Asteroid Search vs Homeland Security

"We shouldn't pour money into x" doesn't equal "we shouldn't put any money at all into x".

pour /pôr/
Verb: 1. (esp. of a liquid) Flow
rapidly in a steady
stream

i suspect pouring tea/coffee must be dangerous work for you.

the hyperbole of "pouring money into _____" implies waste, not just rapidity.

No, it implies an above average rate.

you're just being silly.

D-do you... know what the definition of "pour" is?

"I poured wine into my glass" does not imply that I'm wasting wine.

spelling out a shocked stutter is not only new and edgey, but helps to hammer-home your point.

1 a : to cause to flow in a stream
b : to dispense from a container <poured drinks for everyone>
2: to supply or produce freely or copiously <poured money into the project>
3: to give full expression to : vent <poured out his feelings>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pour

None of those three definitions say anything about "wasting" a resource. So... Thank uou for proving my point?

when a government is depicted as "pouring money into" something, it certainly does imply waste. (to say the least. most often it implies blind and reckless stupidity in said waste)

Prove he was making an implication and not just speaking literally?

The literal definition of "to pour" is "to put into at a fast pace". Anything can be an implication, that's how the english language works, but in order for something to be an implication there has to be context to support it . In Sym's case, there's nothing to support the notion that he implied that putting money into meteor detection is a waste, especially when he's outright stated that he doesn't think the program should recieve no money at all.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos

The problem with the argument that because a meteor might wipe us out and thus we should put effort into defending ourselves from it is that there are an endless number of ridiculously unlikely things that might wipe us out. If we accepted that argument we'd have to spend all of our money doing nothing but saving ourselves from things that aren't going to happen (and which we can do nothing about).

its painfully clear he's been implying waste.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._

The literal definition of "to pour" is "to put into at a fast pace". Anything can be an implication, that's how the english language works.

no, thats the single variant definition you cherry picked.

you're being so petty

:edit: maybe i should come back in 15 minutes, or are you done editing?

If 15 minutes would give you enough time to think of a credible point, feel free.

I ask you to prove that he's implying something (because apparently we should ignore what's actually been said in favor of some hidden meaning), and your response to this request to prove that he's implying something is to quote something he said and assert that he's implying something.

It's like me asking you to prove that 2+2=4, and you respond by saying that 2+2 clearly equals 4.

You can't be this dumb. Stop this.

Originally posted by Tzeentch._
If 15 minutes would give you enough time to think of a credible point, feel free.

I ask you to prove that he's implying something (because apparently we should ignore what's actually been said in favor of some hidden meaning), and your response to this request to prove that he's implying something is to quote something he said and assert that he's implying something.

It's like me asking you to prove that 2+2=4, and you respond by saying that 2+2 clearly equals 4.

You can't be this dumb. Stop this.

lol ok champ. im not going pretend that i didn't expect you to resort to dodging and insults.

That's funny, I can't say I wasn't expecting you to drop the topic altogether and cry about how mean I am after I destroyed your argument. 😉

i replied and you dodged with utter silliness. wait...i get it. you need the last word and i'm holding you up. go on then...

Because obviously, "he implied that putting money into the program was a waste of money" is proof that he implied that putting money into the program is a waste of money.

Despite the fact that he outright stated that he believes some money should go into the program.

i think if a survey was taken to gather people's opinions of priority the majority would even rank funding of manned mars missions above that of planetary defense.

perhaps we are really too moronic a species to survive.

I know, right?

I was talking to the polat bears last night. Their anti-world-ending-solar flare project is so much more well-funded than ours. And don't even get me started on their anti-man-made-zombie-virus program. God.

We could learn a lot about self-preservation from the polar bears.

right, you already parroted the "although it has happened multiple times it will never happen again" point.

also:

1490 -- About 10,000 people die in the Chinese city of Chi1ing-yang when an asteroid breaks overhead.

1908 -- An asteroid estimated at 50 meters across explodes above Tunguska, Siberia, blowing down trees across 2,000 square kilometers and killing a thousand reindeer, but apparently no people. Because the stony object exploded in the atmosphere, there's no crater.

one, possibly 2 (recorded) impacts topping the destructive force of our most powerful hydrogen bombs. completely random in a span of 400 years.

oh no you're right. never gonna happen.

You don't think a solar flare or zombie virus could ever happen?

You're too moronic to live

Edit