Quote:
As I said before, I work with Civil Engineers and as such I know that groundwater (GW) is only one source of where we get our water and it's actually a much smaller source than surface water (SW). SW provides fresh drinkable water through many different sources. There is desalinization, water reuse, water recycling, and numerous water treatment processes. And, while I'm not positive on this, I think if I remember correctly, it is cheaper to treat surface water than groundwater. So the aquifers are a mute point.
And if you think you are arguing with a 2-year old, think again. Two-year olds rarely base their "arguments" on logic and fact. And, as far as I'm concerned, this was not an argument but a discussion - or perhaps as another already stated a "debate" - but certainly not an argument in the negative sense. And most certainly not one that had to result in name calling.
Finally, as for my source of "Truth" being a "mythological novel", in 2nd Timothy 3:16 of that book there is a claim made that no one has yet been able to disprove. Moreover, at least I have a source that I consider to be the "authority". I have yet to see you - Chickielady - put forth any substantive evidence or authoritative source for your opinions. Opinions are just that. They may be your truth but that does not mean it is THE truth.
And that truth is the whole crux of the matter. When everything is boiled down to it's purest form it becomes a simple matter of what we choose to hold on to as our final authority. Either we can choose to believe that there is a Creator who knows a whole lot more than us and we are nothing more than a creation of His, made in His image, or we create a god in our image which then allows us to be god and as such we then get to decide what is right and wrong. Either we accept and submit to His omniscience and His wisdom or we rely on our own. Thus the 1st and 2nd Commandments. It has been that way since the beginning and it always will be. This applies to everything - including how we look at animals. How we view mankind in turn determines what "rights" mankind has and what "rights" chickens have.
Now, having said that, we should be able to vigorously debate such things without resorting to name calling. Name calling usually occurs when one cannot logically and reasonably put forth a substantive, evidenciary argument. And I might add that if you don't think calling the Bible a "mythological novel" is insulting, try doing that to the Koran with a Islamist. I don't believe I have said one word about your "science" and your right to believe in such. I certainly haven't used any adjectives (and purposely so) that I might personally use to define some of the science that is put forth. In the end, it all boils down to what you choose to believe.
I most certainly believe a certain way and I doubt there is anyone on here who has any doubts about where I come from. However, I have tried to use rationale and reasoning in my responses. To insinuate that anyone who does not believe or think as you do is brainless is not profitable to any discussion. And if one is going to insinuate that we ought to gas humans as we do cats and dogs (and I think they actually get lethal injection) because of over-population or that we ought to commit mass suicide as lemings running over a cliff, begs the question as to whether you really want to lead that charge?
If you want to be the first to run off the cliff or to be gased for your cause - for your belief - then I say Bully For You and while I'd disagree with your choice, I'd respect your steadfastness to your belief. But if you're expecting someone else to do that for you, then I'd question your belief system. As for me, I say humans will always come before any animal and I'd support the right for any human to live before any human dies in the name of an animal. Now I ask the question to the general audience, which one of us would you rather follow?
Human beings are preeminent to any animals as far as I'm concerned. If that makes me a two-year old, well so be it. I wonder how many would rather follow this two-year old's line of reasoning than the alternative?
God Bless,
