Is heterosexuality morally wrong? Seems fair enough of a question for me to ask.

It's difficult to parse what you're getting at. So, Atheism, the belief that there is no God or higher power, is illogical because . . . yeah, that's where you lose me. Is it really a response to religion? Atheist aren't atheist because people believe God, they're atheist because they believe in something different, just like Buddhists believe in something different.

Facebook is definitely better online. Imagine if you called your friends up just to tell them you like pickles, or you miss your girlfriend or that "The Arcade Fire r0kz0rZ!" They'd disown you, you'd have zero friend instead of 357. Facebook is like a security blanket for your annoying bullshit, it creates a bubble where it's perfectly acceptable to let 300 people know you just when to the bathroom and your pee smells like Corn Pops.

Sex Online, however, I'm sure that's better in real life . . . probably . . .

Which side do I pick to point out that it's "ICED CREAM"? Grammar Police!

Yeah, no, you're right. I was thinking of someone who had gender reassignment surgery . . . which still doesn't make them a hermaphrodite . . . so I'm way off.

I'm not sure where the benefit would be for movie studios to allow us to legally watch their movies online for free? I guess they wouldn't be spending money on researching how to stop us from downloading.

Does anyone have a source on any statistics on the cost of piracy to the movie studios?

If you loved dogs, but you were also equally fond of cats, would you want an ungodly mutilated amalgamation of the two?

When there are plenty of movie still grossing 200 million during the summer months I'm guessing that the affect of piracy is problem not as far reaching as the movie studios think. Then again, I'm not a movie studio, nor do I have the numbers in front of me.

Still, at the same time you can't fault the studio for trying to protect their property. I think these days we all think we're entitled to free entertainment because it's so accessible, and it's easy not to feel guilty when you're plucking intellectual property from giant movie studios that have truck loads of money. The reality is that the films are their work, and they have a right to control where and how is it distributed, just as much as a student film makes has control over his work.

Kind of depends on the level of manipulation. Most photo manipulation for newspapers and the like are simple contrast, color and brightness correction, sometimes necessary for the photo to be publishable. Other manipulations can be innocent ones that are more about composition of then anything.

Of course, it goes without saying that any photo editing that would deliberately mislead the public should be punishable, but in my view this is no different than an article that is deliberately misleading, they should both be handled in a similar way.

The science of global warming is extensive, complicated and confusing, particularly when you try to listen to both sides of the anthropogenic argument. Both sides have points and counter points for each other and the debate over the cause and effects of global warming will likely never reach a consensus. Trying to make heads or tails of the issue is a stressful experience, and I think I'd rather punch myself in the balls for half an hour, at least that's predictable. I hit my nuts, pain is felt. Easy. Simple.

However, as others have pointed out, there are many reasons to cut back our burning of fossil fuels even with global warming aside. Do you like the convenience of a plastic spoon? Hard to eat Wendy's chili without one. Guess what, all that stuff comes from petroleum, and we don't have an infinite amount of that stuff.

Also, the fact that the city of Toronto has something called the AQI (Air Quality Index). If our whether reports include a number that indicates how safe the air outside is to breath, we are already in serious trouble.