obfuscator

You're missing the basic point. Because we're pro-life, we're not allowed to eat, breathe, or drink because it harms other organisms. Anyone who's not pro-life isn't held to the same standard, because they're not pro-life. Sheesh, wish you all would understand that. :rolleyes: Also on the subject of protecting "potential" life - many coastal states have ordinances against disturbing sea-turtle nests. Some places fine as much as $1000 for potentially disrupting nesting grounds (like, fines for lights on after dark because it might disturb the turtles). Remember, baby turtles are more valuable than baby humans. This. It's hypocrisy like this that makes me laugh. Plus the Greenpeace types - oh my God a whale is being hunted? Even if you're pro-choice it's hardly a lot to kill a whale compared to the millions that die in third world countries...

There's nothing illogical about it. It may seem extreme, but not illogical. Look at it this way: IF you see an unborn baby as a human life, and you want to protect it at all costs, why should the means of its conception matter? In fact, I'd say it's more illogical to call yourself pro-life but then make an exception for cases such as rape. A life is a life.

Pizza party stealers :( Good job, impressive opts for both clans :thumbup:

It sure is. Some people live, some don't. I promised myself I wouldn't get into a debate here but I think this is the most ridiculously bigoted post I've seen on these forums, and I've seen a lot. Why is it so incredibly hard to comprehend that this issue is about a set of morals that is different from person to person - and one is not better than the other. It's ridiculous and unfair to make assumptions about why I'm pro-life when I've constantly reiterated that I believe a fetus is a human life. Most pro-lifers keep sweat shops in business? Most pro-lifers contribute to animal deaths? Most pro-lifers spend money they could use to save lives in 3rd world countries etc? Where the hell do you get the blanket authority to assume every pro-lifer follows your ridiculous stereotypes? However, let's start with my personal views. I'm pro-life. I believe a fetus is a human being, and thus should be protected. I believe in a right to life for all humans. Sweat shops are inhuman places where the right to life of many is severely hindered and sometimes taken completely. Wow, guess what? Looks like my "[cabbage]" pro-life views make me extremely anti-sweat shops? What a surprise. I'm a little confused by what you mean as contributing to animal deaths. I eat meat. Not often, but from time to time. I don't hunt, I don't deliberately kill animals, yet somehow...Look guys, I'm pro-life! I absolutely must be a mass baby-seal murderer! I spent money I could use to save third world countries? Guilty as charged. You don't spend any money at all, right? You take your paycheck and ship it right off to the red cross, correct? Actually, I've been on several community service projects to very poor places in Canada and other countries over my life span and plan to go on one again after I graduate.

As skateboarding wheels go, they are pretty frictionless compared to most bikes (track bikes excepted) and the bearings are generally very smooth. Thing is they have to be to compensate for the hugely inefficient motion skateboarding demands in the first place.

Obviously the mother's decision there. I don't think it's morally wrong to get an abortion in that case because there will be a death regardless of the action taken.

Skateboarding is pretty much the most inefficient way to use leg power. The propulsion motion isn't the same as the cruising motion which means to go faster you have to kick and then swing back onto the board. It's basically the slowest human powered transportation.

@felix: hmm, my mistake then. @rom: Yesssss :thumbup:

Uhh Boxxy was in her 30's last I heard.

And how is that? We see morality as something that is of two states, "right" or "wrong". As others have posted, some things are generally considered to be immoral, but with many things there are many differing opinions about the morality of something. An animal cannot comprehend right or wrong the way we see them. An animal does something for reward or by instinct (which humans do to a degree as well). Ah, so the argument is that animals do not have morals because even though they do what is instinctively good for them, they don't necessarily know that what they are doing is right, they just do it. Right? Exactly. It's just the concept and understanding of what they're doing that they're missing, not the actions themselves.

I never said it isn't fast - what i'm saying is that the top speed you can achieve on a skateboard is relatively slow compared to other things.

haha, what ? Also what? I have a mother with a good wage, I work part time as a baker, and work part time as a police officer which is supposedly voluntary but I do get paid for it. Oh, I though you meant you were a mother. And I didn't realise you could be a part time police officer, as a volunteer. You can in the UK apparently. But they don't give you a gun, so why you'd want to is beyond me. i love you rainy

I think everyone already knows my beliefs on the topic so I won't go into them; since this thread gets rehashed every few months... However, I don't see how someone who calls themselves pro-life can be supportive of abortion in the case of rape or incest. A life is a life, regardless of the circumstances surround its creation.

Not if you are bombing a huge hill going 20-25mph. That is one helluva slow bomb. Skateboards are slow in general I find. When I used to bike I'd easily get up to 40 mph going downhill.

This. I also blame the destruction of family values in society in general, the negative effects of which are magnified when applied to the poor.

I dont mean to be biased, sorry for that. I have done a lot of research and not once have I read that smoking at a young age increases the chance of hallucinations, where did you read that? Ive been smoking for 12 years and during that time I've gotten a degree in digital media, kept the same girlfriend (Soon to be fiancé), and I now make 75,000$ a year editing videos for a newspaper's website. I've not once tried "stronger" drugs, and yes, it does take me larger amounts to get high, but the difference from when I began smoking and now is not very much. I would like to point out that when I say 'Live high" I really mean it. Wake and bake, smoke throughout the day (Yes, on my lunch hour, I use Visine, body spray and mints, and no-one has noticed, plus it hasn't negatively affected my work.) so saying you aren't actually happy is wrong, because when I am high, I am happy, and I am always high. I understand that this is not always the case, but the same can be said for your disadvantages. You might be the exception to the rule, but if you're always high, how do you know what it would be like to be sober? I will admit that the health risks of marijuana are about as bad as those of alcohol. But nobody tries to stay drunk constantly. Alcohol is far worse for you than weed. No one dies from smoking too much. That being said, neither of them are really good for you. There's a very small amount of conditions where the of marijuana benefits outweigh the "negatives" in terms of health. I personally am no longer smoking though. It was fun and still is, but I've decided I'll be just as well off without it. I don't need any criminal charges either. No one dies from smoking weed? High driving is an increasingly common phenomenon with mortality rates similar to drunk driving, for one. Not mentioning lung cancer (paralleled in alcohol with liver disease) or stupid decisions under the influence(similar to alcohol).

I dont mean to be biased, sorry for that. I have done a lot of research and not once have I read that smoking at a young age increases the chance of hallucinations, where did you read that? Ive been smoking for 12 years and during that time I've gotten a degree in digital media, kept the same girlfriend (Soon to be fiancé), and I now make 75,000$ a year editing videos for a newspaper's website. I've not once tried "stronger" drugs, and yes, it does take me larger amounts to get high, but the difference from when I began smoking and now is not very much. I would like to point out that when I say 'Live high" I really mean it. Wake and bake, smoke throughout the day (Yes, on my lunch hour, I use Visine, body spray and mints, and no-one has noticed, plus it hasn't negatively affected my work.) so saying you aren't actually happy is wrong, because when I am high, I am happy, and I am always high. I understand that this is not always the case, but the same can be said for your disadvantages. I'd be curious to see whether your supervisors agree.

And how is that? We see morality as something that is of two states, "right" or "wrong". As others have posted, some things are generally considered to be immoral, but with many things there are many differing opinions about the morality of something. An animal cannot comprehend right or wrong the way we see them. An animal does something for reward or by instinct (which humans do to a degree as well).

I retested - chrome got 1 fps and FF pulled off 15. They've updated chrome a lot over the past few months, perhaps that has something to do with it...

My computer is fast enough that there's no visible difference between different browsers. Tests say (tested myself) that Chrome is much faster than Firefox, but I see no difference, because they're both so fast. I'm almost 100% sure that IE9 wouldn't have any visible difference either, though because I usually use Linux, it doesn't really even matter. And I prefer having javascript disabled anyway, because that actually increases the speed. It's probably because you haven't tried a really intensive JavaScript rendering test. Try loading this site in chrome, ff, and IE9: http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/AsteroidBelt/Default.html Wow, this certainly changed everything. Chrome runs it at 1 FPS and Firefox at full 60 FPS. (wtf? :blink: ) I should try it with IE9, but I'm too lazy to boot into Windows :razz: Really? When I did it I got 20ish with chrome and 5 with FF. Bear in mind though, as others have said, IE9 utilizes the gpu. Once chrome and FF start to do so we'll probably see major changes.

It depends - it certainly shows emotion and empathy towards another living being, but I doubt they see saving lives as a "moral" thing to do the way we see morality.

There are three qualities that make a teacher good. 1) Extensive knowledge of the subject: A teacher who doesn't know what they're talking about obviously will have difficulty being a good teacher. 2) Passion for the subject: The more a teacher cares about what they're teaching, the more it rubs off on the students and contributes to a positive learning atmosphere. 3) Passion for teaching: A teacher should want to teach, and enjoy doing so. I've had teachers who are knowledgeable and passionate, but think their students are stupid and can't wait to get out of the classroom. On the flip side, I've had teachers that put across positive emotion in the classroom and are willing to go the extra mile to make sure that their students really understand and enjoy what they're being taught.

It's subjective, but old people tend to get grumpy over little things such as technology (like trying to text or email) I'm 21, and I tend to be grumpy over little things such as technology (like trying to understand the appeal of Twitter, Facebook, MySpace, incessant text messages in class, and automatic transmissions in cars) This. My grandparents might not understand technology, but I've never found them grumpy about it.

My computer is fast enough that there's no visible difference between different browsers. Tests say (tested myself) that Chrome is much faster than Firefox, but I see no difference, because they're both so fast. I'm almost 100% sure that IE9 wouldn't have any visible difference either, though because I usually use Linux, it doesn't really even matter. And I prefer having javascript disabled anyway, because that actually increases the speed. It's probably because you haven't tried a really intensive JavaScript rendering test. Try loading this site in chrome, ff, and IE9: http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/Performance/AsteroidBelt/Default.html

Just out of interest, have any of the IE haters actually tried IE9, or are they just predisposed to hate it? I've tried it - it's a huge improvement over their previous attempts. The UI is a bit cleaner (I still prefer chrome) and it's significantly faster. Notably, the javascript engine is far superior to any other browser. Chrome was the second best in the javascript tests, and firefox failed hardcore. I don't think I'lll switch, I've gotten really comfortable with chrome. Still, it'll be nice to not have to use IE8 ever.