mmmcannibalism

[hide=] Why not? Pakistan is far more of a nuclear threat than Iran, and they already have nuclear weapons. I don't support a nuclear Iran, but I don't support a nuclear United States, either. Second, there's no evidence that they're enriching uranium for weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons and won't even admit to it. Talk about hypocrisy. And last: What if Iran Acted like the United States Government Please tell me you're not really THAT naive. Honestly, that's a situation where you say "No [cabbage], Sherlock." Just like this one. I support nuclear countries. All except Iran and Pakistan. Pakistan's a whole other matter though, and in all honesty I know very little about it. who is the USA to dictate who is "allowed" nuclear power and who isn't? [/hide] The UN is supposed to do it but they wont stop anyone, notice how North Korea is still testing missles even though its banned. Secondly, nuclear allowance should be based at least in part on stability which Iran isnt exactly known for.

Im inclined to call shenanigans, these are pirates after money not something like hamas that is claiming a political agenda. Not to say there isnt dumping or a fishing problem but I would like to see a source for something that hasnt been brought up. Poverty is going to be the primary cause here, the pirates were simply making money off of ransoms not killing people.

only level 1

A blockade of what, the Gulf of Aden? You do realise that a blockade of that Gulf would mean all freight taking an Africa-long detour right? There is no way you can just blockade Somali, it has too much coastline to do it and a lot of poor Somali's rely on that Gulf to provide for their families (fishermen and whatnot). If that wasn't what you meant then this is irrelevant. probably just a blockade of the area around the concentration of trouble, not sure how viable this is but it should be considered. When I say blockade, it would be more accurately be called heavy presense and monitoring, actually trying to close every port in the area would be ludicrous. when I say

wait till you get to a higher math, it gets very interesting once you start calculus.

A sea-based blockade won't do jack to stop their capability to launch these raids, unless if it's right off the coast so they can't get out to attack and back scot-free. We need people on the ground in order to stop these with any real effectiveness, and we all know how hard THAT is to organize. It's a lose-lose situation. We can't do anything substantial on our own, and we can't wipe our hands of the area (it's a pretty big trade route). With a lot of destroyers and great radar tracking I think it could be managed.

I agree that god is similar to morals because they are pretty subjective and impossible to justify. But I don't think that if we had the same morals then the world would suck. We would all agree with the same rules and we'd all follow them. It would be a peaceful world. unless we developed an any mean justifies the end morality

[hide=] The volcano didn't go inactive before the rock was created. You're kind of making things up when you assume that going back in time somehow exempts you from the effects of your past. You go back in time. Assuming that if and when you return it is at a time significantly later than you left--say a month--during that month you are absent from the "current" time. Your parents are going "Oh no where's Johnny?!?!" You--not a somehow different you than the one in 2009--exist in the past. If you kill your grandfather, you never existed to travel to the past to kill him in the first place. But you do exist and you do kill him. But that means you don't exist. Paradox. I don't mean to sound like a broken record in the middle of this, but there's a reason the Grandfather Paradox exists. If some random dude on an internet forum could disprove it there wouldn't be such a hypothetical paradox. And I have no idea what this has to do with the Bible, but it's more interesting. [/hide] If I go back in time and instantly kill myself(through fire or something completely destructive) I will disappear from the historical record wherever I traveled from correct? Now to apply to grandfather If I go back in time the linear historical me stops existing. If I remove the mechanism that created me, there is no force to end my existence. My existence no longer makes "logical" sense, but I would still exist as someone without parents. The volcano doesnt need to be around for the rocks it made to stay around, once my body is made I can go wipe out how it was made without suffering literal consequences.

I think it started as a discussion on faith and unanswerable questions.

Its not like there is a fault here, you believe in something on faith while atheists simply dont believe in anything that doesnt have empirical proof. Interesting philosophical question, I am not sure :lol:

[hide=] But if your grandfather died you would of never been born to time travel. If T.V. has taught us anything, its that if you do that, you'll still live, realise that he could not possibly be your grandfather, and you'd become your own granfather. But yeah, theres a paradox. For one, if you kill your grandfather, you don't exsist. If you don't exsist, you never went back in time to kill your grandfather. Since your grandfather never died, you can exsist. Since you exsist, you went back in time... See? It just continually loops. No, because once you went back in time, you exist in both times. After you kill your grandfather, if you travel forward in time, the you that was their is dead, but you are still alive. Your parents never existed, but you'd still be there. No one would remember you. [/hide] exactly to make an analogy lets say you see a rock that was made by a volcano. the rocks existence is no longer dependant on the volcano, if the volcano goes inactive the rock will still exist. Similairly, if you go back in time you already exist, taking out the means of making you doesnt matter because you already exist seperate of that timeline.

The point is that atheists would believe in a god if it was proven to be real, its not superificial its just extremely pragmatic.

[hide=] Bull****... an animal uses body language (which is 90% of human communication) and they can definitely give the message that they are enjoying something or not, and they express displeasure in very overt ways. In fact, an animal doesn't have any reasons to consent without really meaning it like people sometimes do for whatever reason. Also in most instances of beastiality consent is desired and very important, there are cases when it isn't but that falls into a category called zoosadism which is harshly looked down upon in the zoo community (there have been known instances of the community administering vigilante justice to zoosadists). Another example involving consent is that animals have been known to voluntarily abstain from relations with their own species in favor of the human they have a relationship with. Necrophilia and pedophilia are different... the first involves a party that is unable to express consent because they're dead or sleeping (necrophilia does not necessarily involve a corpse, a sleeping person counts as well) and the other involves a party that isn't sexually mature and therefore unable to make an informed decision (not to mention predatory behavior). Beastiality however, involves two sexually mature individuals, both capable of giving consent to the other. Please don't try to include beastiality with those other two, it is easy to know if it is consensual and both parties enjoy it. EDIT: If you are implying that beastial relationships are cruel you are mistaken (they can be, in the case of zoosadism, but "normal" relationships can be cruel as well). Like I wrote above, an important aspect of it is mutual enjoyment. [/hide] I think killerbee just won at least one third of this thread. Surprisingly, I have to agree with him here, although I find beastiality a little odd, his points are all valid.

[hide=] You are going to a party that incorrectly compares the boston tea party which was taxation without representation and a monopoly on a trade market to a 3 percent increase of taxes on only 3 percent of the citizens. you have representation in the congress, republicans happened to lose control. How dumb can republicans be? because clearly protesting spending makes you fat :roll: Secondly, the tea parties are about the government getting involved where it "shouldnt" such as bailing out banks that "should" be allowed to fail. Its not just a complaint against a tax increase, referencing the tea party is symbolic not literal. The symbolism isn't there. You are sending packets of tea to politicians, and trying to dump it into the boston harbor (which the cops stopped). You are trying your best to make any connection to barrack "hussein" obama's communist tax policy to the overlords of 1773. And when anybody calls you out that there is no real connection you fall back on symbolism. But hey I'll look at it like this. It's kinda funny that they are out protesting taxes while I the barack obama supporter is at work paying them. [/hide] I put the "" there for a reason, Im not here to debate political policy. Secondly, I still fail to see how protesting government spending makes you fat. I suggest you avoid strawmen, I never suggested Obama whos middle name I care about was a communist, I havent sent tea to anyone, and the symbolism is quite there. No taxation without representation was a complaint about government not looking out for the people; whether or not you agree with the position, the protestors believe government is out of touch and not working for everyone hence the reference to the tea party. On topic, good to see more states are passing same sex marriage

well, the pirates have continued to attack American and French ships. Im waiting for the "big" countries involved to start some type of blockade

use the funds to build a few small villages into stable communities, continue building small good communities until it begins to improve the entire area. People give power to the government not the other way around. If the government gives people their rights, then the government is above the people. Human rights transcend government, law, and any other codes laid down by men.

[hide=] that was a called for and inventive way to attack the US for no reason. Lol, i don't mean to side track the topic by bringing this up, but dude I wasn't attacking the US, I live in Wisconsin. I was just referring to the point that no democracy has every declared war on another democracy, ever. This international rule of thumb line kinda got blurred when the US attacked Iraq while Iraq claimed to be a democracy. Hence, to sidestep getting in this very argument #-o I put a "lets ignore the US for sake of argument" into my post since I was trying to stay focused on India. It wasn't a slight to the US. Anyway... Lol wut The US isn't a democracy anyway; it's a constitutional republic. I bet you don't even know what a "constititional republic" means [/hide] I think we will all end up attempting to look smart by questioning peoples intelligence in a very uneccesary personal attack.

a. The United States and Russia starting a standard war would have led to them making nukes and using them anyway; diplomacy problems with Russia were far more then both having nukes. b. Bush's skill at leading is debatable(I dont even think he was good), but even suggesting he would start a nuclear war is foolish. You might want to find another card beside yelling George Bush.

You are going to a party that incorrectly compares the boston tea party which was taxation without representation and a monopoly on a trade market to a 3 percent increase of taxes on only 3 percent of the citizens. you have representation in the congress, republicans happened to lose control. How dumb can republicans be? because clearly protesting spending makes you fat :roll: Secondly, the tea parties are about the government getting involved where it "shouldnt" such as bailing out banks that "should" be allowed to fail. Its not just a complaint against a tax increase, referencing the tea party is symbolic not literal.

Why not? Pakistan is far more of a nuclear threat than Iran, and they already have nuclear weapons. I don't support a nuclear Iran, but I don't support a nuclear United States, either. Second, there's no evidence that they're enriching uranium for weapons. Israel has nuclear weapons and won't even admit to it. Talk about hypocrisy. And last: What if Iran Acted like the United States Government okay robert sounds a little paranoid but, major world powers having nukes has kept us safe since the cold war. ww3 between the United States and Russia would have been quite plausible if there were no nuclear weapons. The need is obviously lessened now, but there is no benefit to removing nuclear weapons just so we can feel good about it.

Here's the next best thing. Get some white paint from your local hardware store along with a brush. Lightly paint a wall with the paint. Pull up a chair and watch the paint for several hours. Make sure to check if it's dry, occasionally. Congrats, you have explored the male mind. I bet you Blue dries faster than white. You do NOT know how tempted I am to test that. :x I think it should be blue vs pink in the spirit of things.

I love irony Obama won in part by opposing torture, wiretapping and such Now that he has power its necessary for our security I am sure glad he isnt going back on any campaign promises I love irony edit--this is not a poem

It was old copy pasta. :wall: still awesome though lol

male minds arent that complex lol

Knowledge can be lost? Please do explain. If nobody passes on the knowledge, and the means to gain it is lost, the knowledge is lost. and the full understanding of something will be lost when its discoverer dies