assassin_696

Okay, i've done my best to remove all the 'spoiler' stuff in here, let me know if i've missed any. If it's genuine (which I doubt) it's breaking copyright law so i've removed it, and even if it's not it's just annoying for fans. No more spoilers please, genuine speculation is fine.

Here Is No Why - The Smashing Pumpkins

"Nick" 1. Do you agree that the cloning of animals should be legal in your country? Yes 2. Should the government spend more taxpayerÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s money on research and refining cloning techniques? I'm not sure how much the current government spends on it, but i'm pretty sure it's zero, so i'd say yes. 3. Do you think we should allow private companies to conduct research on the cloning of animals? Yes 4. Would you eat any product which has been obtained from a cloned animal? Why/Why not? Yes, the meat is identical to the non-cloned animal, and I would have eaten that, so what's the problem? 5. Do you agree that the cloning of animals, if made legal is going to benefit society? Why/Why not? It's hard to say what the possible benefits will be, but in general if cloning techniques were refined an alternative way of producing food could be found, and possibly implemented into third world countries at some point. 6. Do you agree that the cloning of animals allowed in other countries would disadvantage the companies of your country? Why/why not? In terms of cloning research, yes it clearly would, although I see a level playing field in terms of the laws should level this out.

True. There's either a rational explanation for all the supposed paranormal things that went on, or there would be if it were possible that evidence could be conclusively gathered. It's just it would take a lot of resources to research and explain every single case. Sure, that stretch of water might be more prone to freakish weather conditions and/or events that make disappearances more likely, but that doesn't mean that there's some kind of paranormal goings on.

NO BUMP NO That doesn't look too bad, it was probably just trying to be friendly. Don't worry about it, you'll live.

Tales of a Scorched Earth - The Smashing Pumpkins

Sorry, I didn't mean the actual first, I just meant the first three to have a definite and traceable influence on modern day philosophy.

Would you not agree though, that if two people were in a long-term relationship (say, been together for a few years, lived together etc.) that's just as good a situation to allow sex, in fact, even better, since there might be a tendency to 'rush into' marriage just to get to the sex with the particularly devout. I'm thinking of services offered in strict Islam countries where essentially there exists brothels, with readymade marriage contracts and divorces there to allow men to have a few hours with their temporary wife. That was a little off tangent, but you can see the point.

Yeah. (sorry about the long post which doesn't really reflect all that you said. I was writing it while you were discussing and didn't see your response) I think that I would have to look at knowledge in a metaphysical manner. Ie. I would have to study it's being before I could get very far in metaphysics. Interestingly enough that would probably lead almost immediately to semiotics (the study of signs, where sign is defined as absolutely anything that suggests, reminds of, points to, etc. another thing.) Then again that is what really interests me most in the discipline of philosophy so I would want to go that way. Don't worry, it was an interesting read :) I suppose I agree with Zonorch, that philosophy nowadays is a cumulations of hundreds if not thousands of years of progressive thought. Plato, Socrates and Aristotle were the first true philosophers I suppose, and you need to understand them to be able to understand philosophy that stems from it. In this way, I suppose you could consider the philosophy of Aristotle et al. to be fundamental and the starting point, but nowadays it's harder to envisage this kind of fundamentality with the collected thoughts of thousands. I think Umberto Eco is a fairly renowned semiotician, some of his novels bring it in in an interesting way. All interesting stuff though, this.

Yeah, which is why I said I think existence is probably slightly more fundamental thinking about it, although i'd still find it hard to say it was a significant gap. Obviously knowledge is ultimately very important. I think if you were to build up philosophy from the ground up and start again, i'd probably start with existence, although it would be hard to keep knowledge out of there.

Read my reply to Striker. I'm not saying that she lived in luxury or slacked off, i'm saying there's a perceived western image of her being a saintly figure, when actually she just tried to convert as many people to her religion as possible and spent more money on this than trying to alleviate the poverty of others. Clearly, she was very industrious, but not in a way that i'd say was an exemplary of high moral standards. As trapical said, Gates' charity has saved literally thousands, if not millions of lives with no ulterior motive. Teresa inevitably saved lives, but her ultimate motives lay elsewhere.

Yes, but that's not the point of the question. It was the study of knowledge vis the study of existence. As a corollary, not knowledge of existence, but the study of its nature. Further, not knowledge about knowledge, but about its nature. It's slightly confusing semantic ground at first. Indeed it is. I suppose you're right, my way of saying it didn't quite make sense but I still can't see how any is more fundamental than the other, although if I had to pick sides, i'd say the study of existence.

You're saying your parents, friends or the government dont interfere with people's sex lives? Only Religion? If there's a problem in society (or a perceived one) its always religions fault if you're asking for Assassin's opinion. :roll: Er, no. All I was saying that premarital sex is a concept which very few people have a problem with when you think about it from a completely unbiased viewpoint, as long as it's carried out safely. The vast majority of people who are against pre-marital sex are against it due to religious principles. I didn't even say it was a problem either way.

You're saying your parents, friends or the government dont interfere with people's sex lives? Only Religion? Pretty much, the legal age of consent is only really designed so you don't get loads of unwanted pregnancies, but contraception has kind of negated that.

It's a private act between two consenting people, only religion could make that a problem.

I don't really think you can choose either way. For instance you could argue that we need existence to talk about knowledge, which requires knowledge of our existence etc. I don't really think you can give preference to either one.

Please explain the link? Capitalism doesn't cause people to have vices. Freedom doesn't cause people to have vices. Hell, if anything, repressing freedoms causes people to assert themselves to fulfill those vices more - see prohibition in the US, and the repression of the peasant class in Soviet Russia, ca.1920s. Will it? The administration trying to control everything and keeping everyone on the same level caused the suffering peasant class to resist and deny their livestock to the Bolshevik (well, the Communist Party) requisition corps. An entire generation of Russians went without meat as a result of this attempted control.* Could it not be considered a "sin" to deprive children of an essential element of diet, against their will and without their knowledge? *David Christian, Power, privilege and the challenge of modernity (1986, multiple publishers), page reference unavailable. It's alright, he's going through a communism fandom stage. It'll pass.

Everlong - Foo Fighters Live at Live Earth, been quite good actually. :)

CHarles Mingus, John Coltrane, Wayne Shorter. :) And it hasn't got much to do musically with Miles Davis but you should check out Weather Report as well. Some of the members have played together with Miles on various albums, so there is a link. And check out Jaco Pastorius' solo work, he's exceptionally skilled. And I can't state this enough. Get Steely Dan - Aja. And Donald [bleep]en - The Nightfly, if you haven't already. And it's good to see some Steve Gadd appreciation on here. :) Thanks for the recommendations :) I was looking at John Coltrane already, he'd been recommended to me before, and i'll definitely check out those two albums you've suggested.

Easy gramps, some kids like it. I used to quite a lot really, mostly to the same few people. I suppose I could have called them but there's just something a bit more fun about texting, you can hold down a conversation (which sometimes is way better than ringing someone and not knowing what to talk about) and you can do other stuff at the same time. Don't knock it til you've tried it. That said, i'm on pay-as-you-go now so i've cut back a lot, and generally don't see the point as much now, my texts are more functional ones between friends about meeting up places and times etc.

I should post on this more often, I buy loads of CD's. Bought the new Kings of Leon CD today, Because of the Times as well as The Essential Bruce Springsteen, I love some of his stuff. Also bought the French Connection and Casino Royale on DVD a couple of weeks ago. Also bought 10,000 Days by Tool a week or so ago as well as Era Vulgaris by the Queens of the Stone Age.

A little village down in Cornwall where we go twice a year, some of my happiest memories are down there. Idyllic, it's perfect.

insane, I actually altered my original critique of your point after i'd re-read it, but you beat me to it with your counter :P It might make slightly more sense now. I think most of your points are fair enough and we can agree to disagree. Like I added on to my other post, ultimately it's up to you. I'll address a couple though: I don't understand. I said he was correct in saying that it was a conservative statement. I then said that he added a bunch of unnecessary terms to make me look bad, which he did. What's your point? Just because something is conservative doesn't make it wrong. Course not, just a difference of opinion mate. But it's hard to remain completely unbiased when you're arguing based on one side of the political spectrum I didn't say that. I said that if someone's boyfriend were to sleep, then cheat, they would regret sleeping with them. I didn't say everybody did this. That's why I said it was taking a gamble. because you just don't know. Yeah, but the same would be ultimately true for even having a relationship with a guy who cheats on you. You'd still feel like **** even if there was no sexual element. I suppose the trick is to find a guy who isn't that stupid. See above. You can discuss sexual attitudes before having sex. Of course, having sex might change these attitudes but I don't think people are going to go from wanting it to hating it. I don't think I've ever heard of someone hating sex with the exception of wives whose husbands are emotionally distant. Again, that's true, but here's where the difference of opinion lies. I don't think i'd want to marry someone without sharing that kind of intimacy with them, sex isn't sacred to me, it's special yeah, and I suppose you shouldn't throw it around with anybody (although I might change), I just don't think it's that special.

That's very weird and also an oxymoron :P Not really, Judaism is more of a culture/lifestyle nowadays. I've got quite a few Jewish friends who don't believe in God but would still call themselves Jewish. In fact my parents have got some good friends, they're both atheist but still observe all the rites and rituals of Judaism. It's quite curious really, I suppose it's a cultural heritage which some people want to honour. It wouldn't be for me, but meh. :)

I don't think people were laughing at the girl, they were just pointing out that tragic but bizarre accidents happen everyday but that's no reason not to go outside. Yeah, it's tragic, but people die/get injured in bizarre ways daily but that's no reason to suddenly spread panic. Sure, raise awareness that some drains in swimming pools are powerful (I really doubt they're that powerful) but that shouldn't stop you swimming.