This is my FINAL WORD on your posts. I gave you the benefit of the doubt in that you may actually be trying to prove something here. Turns out you are nothing but a delusional spammer. You have posted 71 comments on this piece, and are yet to make a point. Because of this, I am BANNING YOU PERMANENTLY for commenting at my blog. Goodbye.
@Celia Jane I have changed the wording of that section to read:
Many defenders of Mr Abbott have claimed there’s no way he could actually be a misogynist, with rhetoric like “Misogynist is a term which describes the hatred of women, and clearly Mr Abbott doesn’t hate women, he has a wife and daughters!”
I hope this makes my intention clearer.
Hi @Celia Jane , thanks for your comment. I think you are misreading this post. The comment about Tony Abbott in parentheses was meant to be an example of a comment coming from the defenders of Abbott, not my opinion at all. I see Tony Abbott as pretty much the definition of patriarchal disregard and contempt for women. Sorry if it didn't read like that.
@AlbertJ Albert that statement is not about GOD it's about KNOWLEDGE. You are shooting yourself in the foot by using it. Don't make me ban you again.
AlbertJ has been unbanned, but only so you could see what he's writing and facepalm along with me. @AlbertJ please, you conflate so many unrelated things to suit your notion of a god that it's embarrassing. seriously, yours is the ultimate conspiracy theory, and you're starting to sound like a certain Canadian psychopath I know...
@AlbertJ Albert. I banned you from commenting, but you didn't notice. You just kept on posting. So here's the deal. I'm going to let you post whatever you like here. But I will not stand up for you if someone here decides to take you to task for your beliefs and strange interpretations of life, science and the universe.
@AlbertJ OKAY ALBERT I'VE WARNED YOU. You are no longer allowed to post here. Please find another place to peddle your wares. Maybe consider getting a blog of your own rather than trolling mine.
Consider yourself banned from posting until further notice.
@AlbertJ @Dubravko @deityshmeity 19 posts. LAST CHANCE ALBERT!!!
. @AlbertJ Albert, while I'm quite happy for you to continue your circular reasoning rants here on my blog, can you please keep 2 things in mind? 1. Be respectful to other commenters or you will be banned from posting. 2. You have posted 16 comments in an hour and a half. Try to have some restraint and don't flood the comments or you will be banned from posting.
Restraint and respect. Also, maybe try to structure your arguments better. All I see is baseless blind assertions, conflation of unrelated topics, and terrible, terrible grammar and spelling.
Personally I'm not going to address the "facts" you bring up, because to tell you the truth I have no idea what you are on about, except that we (atheists) are "wrong" and you are "right".
Can someone please explain to me the cognitive dissonance involved in a person who has a PhD in science, yet sees a difference between "observational science" and "historical science"? Anybody? Please?