warri0r45

Yeah, but it is a good place to start. It's a place to get a general feel of a topic and some key points about it too. True. I personally think that it's rediculously awesome. If i'm writing up a paper or something, though, I'll obviously not cite it. Teachers/lecturers generally don't like it. On a related note, wikipedia literally saved me hours in a data gathering excercise just recently.

Would you find it disgusting and cruel if a pack of lions/tigers/whatever slashed and mauled an antelope to death in nature? Or what about if a pack of lions lived in a drought ravaged area with little no no food and slowly starved to death because mother nature took away thier food? I can't help but feel everyone who comes in here whose immediate reaction is that this is cruel, brutal, immoral or whatever either dosen't really know much about the animal kingdom or needs to losen the emotional stranglehold on thier brain. Oh and less sweeping generalisations about people who pay to see an animal get killed having no morals would be great, thanks. Call me crazy, but I'm sure someone who hates cows and works in a slaughterhouse could maybe, possibly have some morals as could these chinese people.

I'd agree with that. I've heard noises to the effect that nicotine changes chemical pathways in the brain while a binge to alcoholics is a place to run away from life's problems, hence the development of a psychological dependance i.e. they think it will fix thier problems where as a smoker is ingrained to crave a cigarette.

It's true though that alcohol related deaths are the biggest killer out there, and all in all i'd say drinking to excess is more dangerous than smoking to excess. You've got to weigh up the pros and cons for both though, it's obviously never as black and white as either side would have you believe. Totally agree, but I wasn't talking about deaths, rather rates of addiction.

Alcohol more addictive than cigarettes? I'd dispute that. From my gut feeling, the numer of tabacco addicts relative to non-addicts compared to alcohol addicts relative to non-addicts is high i.e. more people get hooked on tabacco than alcohol.

The Newspaper article made it clear that the animals were in the process of being released back into the wild. Its the topic author that left out this piece of information. All of a sudden it seems less brutal. Shows how money for violence makes people feel compared to money for a rehabituation excercise. To defend the Chinese, and this is just speculation, perhaps the money is a way of buying more cows to help the process along.

You're missing the point though. By following regular proceedure somebody would have received the kidney's anyway. However, Endemol are exploiting a dying woman and turning life and death into a tv special in order to pusue profit (I'm sure the given a token sum to charity and to the womans family but they'll still profit). It's presenting the life and death of human being as a trivial form of entertainment - it's no more humane than the Roman Colloseum. I'm with you on the fundamentals of it. Although, it has generated a ludicrous amount of publicity which has alerted the masses around the world to the often low donor rate. That dosen't excuse the demeaning nature of it, though.

White. The most exciting thing I've done all day.

The greenhouse effect is a fact...

I'm not taking either side in this topic, but that isn't nature. Nature would be the lions coming across the cow in the wild, or the humans using a bolt gun as the most efficient way to kill the cow. This is humans taking a tame beast and just using the lions as a killing device, because it's more entertaining to watch. It's not me showing empathy for the cow, I'm just disagreeing with what you say about it being nature. I know what you're saying. Hence why I added 'if they ever crossed paths in the wild' referring to a hypothetical natural savage brutal killing with no regard for the feelings of the cow as opposed to a controlled one. The only difference if it happened in the wild would be that the carcass would be eaten and not taken away from them.

Huh? :-k I'd gladly be proven wrong with a source of some sort.

Cruel? That's nature. If they ever crossed path in the wild, this is what would happen, just like if four lions crossed the path of a human. People's capacity for empathy of the well being of other species never ceases to amaze me (I'm not saying it's a bad thing, though).

A diplomat in the U.S. is understandable. A diplomat on the other side of the fence, where diplomacy seems non-existant and religous ideologies run governments, however. Bah. If only they wanted peace and the war to stop. You can overthrow the old government and insert democracy but I'd say we've not even made the first dent when it comes to overthrowing the ideology. I'd be much happier if someone could enlighten me of a muslim diplomat from the middle-east who's willing to negociate with the western, christian world.

From what I know about the data (which isn't all that much, to be honest) I'd say there's definately reason to suggest a correlation between CO2 increase and human activities. I just don't see the point of even risking it and doing nothing with nature as the excuse. At the end of the day which would be better - wild weather, inhospitale heat at some areas of the planet and a multi billion dollar repair bill which won't go away (don't think that's an overestimate, either; it's very conservative) or little to none of those effects, a horde of new techologies in some areas, a horde less in other areas and a potential economical backlash in the order of the multitude of billions (or less if we manage things well).

This logic just cracks me up. I don't think society has done much to make guys think of sex when they see a naked girl. Don't ya think that just might be sorta hardwired in us? :P Bingo. Nice round breasts = good feed for offspring. Nice slim figure with wide hips = good house for offspring. As Bill Hicks said - "There are sexual thoughts, therefore there is playboy."

heh, I'm thinking it's fake, mate. :P

I agree. I'll always vote on policy. Not what side they're on or what affiliation my parents were. Yea, you're supposed to vote on policy, not on colors and names. I'm personally probably never going to vote. I really wanted to vote ni this next election, but really...What's the point? Eh, I sometimes feel the same way as you even though it's compulsary here in Australia. Politics is all the same. Vote grabbing smiley glad hands men clawing thier way to seats of power. Although every now and then a decent one comes along... Bah, politicians just can't look past thier own ego. I'll eat my shoe the day a politician concedes the other parties policy is superior on a particular issue.

I agree. I'll always vote on policy. Not what side they're on or what affiliation my parents were.

Interesting... How'd you form that opinion?

Spot on. Hence why the title is kind of wrong; It's not a matter of facts. It is a matter of facts though. Fate either exists or it doesn't. That's a fact. We may believe one way or another, but what we believe is irrelevant to the truth. Anyways, on another train of thought.... Is it not consistent for you, a materialist, to completely deny free will? If you are a materialist, would you not believe that our thoughts and actions are completely predetermined by other material entities? I know the Heisenburg uncertainty principle would make our actions impossible to predict, but it doesn't change the fact that we have no control over them? If you're a materialist, then fate is a fact. If you think materialism is fact, then you must think that fate is fact. Of course, it either exists or it dosen't, my comment was just that I don't think that it's the kind of thing that you would label as a fact or not. @ bold: The key word there being completely. Partly, yes, but completely? If I have a piece of metal and am a blacksmith is it really predetermined that I'll make a horseshoe? I could make a sword if I want. I see your reasoning and mostly agree. The fate I was referring to was the more mythical idea that some deity determines our life in some sort of plan. But hey, full points for reasoning. There are orders of predetermination due to our environment although I would dispute there being 'no contol.' It could be an illusionary control, but by definition and in the context of what we know, yes, I do have a degree of control.

I feel I need to defend my position as an atheist. 1) I don't dislike christianity on the whole or christians at all. 2) I'm not the kind to go around trying to disprove a religion. Kind of a tall order seeing as one's faith (if they have it) will always try and sidestep pieces of evidence that counter it. 3) Yes, some atheists can be mean and nasty, just like a fraction of any population on the planet can be mean and nasty. 4) I'm not one to laugh at one's belief or faith. If they have them, I have no problems with that. The point I'm making is that your post was a bit of a generalisation. Not all atheists are like that and I'd argue a minority are, just like a minority of christians are biblical literalists like the dudes who made this museum. My bag with this museum is that it's counter to what true science is and is nothing more than a propaganda tool for giving the masses a tangible reason to believe i.e. using what they call science to justify thier belief in the hope that others will believe what they do. I honestly have no problems with people believing in the literal truth of the bible. But the fact that they would screw up the one thing so decent and good in this world that separates us from the primative and gives us a wealth of knowlege and well being - science - just to furthur gratify thier beleifs, disturbs me.

And I got Steve Vai to sign my Ibanez Musician during G3 '04 \ If you can play bass like Vic, I'm very impressed indeed. Great stuff. :)

I personally don't care if people smoke, yet if I smell it, I don't like it. Don't worry folks, I'm not having a whinge, I'd say there was a change in my brains perception of ciggy smoke due to a rather unfortunate incident. It involves my dad smoking a few in the house with all doors and windows closed, air-con blaring. Not a nice way to wake up and I'd say after this, second hand smoke is one of the most putrid smells I encounter in my day to day life. My house is now outside smoking only. But hey, I really don't mind if people smoke nor to I hold it against them. And @ the bloke above, I remember doing a little paper on CO (carbon monoxide) and I'd say you're spot on there.

BREAKING NEWS: Oxygen damages DNA - it's an oxidising agent. Quick!!! Stop breathing!!! Just about everything harms you in some way. If nothing harmed us or our DNA, we wouldn't age or die. Im personally not overly worried but I'll keep it in the back of my mind.

On a UTTERLY unrelated issue, the donging on the cowbell in your sig is in eerily perfect sinc with the repedative clanging noise the overhead fan is making in the room adjacent to the one I'm in now. :anxious: