Satenza

America has to appear as freedom fighting so the rest of the world leaves them alone. The UN would be seriously annoyed if they find out it was for oil, impose sanctions ect. People can't just go "I want that - BANG" and it all be over. Every action as a reaction, and usually fighting for liberty and justice gives a good reaction. Whereas fighting for oil would generate a bad reaction.

And we still use it :thumbsup: What a intelligent response to the use of a barbaric law which is fundamentally flawed as a deterent. Thats the stupidest thing i have ever heard, do you even have a sense of what he has done to individual people? Thats not something to laugh about.

Obama is the best choice this time around. Gore second choice, and Hilary Clinton third. If i were Republican it would have to be Rudy Giuliani. I guess it will be between Obama and Giuliani. "It's the only place I can smoke where Giuliani won't put me away for 10 years"

Of course enviroment affects evolution.

That gave me a laugh :) . Where is the proof that we ever stopped needing our appendix? Try to answer without circular reasoning, it will make the time on these forums less painful for you. Living things dont grow body parts for no reason at all, everything has a reason to be there. But, even if we dont use our appendix it might of had previous uses, its just taking time for it to go away from the human population. The appendix was used to help us digest certain materials, since we no longer need to digest them we have evolved and it has becoming useless. Some people beleive it helps with the immune system but it's not fact. And it doesn't cause any effects when taken away. So either we were created with an appendix which does nothing (implying an imperfect designer) or we have evolved and no longer need it.

That gash doesn't look dangerous enough to destroy the whole building. Even so, WTC7 went down demo style. That gash doesn't explain that.

Religion as a whole is suppressive on any level, it's all about absolutes and divine opinions.

It'd quite obvious humans have evolved, we no longer use our appendix. That shows that we have evolved and no longer have a need for it.

As you can see, religion that should be all about loving humanity, tolerance and acceptance is actually quite the opposite. It's suppressive to everyone that does not beleive what they beleive and incites violence against certain people for not being the same as they are. Gay people are people, and they deserve respect. Comments like they should be thrown out of society are absolutley ridiculous and discriminatory. Carlin is just an example of why organized religion to that extent should be avoided, if you wish to think for yourself.

All pro-equality action comes to a point where it goes past equality and into superiority. Take for example womens only car insurance firms, sexist. Femminists have a bad name because many stereotype them as thinking their better than males. The thing needed is to look past stereotypes of extremes and see that equality between humans is essential. And then the question arises can everyone even become equal in a capaitalist society, where others are viewed as a means to an end. There will always be divides, it is human nature the only thing we can do is put out the fires when they start blazing, the best way of doing such a thing is by allowing actions based on whether they are harmful or not.

Saying Gay people can't contribute to society for not having children doesn't make sense. There are straight people who don't have children, do you not accept those people? Gay people can be doctors, nurses and have any job under the sun which protect snd contribute to society. If there where a gay doctor who saves lives of people would you declare he should not be part of society and accept someone who contributes nothing however they are straight? Of course any rational person would not, and we would value the doctors contribution more than the person who contributes nothing to society. Based on your argument "People who contribute nothing shouldn't be allowed in society" we would discriminate against people from all walks of life, and who gives you the right to judge whats good and bad and unatural and who should not be in society in the first place? The bottom line is: If an action doesn't harm you, it should not be banned. Anything else is just enforcing one persons opinion over another mans Thus suppressing the individual.

The majority of people on this thread are perfectly fine with Gay people. Maybe it's you thats not "normal"?

I find it funny that you think because its christians, its a issue to bring up. I don't think my views of christianity and it's promotion of discrimination and intolerance are not open here. So i see no reason why i would not draw the comparison. Again, "Gays are gays by choice" because you said so? Is this based on empirical evidence or genetical analysis?

I find it funny all those who have posted homophobic views on this thread are fundementalist christians.

You're wrong in that sense because your morals incite discrimination against people who are different to you. Even though their actions don't harm you in any way.

Why would we choose to do it? Well because smoking is relaxing and tastes nice. Dr. Pepper i don't much like but if we go to drinking then again because it's relaxing and tastes nice. Everything now appears to be bad for us, and i hate this nanny culture. Let people do as they wish.

It's not a case of whether you think it's natural or not, it's a case of what homosexuality is. It harms no one, as long as it is between two or more consenting adults then there is no reason for anyone to disallow that action. If you disallow it then are are enforcing your opinion over people who think the contrary to you, and your opinion prohibits that activity. You're basically saying that your opinion has more weight and is worth more than those who disagree with you. Supporting this = Freedom and Liberty. Stopping someone doing something because of their sexual orientation = supressing an action that does not harm you.

You done stol'd my avatar!

It's a perfectly valid discussion, and a breath of fresh air from all the religious ones that rattle around. As well as having a deeper relevance to the validity of science too, so i can't see what your fuss is about.

No, in the instance of the dog we as humans defined what is female and what is not female. Thats why we have divides between the two, it's self evidently true by the nature of the word it is an a priori term. That works for things such as maths as well. [\] Justified - My vet tells me she is female, and I can see that she is female. [\] True - She is female because female is a self evident, a priori term which we as humans have assigned. [\]Belief - I beleive she is female.

Of course it's true, we as humans defined what is and what is not female. And my dogs genetic make up makes her female, and so she is female.

Finaly you get to a useful critisism of what constitutes as knowledge. Knowledge defined as justified true belief is in itself the best way so far to judge knowledge. Yes that may change in the future, but universally this is accepted as the best way. The problem arises when we try to aquire knowledge, take an example of me saying "My dog is female". She is female because being female constitutes itself through genetics. My vet tells me she is female, and I beleive she is female. Therefore I have knowledge that she is female because genetically she is female, my justification comes from my vet and i beleive she is female.

The only possible way you can challenge knowledge defined as justified true belief is by using the Gettier examples. Which you have failed to do, gone around and around in an argument leading to nowhere because you couldn't understand the definition of knowledge, or have the ability to logically assess it.

Look at the bold underlined word. It says truth, not knowledge. Because you asked me whether justification alone entails truth. But we arn't talking about truth we are talking about knowledge.

Then the best argument you have is circular reasoning. If you want to prove me wrong then tell me how to find truth? If you say knowledge: that is circular reasoning because you can't make a definition with the word already in it. If something is justified does that make it true? No, it requires it to be true and it requires it to be beleived in. Anyway - How is knowledge defined with the word knowledge? How many times do i need to tell you thing again and again. Knowledge requires a small checklist. [x] Is it Justified? [x] Is it believed? [] Is it true? If you check all those you have knowledge. Good job pulling out more circular reasoning. You can't have the word in the definition of the word. HOW HAVE I DEFINED KNOWLEDGE WITH THE WORD KNOWLEDGE IN THE DEFINITION?