mmmcannibalism

nk[hide=] The psychological harm is way worse than the physical. ^and drowning someone and then stopping it at the last second is borderline?! You're right because we wouldn't want to mentally harm the terrorists responsible for killing thousands of Americans. And if you think they are innocent, do you think they were just dropped into battle with a gun and they had no intention of killing anyone? Have you not read the thread? NONE of these "terrorists" have had trials. The USA offered REWARDS to turn in "terrorists". And of course they're going to be fighting USA, USA is invading THEIR country. All you're doing is rationalizing torture as an Al Qaida would [/hide] Im starting to think you believe we water board everyone at every chance we get, but yes there are some serious problems in the afganistan situation. edit--yes waterboarding is borderline, especially considering anyone can think of dozens of more brutal ways to interrogate someone; at least waterboarding attempts to avoid permaenent harm.

He's got a point though. Indeed; however, that still keeps us at trying to define torture properly. Waterboarding is very borderline, but I think we can agree there are much worse options.

it was covered, and it would indeed be awesome.

You messed up going from step 1 to step 2. If you go backwards from 2 to 1, you cancelled out an a. That's a big NO NO. You essentially got rid of an entire solution. a^2 = aa, so just rewriting step 2 in another manner, aa-ab = 0 a(a-B)=0 therefore, a = 0 OR a = b In the case of your proof, a = 0 would indeed work, and that is the only solution (which is trivial)! ? That step is perfectly legitimate. Notice how I said "assume a=b" before my 'proof'. so lets say a=b=4 4=4 4^2 = 4x4 16 = 16 "going backwards" just involves dividing by 4 on each side. You didn't find the correct incorrect step mr. electrical engineer :-$ The problem is going from steps 4 to 5, in step 4 you have (a-B)(a+B) = b(a-B) you simplify this by dividing each side by (a-B) which according to the proof you wrote gives us 5 which is a+b = b. For 5 to be right (a-B)/(a-B) = 1 would have to be true. In step 1 you say a=b so (a-B) = 0. When you divide each side by (a-B) obtaining (a-B)(a+B)/(a-B) = b(a-B)/(a-B) your essentially dividing 0 by 0 which stated by the OP cannot be done. I'm a mechanical engineering student btw :P. [/hide] I'm definitely glad at least mechanical engineers know you can't divide by zero. My cal2 teacher once told us a story of a plane crashing because someone divided 0 in some sort of landing sequence calculation, but he was a nutjob and shouldn't be taken too seriously. that might have been a joke, or it might have been true that someone put in data wrong leading to a severe error Im partial to the proof that there are more numbers between 0 and 1 then there are numbers in the sequence 1,2,3,4,5... Ill post it when I have more time.

initially sounded quite interesting, but I just get the feeling this would/could cause some worse problems.

You're a [wagon]. Edit this post so it makes you look like less of an idiot. edit this post so it makes you look like less of an idiot On topic, I commend the entire middle east on managing to have the lowest common sense to ability to cause mass destruction ratio. Israel should work to deal with the lands they have taken, but simply aquiescing to palestinian demands would be inadvisable.

First off, you might want to refine that thesis; while most people agree with limiting fanaticism just saying religious people shouldnt be able to talk about there beliefs is a bit beyond reason. On topic, focus on precise points and good examples but avoid straw man or non sequitor arguments. If your going to be critiquing religion then you need to pick very good arguments, unless your certain there are no good christian/religion defenders in the room that could tear you apart. In general, make sure your arguments make logical sense, avoid repeating yourself, and just be confident.

That would be its own very interesting matter, 5th amendment and related laws would get a whole new meaning.

As said, she can't do anything to the truck, but she has the full right as your guardian to stop you from driving it. Unless you intend to pursue making your dad primary guardian your fairly out of luck.

Its not as much as witholding information, its the false confessions people make to make it stop. I.E. "Are you a terrorist?" "No" *torture* [here it happens again, and again until the person just says yes to makeit stop] Under the worst circumstances, anyone will do anything to make it stop. because clearly, we are going to be torturing people we picked up off the street and making them admit to being terrorists; not trying to get legitimate information off of persons we can be certain were higher ups in a terrorist organization.

no, but then again this is just an interesting observation; its not intended to intrigue you till the end times.

[hide=] If what the religion believes was real; ie for greek zeus and such actually existing. Honestly, all religion can't be real. Muslims believe that Allah is the one true god, whereas Hindus believe in like 3,000? Allah is the Islamic word for God. No the Hindu's don't have 3000 Gods, those are just prophets or guides in a way. Anyways, to Cannibalism their religion (the Greeks, Romans, Mesopotamia's etc.) are just as real as Christianity, Islam, Judaism and whatever else. How can you call them myth's when at the time that is what everyone believed in just like now people believe in whatever. In a couple thousand years all of today's religions will be thought of as myths and there will be a new set of religions. All in all, Religion is bs. Also, to stay OT, I would say what the Assyrians from Ancient Mesopotamia believed in. That when you will be in a black dark area all alone with no one else for an eternity. [/hide] I was clarifying that we are discussing the possibility of a religion being correct, and I didnt say anything about the accuracy of any belief system.

Id prefer about .8 of an apple to avoid the core and other undesirable parts

I think they would only be good as the most outer ring of defenses for a base; or as a way of ensuring a retreat route.

I'd call that a lucky call, he was very lucky that the man didn't send in a few men to be sure. I would assume that luck factors into every one of these stories. Audie Murphy? Damn he was lucky that burning M10 didn't explode with him in it. I'm sure the finnish sniper also got a few lucky shots off that saved his life, or any of the other people mentioned here had luck involved in that they didn't take a bullet before they started showing off how badass they were. Plus the sniper got shot in the face and lived. That's more luck than anything. I would say the fact he killed the guy that shot him excuses him for the luck of surviving; I would imagine the pain from that shot would have thrown most people into shock near instantly.

very awesome, not sure I would consider that badassery though. I think I would like to see this more then any of the other stories in the thread if I had the chance. :o :lol: =D> okay not at all badass but nonetheless the greatest male achievement within a gas station bathroom of history.

They are obviously disturbed individuals, but that should certainly not get them a lighter sentence. However it should get them some help while behind bars. If by help you mean lethal injection. Maybe something more reasonable like therapy, checking for mental illness and hopefully being able to recuperatre some of them into society; oh hell, lets just kill people for the sake of it thats better

can still be a scam, continued advertising indicates that it is probably just greatly underpaying; depending on how we define scam it could be looked at as one.

that book is really depressing; interesting read but really odd story.

interesting, so how do these liberals get here if they havent been born yet? Im willing to support anyone who was able to walk as a fetus. Why, they do the worm, of course. Or breakdance. It's funny, though, he tries to insult the liberals on this forum by saying there's a lot of liberals. how are you so funny lenin?

interesting, so how do these liberals get here if they havent been born yet? Im willing to support anyone who was able to walk as a fetus.

Id say the finnish sniper is much more awesome, sure churchill did some amazing stuff but anything accomplished in -40 fahrenheit gets a multiplier.

From what I've read of Brave New World just skimming, I see a lot of that as the difference between products of two different centuries. But I agree with you; even by the standards of the times, Frankenstein is extremely overwritten in some parts. There was a page or two where Victor is talking about his marriage to Elizabeth, and I must have read the word "union" in that context ten times. And you can only elucidate so much about the themes before they get tiring. Still, those themes are very thought-provoking and the application is sound. And for what it's worth it was Shelley's debut. Agreed, the deeper meaning of the book is quite nice; my least favorite part is the two page rambling on how pretty the coastline is

looking for link there is is http://runescape.wikia.com/wiki/Calculators/Miscellania

To this day the only book I have started but not finished is The Da Vinci Code. The movie was at least entertaining but the book . . . Jesus. I also had a quick read from the first book of that Cherub thing people were spazzing about on the last page. It was terrible. The dude needs an editor, a few English classes, and a more interesting premise. Almost done with Frankenstein. Brave New World is next on the list for English class. Brave New World>Frankenstein Frankenstein is a good idea for a story but I find it be quite badly written Brave New World however is very well written and the plot is quite enthralling