Let me put it differently: It's a disgrace to the Bugatti name. The reason to paint it blue is not so much a reference to French racing history, as its likeness to 4-wheeled Viagra. I wouldn't be seen dead in it, even though it looks like a coffin.
Ah, then it's an even bigger waste of money than I thought.
The suggestion itself is completely impractical; nobody will argue about that. But the point is: were PETA serious? In determining that, the questions are [1] can they drop their ideological blindfold and see the practical implications, and [2] do they have a sense of humour? Apparently, for many people the answer is "no" to both.
She probably also took some painkillers once, which were also tested on animals (afiak animal testing is mandatory for drugs). She also lives in a house that was built by people that ate meat. Is that hypocrisy?
Even the most ardent activist has to compromise somewhere. If not, the only option left is emigration.
"Right to life" is a human construct, and there are 3 self-consistent positions you can take in it:
No organism has a right to life. Allows murder and cannibalism, which is generally frowned upon.
All organisms have a right to life. While you were reading that sentence, your body was killing thousands of microbes. Causes tremendous guilt feelings.
Each organism is placed on a gradual scale between full rights (like humans have now), and none.
The latter position is taken by Peter Singer in "Animal Liberation". A good read if you seriously want to think this over. IIRC Singer says that an organism has more rights if it has a more complicated nervous system (and thus can suffer in ways humans can understand).
BTW, speciesism is what we've basically been doing for centuries: the black&white distinction that humans have full rights, and other animals have none.
It looked so much like a hoax, I first had to check their own site. Apparently, they are serious.
Soooo... In order to keep up with the enormous demand for breast milk, PETA will want women to be forcefully impregnated every two years. To be bred (or genetically engineered) for maximum milk production, so they can produce 10 times the natural amount of milk. And after productive life, what would PETA do with the women's wasted bodies? And their babies should be fed with, ummm... soy? Or sold to farms?
You sound so sure of the influence of upbringing on kids' behaviour. I bet you don't have kids yourself.
As with any tragedy, there were 100s of ways that this could have been prevented.
If the parents had done things differently...
If his teachers had ...
If his friends had ...
If the police had ...
Still, it does happen now and then. Nobody's found a cure for insanity yet. And we'll never know how many times things almost went wrong, but didn't. Because the parents/teachers/friends/police did make the right decisions. It doesn't get in the papers.
But this kid did get in the papers. Front page news, the world over. As did Columbine, and Virginia Tech. Next time a kid feels desperate, he'll remember.
I don't think you can stop people from going mad, and wanting to kill. I don't think you can stop the media (alas) from jumping on the sad news like starved hyenas, and plastering the front pages. But I do think you can do damage control, so the number of casualties per nutcase is lower. (Yes, that means gun control.)
Yes, but they were made for safety reasons. The first 50 years of car racing did without chicanes. They do not necessarily make racing more interesting.
I do agree with other posters that there's something wrong if chicanes are taken flat-out. I especially hate the bus-stop chicanes in Fern Bay, where you need to cut the curbs (and risk crashing) if you want to be competitive.
I'm not sure if converting them to low-speed "real" chicanes is a good solution. I can't imagine this would give interesting fights, especially with lower-powered cars where you don't have to feather the gas on curve exit. Instead, can't they be turned into high-speed esses with high curbs, like in Blackwood?
I hope you are right, but I'm skeptical. With tragedies like these, the public often shouts for quick "solutions": the death penalty, re-education camps, bans on drugs and violent games, etc.
The terrorists weren't crazy. Many had college or university degrees. They were backed by an organization that provided plans and money.
At the time, that powerful military force was fully prepared... for an attacker from outside the USA, using military material like bombers and missiles. They were also fully prepared for hijackers... who would land the plane somewhere and start making demands. If you deny the element of surprise, you are using post-9/11 knowledge.
If people would research other events* with the same fervour, I'm sure they would also find loads of "suspicious" facts. Enough to build a conspiracy theory on.
* Events like, say, a princess who dies in a car that is driven at high speed through a tunnel at night by an intoxicated chauffeur (enough for 36000 conspiracy websites). But even the fire at your local shopping mall would do -- except that the conspiracy rumours won't spread worldwide.
If they told me that the hijackers only had MS FlightSim, I'd still believe it.
Boy, I'm glad they don't think that way about their nuclear weapons. "Can't let dem nukes get rusty, gotta fire'em!"
That is not the point here. You asked why there was no second attack like 9/11. I gave a possible reason for that.
If 9/11 was an inside job, you might equally well ask why there was no second attack, to justify the war in Iraq. Instead, they had to invent WMD. (Or you could ask why 9/11 was necessary, if a WMD hoax works just as well.)
Each page debunks several claims of "truthers". I mentioned the heading on the page where your question is discussed.
Of course. To claim the victory, and get praise and support from people with a similar mindset.
So tell us which video you mean andwhat is obviously fake about it.
Afghanistan was to catch Bin Laden, so the US could recover from the loss of face from 9/11. Note that it doesn't matter if OBL really did it -- the US claimed he did, so they had to go after him, or face ridicule. And for Iraq, 3 letters suffice: O - I - L.
Why should there be any? Was wholesale surveillance with cameras the norm before 9/11?
Look here. Scroll down to "Claim: A Video clearly showing Pentagon hit has not been released".
Why should there be? In the eyes of muslim terrorists, 9/11 was a huge success. The US is stuck in unwinnable guerilla wars in 2 countries, the Western countries started to look like police states, and their behaviour has raised anti-Americanism in muslim countries to unprecedented levels.
Look here, under "Claim: The hijackers outwitted the most highly sophisticated military defence in the world"
If you have any more questions, I suggest you browse 911guide.googlepages.com first.