The "water is wet" was for a different claim and thus irrelevant. Again words mean things, as does punctuation. You can't just randomly stick things together to build your strawman.
"but the nutjob, true believers in psuedo-science" - those words mean something. Maybe try not just skipping over them?
And just how closed is this garden of yours you are claiming to be a closed system.
Sure but that's irrelevant to the argument that " I just don't want to eat a food that manufactures its own pesticide".
"I think there might be some bad knock on effects to introducing such plants into the ecosystem" is a different argument entirely than "I'm scared of eating things that make pesticides even though I eat them everyday but I'm not informed enough about basic biology to realize it".
All plants manufacture their own pesticides. That's why they still exist. We happen to be immune to some of them, and hence we call some plants edible.
So yes everyone is just fine eating food that manufactures its own pesticide.
Apparently you don't.
That's how you do it. A suicide burn or "hover slam" is the best option otherwise you use too much fuel. You want to burn as late as possible - the ideal would be a full throttle burn as low as possible that puts at 0 velocity at exactly the touchdown point, but of course you won't pull that off.
They also want to be "off target" until very late since if it engine fails you'd rather it hit the water not the landing platform at very high velocity.
Where's the conflict?
He claimed that orgasms could both treat a headache or induce a headache depending on the details of the headache. And then that caffeine and aspirin can also treat a headache - which is clearly true for most people aspirin helps for those with a caffeine withdrawal headache caffeine will help too.
How does any of that conflict?
Reducing by 100% is not the opposite of increasing by 100%.
I just can't see someone who smokes one joint every Saturday night changing to two joints every Saturday and that causing their grades to drop to literally 0.
That the sun that planet orbits doesn't get closer and closer would be a pretty good indication that the "everthing is doubling in size" explanation for "gravity".
Candy is an impulse buy and something that children will whine and beg for in a checkout line. I don't think pot is really that similar. Plus if it isn't legal chances are you still only gave to walk 30 feet - we are talking about a location where it is available legally for some people. I recall cigarettes and alcohol being easily available in high school because there was always someone old enough to get it and resell it.
I also doubt that smoking 5% more is going to drop your grades by 5%. Smoking double isn't going to drop your grades by 100% after all.
If they have the numbers then they have the numbers (I haven't actually read the study or methodology or anything) I'm not trying to say they are wrong. I'm just saying I don't find it "not surprising".
I find it quite surprising.
Sure being a pot head is going to have a detrimental effect on your grades.
But given my experiences with university in a place where marijuana was not legal I can't believe there are enough students who would not smoke when it is illegal but would when it is legal to swing the overall grade by 5%.
At least he didn't just take 8 bullets to the back.
Making money isn't the motivator for the state and thus that is completely irrelevant.
Australia has no 2nd amendment equivalent and no history of a need to violently overthrow its own government (they used their words so to speak, and will again if the bulk of the people ever decide to go the way of a republic) and thus far less opposition to prohibition of firearms - with a bunch of exemptions.
No. You just can't read it would seem.
"like that" as in "One wants to get paid as much as possible, the other wants to acquire something for as little as possible."
You may notice that was the quoted text. Examples of cases like that that do not result in individual negotiation. No contradiction. Just a counter example to the original claim that the former implies the later.
I want to pay as little as possible when I buy toothpaste. The supermarket wants to get paid as much as possible. And yet we do not negotiate on an individual basis to determine the price. Maybe your supermarkets are different?