Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Posts posted by Aperson

  1. Unfortunatly, there isn't really an agreed upon difnation of "life" yet. And the difinations that do exsist have rather interesting and amusing holes.


    Originally posted by LostInSpace:

    Thanks for that. How did you come across or even find that. I don't think in all the things I've read even mentioned that.

    I read the magizines Discover and NewScientist and they mentioned it a few times. So I did some simple research (Yay! Wikipedia) and found that.

  2. quote:

    Originally posted by Prez:

    Thanks for the link Aperson.

    But I think you guys might be falling a little bit on the alarmist side.

    Excerpt from CBS news poll story : "But most would not substitute the teaching of creationism for the teaching of evolution in public schools."

    As for the ID crowd, their "agenda" could be just a scientific validation of their beliefs. I don't know, since I don't have an agenda. I believe in intelligent design, I believe that scientific evidence supports it, and I teach it to my kids at home. Case closed, for me.

    Well, that would be nice except for the fact that the "Wedge Strategy" is used by many supporters of ID (obviously not you). Especially the ones who provide funding, like the Discovery Institute.


  3. Because as we know, Russia is at the pinnicle of acheivement.

    Hate is a waste of energy and accomplishes little if not nothing.

    And disliking or hating someone because of their politicle affiliation seems stunned.

    Why does everyone bring up the so-and-so country/region will implode/die, as its going to happen to every sigle country that currently and will exsit.

    Insert other random thoughts here. ( The arrows didn't work)

  4. quote:

    Originally posted by Darkling:

    So what you're saying is that it's appropriate to believe in the "Big Bang" Theory, you know, everything in the universe was once the size of a spec, then BANG!!! The Universe was born and has been expanding ever since.

    There is quite a bit of evidence to back this up, the most prominate being the microwave (I think that's the type) background radiation (which, you too can see if you turn your TV on to the right blank channel). Then again it isn't considered a Law.


    Originally posted by Darkling:

    Oh yeah, that's VERY scientific. Please, it takes even MORE
    to believe that than Intelligent Design. It only defies EVERY law of Nature that there is.



    Originally posted by Darkling:

    However, even if we move Billions of years into the future to the puddle of muck/water/whatever, to say that Life somehow evolved from "Nothing", there's another one that takes BLIND faith to believe in. First of all, water is a Solvent, it doesn't cause things to "Come Together". And Second of all the number of Enzymes, Protiens, Nucleic acids and so forth that would have to come together at just the right time, at just the right amount for even the absolute "simplest" single celled life form to spontaneously form is so rediculously minute and so far fetched, that if Darwin would have understood the complexity, I guarantee you that he would not have put together his theory.

    For the 6012374th time. Evolution ONLY explains how creatures came to be the way they are. It DOES NOT explain how they were first created.


    Originally posted by Darkling:

    Take apart a Swiss Watch, then imagine something about 1000X more complex and say to yourself, would this be able to put itself together... I don't think so.

    For a different example, which engineer would you call better: one who can make a robot for a specific environment or one that makes a robot that can adapt to its environment?

    EDIT: Jaguar beat me.

  5. quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    First: It does NOT matter how big that hardware gap is, it has ZERO relevance on hand guns rifles and their operation. We are not talking about parking a tank in your garage or buying an operational fighter jet, which by the way is LEGAL in the US, as long as the armaments are rendered useless. Because just like guns, fighters jets are of GREAT entertainment and recreational value, and you can own one starting at as little as $300,000.

    The hardware gap part was in responce to Grizzel's post about the ineffectiveness of the people in order to defend themselves if the goverment decided to use its military against its people (assuming the military personnel went along with it).


    Originally posted by Soback:

    Second: Just by you saying "rather similar" shows how much you know the democratic form of government and a republican form of government. It's like saying that an apple is similar to an orange. The only thing that they have in common is both being fruit and both being somewhat round. Same with democracy and republic, they are both representative, and they are both a form of government. People who use these terms interchangeably just highlight their ignorance and because their lack of knowledge in that case is obviously lacking, so is then the relevance, validity and weight in their statements. It's like a guy who points at a moped, and the first words out of his mouth are "This motorcycle is great, it has 900cc engine....." He has lost me on the second word, because from then on, everything out of his mouth is bs based on his ignorance of the subject at hand.

    The "rather silly" point was directed towards your firearms post. But the main similarities is that both a democracy and republic have a vote of some form or another, often for their leaders. Which I guess is similiarity enough for them to be merged into the same word.


    Originally posted by Soback:

    Third: A primary use of a firearm was for HUNTING. In a way, just like the fishing rod, to OBTAIN FOOD. They were inefficient as offensive and defensive weapons due to poor accuracy, heavy maintenance requirements, long re-load times, and the difficulty of obtaining (it took MONTHS to build even ONE). As time went by, they guns have evolved, and because usefull as a self defense, recreation (not practice, remember hunting, yes, hunting is called RECREATION, and so is shooting at the range, people don't do it just for practice they actually have FUN doing it), and yes, even offense.

    Eh, they might of originally been used for hunting, but that sure isn't what their latter developement was turned into, nor what the firearms on the market were originally developed for.


    Originally posted by Soback:

    But like I said, I can turn a baseball bat into an offensive weapon, or a knife.

    How about arguing that knifes should be outlawed? Arent they designed to kill? But like anything else, they have other uses too. Just like guns do. Self defense, hunting, and recreation being the MAIN ones. But with liberals perverted minds, everything is turned on it's edge.

    See, that arguement is silly as then you would have to outlaw everything. The other arguement in the other direction is silly as well, as then you would have to legalise everything. Heck, both arguements for and against gun use arn't really based on much fact. But given that your goverment has an unalterable law, the answer to gun bans should be rather obvious (In the U.S. at least).


    Originally posted by LostInSpace:

    Well, I could convert one to a cigarette lighter (ooo there's that other nasty bane to society), use one to crack open nuts if I didn't have a nut cracker handy or use one as a weight on my fishing line if I ran out of proper weights. There are so many uses one can put a fire arm to other than your stated uses.

  6. Well, I'm sure when the American Constitution was frist created, the hardware gap between civilians and military personnel wasn't as large as it it now.

    Also, Republics and Democracies are often lumped together and then refered to as "Democracy" by the media and public as they are rather similar.


    That arguement is rather silly as baseball bats and fishing rods primary purpose isn't violence while a a fire arm is created to injury or kill things and it's kind of hard to use it for anything else (Its recreational use could be/is considered practise).

  7. quote:

    Originally posted by Prez:

    ...and "experience". And "sense". And "ailments". And "response". And "sociopathy". And "doesn't".


    Originally posted by Prez:

    But your point is correct for the vast amount of people. Some, however, exhibit a very high resistance to such reactions, and interestingly enough, a large percentage of these people end up in the military. I'll leave the "why" for another debate.

    Hence why I put in the "differs with each person" part.

    And yes I realised you were kidding.


    That's kind of scary. But hey, discussing beer and hockey dosn't require good reading or numeracy skills.

    Puls its not taht I cna't raed good, its jsut taht I cna't garmemr or spiel wroth a dman.

    (Ten bucks says you can read that)


    You or others, but fair enough.

    And depression is a sympton of PSTD...

    Err, I said that the tolerance level differs with each person.

    Link? (For the first quotes, unless they were your own)

  8. This time I'll try to put it into words that make sence.

    Seeing someone die is consirded a traumatic experiance (that should help anwser your questions), which can cause a host of emotions depending on what happened.

    Killing someone is consirded a traumatic experiance. The responce typical to this is shock immediately and remorse afterwards. Doing this to protect your life or anothers is not consirded immoral (by me anyways, and obviously you), if sometimes not preferred.

    This can cause such aliments as Post Traumatic Stress Disorder(PTSD).

    The ONLY people who do not suffer from PTSD given sufficient stimuli(differs with each person and what happened) are those who already suffer from certain other mental illness, such as sociapathy or psycopathy. Please note sociapathy and psycopathy vary in strength and dosn't always result in those who go on murder sprees or ,for that matter, anything at all to hurt other people.

  9. quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    So do you feel momentarily passing sadness when a terrorist is shot dead before he had a chance to blow himself up at the checkpoint?

    Nothing to do with what I was saying. There is quite a differance between being involved in or seeing a death first hand then there is hearing about it in a ten second blurb on the news.

  10. There is a very big differance between killing someone and beating them up. And I was talking from a mental health stand-point which any psychologists or psychiatrist would tell you. Also I did not say such feelings would be logical, just there. Nor did I say they would be particularly consumming, it might just be something that passes momentarily.

    If someone expected me to be able to provide more than token help, they would be terriably illusioned (but I did say that already) and I would tell them that.

  11. Maybe I used the wrong word, but if someone doesn't have any feelings of regret after killing someone, no matter how justified they were, is either A: especialy hardened and havn't yet killed enough people to be affected or B: mentaly unstable.


    So, I should be afraid everytime I walk out in a storm because there is a chance that I'll get struck by lightining? Or should I enter the lottery or start gambling when I can because there is a chance that I might "win the big one"?

  12. quote:

    Originally posted by Soback:

    If you haven't been robbed yet. Someday, chances are, you will.

    If your house haven't been broken into yet. Chances are, someday it will.

    If you haven't been a victim of violent crime. Chances are, you will be.

    If your wife hasn't been assaulted in your own home. Chances are, she will be.

    Poor, logical arguement, but I think its a rational arguement.

    And I'm a tad young to have a wife. Plus I hypothetical have a less than 1% a year of having my house broken into.


    Originally posted by Soback:

    It only takes ONE time for something to happen to screw up your life. Interesting to see if you will be laughing when it does happen. I would feel sorry for your significant others, your family, kids, wife, friends, ect...because in a bad situation, you are completly incompetent in protecting them. But then again, it's their choice to trust those who can't protect them with their lives.

    I'd pity anyone who thought I could protect their life. And yes, I would feel bad as otherwise I would seek mental help for a different reason.

    Should I find it humourous that you think I have or will have a social life?


    I think they mean it takes years to get to the upper ends of the skill level (as with pretty much any skill).

    Also, if you didn't feel any remorse afterwards, its not really healthy.

  13. quote:

    Originally posted by Jaguar:

    I don't go to Canada, the last time I went there, I got accosted in Vancouver by some street bum, I wish that I had had my gun, but they made me store it at the border.

    Bad experiance as I, (or anyone I know for that matter) have never had something similar to that happen to me(them).

  14. Yep, and Canada has a lower crime rate, and a lower homicide rate, than America*. And yet, we don't need to bear arms. Either this proves the "Weapons decrease crime rate" philosophy wrong or Canada dosn't follow the same rules of behavior as the rest of the world (neither would be particulary surprising).

    Granted, the number of people who bear arms or not might only be a small factor in crime rate with other things, such as culture, have a bigger impact.

    * At least as far as I can judge from US goverment sites, as they make the Canadian goverment websites look good.

  • Create New...