warri0r45

while you are true, its not really beyond our capacity to plant as many crops as we need to sustain ourselves and the food needs of the meat we want to eat. (although global warming is making agriculture more difficult)

5 wickets for Warne, total wickets = 704!! heres a little fact for Aussie cricket fans - Shane Warne has: 704 test wickets 293 ODI wickets which totals 997 international wickets!!!! 3 more and he can have 1000!!!!

take by The John Butler Trio. no... wait... Life aint what it seems - John Butler Trio and dont you mean Leper Messiah? good song.

id imagine thats a really genrous gift from BCF (im assuming your not one of the management position/owners of the company) very nice :D

30.648... edit: 32.816

i just thought id post a part of the wikipedia article on Morality, its an interesting read.

great effort fielding and bowling, especially for Shane Warne with his 700!! and a 5-for!! at stupms day one, Australia are two wickets down: J.Langer B. Lee (nigh[bleep]chman)

What will you say - Jeff Buckley (RIP)

sometimes, but not always, its not as if they deliberately seek out to torture the animals and make thier lives a misery, sometimes its just the most efficient way. Immoral? - some would think so, i dont blame them, but i dont think so.

Jeff Buckley (RIP) - I woke up in a strange place.

probably the only thing i dont agree with you on... I just dont see that killing and eating animals to sustain ourselves (for the very purpose of us being able to live) is immoral. I just cant agree with that idea. Everything else is good but.

oh yeah, i saw lamb of god recently at a place called 'the arena' in Brisbane. It is relitively small, but it was packed as, and the moshes were crazy.

great song :lol:

Randy Blithe from Lamb of God i rekon. But possibly the best scream in a song i have heard is in the song 'Ticks and Leeches' by tool - screamer is Maynard James Keenan (although he dosent usually scream)

its totally different really. Plants and animals couldnt be more different. thats very true, concidering that pill substitutes are made artificially, and for some suppliments, thier molecular form may be different/lacking from what regular food can provide for you. so basically, we are disigned to eat real food, not substitute it for artificial food.

i had christmas awkwardness this year aswell (not based on religion, but more demographics). New years eve is our christmas thing, and we do it at my grandmas house, which is like a street away from our house. I got there, expecting it to be ok (never really appeals to me too much) but when i got there, as always there was no one for me to talk to (no one my own age) so i got really bored, walked home and listened to heavy metal. :twisted: much more fun.

$50 im 18 in under a month and not really into the whole present thing anymore.

the boxing day test is underway!! Flintoff won the toss and chose to bat, england are already 1 wicket down. Hopefully the rain will stay away and Warney will get a bowl today!! EDIT: 700 FOR WARNEY!!!!!! =D> :thumbsup: :thumbsup: =D> well done mate!!

its still one of (if not the) best sourse of protien, and iron, and calcium, and necessary sulphurous compound. sure we can get protien elsewhere, and many vegetarians live healthy lifestyles, but eating meat shouldnt be seen as wrong just because it comes from an animal.

do you seriously believe that? Dogs can figure out the difference between right and wrong, so can humans. wrong= bad consequence/lack of good consequence right=good consequence/lack of bad consequence. its the basis of conditioning. Ivan Pavlov coined the concept with his bell+dog experiment. So its pretty easy to begin to understand the concepts of 'right' and 'wrong' (the basis of morality) without it being intrinsic or anything like that. Although i still think that morality being an evolutionary mechanism could be plausible, id have to think about it more though.

we could just be ovaranalysing this rediculously. Our parents teach us right and wrong - thats obvious, and we learn some right and wrong ourselves, through consequences (bad consequence means wrong act). But where do our parents learn these things? well from thier parents and thier own personal experience as well. morals could be no more than a taught/inherited grasp on what 'works'(right) or what 'dosent work' (wrong).

forgive my 12th graded-ness, but could you dumb it down a little? its 10:30, and im tired, and i still dont understand your core argument. i wouldnt say that killing someone because they were a threat to you is morally justified, i was suggesting more in terms of the human species as a whole, i.e. if someone threatened me, i would defend myself (so i can reproduce) but not go so far as to kill him so he cant reprodcue. i was suggesting more that morality is an evolutionary mechanism, try not to think of it as being 'right' or 'wrong' to follow a biological inclination. Its like reproduction.. we just do it :wink: so be it.. im not saying my theories are 100% foolproof and we should re-define words like 'moral' 'immoral' or 'amoral', but, i suppose, if i were correct, then we would be amoral creatures and 'morality' would just be a primal urge. (i dont mind if im wrong, i just thought about these ideas a few hours ago) perhaps because rage is the primal urge, not the desire to hit someone?

while i admire you for spending your time formulating your agrument, i have to be honest and say i didnt catch 100% of it, kinda rushed it a little. i have an answer for your quote, though. Death and grief are intrinsically bad because we, biologically, want to avoid these things. Survival of the species and the like. So this would be the basis of morals (in my opinion) - if we do something which makes others feel bad (perform a morally wrong act) then they dont feel the fittest they can (according to thier emotions/consequent physical state) to mate and spread the species. In other words, what im tring to say is that morals are an evolutionary trait designed to furthur the efficency of reproduction and hence the hightened survival of the species. just my ideas... what do you think?

i totally agree. The word 'noob' is rediculously over used and cliche. I am level 93, and have been called a noob for not responding to someone. :-s [/code]That is seriously rediculous.

29.453. whoeve started the topic, rank us perhaps?