"Social Justice Warrior" is a sarcastic label. No one actually calls themselves that.

Your definition also includes gas giants and possible even planets Earth-like planets. Consider that most of Earth's matter is engaged in Brownian motion except for the solid core and thin outer crust.

Note that your wedding wasn't really cheap, you just spread out your costs through expected reciprocal obligations. The biggest cost is that you'll be expected to continue giving 10% of your income to the Church for the rest of your life. At future weddings, you'll be the one expected to provide food, cash, gifts, etc. You probably consider your tithe and participation in your community barter economy to be a sunk cost, so it seems like a good deal. But from a outsider view, you're actually spending a whole lot more than someone who just rents a banquet hall and hires a caterer.

I was trying to provide a broad overview and I don't disagree with your minor corrections. But there's still nothing about BRIBES.

Fossil fuels sustain life. Without heat, millions would freeze. Without fuel to operate machinery, modern agriculture would be impossible and billions would starve.

Almonds, though? You can live without almonds. We definitely don't need use a trillion gallons of water each year to grow almonds in a desert during a drought.

The Citizens United decision has nothing to do with bribes. In 2004, Citizens United (the group) wanted to block Micheal Moore's anti-Bush movie from being advertised during an election. The FEC rejected that, ruling that documentaries were protected by the first ammendment. So in 2008, Citizens United made an anti-Hillary movie and started to advertise it during an election. They were quickly struck down by FEC, who were then struck done by the Supreme Court. If you're such a "staunch defender of the near-absoluteness of the first amendment", how can you honestly say that Micheal Moore (and Miramax films) can make a political documentary, but other people (and corporations) can't?

Huge amounts of water, compared to what? Total US fracking water use is 70 to 140 billion gallons per year.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/ind...

California almond farms use 1.1 TRILLION gallons of water per year.

http://www.slate.com/articles/...

You seem to operating under the assumption that the only insights that are valid are those that can be supported by per reason. Is there no music in your world? No art? If someone smokes some weed and writes a song, is that song less valid that one that's written sober?

You're moving the goal posts a bit. Your previous post claimed that a "sense of the profound" from marijuana was somehow distinct from what occurs "naturally". But both are just brain chemistry. There is no rational basis for a objective measure for profoundness of an idea.

I did. It's not a study, it's just a review of other cherry picked studies.

That's sound like an unbiased source.

Even if we take all of those adverse affects at face value, they're either statistical noise or questionable casual link. It's not like smoking tobacco where the odds of developing lung cancer go up 23 times that of non-smokers. It's also not like alcohol, where tens of thousands of people die from overdose alone each year.

You should call up CBS with your life story. I'd watch that show.

That's why it makes sense to colonize the moon first. The moon is a harsher environment, but it's easier to deliver emergency supplies or launch a rescue mission. Colonize the moon, develop the technical experience and Mars will be a cakewalk.

The only assumption is that the colonization would be done with CURRENT technologies. The Mars Colonial Transporter, algae or bacteria as primary food source: these are still all on the drawing board, at best. Even the Falcon Heavy is a still in development.

The big problem is all the rocket jocks think that getting to Mars is hard part and they have the idea that since biology and ecology are "soft" sciences that those are just details that will work themselves out. Until someone starts a long term self-sufficient colony on someplace like Antarctica, its really hard to take an Mars colonization plan seriously.

The paper uses Mars One as an introduction, but its really a rebuttal of any attempt to colonize Mars using current technology.