Ok, I'll admit it.

I'd wear them (not every day though).

Yeah...

especially considering that the foremost scientist on polar bears (who lives with them every once in a while) announced on the radio that she would feel uncomfortable and wrong if she supported adding them as an "endangered" species. She went on to say that their population has "increased dramatically" over the past three decades.

I think the polar bears are fine.

Oh, I forgot nitrogen-based compounds and lead. Those are a couple of pollution problems they're dealing with in China- also completely unrelated to oil use.

@Neatoramawont

Dave's right, public oil use isn't the main problem in China. Sulfur dioxide emissions and industrial co2 emissions are.

Funny thing, China's pollution is about 1/5 that of the United States. It's industrial, manufacturing cities (like Beijing) that are having the major pollution problems.

@Dave

It's true, a lot of the global warming camp's arguments are starting to lose ground. I'd still like to switch to a different, more quickly renewable source of energy, but oil is still fine by me. Just curious, what do you think of a lot of the other things they're using (decreased habitat/population of animals- true or not- or global cooling/rising water levels)?

Man, this is how (I'm afraid) it's going to play out:

1. Hunter finds TONS more gorillas
2. They are no longer endangered (because, well, there are more of them).
3. They are hunted into extinction.

Damn. Bye, gorillas.

Whoa...

Christianity went crazy in here.

I'm religious, but honestly people, the guy acted because of his belief in Christianity. People do stupid, oppressive shit for their religion all the time. It was him, not the religion, but as he was synonymous with Christianity at the time, the religion is held responsible. Which isn't wrong, though it's not exactly right- but whatever.

Oh and Alex Fear, you wouldn't say the Italians "killed the games" because there weren't any. They weren't considered Italian because there was no Italy yet.

Oh, and there's the whole "they competed in the nude because a girl got in that one time" thing. I forget the exact details of the story, but before nudity was required, it was just encouraged. A girl decided to compete, and actually did pretty well. Then, at the end of the ceremony, someone called out that she was a woman. After that, only men, no women as spectators, and nudity all day every day.

I want elbow toxin...

It's for practicing phrenology on people you don't care for.

Perhaps, haha... or he just wanted to shake things up a little bit. It wasn't that bad, the worst I've heard of is a roof tile coming loose at the epicenter :) Here, my computer just jiggled.

Haha, any time... this is what I study, so I'm sorry it came out so long!

I'm surprised you got so much wrong about Henry VIII. I don't think it's right to ditch wife after wife, but considering what a crazy time he went through, it starts to make sense...

Katherine was married to his brother Arthur, who was supposed to be king. They hadn't consummated their marriage yet when Arthur fell ill (and Henry was the only one who visited him). Henry's father is now thought to have then had a little fun with Katherine, resulting in pregnancy with Mary. As he had already spent a good deal of her dowry, he decided to marry of his quite young son, Henry, to the widow. Henry tried to get the marriage annulled, but because his father had already pulled that card, the pope said no.

He then married Anne Boleyn, who it was suspected (and later collaberated) had numerous affairs and plotted to take most of the power her husband had. She was also incredibly disrespectful in public- which was not ok at the time, you did not publicly diss the size of the king's equipment and get away with it. She was the worn who wore yellow, much to the king's anger, at the announcement of Katherine's death (isn't that pretty much common knowledge?) In her defense, she was raised in France, where everything was a little more party and a little less respectful. He had her executed after he found her cheating with (and it's estimated now that she only cheated with 1 or 2, but one of those was Elizabeth's father) over 10 ten men. Elizabeth was stripped of her titles under the suspicion that she wasn't even Henry's kid (which she probably wasn't). Anne was beheaded, at her request, by a French swordsman, so it would be quicker and less painful. At this point, Henry was getting syphilis-crazy.

Jane Seymour calmed Henry's anger and convinced him to put Mary and Elizabeth back into the royal succession. She died after giving birth to Edward, who is thought by many to be the only child Henry sired. It's thought by many historians that Henry couldn't have produced healthy children.

Anne of Cleves went basically how you guys said, because she was horribly misrepresented. He refused to consumate with her (to my knowledge, it didn't happen), and then sent her back.

Catherine Howard conspired with a group of political men to have Henry removed from the throne after being married to him for a short time. She, it's true, was very young and very against the marriage, but when you're being a traitor... you're pretty much going to die.

Last, of course, Catherine Parr outlived the gross old man he'd come to be.

Next time, Neatorama, you may want to get your facts (and names- Jane Gray)

(Sorry that took a while, interrupted by earthquake)

@Evilbeagle

Ok. Now we both see what's going on. Fantastic. I don't understand how emphasis=hysteria, but ok... that works. Also, I got most of your sarcasm.

I think people, no matter how smart, can make stupid statements. So, yeah... just putting that out there.

And I gotta say, this:

"But as long as women keep acting like victims, seeing discrimination where it doesn’t exist, rather than tackling issues where it does, they will never have my support. I’ve done fine without them. So have a lot of other women in the modern age. And if you think we have to have some crutch in order to be strong, or whine about stupid signs for recognition, then you are sexist yourself."

(I'm Not calling c-dub sexist)

has to be one of the best-written comments here. While I think that the sign issue should have been handled years ago, when the signs were re-made, I do think that this is more important than you deem it, but that's not what I'm getting at, so let me get to my point real quick.

This statement, especially without the sign argument, just as a general rule, is exactly what I believe. It could be more effectively applied to the Duke rape case a few years ago. Good job on it.

@Evilbeagle (by the way, caps don't mean yelling or anger, they mean emphasis. No italics in the comments section)

I replied because I started with this:

"That’s language reflecting a change in culture and helping to facilitate it."

Now, in case you haven't noticed, this is EXACTLY what I said in my last post. Language REFLECTS change in culture and helps FACILITATE it.

"I mean, the fact that these PC terms have even become the norm show that language reflects societal change on a fundamental level, and helps to facilitate that change in the real, everyday world."

See? language REFLECTS societal change, and helps FACILITATE that change in the real world. I'm not saying "Language is the cause of change." I'm saying attitude, combined with changing language, is the cause of continued change. The changing attitudes about minorities, partnered with using terms that express humanity to describe them, is the cause of a change in how people are treated.

And you responded with:

"I have to disagree. The use of language has not affected the way people are treated."

So, I continued this discussion with you. Because you said you disagreed. You say that society and attitude change influences language. I do, too. The only thing I've said that you haven't is that language use, in turn, helps to change or shape other people's way of thinking (whether they're conscious of it or not).

As for calling you stupid, I don't remember doing that- would you mind pointing it out? I've called one of your statements the stupidest thing I've ever read, but not you, to my knowledge. I also never said you were illiterate, that was sarcastic. Because you posted almost exactly what I've been saying this whole time (to which, you stated, you disagree), I thought "Well, this is ridiculous." See, I know sarcasm specifically doesn't transfer to the internet, but when you're debating with someone through text, it's pretty apparent that they're literate.

@Evilbeagle

Apparently you can't read, because that's what I said. Let me outline this for you.

Language reflects changes in society.
I used the example of "the n-word".
As society's attitude changes, the use of the word changes.
So, as society's attitude about Blacks changed, the use of that word changed.
As the use of the word changes, society continues to change.
Because people used terms like "Black" and "African American", and told others (namely, their children) that it was disrespectful to use the n-word, people thought "Hmm... Blacks are people deserving respect".
This continued change is due, in part, to the changed meaning of the word.
Those kids, or people who were influenced by the changed word meaning, now have used that perception in society.

Oh... and what exactly have I done that's rabid? I've responded to people who responded to me. That's pretty much what a discussion is.