assassin_696

Mathematics - A* Science - A* A* History - A* Geography - A* French - A* English Language - A* English Literature - A Music - A R.S. - A :D

There is no power in the world which could hope to take on the U.S. in any kind of theatre scale operations. Granted, they don't seem to have a clue how to fight small scale guerrilla type insurgency armies, but the Russians and Chinese, even combined would be mad to try and take on the U.S. They'd stand to lose far too much.

Found a couple more: About 0:53 into We're No Here by Mogwai the full guitar and drums kick in, and wow, that's the kind of music you can imagine walking down a street in slow-motion, in the rain with a gun in your hand to. Bad Horsie, Steve Vai, it's just dark, moody and really quite menacing, while at the same time being almost comical.

I'm on it, laggy computer and masses of quotes to order doesn't help. :P

But a cell in my body will not become a human by any natural means. A zygote will. A zygote will only form a human being under special circumstances, and the analogy could possibly be extended to any single cell if human cloning was ever brought in, or indeed artifical random meiotic shuffling. That's because you define quality of life in a materialistic sense. There are more things that bring happiness in this world than money. If the couple already has many kids, cannot afford it, and did not abort them I'm assuming that they don't define quality of life in monetary terms either. I define quality of life in a sense of having one's health, and the means to support ones self. If you want to call that materialistic, fine, but I can't see how a kid in Africa who's living in abject poverty and gets AIDS from his mum will really look for much else in life. We must be very lucky to be able to take health and basic amenities for granted, or dismiss them as 'materialistic'. Was this response the one where you said that you "know" that there's worse things than death? I believe I responded to that. Wrong, it wasn't that response. Rather, it was the response that stemmed from that. Namely the empirical observation that death is a simple lack of consciousness, and so fearing what we cannot know anything about (hell) but can be reasonably sure does not exist, is foolish. This is why I dislike pure reason, you're right in so far as we cannot know what nothingness is like, but we can be damn sure that this world can contain terrible cruelty and suffering, and yet you can bring a child into this world, knowing full-well that it will suffer terribly, and somehow defend it on some philosophical grounds that there might be some kind of hell, so we're somehow playing it safe? And that the logic or reason works? This goes back to my questions from before. Do we define who is or isn't a person by their thoughts and consciousness? If that is the case then a person in a coma or unconscious is not a person. No, I think we should probably define a human being as someone or something which has complete viability as a seperate entity, and a zygote doesn't have this, but a comatose patient does. But those other cells don't meet the criteria I set forth earlier in being separate human life. An embryo meets that criteria. So again, it's hinging on how we define human life, and when it begins. An embryo only meets my criterion of being viable as a seperate entity past 20 odd weeks, although this normally stretches to 48 for obvious reasons. If you define it based on potential, then yes a zygote has the potential to form a human being, under the circumstances of it being in a healthy womb (1/3 zygotes are aborted naturally anyway). But then so does a sperm, different conditions but it still has the potential given a further set of circumstances, namely fusion with an egg as well as a womb. And so we can keep extending it back.

That sentiment is disgusting. By that mentality, you are condoning eugenics. Why don't we just go round up all the blind and lame people in the world and shoot them in the head to put them out of their misery. I can't even begin to state how disgusting that post is. I'm sorry, but you remind me of freaking Hitler. You make it sound like killing a baby is a public service. Oh give over, I would have thought you'd have been able to realise the difference between taking away the life of a conscious, developed seperate entity with memories, experiences and the viability to life, and aborting a fetus which has no consciousness and is not self aware, let alone able to feel pain. Right, but a sperm doesn't have fully human DNA. Neither does an egg. Does an embryo? It has a complete set of chromosomes, yes, but so does every cell in your body, and lose millions if not billions of those daily. This is a false dilemma. You can't know that the quality of life of the parents will be worsened by going through with a pregnancy. Actually, you can. I'd be willing to bet a lot of money that a couple living in abject poverty, who already have many children and are barely able to support them would not have their quality of life made any better whatsoever by carrying through with the pregnancy. Another false dilemma, one that I have already addressed in previous posts. You discussed it, but you didn't respond to my response at all.

Sorry, I was referring to the fact that he said nothing really goes at the speed of light, I had actually forgotten about the speed of light through varying densities, but it doesn't really affect my point. giboscam, my point was actually that as meol has said, one of the principles of relativity is the constancy of the speed of light for observers in all reference frames, for which there is no preferred frame of reference.

Kant vs. Hume, I never thought i'd see the day. :P Kant, as I've said earlier in nearly all my posts an embryo that has just been conceived left to its own devices will not become a human being. It needs its mother for the first 20 weeks or so, although generally it needs the mother for much longer, hence why 48 weeks is the normal pregnancy duration. That's Hume's point, a sperm also has the potential to form a human being, but it need an egg to fertilise. Where can you draw the line? I don't think you can from a point of pure reason or logic, so we need to be realistic and realise that in some cases it is far more sensible to allow an abortion and benefit the quality of life of the parents, than to bring a child into a world of suffering and pain based on the logic that a conglomeration of cells should be considered a human being with the same rights as a fully developed, genuinely seperate one. I suppose you're just more conservatively minded than I am. Personally, I don't care what couples do in public as long as it's not indecent or illegal. Look, at the end of the day, we can sit around talking about this all day and reasoning and stuff, but we're not actually making these decisions. From what I know, people don't actually go around having abortions as a form of contraception taking them lightly. I think it's a hard decision to come to, even if you are pro-abortion and I genuinely believe that the people who have them, have them for good reasons. I don't think we can criticise these couples, or mothers for coming to this kind of decision, because it's rarely something come to lightly. Abortion clinics are hardly drivethroughs, there are conditions that must be met in the UK which I think are adequate, and fair.

Eh? What? Unless there's a big conspiracy in physics i'm pretty sure that light goes the speed of light, as well as all other EM radiation. Hence the name. Besides, your explanation is a little faulty, since the speed of light is constant for all observers in all reference frames. Even if you set someone off on a motorbike at say 100mph and get them to shine a torch in front of them, the speed of the torch beam (light) is measured as the same for the rider and a stationary observing friend.

The Bourne Ultimatum What a fantastic thriller, I love those films. :)

I think Nad's response to your post has covered what i'd have said and probably more, but i'm still curious why you it's "the only thing in this world" that really gets you going. Why?

I think it's probably a toss-up between The White Stripes and Pink Floyd. You probably couldn't get more contrasting choices :P I'm going to see them on Thursday :P Is that the Carling Reading festival? If so i'm going to see them at Leeds on Sunday :)

That might be true, but the fact is we take our chances, we have to. Now, what happens after death is ultimately a mystery, but as far as we're aware it's nothing, it's just non-existence, very much like what it what before we're born. We could keep people alive in this world for as long as possible on the basis that there is a hell, and we're all going there, but I think all the evidence points towards a simple permanent lack of consciousness. And so even if we are making an assumption it is one that's based on some kind of evidence. Perhaps it is a gamble, but it's a relatively safe bet in my mind. We can speculate and philosophise all we like about being and nothingness, but we have to look at the facts, and this there is no evidence of an afterlife in this world. And this life can be full of cruelty and suffering. I also think it's unfair to say the mother doesn't know what the child is going through, chances are she does, and even if she doesn't it can be worked out.

Maybe, but I think you and I both know that there are far worse things in this world than dying.

Agreed. I am not arguing potential of human life. I am saying the present reality of everything is that a fetus is already a person. A sperm isn't separate human life. Is it separate? yeah Is it human? No, It doesn't have enough chromosomes to be human and so is missing half the genetic code to be a human. Is it life? 3: Yes it is living. Result: Not a person My argument wasn't that a sperm is a person, more that lots of things have the potential to develop into people given the right kind of situation. A zygote inside a mother is the kind of potential that it needs to grow into a person, on its own (or even with science) it cannot for the first 20 weeks or so. The person in the coma is in the same situation. Would it be ok to kill them as well? I'm not saying a zygote shouldn't be killed because of it's potential to be a human being. I am saying a zygote shouldn't be killed because it IS a human being. You haven't disproved my reasoning for calling it a human being yet. See above, for me a zygote is not an individual entity and so cannot claim to have the same rights as a fully developed, conscious, self aware human being. In response to the bold, once the child is outside the mother's body it is a seperate individual human being, capable of surviving on its own with help and guidance. I don't think it's right that a mother should be able to have a last minute abortion at all, like I said I think the current limit is very sensible. The same applies to comatose patients, they are capable of surviving (barely) with science, and for a period of their lives they were genuinely independent (the period depending on their age). I'm not the one debating using emotion. Everything I have said is straight science and straight logic. It appears you just disagree so far because of your own emotions. Why? Because my arguments go against your feeling of how things should be even though logically and scientifically the argument makes sense. I am all for removing emotion from this debate. Propose an argument that is more logical and more scientific than the one I presented or disprove it using logic and science. Saying things like "I can't call it a person because it doesn't seem right calling a group of cells a person" is falling back on emotion for a defense. (Not trying to personally attack you Warrior, just trying to make a point to Assassin) Obviously the definition of what constitutes a person is what it's hinging on at the moment. If you regard a zygote, a conglomeration of cells and chromosomes that has the full potential to develop into what we'd call a human being a person then that's fine, but I wouldn't. Your argument is very logical, very precise and I can't fault you for that at all. But I just find that's it's perhaps motivated by a deeper emotion, which is your very high regard for human life. I too think human life is precious, but I think that someone's quality of life is just as important, and that's why I'm pro-choice, and incidentaly pro-euthanasia. I really do feel that the quality of life of the parents, other children and unborn child must be taken into account, and I don't think that it's always fair, or right to bring a child into a world where it won't have the full richness of life.

I think although your reasoning is probably sound, we have to draw a line between potential and reality. A zygote, of course, has the potential to grow up into a human being, a seperate entity. But what about sperm? Are they sacred as well, since fused with an egg they have the potential to form millions of individual entities. Fast forward a few years into more advanced science and what about even skin cells? Technically they contain a copy of our DNA, so if we could subject them to some kind of artificial meiosis and fusion with an egg are they sacred as well? I know it's not the best argument, because i'm arguing against a degree of logic, but I think as warri0r has said we have to remove the emotion and apply a degree of common sense. Lots of things have the potential to create human life but we don't get as twitchy about them as we do about an unborn zygote. The fact is that an aborted baby doesn't feel pain, is never conscious so is never aware of it's "loss". Yes, you're killing a bunch of cells which has the ability to grow up into a human being, but if it wasn't for the mother of that zygote those cells wouldn't be there at all, so shouldn't it ultimately be her choice? It was her choice to create those cells after all.

[hide] Keeping our race going is an extremely important thing, so i'd say yes, children are perhaps the most important thing anyone can do in life. The fact is, not all heterosexual people have children, but no gay people do. They're not giving back to the civilisation that they live in as far as keeping it alive. Many of the homosexual animals use surrogated mothers or fathers. Problem solved. My main problem with homosexuality is when a gay couple tries to raise children. A child raised in the ideal environment has a mother and a father. Not two mothers or two fathers. Having a mother and father figure is somthing that, ideally everyone should have. On another point, I don't think that the world is getting overpopulated. Many of the problems in Africa are not caused by overpopualtion. It is bad/corrupt leadership that leads to poverty. I dont think that food is a problem either. America's farms produce enough food to theoretically feed the world. I mean seriously, the human race is not like a plague of rats that needs to be controlled. I was raised soley by my mother, I turned out fine. [/hide] Yeah, I mean one of my friends' mum is a lesbian, and he's turned out fine. His father's been in his life, so he's had a male influence, but not as much as most kids.

@ the warri0r Ambassadar debate: I think regarding a human being as a seperate, individual person for me means when they are no longer solely dependent on their mother. That doesn't mean they would like or want their mother, it means their survival would be absolutely possible without their mother. Now I believe the record for keeping a premature baby alive is around 20 weeks, and I think the abortion law in the UK puts the limit at around 24 weeks. I think that's a fair definition, but of course it's tricky because as I said science is getting better at keeping babies alive all the time. Go tell a suffering child that they would have been better off aborted, then. Of course though, if they've grown up and are now living their lives, and are indeed capable of conscious thought and accepting what abortion is (many handicapped children wouldn't be able to) I wouldn't tell them they'd be better off being aborted. You're applying the principle of "any kind of life is better than no life at all" to those kids, and I don't think it's as black and white as that. Suicide testifies to that, for some people their life is just not worth living. I'm not necessarily saying they're the same children who might have been aborted, but although my life is the most precious gift I have, to others it's a curse. I don't want to go through many what-ifs, but if a child was going to be brought into a world of pain, and suffering, and might not live beyond its infancy due to horrific disease or the inability of the parents to provide for their child, do you really think you're doing the child a favour by blocking the parents having an abortion? Particularly if the parents already have kids and are overstretched looking after them as it is.

Moved to T&C in case there is any further discussion. Doing the reset thing nearly always works for me though. :)

It amuses me that quite a few guys on these boards (including me) base most of their military knowledge on Tom Clancy. :lol:

Keeping our race going is an extremely important thing, so i'd say yes, children are perhaps the most important thing anyone can do in life. The fact is, not all heterosexual people have children, but no gay people do. They're not giving back to the civilisation that they live in as far as keeping it alive. Did you not read the bit about overpopulation? Jeez man look around you, we've got more than enough people living at the moment to "keep the population" going, it's overcrowded enough as it is, in fact I think a natural decrease in the population would be more beneficial to our species than overpopulation, because eventually there would not be enough resources and we couldn't support that kind of population. You get taught that in basic biology, we're pushing the population to its limits as it is. Frankly, you're naive if you think we must keep increasing the population to survive for the good of the species. I'm none of those. The fact is the overpopulation of the people i feel are important doesn't exist, but the multiplying of minorities is a threat to the homeland they don't even belong in. To make the gene pool better and more intelligent as possible we need more reproducing by the right people. So you're advocating social darwinism? I believe Hitler tried that...

Ugh... warri0r, anyone else want to cover this (especially that bolded part...)? My bluntness has caused him to block out anything I say at this point. I'll give it a shot :) goldphishies, what you just said kind of contradicts the law of conservation of energy. Animals that eat us when we're dead eat bits of us, muscles, tissue, organs etc. which are made up of lots of different cells, which act essentially as energy reserves (especially glucose). The animals eat us or the decomposers decompose us because they extract energy from our dead body. But if there's no tissue left, essentially if we're just a skeleton there's no way animals can get energy from us. Having energy inside us doesn't mean some mystical cosmic life-force, it's just simple energy reserves, a form of energy which will probably be chemical potential energy.

Please don't advertise paying out money to anybody who solves your problem. It's not allowed. I've edited the title.

Haha, oh man I can just picture the judges face when he read the papers for that case... But how will they enforce that kind of order? It's ridiculous, they should just make him wear a t-shirt that says "Prone to fondling" when around women.

The live version has nearly brought me to tears watching it on DVD. It's hard to think of many that i've heard recently, there's a song off the Requiem For A Dream soundtrack called Summer Overture, which was remixed for a LOTR trailer. It's called Requiem For A Tower and it's even more powerful than the original; just the combination of the harsh strings with the deep timpanis, it's utterly haunting. It's been used a fair bit in films and adverts, you'd probably recognise it. I presume the Pulse version? I dont know how many times I've watched that, lost count :| Yeah the P*U*L*S*E version, still to my mind the most eargasmic solo ever conceived. And here's