mmmcannibalism

[hide=] [/hide] Hollow points or full metal jacket? Hollow points cause more damage to tissue but I am thinking you might want full metal jacket to ensure skull penetration.

that wouldnt be dying, that would be amazing.

yes, but you could choke on a penny and a penny could fall and possibly kill you.

Nobody has ever stated how big a 'drop' of water is. A 'drop' of water the size of Canada could easily kill you. except that a drop of that size cannot exist outside of gravity, water on a surface will spread out to some extend due to the forces between the water and the surface. to the energy thing idk how accurate paper clip thing is but a single atom is very very small relevant to a paper clip, a nuclear bomb has billions of atoms which allow a chain reaction to be destructive. If I remember correctly, it takes 6.0223*10^23 carbon atoms to make one gram of matter, so one atom has a mass that is nearly zero. So I dont think a single atom has enough energy to be fatal using antimatter.

thanks for confirming that, I wonder how many years till someone decides not to say it lol.

[hide=] [/hide] were actually moving more socialist then communist, though with the volume of companies the government is helping its borderline. youd be amazed how horribly dumb a lot of americans are in both parties, makes me lose a lot of faith in our future.

Isn't that kind of what parenting is? Having the life of a child in your hands? Especially for someone who can't think for themselves, it really is up to the parent to decide... And it's so wonderful how you think everyone has an equal chance in life. If only, if only... I can see the rationale in cases of impoverished families and such, my real problem is when abortion becomes replacement for birth control. Im not trying to be an anti rights person, but if the family would have no trouble raising a child or making sure it was placed in a good family, then killing it is horribly wrong.

hmm thats interesting, could it have any thing to do with other patterns among siblings, as in first borns more likely to be athletic? to raven, being a christian fundamentalist hath clouded though vision of the real world.

realistically a single drop of water cannot kill you yes if your one drop away from drowing :roll: it could but i think the initial pool of water is the cause there, after all you couldnt have drowned without the other 99% Actually, I dont think a single atom being annihalated by antimatter is enough to actually kill you, can anyone confirm this. E=mc^2 and the mass of one atom is nearly zero, anyone care to confirm the energy a single atom puts off?(use mass of two atoms since anti atom.

[hide=] Yeah I see that. EDIT: Basically that can be the answer for everything, which is kind of cheating lol. Say something, and to prove it can kill you all you have to say is, "Well if it was shot at you fast enough..." or "If it was moving fast enough..." Anything physical can technically be "launched", which is what this thread is about, physical things. Actually, they have been saying "we will split it and the energy will kill you" or "use antimatter to cause an explosion" a lot of things cant kill you without using cheap stuff like that. Its not cheap its possible. [/hide] its cheap even though it is possible. to the above, being drunk is what kills you not the water drop, if your so intoxicated that a drop of water causes you to drive off the road its safe to say something else would have done it soon.

Yeah I see that. EDIT: Basically that can be the answer for everything, which is kind of cheating lol. Say something, and to prove it can kill you all you have to say is, "Well if it was shot at you fast enough..." or "If it was moving fast enough..." Anything physical can technically be "launched", which is what this thread is about, physical things. Actually, they have been saying "we will split it and the energy will kill you" or "use antimatter to cause an explosion" a lot of things cant kill you without using cheap stuff like that.

the first drop wouldnt kill you, the summation of every drops power is what causes it to cut. The tip of the bullet doesnt kill you, the whole bullet does.

[hide=] That is why abortion is such a complicated issue; because it is no longer "just" the womens body, there is another life involved. Exactly, but how do we decide when that tiny bundle of cells becomes a "life"? We have religious dogma stating from conception, medical opinion from X to Y weeks, and legal doctrine stating only when it can only survive independently from the mother. Which such a wide range of potential right answers, nobody can know, and if nobody can know then we have no justification from taking the decision away from the mother. It is for the pro-life lobby, as the ones wishing to restrict personal liberty, to prove when life, or if you will, a soul, is created (as this is the basis of the argument that it is wrong), if they cannot, then they have no right to take the choice from the mother. [/hide] when signifigant neural development begins, thats what I feel should be the legal boundary. I think life begins earlier then that, but I dont see why banning harm to a fetus that can feel pain should be objectionable. Note, allowances should still exist for (severe) medical complications of either mother or child, and rape cases. I dont see how that is restricting the mother's rights, after all why do you need to wait 7 months to get the baby dealth with?

Does anyone else out there think the Libertarian party will replace the republican party in the next say 20 years? I dont think the republican party has any life in them, and they seem unable to get what they want in the stimulus

woo pure drop of water wins excluding anti matter, to the sickle cell anemia thing, one drop wouldnt be enough.

Well, Im sure I could attempt an argument based off of the need for a standard family unit and such without citing religion at all, but I do agree the gay marriage ban is both illogical and purely religion based. Just wanted to point out there is a secular argument against it that could be used. Why do people need a standard family though? That is based off religion as well. I dont believe in that argument I just wanted to point you could argue it from non religion, I do agree its always based on religion but felt someone needed to point it out. to above, yeah Im waiting for a president to not say so help me god, didnt that tradition start with washington though?

someone can do whatever they want with their own body, Im more concerned with protecting unborn humans(definition being after neural development is signifigant). I mean we have laws against driving while under the influence, it works along the same line of thought. If someone wants to smoke drink or eat themselves to death they are welcome to it, but you cant allow people to have freedoms that let them hurt other people. goddess--a. I know what you are saying but that statement was still worded horribly b. there are plenty of non catholic hospitals, and believing churches should have to perform abortions is restricting their rights which Im pretty sure you said we cant do to women who want abortions.

Exactly what I was thinking Worst scenario: What if they infected an important/huge water source? we go back to drinking only beer like the colonists in america :lol:

to the above post that brings us to how we should legally define human life, anyone care to start that debate?

No, I believe anyone who doesn't agree with something so strongly should fight for it. But fighting war with war or fighting murder with murder is NOT the answer. If you look at the world today and it's history, a 13 year old could come to that conclusion. Being anti ANYTHING creates more of it!! im going to assume that is just horribly worded ,but if that holds true then I guess we should all be pro theft and arson, wouldnt want to cause more of them. edit-- a. calculators have a way of making you mess up calculations b. if you dont teach kids protection you lower the rate of useage of it. Id rather have a high rate of protected sex then a slightly lower rate with more unprotected sex.

agreed.

Even for arguments sake it was murder anyone with half a brain knows that you can't stop murder by threatening to also murder (shut down their hospitals and leave their patients stranded.) At the end of the day they're contributing to the problem of murder 110% MORE. Refer to the above. They are either equally or more violent by retaliating or just damn right stupid. Id still like to point out I dont believe this bill would force doctors to do anything(if it does thats bs) Sometimes you have to take a moral stand at any cost, if were going to argue that you cant murder to prevent murder I guess we should have just let germany win ww2, wouldnt want to kill anyone. Yes, thats a little out of scale, but you cant universally declare a moral stand wrong. edit--just noticed another part of that how does allowing people to die in protest equate to violence? Im not saying its justified but something is not violent unless it involves well violence.

that is a creepy level of analysis what about if the virus broke out in a contained area and we started with a giant amount of zombies, say the virus is dispersed at a football game and everyone transforms over the next 3 days?

Well, Im sure I could attempt an argument based off of the need for a standard family unit and such without citing religion at all, but I do agree the gay marriage ban is both illogical and purely religion based. Just wanted to point out there is a secular argument against it that could be used.

those take too long to reload, and when you are surrounded by 5 zombies you can't ask them to back up so you have room to shoot arrows at them. Just watch me :twss: Use a silenced automatic. That there is a win. a silencer on an automatic has a tendency to cause weapon problems. katana+ak47 is what Id aim for.