Raven

I have to go with Litvyak on this one, it would be a bloody pain trying to force an engagement on a larger ship if they were trying to flee.

Interesting, informative even, but not all that well written.

quote: It's what Resnig looks like without the breathing apparatus!! Vacuum explosion Green explosive decompression why am I not surprised?

I thought thatÔÇÖs what you already were

There may be something left over to recycle as well

Oh dear, that is hilarious As for what I would do come recycling time, why IÔÇÖd be lounging around in the Caribbean sipping imported blood wine and eating leg of baby while extolling the virtues of a society in which the young slavishly worshiped the old and discussing the best way to preserve my body after I die.

Thank you darling, and good night (not that youÔÇÖll read this tonight of course, but the thought is there).

Yes, war is good, and a after a good battle they could have a chain gang out there recovering skins and bones and other reusable bits. If you think about how well action figures for various shows sell, think about garments made from dead soldiers, and women could wear large dangly earrings made of bits of flack, and they could feel good about helping the war effort by using recycled material at the same time (after all, if your going to have a bunch of flack weighing down on your ears itÔÇÖs nice to have something to feel good about). And itÔÇÖs not like we would have a food shortage due to the war or anything, the soldiers could eat there dead companions (or there not so dead companions if there was a shortage of casualties). In fact, if the meat was fresh enough it could be packed up and sold as Soldier Spam (it could come in a verity of flavors, including explosion barbequed, napalm fried, original, and extra messy). The entertainment value would be supreme as well; you could have dozens of channels spilling out scenes of death and gore, a website detailing the progress of prisoner interrogation, not to mention the propaganda possibilities. War is always good for propaganda. But darling, you have it all wrong grinding up the activists. I mean, one bunch of ground meat is a lot like another; instead they should be sold as steaks, and perhaps ÔÇ£drumsticksÔÇØ and such. It would be extremely patriotic to eat activists; you could support recycling in a big way while eating dinner. As for the bits that really arenÔÇÖt any good unless ground up and mixed with real meat, well, they could be sent to the zoo to be fed to endangered predators (I mean, activists are all for saving endangered species, and they have to eat something (or in this case, someone) so it fits perfectly).

LMAO!!! YouÔÇÖre right of course, there really shouldnÔÇÖt be any problem with mandatory recycling, but try to explain that to the old folk. To hear them tell it they exist to pass on there antiquated wisdom, pet there cat or dog, and play card games (in person of course, god forbid playing a card game over the internet). I mean, come on, any dignified old person would keep a pet ferret, but no, itÔÇÖs always cats or dogs (or even worse, goldfish, gag me with a spoon!). I was thinking about the political fallout though, think of all the propaganda someone could generate with scenes of screaming old ladies being dragged off to ÔÇ£Hag bags inc.ÔÇØ, the political fallout would be disastrous. Of course, we could imprison people who object to strongly. Not violating there freedom of speech of course, but rather preventing the obscene distribution of outmoded ideals, or perhaps corrupting the youth (thatÔÇÖs how they got Socrates you know; they said he was corrupting the youth). This brings me on to my next point, prisoners. They sit around, grow fat, and rape each other. I mean, sure, there are some people out there who arenÔÇÖt happy unless they have some poor shuck under lock and key where they can beat on them at will, but besides providing leisurely jobs for psychopaths, what are they good for? Two things: no good and good for nothing, which is why they should be included in recycling. They have suppler skin then old people, and more meat then children, not to mention sturdy bones that can be made into all sorts of decorations and useful tools. Collectors could purchase the preserved brains of serial killers, and candle holders made out of there skulls would be appealing to people who were looking for a ÔÇ£dark ritualÔÇØ ambiance in there homes (a good supplement to baby skulls, and capable of handling larger candles). It would save money in prison costs, generate revenues for the government, as well as having some left over to give to the victims of a crime. Imagine how much better it would make a young woman feel if she had a nice rug made out of the man who raped her, or perhaps having his skull mounted on the wall over her bedroom door, and can you think of a better way to warn off men who might try to take advantage of her? [ 10-02-2002, 06:39 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

ROTFLMAO!!! But Litvyak, thatÔÇÖs only using half of them, we could make wonderful ÔÇ£octogenarian leatherÔÇØ pants to go with the jackets. There would have to be gloves as well, and maybe even boots. The problem is that it would have to be voluntary, and IÔÇÖm sure that there would be some nasty old ladies who would refuse to do there moral duty to the biker community, but I have a plan. A while ago I considered opening a line of nursing homes called old folk dungeons, but the price of importing giant rats and the subsequent veterinary expenses to keep them in good health was prohibitive. But if we attached a skinning facility to the back and had a good success rate of ÔÇ£convertingÔÇØ old people to the faith of recycling then it would be very profitable. And IÔÇÖm sure IÔÇÖm not the only one who has considered this possibility, it could be a big new industry in a matter of years, and even more convenient then putting a nursing home next to a grave yard. Plus, we have to consider the use of ÔÇ£octogenarian leatherÔÇØ for military purposes. You could dye strips of it for the camouflage net they use to disguise building and such from airplanes. The wrinkly, natural look of aged human skin would blend in much better with the surroundings, and if anyone were to notice it they would think it was a camp of savages, not soldiers. Why, if there ever was a war they could make a big production out of it, with catchy slogans like ÔÇ£Bring your grandma to the frontÔÇØ and ÔÇ£older is better for camouflage leather.ÔÇØ You could make winter gear out of them as well, human skin breathes better then synthetics and so you wouldnÔÇÖt have to worry about sweating. It would be very fashionable among mountain climbers and the likes to have there grandparents sent of to the factory. Plus, after the skinning you could still use the meat and gristle and such for dog food.

Ah, but your problem is that you consider doubtability to be a property of an entity when in fact it is nothing of the kind. An entity either is or it isnÔÇÖt, doubtability comes only from our inability to perceive the truth and thus has no actual relationship to the entity itself. Doubting the existence of something doesnÔÇÖt make it any less real, and believing in something that exists doesnÔÇÖt make it any more real, or in any other manner change its properties, and thus doubt is irrelevant when determining if two entities are identical.

No darling, the real future for children is in the womenÔÇÖs fashion industry. You could patch together a bunch of baby hides to make a lovely, plush, babyskin coat (better then fur in a warm climate, and thereÔÇÖs no risk of the human race becoming extinct). TheyÔÇÖre supple enough to make a nice dress or skirt out of, not to mention gloves and slippers. And we canÔÇÖt forget the potential of bone jewelry (as well as various other body parts could be dried or otherwise preserved). Imaging a woman dressed in an elegant gown made of a dozen babies stitched together with a thick black thread and a little dried hand on a chain around her neck, it would be exquisite. Bone rings would be a possibility as well, not to mention all those little things that could be attached to a charm bracelet. Platform shoes could be made with transparent platforms and a fetus suspended in formaldehyde inside, or eyeballs in a glass sphere for earrings. The potential is endless. And it would be good for our economy, think of all the jobs that would open up in the fashion industry, no training or experience required. Plus, you would still have the meaty parts left over for food, not to mention the guts which could be used for expensive cat food. It would be a major industrial boom and a fashion revolution all in one, and without polluting our environment or using up natural resources. Besides, the whole ÔÇ£we have to suffer to be beautifulÔÇØ thing is a little dated, time to replace it with ÔÇ£children have to suffer for us to be beautiful.ÔÇØ

I was more thinking candle holders myself darling, then all I would need to do is order a copy of the necronomicon from the old books section of amazon.com and I would have the perfect conversation piece for the dining room table. Of course, it would be a solution for a lot of women in debt as well, they could just send there kids to work at the meat factory. And whatever objections may have been made about child labor in the past, this would be a whole different story, none of the long hours and terrible working conditions that made it anathema in the past. An efficient plant could get them in and out in a few hours, perhaps a bit more, and while styrofoam trays and shrink-wrapped plastic may constitute uncomfortable working conditions, I donÔÇÖt think there would be any complains. And of course, we have to consider the perks as well. The childÔÇÖs mother wouldnÔÇÖt have to worry about any messy funeral expenses, or unhappy older relatives moping about telling them how ÔÇ£it is such a shameÔÇØ and ÔÇ£he was a bright ladÔÇØ or any similar nonsense. There would have to be limitations of course, after all a ÔÇ£child choppinÔÇÖ factoryÔÇØ could hardly expect to have there meat considered grade A if they used kids that were too old or too fat.

It would be worth more, really, because a child doesnt have near as much meat on them as a cow and there is a limited supply, so it would be a commodity. Rich people could expand there menu, caviar and leg of baby perhaps It wood be good to feed to growing kids as well, after all it would have exactly the right nutritional balance, perfect for happy meals. Plus, they could dispose of the bones at the same time; you know, buy a kiddy burger happy meal and get a free kiddy bone, collect them all to have a full kiddy skeleton. It would be a good long term marketing plan as well since there are hundreds of bones in the human body of course, some of them are small and could be a choking hazard for kids under 3 years of age.

quote: Duh... if I found the right kind of partner, training wouldn't be required (though it might be fun, anyways) Definitely fun darling. quote: From my point of view that's why homosexuality and sodomy are important even though I don't find either one too tasteful. The last the planet needs is more breeding. As it is, on abortion, I'm not pro-life or pro-choice, but rather pro-death. Mandatory abortion is the way to go, especially considering how many people shouldn't reproduce (and remarkably... these people that shouldn't reproduce are the ones that seem to do it the most). Very true darling, and if the baby happens to have already been born, well, better late then never. And reproduction should be a privilege, not a right. If you had to pay to have a child then people wouldnÔÇÖt have one unless they truly wanted it or unless they had oodles of money and would have no problem supporting it. And as for children who are up for adoption, well, sell them to McDonaldsÔǪ they put so much filler in there burgers I doubt anyone would notice a differenceÔǪ and if they did, wellÔǪ call ÔÇÿem kiddy burgers.

quote: Have you ever tried to stick one of those electro-shock training collars on somebody? It's no small feat, let me tell you. You just havenÔÇÖt found the right kind of partner darling quote: Really I think religious objections of such acts stem from the desire to force one set of morality on everyone in an effort to control them. After all, organized religion is mostly about control. Yep, and one of the best ways for a religion to spread is for it to breed followers. Homosexuals donÔÇÖt do a whole lot of breeding (that happens to be the problem with abortion and birth control as well).

Ok, letÔÇÖs theorize that there is indeed a phenomenon, what you call a higher power, which caused the creation of the universe as we know it. What do we know about this phenomenon? We know that modern science cannot explain it (whether science will ever be able to explain it is unknown, as we have no ability to see the future). We know nothing else. Or, more to the point, here is what we donÔÇÖt know: -We donÔÇÖt know if it still exists, and if it should still exist we donÔÇÖt know if it exists in a manner comparable to how it existed when the universe was created. -We donÔÇÖt know if it is or ever was sentient or self aware. -We donÔÇÖt know how long it existed before the creation of the universe, nor do we know how it came into being or if it has always existed (with a complete unknown spontaneous creation cannot be ignored as a possibility). -We donÔÇÖt know what it is capable of except that at the time it created the universe it was capable of doing so (that is to say, the set of situations that gave it the power to create the universe may or may not still exist, if any special situations are even necessary). -We donÔÇÖt know what it knows (if indeed it is capable of knowing anything), and thus whether or not it is even aware of our existence (and should it be aware of our existence, how it considers us). -We donÔÇÖt know if this phenomenon is indeed a single entity or the result of multiple entities (sentient or otherwise) and we donÔÇÖt know how many entities of this type exist or may have existed at various points throughout the history of reality. -We donÔÇÖt know if science, or some facsimile there of, will ever be able to explain it or if humans (or some derivative there of) would ever be able to understand it in part or in whole. -We can link to event to this phenomenon except the creation of the universe because we have vastly insufficient data to do so. In other words, we know next to nothing about the HP phenomenon and thus can make only assumptions about it. I think I just condensed our religious debate nicely and I shanÔÇÖt bother to reply to your posts pertaining to the previous incarnation of my argument as they are no longer valid. quote: But why? For the hell of it? If that's true, I don't see why we made civilizations. Because it is our nature to create civilizations, it is a result of our biology and society if you will. The evolutionary reason for creating societies is simple, a group allows for pooled resources and thus a greater success rate for reproduction, and thus species that travel in groups tend to survive better then those who donÔÇÖt. We simply have the most advanced brains of all animals, part of this is our social nature, part of this our ability to understand abstracts (which is not unique, various monkeys have been trained to communicate with sign language, which is a form of abstract thought), part of this other stuff that IÔÇÖm not going to get into now (mostly because there is no point). quote: Your saying God is a myth even though it is impossible to acknowledge science without admitting that there had to have been some sort of greater power that caused all of this. You fail to prove an alternate explanation since a muth couldn't exist outside of this universe and outside of science and then start it all, unless your using "myth" as a replacement for "true higher power". God is a myth; the HP phenomenon is (at least according to your argument) a fact. The myth of god may be based in fact, or it may be entirely spurious, this is unknown as insufficient data on the HP phenomenon exists. quote: There's still advancement forward though. You aren't HURT for not advancing as fast in terms of pleasure. And I never said that you were, please pay more attention. All IÔÇÖm saying is that by helping society your limiting yourself. Not hurting, just limiting. Personally, I see no reason to limit my personal pleasure for society. For someone I care about, perhaps, but not for society. quote: Ever hear of Kohlberg (sp?)'s theory of moral development? Nope, but it would be interesting if you could give me some background or a link or something. quote: Anyway, I was operating under the premise that friendship actually meant more to you than utilitarian value. My mistake. Friendship does mean more to me then utilitarian value darling. I was not referring to utilitarian value when I said that friends are valuable, in fact I believe that I did clearly say that my friends mean something to me besides what they can do for me, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean IÔÇÖm willing to ignore the utilitarian value either. quote: Not really. It's much more pleasurable to think about a good thing I did for someone that will have a long lasting significant impact, which I will always be able to remember and draw happiness from, as opposed to remembering some poor sap who I briefly ruined due to my own inadequacies who I probably didn't affect for long and won't even be remembered by. First of all darling, we have to consider the possibility that doing good is more pleasurable for you, while doing evil is more fun for me. That said, you write with such bias that itÔÇÖs a little pathetic. You compare doing seeming really good for someone that has a long lasting and significant impact to remembering doing some minor bit of nastiness to someone. It simply isnÔÇÖt a valid comparison (not to mention that jab about inadequacies, whatever that was suppose to mean). Anyway, lets just leave it that I donÔÇÖt find doing nice things for others all that satisfying and I do find being nasty satisfying, where as you are something of the opposite. quote: It's not really harmful if your a cynic to begin with and expect it to be coming. It's sorta pleasurable to know that someone is stupid enough to *try* to betray you, and then keep doing it when warned many times. Well, I find the infliction of pain, physical or otherwise, to be pleasurable, you donÔÇÖt, so itÔÇÖs natural that we have different views. quote: Only problem is you make long-term enemies that can band against you. Better to make them have a mental breakdown by doubting all of their "friends" sincerity while hiding in the shadows than letting them have a target. Yep, on the other hand I donÔÇÖt have any long term enemies and I tend to deal vengeance swiftly and easily. I have had them in the past, but then causing them misery was always a game for me anyway, so I never much minded. quote: Again, it reinforces gender roles and all of my arguments against pre-marital sex apply. I disagree. Your old argument was against promiscuous sex, but polyamory is nothing like promiscuous sex. It is simply having multiple long term relationships, which is nothing like sleeping with anything that moves. I imagine it would have all sorts of problems, such as jealousy and the likes, but if those can be overcome (and they can) then there is nothing societal wrong with that. quote: Tough luck for him/her that he/she is a freak. It doesn't change the fact that it's against intended biology and serves no real purpose. Wrong. If there is such a thing as intended biology (that is, if god created us this way because this is how he wants us) then for there to be an error it would have to be gods fault (after all, he made us, and if were flawed then thatÔÇÖs because how he made us). On the other hand, if we are not the creations of god then there is no intended biology and thus nothing wrong. And it does serve a purpose, population control. Among other things, stress during cretin parts of pregnancy is one cause for homosexual children, and such prolonged stress (at least among animals, apes included) tends to be from overpopulation. Homosexuals donÔÇÖt generally reproduce, and thus you have functioning members of the society that can help fight of predators, raise children, et cetera, but that donÔÇÖt add to the population problem by reproducing themselves. The same works for humans, though we are subject to all types of long term stress that animals wouldnÔÇÖt have to deal with, and thus the mechanism is less iefective forus quote: Homophobic=fear of homosexuals Being uncomfortable from certain activities=personal preference Being disgusted with homosexual activities=being disgusted with people eating live cockroaches (that doesn't make me afraid of live cockroaches or eating them either, it's just so far outside of a logical norm that i'd never consider it) Whatever. quote: No, it means that you can't justify sodomy with "they are attracted", since it's still not the correct thing to do. You keep saying that its wrong, but you have yet to support this (except to say its unnatural, which it clearly isnÔÇÖt, and which (being that we are surrounded by things that are far less natural) is not a valid argument anyway). Even the passage about sodomy from the bible is debated and may not have meant what it is interpreted to mean. quote: Sorry to break it to you, but transsexed/intersexed, etc people are not the main people who commit sodomy, and regardless of how defective people are born, it doesn't mean that they are doing the correct/right thing. Yes darling, I know, all IÔÇÖm saying is that you cannot be offended by homosexuals breaking the clearly defined boundary between male and female when the boundary is not so hard and fast. quote: Look at some statistics about marriages where there was no pre-marital sex at all and see how the statistics change. Also add in factors concerning religion and faith, and you'll be surprised at how low the divorce rate drops. Yep, I never denied that religion is good for controlling people. quote: Where/when/how did the AIDS virus develop, then? I know that it was first popular with homosexuals, but i'm wondering where it came from prior to that. First of all, there is no such thing as an AIDS virus. AIDS (which stands for some type of immunodeficiency syndrome) is the result of HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus) and there are numerous people who have HIV and donÔÇÖt have AIDS. Second, it was never ÔÇ£popularÔÇØ among homosexuals. The reason it became known as a gay disease is that male homosexuals tend toward promiscuity (not all of them, but most) and thus are much more likely to get any STD, HIV being no exception. As to where it came from, I donÔÇÖt know (IÔÇÖm a CS major, not a med student), but I would imagine that it mutated from some other disease just like any other virus. If you want more history on, do some research.

Yep astrology If you write something vague enough it will apply, in at least a limited way, to a large percent of the populations, and if you group a few such vague statements together most people who read them will be able to apply at least most of the statements to themselves in some way while discarding the parts they dont like

Were just teasing you darling, donÔÇÖt take it personally.

ROTFLMAO!!! Litvyak, you truly are a kindred spirit.

quote: durnit...my last post didn't seem to trigger the "new posts" lightbulb--perhaps because it's the 99th post? But anyway... I still am curious as to what was meant by "inclusive," as well as how the rest of my previous post logically evaluates. My apologies for not getting around to you earlier, I spend so much time arguing with Dredd that itÔÇÖs easy to forget everyone else. It appears that I misread your post, you do indeed phrase it exclusively, and thus I will have to disagree. If I have to identical objects (doesnÔÇÖt matter what they are, so long as they are identical) then the property of location (which is much more physical than doubt) would have to be the same, and thus no two entities could be identical, completely erasing the possibility of identical entities from existence. Furthermore, your brain and your mind are not identical, they are the same thing. [ 10-01-2002, 07:38 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]

quote: Maybe you misunderstand me. There have been scientific studies of "ghosts" and "poltergeists" which detect odd amounts of energy, but in no way are those things they detect anywhere along the same lines/capabilities that a God would need, nor have they ever been found (as far as I know), to miraculously heal someone. First of all, scientific studies of the supernatural are painfully limited and often not all that scientific, so just because an entity capable of causing such a phenomenon hasnÔÇÖt been discovered doesnÔÇÖt mean it doesnÔÇÖt exist. Maybe such entities are rare, or maybe they donÔÇÖt want to be discovered, you donÔÇÖt know and neither do I, so do not dismiss it as a possibility simply. quote: That arguement makes no sense and you contradict your previous position. You assume that science will be able to explain everything, but then you discount the most obvious point of science, that every effect has some sort of cause. No matter how many other explanations you can think of, if you believe in science, you have to believe that there was an ultimate cause, and there's no way that cause can be WITHIN SCIENCE since if it was, it would ALSO need a cause. Actually, this is in perfect keeping with my previous explanation. Current scientific theories donÔÇÖt provide a very plausible explanation for the beginning of the universe, and religious explanations (while quite prolific) are even more spurious (considering that there is a long history of religious explanations being discarded). So, seeing as both known groups of possibilities are unlikely, it stands to reason that there is probably another explanation. It may be scientific, it may be religious, or it may be something else, but there is an explanation. We, however, do not know what this explanation is, and thus can only guess. Perhaps the universe exists in an infinite loop and has done so for all of eternity, perhaps it is a paradox like something out of a bad sci-fi film in which the universe, at some later date, causes its own creation. I can guess until IÔÇÖm blue in the face, maybe we are a scientific experiment in some alien laboratory with no real connection to whatever created the aliens and thus no real way of determining how they came to be. I could go on, but why bother? These are all possible but highly improbable explanations, and so rather then picking one, I will instead admit that I do not know and be done with it. quote: You also fail to point out how a third explanation is at all "probable". That doesn't make sense in itself, since you can't even point to a third explanation. You seem to be trying to disprove God by making a blind assumption that there's something we haven't thought of. Actually, I do nothing of the kind. You are trying to prove that god MUST exist because we donÔÇÖt know, and if we donÔÇÖt know then it MUST be god. That is flawed logic, and IÔÇÖm simply pointing out that we donÔÇÖt know enough about the beginning of the universe. As I have said before, this neither proves nor disproves god, it simply shows that we donÔÇÖt know enough to argue about it. Please do not peruse this point unless you have some new logic, the logic your using right now is the same logic that you have been using for the last few posts, and I tire of repeating my counter to it. quote: Like it or not, just because "you dont know" the ultimate creation of the universe, it doesn't answer my arguemnt, and you really can't overcome the fact that there HAS to be a higher power of some sort, outside of science, that started it all. At that point, you need to stop wondering if God exists, but what the specific things that the God/higher power wants (if anything). If everything has a cause, then god has to have a cause as well, and thus he cannot exist (but the universe could have caused itself, such as in the infinite loop scenario). If, on the other hand, not everything needs a cause then the universe could have come into existence without cause, and thus god isnÔÇÖt necessary (or even a higher power, since it COULD simply be an as of yet unexplained causeless phenomenon). quote: Fine, ignore my last sentence. The concept of infinity still does not preclude the existance of God since God would be outside of our scientific understanding anyway and would be able to do whatever He would want to. Ridiculous, is there any reason to believe that godÔÇÖs actions are not bound by time? I mean, sure, he CLAIMS to be all powerful, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean he is, only that he is really powerful (if, of course, he exists at all). quote: No, my quote from above is true. It's proven by just about everything that happens in this universe. It cant be false. Note in my last quote (at least the part you quoted), I never said that it was God. I said that there had to be a cause outside of science, and there's no way that isn't true. Outside of current science, sure, but so say that it is impossible for science to explain it is presumptuous. quote: Actually, the way I phrased it, at the time, was probably because I can't accept the possibility that we should be living in ANARCHY where human life is as valuable as CATTLE. It's probably because of my intelligence and arrogance, i'm not sure. I do know intrinsically, however, that my life, and the lives of people I care about, are more valuable than that. IÔÇÖll let you in on a little secret, darling, they have as much value as you want them too. I personally consider humans better then cattle (after all, cattle are useful only for food and milk, humans are useful for a plethora of things). We donÔÇÖt live in anarchy because we can assign our own values things, they arenÔÇÖt intrinsic values, but they are values none the less, and most people assign approximately equivalent values to the more important things in life. quote: Good job explaining HOW we are here, but not WHY we are here. There's no reason why WE would be so unique and powerful among all the other species, unless your going to argue it was by chance, which would seem just as insane as arguing that there are invisible space bunnies around us controlling all of our actions. We are simply the most evolved species on the planet, and we are only powerful when compared to inferior species. There is a certain degree of chance involved, but no invisible bunnies. quote: That isn't scientific, and scientists will never state that they will be able to prove or disprove God through science. Actually, this is history, which is a science. And while I may not be able to disprove god, it does provide an alternate explanation. quote: Just because you do things good for society it's not necessarily bad for you. There isn't a direct trade off. Both true and untrue. True because you can help society while helping yourself, untrue because you would do better at helping yourself if you ignored society. quote: If I help some old lady cross the street, it's not going to be bad for me, even though it's good for society. ItÔÇÖs an expenditure of time, a limited commodity which is impossible to reclaim. You may think it is worth a bit of your time to help some hag across the street, I shanÔÇÖt bother. quote: Just like if I turn in a theif to the police, it's good for society but it's not bad for me. True, but it would be better for you if you blackmailed the thief into doing something for you, perhaps money or perhaps stealing something you wanted. quote: Waiting till marriage to have sex (not really good/bad argument), may be moral (under Christianity), but it's not BAD for you to do it. It doesn't directly HARM you in any way. (ex. Just because you don't have enough money to buy a $500,000 car doesn't mean that your HURT because you can't do it. It's a "luxury" that isn't needed.) It may not be bad, but wouldnÔÇÖt it be better if you didnÔÇÖt have to wait? As for the car, again, not bad to go without one, but it would be preferable to have one. quote: It's my experience that if you don't have some sort of moral compass, your never really close to friends and are extremely detached from them. People are going to like you more if they have no fear of you stabbing them in the back, harming them, etc, and if you care about them they are much more likely to feel comfortable around you and like you. From what you've said, it doesn't seem like you care about your friends enough that they'd like you beyond the level of how useful you are. Oh, I admit that being a bit of a sociopath makes a close friendships few and far between, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean I donÔÇÖt care for my friends. I do care for them, and if they had a problem that I could help with I would be there for them, but that doesnÔÇÖt prevent me from using them most of the time. As for backstabbing, all of my friends know IÔÇÖm capable of backstabbing them without remorse, but I donÔÇÖt do it in a major way very often, because, believe it or not, friends are valuable. quote: I don't know, i've always found being able to feel superior due to internal happiness, virtue, and desire for something greater to be much more pleasurable than just ruining some poor sap. One is external and can disappear, while the other is internal and can never be taken away. Darling, your wrong, virtue and ÔÇ£internal happinessÔÇØ (whatever that is) can disappear just as easily as joy from causing harm to others. Easier to loose, really, after all there will always be people to prey on no matter what happens. quote: When people continue to enjoy hurting you even after they are warned, it is much more justifiable and helpful to exact vengance instead of doing it for some sort of sick pleasure. If they know who did it, it can come back to hurt you and people can label you as a threat. Staying in the shadows is much easier, that way doubt and confusion spreads. Oh darling, I thought it was already decided that IÔÇÖm into sick pleasure As for it being more justifiable if you warn them first, sure, but my main justification for doing something is pleasure remember. But more helpful? Not at all, if anything it lets them get away with harming you for a while, which isnÔÇÖt the kind of thing to be tolerated. As for staying in the shadows, yea, that can be important at times, but (beyond a source for sick pleasure that is) vengeance is only useful if it instills fear into someone so that they donÔÇÖt act against you. If you make a point of reacting swiftly and harshly to wrongs, then people will avoid wronging you (I know it works for me). quote: I think we are, cause I started off by implying that sex is good if it's only with one partner. I'm considering promiscuous sex when it spreads beyond a single committed relationship with one partner that is maintained, often implying future marraige, but definitely not implying a temporary relationship. Premarital sex leads to the concept that sleeping with whoever you want if and when you want to is fine, thus promiscuity. What about polyamory? There are individuals who can have long-term relationships with more then one person. Makes formal marriage a pain, but it differs from promiscuity in that all of there relationships are long term (and, presumably, everyone involved is aware of everyone else involved). quote: That's not anyone else's problem but their own, not to mention there's no biological purpose to NOT being attracted to members of the opposite sex. Well, there is a biological reason for people to not be attracted to members of the opposite sex, and again, this is a fact. Sexual orientation is determined by a part of the brain that can, if the circumstances are correct during the correct point in fetal development, can end up switched, leaving a female child that is not sexually attracted to mails, but to females (or a man who is attracted to men, not women). This is a scientifically accepted fact and most any competent doctor could confirm this. Things can also end up a little muddles, resulting in an individual who is attracted to both male and female partners. quote: That term really pisses me off. Homophobic is when your AFRAID of homosexuals. In no way am I AFRAID of homosexuals. I just objectively think that homosexuality is STUPID, makes NO SENSE, and serves no LOGICAL PURPOSE. If I see a homosexual, i'm not going to bolt, or refuse to talk to him/her, or be uncomfortable, I will just think that their belief system/biological system is really screwed up. You may not be uncomfortable with them, but you are uncomfortable with what they do, otherwise you wouldnÔÇÖt find it disgusting. quote: Just because it may be pleasurable for some to have sodomy, doesn't make it the "correct" thing to do, just like it may be pleasurable to "have sex with a hole in the wall", doesn't make it correct. Does this mean that youÔÇÖre against masturbation as well? quote: Sodomy does not recognize the inherent truth of male/female. Darling, you are so naive. Sorry to break it for you darling, but things are a lot more messy then just boys and girls. The most obvious example would be intersexed individuals (what used to be called hermaphrodites), and incase you donÔÇÖt know IÔÇÖm referring to people who are some combination of male and female (and, rarest of all, a true mix that has both male and female primary and secondary sexual characteristics). This alone makes it clear that things are more complex the male and female, but there is also a deeper distinction. As with sexual orientation (as I covered above), the part of the brain that covers gender identity can be out of sync with what gender the rest of there body is (the cause is similar to homosexuals, a chemical imbalance during the critical point during development, the result literally being a physically male individual who is mentally female). Such persons are called transsexuals. There are a few more deviations that I know of, such as transgendered individuals who are some mix of male and female (kind of like how bisexuals are a mix of being straight and gay), and neuters and such, but I think I have made my point. And before you doubt anything IÔÇÖm saying here, any competent doctor could confirm the existence of intersexed and transgendered individuals, and probably the rest of it as well (it would be really easy to research as well). And why do I know you ask? Because I took a human sexuality class in the not so distant past and because I tend to be good at academics (and because it was a topic of research that I had to do). quote: But don't you care about people you care about being happy? Sure I do, I just donÔÇÖt see how my death should make them happy. quote: Ever think of trying to impact someone's life in a positive way? Might be a distinct difference from only caring about personal well-being. Oh, I impact peoples lives in a positive way, just nothing grand or lasting. quote: Well, I doubt you know for a FACT that it did not jump species (since there are obviously opposing opinions on it), but I also admit that my only source is just some article I read awhile ago in a Sociology class. Yes darling, and there are different opinions about alligators in the sewers of New York City, but that doesnÔÇÖt mean that there are any, its and urban legend. Among the medical community there is no debate about whether HIV came from animals, none, only lay people consider it a possibility.

quote: I think we have this forums first love story in the making! Ahhhh! Run for the airlock No, wait, TheBunny is Resnig Two and will probably be at the airlock, run for the missile bay!

Ok, here we go again quote: -Ghosts and other supernatural phenomena can be explained by science, but their actions can never be on the level as those of god. (creating matter out of nothing, healing someone, etc) You do not know this, do not presume to. Creating matter from nothing is impossible, creating matter from energy is not, and there is nothing at all impossible about healing. quote: -Only computer games of AD&D, too lazy for Pen and Paper Wimp! You just dont know what your missing. quote: -Believing in God is much more likely than it being some other dimension that created us that isn't subject to the laws of science, because of all the clues i've been mentioning. Well Im not saying that some other dimension created us, simply that I dont know. A third, currently unthought-of explanation is perfectly possible, probable in fact. quote: -If God is all powerful, he could have created the universe at any point in time (using our concept of time). In no way would God be unable to do whatever He wanted, whenever he wanted, since He would be all-powerful. The concept of infinity doesn't stop God from creating the universe. Replace "infinity" of time with "neverending". By replacing infinity with never-ending you change nothing, as basically you are using never-ending to mean infinity. You WILL NOT be able to confuse me with changes of nomenclature. quote: -It is necessary for there to be a being outside of science. There can't be an "uncaused cause" in science. There has to be a cause for everything within the realm of science, so whatever caused the creation of the first atom/molecule/bit of energy had to be from outside of science. You could be right, but I dont have any way of determining this as true or false, and neither do you. There is no evidence that supports the existence of god (I believe I have addressed miracles repeatedly, so please leave that argument where it died) and thus no evidence that suggests your theory is correct, and therefore it is as likely as any other random guess at what happened. Even if there is some sort of divine figure, there is no reason to believe that it is anything like your Christian god. quote: -Not everyone has the same view of right and wrong. Without a higher power to be responsible to, popularity would define morality and would let atrocities that people currently think of as bad, exist, including racism, sexism, murder, rape, etc. Yea, I knew that already, what are you trying to say? Oh, and on an aside, the way you phrased this makes it sound like you believe in god because you cant accept the possibility that your set of morals arent divinely inspired. A very week way of arguing. quote: -Humanity is a general flaw in science because it can't explian why we are here, why we are as evolved as we are, and why we can comprehend abstract thoughts and are so far above animals, especially in regards to morality. Oh dear, I was hoping you wouldnt be so naive. The reason we are here is a combination of luck and evolution. From a biological stand point, are function is to reproduce successfully and to insure that our offspring are as successful as possible. Why we have abstract through is simple, because we evolved to the point where we can have abstract thought, while you must admit is part of what allowed are species to become the most powerful on the planet. As for morality, I have already explained that morality is a product of biological and sociological evolution, and necessary for any social group to function, human or animal (and do not doubt that apes have social structure, and thus something that resembles morality). quote: -Also, my analogy about the car makes sense. If the person with all that experience said "I can't fix the car, and I won't be able to", i'd believe him. Just like when scientists know they'll never be able to explain God/very creation of the universe, they won't. Explaining god is easy, he is a mythical character developed to explain the unknown, and scientists do come up with explanations for how the universe came to be, they just havent gotten very far yet (this kind of thing, after all, takes hundreds of years). quote: -Parents were Christian but never taught me about it or practiced/went to church. Lived with mother and grandparents, parents never married. Saw father sometimes, but he kept dragging me to Church which I hated. Stopped seeing him by my own choice due to that reason. Started attending Catholic school, disagreed with lots of Catholic teachings but realized the very high probability of the existance of God and the benefits of morality. Sounds like we have complete opposite father figures, it was my dad who originally counseled me not to believe in god when I was undecided (if a little on the skeptical side). My mother had just had her religious experience (which was a perfectly explainable scientific phenomena that she insisted was the hand of god) and we were going to church regularly. I think I was 7 or so at the time and already quite skeptical of that kind of nonsense even though I really was to young to know better. Anyway, he had little trouble convincing me that god was just something people believed in to reassure themselves of life after death and to explain the unexplainable. quote: -I did do things that society didn't like but were still moral under Christianity. I didn't really get away with any immoral/anti-socitial acts though, since I realized the rational behind them being immoral/bad for society, so I didn't do them. It was based in logic for the most part. That is interesting, do you mean you never really got away with any immoral/anti-social acts as in you were caught and punished or because you decided it was illogical? quote: -Morality is a hinderance, but it is Good: Morality=Hinderence=Good: (including, not limited to) 1. People like you better if your moral. 2. God/Hell/Pleasure on that level. 3. Keeps me consistent (I hate inconsistance and lack of advocacy, so I like staying somewhat in bounds of a moral code) 4. Pleasure from greater meaning, etc. 5. Helps soceity. Good for society, bad for the individual. I value myself above society, and thus I do whats best for me. 1. Untrue, people like you if you appear to be a nice person who is easy to get along with and congenial. Im perfectly good at that with acquaintances and need maintain few illusions with my friends. 2. Indeterminate and only valid if you believe in god. 3. Im inconsistency and caprice incarnate. I might even go as far as to say Im constantly inconsistent. 4. Pleasure from greater evil Seriously though, you can get just as much pleasure from watching a plan mature and succeed, or tricking some fool, or what have you. More really, because you benefiting yourself in the process. 5. Bah! Who cares! quote: -People don't wrong me, they think they do, I see that, then I gain vengance. EX. Someone lies to me when I know they are, I tell them multiple times that friends who lie to me are betraying me and I always get back at them. I warn the person about 5-10 times about how I really ruin people who lie to me. They keep it up. I ruin them. Vengance is best when they don't even know who did it and you give every possible opportunity to forgive them. Vengeance is a fun excuse for hurting people, not to mention keeping people from taking advantage of you, but you go about it all wrong. Why warn someone 5-10 times and then ruin them (whatever that means)? Vengeance is best when they stand no chance and have at least a good idea who did it. quote: -Non-promiscuuous pre-marital sex is fine in my eyes as long as it stays that way, except that it almost never does and it leads to promiscuous sex. Ok darling, what exactly is your definition of promiscuous sex? I know for a fact that premarital sex doesnt lead to anything I would consider promiscuity, but perhaps we are using different definitions. quote: -Cars and BCM have functions (travel/entertainment), both of which are needed. -Sodomy is not needed for any biological function or pleasure (that's why there are two genders) A very bad point darling considering that homosexuals find no appeal in members of the opposite sex, and thus it most certainly does serve the purpose of pleasure, youre just homophobic. quote: -I think that people who commit sodomy can do it if they really want to, but I don't want to know about it, I think it's digusting (like eating live cockroaches are disgusting), and it's unnatural and biologically pointless. Oh, lovely analogy, but that doesnt mean that everyone else thinks its disgusting. As for biologically pointless and unnatural (both of which I have repeatedly covered but which you have ignored) it is no more biologically pointless or unnatural then recreational sex using birth control (and you have already stated out that you are not against birth control or recreational sex). quote: -Dont you have anyone you care about or respect that you'd want to be able to live a better life after your gone? Well a lot of people will have better lives after Im gone, but there simply not people I care about Seriously though, I expect people to deal with problems for themselves (or to deal with them for me) and I dont really worry how people are going to do after I die. There are people who I would like to be successful and happy, but never at my own expense. Ill leave a will, and thats about it. quote: -Don't you gain pleasure from having lasting positive impacts on people's lives and the attention and respect and admiration you get from it? I dont think I have ever had a lasting impact on someones life in a positive way, but if I have I never got much attention and respect for it. When I do help someone I tend to do it with the purpose of proving (once again) that Im better then them (and when people do things for me, there proving that they are subservient to me, so go figure). quote: -Maybe a lot of the diseases we do have DID come from animals. Some diseases have jumped species, but most do not come from animals (and I have never heard of one coming from sex with animals besides HIV, and I know that is false). quote: -AIDS i'm pretty sure jumped species. And I know for a fact that it did not. I recall this very specifically from a human sexuality class I took in college a couple of years ago, what is your source? quote: -Life is one of the inalienable rights which should be protected and guarded. But its not inalienable; otherwise we wouldnt have a death sentence (and dont tell me your against capital punishment too). Im going to drop the abortion subject entirely, we both know neither of us will convince the other. P.S. You never left me a private message, may I ask why?

Oh dear, that is scary. IÔÇÖm once more very glad I donÔÇÖt live in Canada. Is the point of this to protect the assailant or the victum? ItÔÇÖs not as clear as it should be. Furthermore, if IÔÇÖm reading this correctly, you cannot defend yourself from someone who you ÔÇ£provokeÔÇØ (which seams to include insulting gesture and words) unless they intend to cause death or grievous bodily harm. [ 09-29-2002, 03:02 AM: Message edited by: Dragon Lady ]