mmmcannibalism

a cloud of chlorine gas could easily kill you.

:wall: why did I say star trek the first time

It would be awesome to live forever, but only if your body would stay in decent shape and you could die. It would be awful to survive for ever and be stuck in a void.

falls off of a 10 story building fracturing your skull

I think the idea is to force the mutation rate so high the virus loses its needed dna. If a human evolved wings a tail a third eye and an extra set of arms all in one generation it would clearly die, they are going with the same plan here. It does sound like it could cause a problem, the idea is an ingenious approach though

[hide=] so your arguing semantics I take it? Duh. Come on... "Christlike approach to competition"? What the hell is that? I never said the coach shouldn't be punished. Just that the reason which they stated was a bogus one. There is no such thing as a Christlike approach to competition unless you bring up cheating, purposely fouling, and the likes. You know, the more extreme stuff. [/hide] whether or not you agree with the opinion, not trying to win 100-0 and lightening up when winning is what they mean by a "christ like approach". Do you really think the other team was so bad that the 100 poitns scored themselves? If you think its wrong to limit your scoring okay, but it is a private school and they can set up the standards of competition for their players and coaches.

that would be awesome, hopefully it pans out well. there method is quite ingenious, fight fire with fire and whatnot.

No, the "deadline" for unlimited abortions would be based off of a definition of personhood; therefore, the aborting of a person would be illegal. The reason I dont oppose destruction of embryos in labs(for a good purpose) or oppose early term abortions is that it isnt destroying a person. A carrot is clearly below a human regardless of what you could do to it; if you could use that carrot to cure cancer that would be a different matter of course. The thing is there is a clear moral agreement that destroying a living human being is wrong, abortion debates are a matter of what is a living human. I personally think its fairly early on, but for objective legal purposes I belive something such as neural development or breathing or whatever should be set as the marker(not preferencing any of those just examples). We can also agree that killing an animal "for the hell of it" is wrong though not nearly as wrong as killing a human "for the hell of it". It is pretty well established that killing a plant is not morally wrong excluding destrying people's crops etc. Unless transforming this carrot has some high moral cause like curing cancer then it is fine to kill the unchanged carrot; killing the sentient carrot would equate to killing a dog or cat. (this is of course ignoring the fact that studying said carrot would be important to science since your example isnt about scientific value)

[hide=] Why would you have gotten suspended for carrying a replica of DeathNote? Cause teachers are getting more and more paranoid. Reminds me of the goat-arrested thread. :lol: [/hide] No, its because biology is eeeeevvvvviiiiilllll eh, that wasnt a great idea they should have just made you cover the notebook or something.

to the first point, while in some technical sense that adresses all abortions, I intend it to be aimed at late term abortions. I have no problem with very early term whatever method of birth control or abortion pills(need better name for those), and since we all agree a viable fetus should have protection the only real problem is the gray area where it is not quite vialbe but it is clearly very human in appearence has brain function etc. With the garden thing, the clear difference here is that carrots have no inherent ability to develop into something intelligent and thats why there is nothing wrong with eating them in that situation. On a less serious note, if you find a way to make carrots sentient I want to be there when you do :lol:

Ill try to answer this as best I can, I dont have the typical pro life position so this may be a little different then other pro life people Abortion is murder, but its not murder in the typical sense. We all agree there is a difference between a single bullet to the skull and torturing someone before killing them correct? In my mind the same type of change is present, I personally find excessive abortions to be murdurous, but I think equating them to knifing someone is a tad of a stretch. I focus on opposition to late term abortions, if the only "reason" is the mother being depressed. If there is signifigant risk to the mother's health the government has no right to tell her the baby is worth more then her life. If the baby is just a group of cells at that point, I find it better for their to be readily available contraceptive(term seems wrong here) to prevent the baby from developing then to try to force a baby on someone. There is a line between enforcing morality through law and enforcing my morality through laws. On the hitman comparison, it is difficult. If abortion is illegal within an area and the ban is reasonablly tolerant of things such as medical problems rape etc. then if a woman does go to a doctor and has a secret or "alley" abortion I think there should be a charge of something, possibly aggravated manslaughter. I hope that is a sufficient answer, Im trying to explain my position in the best way possible. The main point is that "there is a difference between enforcing morality through our legal codes and trying to enforce my morality through legal codes"

well brontosaurus couldnt survive but Im sure there is a place some small species could I would train them to pull my chariot as I conquer the known world

not to be mean, but this isnt worthy of a debate.

because I have to go there the pope

[hide=] duh, a baby starts as a one cell mass so clearly at some point it has less cells then a fly I call strawman on that argument also. Human life>any other known creature life>0 I think that this is another reasoning failure stemming from religion. Why is a human life worth more than any other known creature? Because it is more complex, has more experiences, is self-aware, etc. But foetuses aren't any of these. It is possible to compare a foetus to an animal because evolution tells us that humans aren't "special" and ordained by God - we're just animals. So foetuses aren't sacred - they're just under-developed groups of cells with fewer cognitive abilities and less complexity than animals that we breed, kill, and eat every day. [/hide] the cold scientific answer would be that we are human and therefore need there to be humans for our species to continue so we consider our lives more important. As for my personal answer, I just think a human life is more valuable then any animal. You have the choice between saving a human adult and a dog which do you choose? note--I wasnt making an anti abortion point with the explanation of why the fly=fetus argument was incorrect, though I am generally anti abortion.

thats good to hear

good luck id try to lighten up on the pop, I seriously over drink it and thats probably the first easy cut (even if you go to kool aid first instead of straight to water. also, id do once a week thing for picture, you wont notice a day to day change after the first week.

[hide=] [/hide] I agree AA is at its core a good idea. My problem comes from it going to excess, if it is an even choice then I think the minority getting the selection(for whatever) is a good; however, a minorty person getting a say college acceptance to meet a quota when they are less qualified then a non minority person applying for the same thing. Note, I mean signifigantly more qualified, not white guy with 3.875 gpa losing to black guy with 3.870 gpa (assuming just gpa is basis for the sake of simplicity)

[hide=] What makes you think that the trouble religion causes greatly overshadows the good it causes? I would agree that religion doesn't have much of an overall benefit off the basis that non-religious people can be just as efficient and righteous as a religious one, but you have said that it is a cause of trouble. I don't think the trouble necessarily stems from religion - but the divisions of man. There has been slavery, segregation, and many other problems caused by race, gender, and nationality but would you blame the divisions for the problems or would you blame it on the people who are intolerant about the divisions? Many many wars have been started over or fueled by religion, religion has destroyed countless lifes through discrimination or simply misguidance and the loss of potential scientific advancement alone has overshadowed the good religion has caused. [/hide] reread his last sentence, he said religion was a scapegoat for the real causes of said wars which is accurate in a good amount of situations(crusades were about gaining land/power not spreading the word of christ) lobsta--so your saying everyone is either an atheist or fundamentalist, funny I seem to be neither

so your arguing semantics I take it?

i dont get how that is a paradox, im familiair with the children's riddle but I dont see what would stop you from moving.

its starting to replace summoning as the rarest skillcape. i wouldn't be surprised either. makes sense, the benefit to 99 summoning is better then the benefit of 99 construct.

[hide=] Hello Friend, People on forum board like picking out information that is convenient them. They fail to realise when competing against special student one need to be gracious to opponent. They play not in honourable manner. It like playing a special kid in game of poker. Would you play to take all his money, and take advantage of 'special child' inability? I hope never. My mother Rashmi bring me up better than that. Good Luck Bro. [/hide] wow, sena just owned the thread.

[hide=] Considering there were only like 45 ever made, and it's a giant plane, I doubt it would be possible to get. A humvee with a mounted mg would be good against bandits though. Oh well.... Also watching Future Weapons (I just watch the ones on YouTube) shows some pretty sweet weapons that will be useful once they become used for the army as common weapons (auto shottie while spinning around in the middle of zombies anyone?) [/hide] awesome, until you have to reload then not so awesome I wonder what potential acids or bases would have at dissolving zombies particularly in the form of a moat surrounding a compound

I still like the idea of a pole axe, idk mace thing sounds a bit too much like g maul. I hope if they do make a guthix weapon it is in some way very unique.