Nitramosma

That would affect his ability to watch tv - wants to watch it; just got be exposed to all this smut :uhh: Other channels are also an option - but that's not the point. He simply doesn't want to even run the risk of ever seeing it on any channel or whatever. It often baffles me why people take such offence to smut or blatant sexuality when we are, in actuality, animals with a pretty high sex drive. Sure, people need to learn to respect women as more than just objects, but I don't think we should get outraged or be surprised if we do see smut on TV. Just as Hicks said, 'there are sexual thoughts, therefore there is playboy.' I would make a topic on Bill Hicks and share some Youtube vids of his killer material if these forums weren't G rated. :lol: #-o PM me if you want me to send you some links so you can see for yourself the genius that was Bill Hicks. Thats true. Humans are one of only two species on the entire world that have sex for pure pleasure. The other...dolphins.

Figures with finite volume and infinite surface area befuddle me. Like the Mandelbrot set and Gabriel's horn.

Aww comeon... Now that you edited it I just look stupid. I don't need your help doing that. lol

You might not know this being so pig headed and all but Britain is running the south of Iraq and, although Baghdad will obviously have most of the insurgent attacks, there are a lot less comparing that to Basra which we are controlling. You just said there are the most insurgent attacks in Baghdad, but we have more in Basra. Which is it?

thats not true. We have Britney Spears getting her head shaved on the news too. Also, sometimes the police chase white guys.

He does not look chill to me. In fact he looks quite nervous. Unless you were refering to his color, in which case he looks more cold than chilled.

Oh right, you just randomly throw that statement around in the middle of an argument, that's cute. What's the point of bringing it up if it doesn't have anything to do with what is being discussed? You actually seem to be a fan of doing that, making ridiculously personal attacks while having an actual discussion. I guess it's a good way to win an argument, if you're playing tag at recess in the third grade... Um...I believe the reason he brought it up was because Intarweb was continuing his pattern of rude posts, not to question his reputation.

Because he's a Christian :P I'd love to see how Carlin would bat that little paradox away, most likely '[omg] any1 hu nos wat 'omnizipunt' meenz iz lik gona go 2 hell coz dey dunt belif in God' Un-Biased View The existance of such a being would that would have created the world, it's forces and dimensions, and invariably, time itself, would not be confined by the forces it created, and would therefore be outside of time itself. Catholic View God is more powerful than the forces, time included, that he created. You have a point there... But maybe that being was sent here from another time line... IMO, that sounds more plausible than the religious theory of God just "being." Another way you could view it is that omniscience does not contradict free will. Example: Lets say I have a child. I presume to know my child very well. If I were to leave a cookie out on the table an hour before dinner, when I know my child get hungry, I would know that when I returned to that table the cookie would be gone, because I know my child would have eaten it. I did not force my child to eat it so I did not disturb his free will, but I had prior knowledge of what his actions would be. This is how I consider God. He does not remove our choices, he merely knows our hearts and minds so well that he knows what we will do before we do it.

Another thing I've never understood is how homosexual actions (not homosexuality in itself) can be considered immoral, when most evidence we have suggests that it is caused by a physical difference in the brain. The study shows that in homosexual males a section of the brain relation to sexual thought/actions was the size of the average female as opposed to the same section of the brain being much larger in heterosexual males. I know this is not conclusive proof of anything, but it begs the question of wether or not homosexuality is a genetic condition. On the flip side, most Churches don't say that homosexuality is immoral, but rather homosexual actions. So I suppose that even if it was a genetic condition you could resist your natural urges, but that still doesn't answer the question of why it is immoral in the first place.

Actually if I'm not mistaken they knew that the entire city had been leveled, but they did not believe that one bomb could have done it. They considered it a fluke if you will. We gave them fair warning and they didn't believe we could do it again....until we did. Once again, it may not have been the best course of action, but it did result in the fewest American casualties possible and that was what we were concerned with.

Ah yes, because said group isn't around where I live, that means I'm ignorant. Nice logic. How about this - I've heard of it, I know it's some group that makes smart little kids think they're geniuses when they're not, and that's about it. Other than that, I haven't a clue what their purpose is...Probably nothing more than that. Whatever. The rest of your post can be summed up in one word...Stupid. Go tell your MENSA buddies how smart you are, because noone here cares about your silly little club. Some of us here are actually adults who don't need to join a club that tells us we're smart in order to not feel like a moron. So you've pretty much stopped even reading my posts. Thats fine, but then you have no right to respond to them. And actually Mensa is a group that I can go to meetings and have intelligent conversations, unlike with you I have to use little words so I don't overload your speck of a brain. Furthermore, Mensa has chapters in every major city, so at worst you'd have to drive maybe and hour and a half to join and then you could go to events when they are closer to your place of residence like I do. Not that it really matters, because judging by your responses, you wouldn't have a shot anyway. Also, I knew I was smarter than most people long before I joined Mensa. Its the idiots like you that proved this fact to me.

Sepiroth Red XIII Two of the most awesome video game characters I know.

You rambling about how I'm smarter than you. W/e. BTW saying you have not clue what Mensa is only furthers my belief in you own ignorance. Then you are completely refuting your own first post. I can deal with that. Once again, I'm not sure why you are railing against me on this as I also said censorship is unnecessary and irrational. Censorship=Step to communism. Right....thats some infallible logic right there. [/sarcasm] Wow there is a communist country that censors lots of things. That does not mean censoring things leads to communism. Thats like saying if a bomb goes off then there will be fire. Then going outside seeing fire and thinking that a bomb must have gone off. One leads to the other not the other way around. Although I would like to set off a bomb near you mainly to see if it would knock some common sense into your thick skull.

Understandably attacking civilians is never the way to go, but as I remember the government at the time thought that the Japanese would surrender after one atomic bomb. The second was because the Japanese were being stubborn. I think we were looking for a quick way to end the war with minimal American casualties. We found it, unfortunately it maximized Japanese civilian casualties. I don't think it was necessarily the only was, but it was the most efficient way and the way that risked the fewest American lives. And wrong or right, what happened is over. One thing we did do right was help them in their rebuilding efforts afterward. We gave them so much that they eventually surpassed us technologically, and not to say lives for technology is a fair trade, but we did try to make it right.

My rambling incoherence(spelled right unlike you)? Lol. Everyone else here seemed to understand what I was saying. I'll just use smaller words for you in the future. Well first off, thank you for recognizing that I'm almost a genius. I mean I am in Mensa, are you? Didn't think so. And second, you did not just say the world is going to end, you said: There is a big difference in those two. Not all religious believe that the world will end very soon. Once again you show your true ignorance. Furthermore you said I never said we should censor violence or sexual content. In fact if you look at my first post thats exactly what I said we shouldn't do. But does that mean we shouldn't worry about the long term psychological damage caused by them? NO. Is it possible that people just want someone to blame? Yes. But is it also possible that these displays when seen by certain people will lead to serial killers and rapists? Once again yes. Why not try to make the world a better place? I accept that the world will end. I also accept that I am going to hell when I die. So this is the one place of your post that I agree with you, except that stupid "No, not there...There. Yea. That one." WTH is that crap. I just hope that all of you who do not know Jesus did not reject him, for then I shall surely see you in hell.

OMG what is it with all you morons dragging religion into everything. First of all you were the first one to bring up the religious aspects of this conversation. Second of all why does everyone here seem to think conservative viewpoint=fundamentalist Christian=super religious=only listens to Bible There is no logical tie in most of those. I'm conservative, but I'm a borderline Catholic, not a fundamentalist Christian. The Bible (something I do believe to be correct most of the time) says that homosexual actions are immoral and I will immediately burn in fiery ghenna when I die, yet I'm still gay. Stop thinking that every conservative has the exact same viewpoints as every other conservative and President George W. Bush. Furthermore, your reasoning is completely flawed anyway. Even if I knew the world would end tomorrow I would probably still work for positive change because a principle part of Jesus' message was that we must work for social justice. And why do you assume in the first place that everyone who believes in God thinks the world will end sooner than later? Congratulations, I've lost that much more faith in humanity thanks to your utterly unimportant and poorly thought out comment. You win the 1st place stupidity ribbon!

What is it that the mass media shows that you feel is unethical? I'm not particularly against what you've said as my response would depend on what you're refering to but your point takes me back to what was said about morality in the Presidential Election thread (there can be no real absolute morality). I suppose that I've been caught in another one of my famous mis-statements. I don't have many problems with whats in the mass media. (I don't approve of all the sexual and violent content readily available on TV, but I don't by any means think it should be censored) More what I was referring to was not actually mainstream media, but rather new age and modern "art" and performance pieces. For example: government grant money when to an "artist" who took an image of the Virgin Mary, smeared it with elephant fecal matter, and surrounded it with pornographic pictures of female genetaila. This is the type of thing I don't approve of and I believe should not necessarily be censored, but certainly not sponsored by the government. Another government sponsored "artist" engaged in a performance piece in which (This is a quote from the book "The Death of Right and Wrong") This piece of trash was not only govt funded, but it fulfilled a course requirement at the "performer"'s college. This is the kind of crap I can't stand. I don't care that we don't censor you creativity if thats what you call this disgusting display, but please do not give taxpayer money to this garbage.

I think as far as keeping things from children, that is entirely the parent's responsibility. I do not believe at all in government censorship mainly because of all the problems it creates. However I wish the mass media would make some ethical decisions regarding what to show and what not to show. When it comes down to it, people will get what they want and censorship does nothing to stop that from happening. So why waste time on legislation that will ultimately end up doing nothing and being declared unconstitutional. Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our society and once you censor one thing it becomes easier and easier to censor anything.

I'm sure those in Saudi Arabia who sentence rape victims to corporal punishment with a whip think theirs is the right way of living too. If you look at the works of any philosopher worth half a [cabbage] you will see that almost all of them point to an objective good. Socrates and Plato even calls it "the good." If you look at is reasonable, almost all cultures over time have established very very similar morals and values, because there is an objective "good" or right as we would commonly refer to it today. If there is no objective moral standard, then there must either be a subjective moral standard or no moral standard at all. We can rule out no moral standard at all because humans have an inherent sense that some things are wrong(killing, rape, etc.). But a subjective moral standard implies that it can change and that which can change is not a standard at all. The only option left is that there is an objective "good" or right.

If I had to pick one game I'd say FFVII, but music from Kingdom Hearts is good, as well as music from most other Final Fantasies.

He didn't say Islam if you didn't notice, he said Islamic Fundamentalists and there is a radical difference between the two. Islamic Fundamentalists are those who take the Koran literally when it says to "kill the infidel." I may not agree with one saying that any religion is better than any other in most cases, but in this case I'll make an exception. Jesus said when someone strikes you turn the other cheek, not kill them like the prophet Muhammed said. yeah your right, i take it back but about prophet Muhammed saying that we should kill someone who strikes us then i can assure you that you are wrong, and i can give you a huge and long explanation on your pm if you want I don't need it explained, I merely accidentally mis-spoke. I do understand that the Koran never says to kill those who strike you, but it does often say things which when translated are equivalent to kill the infidels, but therein lies the problem. I cannot read Arabic and therefore cannot read an untranslated version. Most of those who practice Islam know that there are inherent weaknesses in the translation of any book. They will claim that the Koran actually says something different, and even if it didn't these types of passages are often taken out of context I would assume. Essentially what I'm trying to say is that I most certainly was not correct before, but as I don't know the true contents of the Koran I will in the future refrain from judgments on it. But I still believe that those who practice fundamentalist Islam are wrong because I don't believe thatno matter how you see God that he would condone violence.

Sorry, Sat, but hah! That's like calling Fox News 'Fair and Unbiased.' I could say that if Hillary was President, she would veto any legislation designed to limit abortion just because she supports it. Even if that bill had a legitimate cause. Her decisions wouldn't be limiting anyone though would they? She's basically saying "If you think it's wrong to have an aborition don't have one. If you need one the service is avaliable". Thats not unfair, nor is it biased. It's pro-choice, less government interferance and allowing people to freely choose for themselves. Banning aborition is not the same because thats limiting choice, not granting it. Even you said that you gave addresse of abortion clinics to people, and so you support people's decision to make a choice. I don't see why you are republican. Wow, enlightening. You think someone's right to choose what happens to them is more important than someone's right to live. Well next time someone tries to kill you because you are an inconvenience to them, make sure you don't infringe on their right to choose. I am never in favor of abortions, however I can understand when someone finds out that they are pregnant if they as soon as possible have the procedure performed. Its the late second and third trimester abortions that anger me the most. Mainly because infants have a chance of survival outside the womb as early as 26 weeks into development of the total 40.

He didn't say Islam if you didn't notice, he said Islamic Fundamentalists and there is a radical difference between the two. Islamic Fundamentalists are those who take the Koran literally when it says to "kill the infidel." I may not agree with one saying that any religion is better than any other in most cases, but in this case I'll make an exception. Jesus said when someone strikes you turn the other cheek, not kill them like the prophet Muhammed said.

I hate to be knit picky, but wikipedia is notorious for having extremely biased, flawed, mis-quoted, and just downright incorrect information. I understand this is not a reason to distrust everything on the site, but it certainly warrants that you take things that you find on there with a grain of salt as it were, because any person who wants to spread whatever bs the want can go on those links and change them to say anything.

Samoas are the best girl scout cookie ever. And I don't care what they say, they will never be caramel delights, they are forever samoas. As far as candy, starburst brand jellybeans are amazing.