• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why do people in Alaska support oil drilling.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sierrita
Originally posted by: blackangst1
So let me get this straight. Using your example...if we DO find a cure or treatment from a plant or animal source, but it depletes it, are you saying we should not use it?





Uh...no.

We'll agree to disagree then. Thankfully for us, science disagrees with you.






What the hey are you talking about?

😕
 
Originally posted by: sierrita
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sierrita
Originally posted by: blackangst1
So let me get this straight. Using your example...if we DO find a cure or treatment from a plant or animal source, but it depletes it, are you saying we should not use it?





Uh...no.

We'll agree to disagree then. Thankfully for us, science disagrees with you.






What the hey are you talking about?

😕

Unless I read your reply wrong, you think we should or shouldnt use an animal or plant even if it depletes it for a cure or treatment of disease? I read it as you think we shouldnt. I may have misread 🙂
 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sierrita
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sierrita
Originally posted by: blackangst1
So let me get this straight. Using your example...if we DO find a cure or treatment from a plant or animal source, but it depletes it, are you saying we should not use it?





Uh...no.

We'll agree to disagree then. Thankfully for us, science disagrees with you.






What the hey are you talking about?

😕

Unless I read your reply wrong, you think we should or shouldnt use an animal or plant even if it depletes it for a cure or treatment of disease? I read it as you think we shouldnt. I may have misread 🙂






Story of your life, I fear. It's pretty obvious what her whole argument was.

:roll:
 
Originally posted by: Johntk5
You would think they would be against drilling, since it destroys the ecosystem of the area. Alaska is such a beatiful state, and sad that the people there want to ruin it with drilling.

Because, unlike you, they know that much less than 1% of the land will be affected... seems worth it to not have to import as much oil from people who hate us.
 
Our way of life is based on oil consumption, therefore we will find and extract any and all oil fields on the face of the planet.

Global peak oil production has been reached.

Rogo

 
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: sierrita
Originally posted by: blackangst1
So let me get this straight. Using your example...if we DO find a cure or treatment from a plant or animal source, but it depletes it, are you saying we should not use it?





Uh...no.

We'll agree to disagree then. Thankfully for us, science disagrees with you.

I have absolutely no idea what point you just made.
 
Back
Top