raven_gaurd0

I imagine pretty low, Joe, but I can't be bothered to look it up this Easter morning. However, I do propose that as the number of casualties inflicted by a homicide go up, the suicide rate of the shooter does too.

It could all stem from the big question "what's the meaning/purpose of life?" and in the end I think it's safe to say that most will agree that killing yourself isn't included in that. How can there be purpose for something that is a chemical accident and nothing more? I've intended to point this out, but you're pretty emo, mate. At least, that's the vibe I'm getting. Anywho. Goddess, I admonish that I haven't read the whole thread. I haven't had the time. I've been running ragged the past few days. I think that America still believes in a degree of sanctity of life, at least of the widely defined Human Being. When somebody is so grieved that killing themselves is a better action than living on, it's morally offensive that A: anything could bring them down to that level, and B: that by violating their own right to life they harm those around them, which, while some people insist isn't the case when a bachelor/ette kills themselves, I have to point out that every human being on earth has social ties in some shape and form which will be painfully cut in the act of suicide. P.S. I never understood why 'suicide' wasn't 'autocide'. The Latin prefix 'auto' means 'self,' and 'cide' is the Latin suffix for kill. Maybe 'auto' only applies for the body, and not the mind, which I believe that Latin prefix 'sui' more directly addresses?

Genetics definitely play a role in many suicides, just as alcohol and substance abuse do. However, genetics doesn't count for the increase of the suicide rates that has been going on in the past three decades. I was hoping for some sort of social commentary that addresses the problem more dire than suicide: more (as in rising) suicide.

Joe challenged OT to post serious topics, which I've always been for. So Suicide. Let me just pull up some statistics. From a private site, suicide.org, a site for suicide prevention and awareness. -400,000 citizens are sent to the E.R. for self-mutilation (2001) -Suicide rates have been rising steadily since 1980 From a government site, AFSP.org, or, American Foundation of Suicide Prevention -The death toll of suicide in 2005 (latest available data) was 32,637. -26,500 people between then ages of 18 to 65 committed suicide in 2005. -A person attempts suicide every minute of every day; one of them succeeds every 16 minutes. -For those between 15-24, the third leading cause of death is suicide, higher than the national average; the other two are driving accidents and disease. -In the INTERNATIONAL WORLD, more than 1 million (1,000,000) people die from suicide; more than homicide and war combined. -At least 100,000 adolescents die by suicide every year. Please note that all the statistics, save for the last two from AFSP.org, pertain solely to the United States of America. I think we can all agree, on moral ground, that this is a bad thing. So I ask OT; why? Why are more than 1,000,000 people killing themselves a year? In America, many of them young people? And more importantly, why has the trend of suicide been going UP for the past three decades? EDIT: I think that my question may have been self-answering. Identify the problem, then propose a solution to it. P.S. Ignore my signature. I just love Calvin and Hobbes.

I was reading this thread, and I'm afraid I have to point out that stabbing yourself is, in fact, illegal. Suicide is considered 'murder' and is punishable by the legal system, but you can't really punish them, 'cause they're dead. We can't let exceptions slip under the radar. She broke the law by procuring sexually explicit images of somebody under 18; therefore it is child pornography; therefore illegal. Just because it doesn't 'harm' many people, doesn't make it any less illegal. It harms the community as a whole for those kind of pictures to be out there. Here, let me put it out like this: If a 15 year old kid stabs somebody, they'll be charged with assault the same as if a 25 year old stabs somebody. Just because she's 14 doesn't make her any more guilty or innocent; she committed a crime that must be punished.

Smoking? This was me yesterday. Smoking is OK, I guess, but just don't do it around small children plox.

I honestly don't think that cold-turkey is right...if you can't work on nicotine patches, it's probably because you're mentally addicted to cigarrettes, too. Just the relaxation and ease that it brings. If you've got a heavy wallet, I'd go out and buy either pipe tobacco or cigars, which will drop the nicotine levels in your blood (at least, good stuff does) and make physical withdrawal less painful. Then throw that smoking routine, or just smoke less and less until you don't need it. Or, just moderate your cigarette usage and frequency until you don't automatically reach for one when you're stressed, 'cause it seems to me like you just need 'em when you're stressed out. I think you're well enough in the physical department, and if you're not, patches are always good.

The gunman targeted one classroom in particular. He kept on returning to D208 in the building (I think? Check BBC article for details) and asked 'Are you all dead yet?'. It just so happened that most of the students in there were female. I think it was more a teacher hatred then a sexist attack.

Thanks. Lock please? I should probably read the entire O-T board before posting. =/

Hush, caped crusader. Women of this nation (USA) are not obligated to join the draft because, well, they're not as genetically apt to physical strain that is all too common on the front lines. The draft IS for footsoldiers. The majority of draftees are sent into squads that serve directly between the terrorists and the rest of the world. They're the people who get shot and die. I imagine some with high credentials get drafted into technical and support, but most are sent to the front. That in mind, no general can safely extend the draft to women, because it would not only decrease performance on the front, it would also be political suicide. Same thing goes for re-enacting the draft: no politician in ever going to be dumb enough to do it unless it is of an absolutely dire need. Women can serve just as well as men do, but take a Valley Girl who's fingers text faster than the speed of light, and then take a Cali guy who plays football, and it's obvious which one is the better soldier. If women want full respect and rights in the country as men do, which they really do, they should at least encourage legislation that would put them on the draft ticket, but I don't expect that to happen. Rights only matter when you get to receive them. You don't want them so bad when it means you might have to die for them.

Source: The Week, March 20, 2009 Edition 'Hope or Hype?' "Winnenden, Germany School massacre: A 17-year-od this week killed 15 people, including nine students and three teachers, in a shooting rampage at his former high school in southern Germany. The gunman, (Name withheld for my own reasons), carjacked a vehicle to flee the school, and police launched a massive manhunt using helicopters and dogs. They cornered him hours later in a nearby town and killed him in a shootout. "He went into the school with a weapon and carried out a bloodbath," said Police Chief Officer Erwin Hetger. "I've never seen anything like this in my life." There was no immediate word on what triggered the assault. Germany, which is second only to the U.S. in mass shootings, raised the legal age for gun ownership from 18 to 21 in 2002, after a school massacre that claimed 16 lives." And. "Belfast, U.K. Terrorists resum killing: Northern Ireland feared a return of "the Troubles" this week after hard-line republican groups resumed attacks on British soldiers and police. One IRA splinter group, the Real IRA, killed two British soldiers at an army base in Northern Ireland - the first murders of soldiers in the British province since 1997. Another splinter group, known as Continuity IRA, killed a policeman in a town near Belfast. Mainstream Irish republicans (like myself) denounced the attacks. "Their intention is to bring British soldiers back onto the streets," said Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams. "They want to destroy the progress of recent times and to plunge Ireland back into conflict." Discuss. Primarily, what do you think these two killings with do for the policies, particularly security and military, of Germany and England? -Will Germany raise the gun ownership age limit? (I'd be happy.) -Will England re-establish a firm grip on Northern Ireland and crack down on IRA activity? In terms of Europe, the main players are the UK, Germany, and France. Germany is incredibly sensitive about domestic violence, while the IRA has been plaguing the UK since the IRA Treaty War of 1917. (Not the correct name, but you know.) So changes in policy in reaction to these advancements, I feel, are likely.

It's a grossly misused justification. If I killed a civilian, then used Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War' to justify my act of total war, would it be justified? Of course not. Sun Tzu's 'The Art of War' doesn't even promote the spontaneous killing of everybody, and is mostly about disciplining troops and staying OUT of war. P.S. The Children's crusade was terrible. Terribly FALSE. Most historians believe that the Children's Crusade was mostly poor people making a pilgrimage to the Holy Lands, and others trying to convert the Muslims to Christianity. Hardly bloody at all. Well, bloody, but not in comparison.

I've never read the Qu'ran in it's entirety, but I have read almost all verses that were in question, like from the Book of Light, and yes they are often misquoted. No. Islam does not promote violence. Stupid Muslims who don't deserve the title promote violence. That's why half of Tip.It hates me. :cry: Muhammad never really promoted violence, either. By the way. I mean, like the Bible, there are actual battle instructions, but it's something you'd expect. For example, one of the books has; "Do not turn your back on the infidel on the battlefield; fight without cessation until he is slain." Now, this can be interpreted as violence-promoting, but really, it's tactical: DO NOT TURN YOUR BACK ON THE ENEMY. It really isn't even that mind-numbing of a concept. P.S. Roccodog25, you are, in fact, a moron. That was a war AGAINST my Muslim brothers. Please, before you post, refrain and instead watch more of your 'News with BOXXY'.

All that means is they haven't found another way to release their man-juice when the females aren't available. I highly doubt animals are attracted to one another seeing as how my dog tries humping his stuffed bunny on a regular basis, and if that's the case (no attraction) then they just have sex for sex, not for love - and that means they don't care what it is they're doing as long as they're doing something. Obviously females are their first choice because it's probably the most pleasurable for them. My reckoning is that homosexual animals are, yeah, pretty much just horny and confused. Any animal can get angsty at times. Besides, are we to bring ourselves down to the standards of animals?

want to site a source? There is a difference between debate over if we came from the red fish or blue fish and a debate on the actual process of evolution. Source? 'Discover Your Inner Fish' written be an evolutionist scientist. As for the rest of the ignorant crap, debating what SPECIES of animal we came from is just a LITTLE important.

You know, unless you're defined BY your religion. As in, your religion (the ideals) is what has given you shape over time, just like your parents or the media has. Seriously, people, there is no such thing as your own 'self', SOMETHING external defines you, whether it be because you love it and listen to it or because you hate it and set yourself to oppose it. EDIT: Also, what if my 'own person' is killing other people? Society tells me that is wrong; should I ignore that?

He specifically said "creation". That is all I am basing it off of. I interpreted "creation" as god creating the origin of life, although I suppose it could be construed as referring to the big bang as well. I only mentioned the bible because well, it is what he professes to believe in, and is the basis for his faith, having the only record of jesus' miracles. Creation is wholly different from abiogenesis, it's the complete antithesis of it. But, he also said that he accepts evolution, so I simply asked the question that is begged; why does he accept science to a point, but ceases at a seemingly arbitrary point(at least to me). As well, Raven; if you do accept evolution, at which point did we begin to have a "soul"? I dunno. Abiogenesis seems awfully similar. And, I believe that God created and gave humans souls at creation, then continued to tweak nature. You see, I'm not a true believer in either science. I don't think that God came and created in 7 days. I think 7 days is symbolic, while the actual span that He created was much longer. Humans were created quite suddenly, though, and then we began to work and live with souls. At the same time, I don't believe that we started as fish, or bacteria, or whatever, then became humans. (Did you know that there is incredible conflict between scientists as to where humans actually came from?) It's not arbitrary. It's looking at God, and then looking at how He loves us more than His other creations, and then logically defining where everything else. It's really simple. I believe in the initial creation, but I believe in the change of nature over time. 'Creation' implies how something began, not how it continued, but 'evolution', which I believe is God tweaking with nature, is the continuation after the very long period of time in which he created us. EDIT: The animal question...I believe that God gave animals to us for use. That, however, does not mean that we're allowed to be cruel to them. They are resource, they are companions, but they are not slaves. I understand and accept the usage of them as food, but I certainly do not think that they merit the cruelty humans impose upon them in the slaughterhouse. They are, after all, still God's creation.

Everything means everything. Flowers, roller coasters, hot dogs, and evolution all fall under the category of "everything". So you're saying that God could have created a single Amoeba, and then gotten credit after the chain reactions resulted in humanity? Brilliant. :wall: :wall: I still freak out a lot, Lenticular. Sigh. Though I did get another communist Tee, so I'm filled with glee. As for you, my quoted friend, I don't understand why people don't think God doesn't intervene nowadays? It's not like He created then left. I heartily believe that He is responsible for creation and then evolution. Perfection is change, because God designed nature to change itself. Therefore, isn't it only natural for the animals to change, too? But why can't it be by God's intervention, or by His design?

We get it. At the same time, I think that atheism seems silly to me, not being held to a higher power being judgement in the afterlife, but I get heavily criticized whenever I bring up that point.

You. *Hugs uncomfortably.*

Wow, never heard of them until now. What fascinating little critters. Mind you, they don't thrive in space - they're metabolically stagnant. It's a survival mechanism called cryptobiosis and was originally used to survive prolonged dehydration, radiation and low temperatures - the perfect tools to survive the conditions of space. [1] Also, water bears have been shown to survive in space for 10 days, not years. Interestingly, they couldn't withstand the extreme UV radiation from the sun, which isn't a surprise considering it's 1000 times stronger in space.[2] There's nothing irrational here. Even if we didn't have an explanation for the ability of water bears to survive in space, that doesn't make it irrational, only unexplained. I don't even see how you could call nature irrational full stop. People are irrational, thoughts and ideas are irrational, but nature? Nature is just nature. Mmm. I thought it was longer than 10 days. And I suppose, then we can only define nature as rational and everything that doesn't abide by it, irrational.

I don't think she's that ugly, but then again, I'm not judge of beauty. I think she's an average looking girl...she needs to let her hair down though. Seriously. As for the 'father' (lolwut?) I don't know. He should be lucky he's in a 1st world country. My school? K, here's the cut. Band Kids - horny little thumpa's who are pretty much like a sect. Scene kids - Tight jeans, revealing clothes (on the guys, WHOOOOA!?) and some...crazy hairstyles. Laying each other for the fun of it. Mexicans, hispanics, who all consider themselves to be gangster - Some of them are lying, some of them are telling the truth about what gangs they're in. You can't tell which. But they ... kind of grope each other in the hallways. It's a little weird. Jocks - Stereotypical muscle-guys with walking meat-bags called 'girls' following them around. Misc. - includes me, the gamers, the nerds, the kids who just don't like other people. We're good kids :D

Go to the 'Homosexuality: Right or Wrong?' for info on both sides of it. And creation in the image of God implies not that we ARE sinless, but that we can BE sinless, like Mary. Human beings are also given the right to choice, or free choice, or whatever you want to call it, which enables us to sin. God isn't rational. But there's a lot of things that aren't rational. I mean, look at waterbears. Microscopic organisms that can live - even thrive - for years out in the vacuum of space. That's not rational, but you know, we know it's true. Harrumph. I agree with Lenticular, though. This thread doesn't offer much budge-room. I mean, you either do or you don't, as agnostics wouldn't care to debate either side, and those who do / don't are going to be cut-throat about it.

Morals and ethics are hard to argue, as they become muddled since everybody holds slight, if not extreme, variations. As for the last part of your argument, I think that to FORCE her is bad, but we FORCE felons to go through prison for making a choice to do something detrimental to society. Now, the baby may or may not be detrimental, but the consequence (ie, keeping the baby) can be justifiably forced upon them because they made a choice to have it. Once again, rape is the exception. And I don't expect you to read 20 pages. I don't think I could read 2 pages of all the dither I write. \

I won't deny that it touched on valid points, but that's what faith is about. No, my problem is the fact that it demonized those of who believe. As for Mr. Swift, his satirical attacks are on mortal establishments and nothing as transcendent as religion. I personally believe that the sanctity of one's religion is the highest value upheld in their life, whether it be a religion or a lack thereof. I think a satirical attack against atheists would be equally uncalled for. Satirical attacks are fine in general, but not if it's just blatantly mean.