l0rd

No because a sperm and an egg will make a human, not a raccoon. It's biology. But I think I may be missing your point (if so sorry) You are missing the point; obviously a human won't give birth to a raccoon. My raccoon statement is just pointing out the luck involved in the process of incarnation, or rather, the odds.

Each and every one of us has a name. We even devised a legal system of labeling the biological product of our complex and individualized body of life, known as the self. Why do we feel the need to have an identity? The self is merely the final product of our functioning body acting upon everything which composes it: nerves, fat, organs, electricity, bone, etc. All of this has been systematically chiseled and refined by billions of years of evolution. The product of this lengthy timeline results in you feeling and perceiving as an individual. Evolution is a process of growth and development, and that is exactly what we have done since our earliest microscopic ancestors. Through the years our evolutionary ancestors have developed everything that we now know to be an attribute of an animal. We, however, are an undeniable milestone (or speed-bump, but that's a different story), in that we have reached a point where transformation and manipulation of the world around us is a realistic option: we have a deep sense have self-awareness, we have the ability to communicate, build, and think in ever-growingly new and/or advanced ways. The soul, often thought of as an esoteric force individualizing each and every one of us, is also thought of as fictional, with all feelings of identity as traceable cognitive phenomena. I for one, do not believe in the occult, but I do believe in my own interpretation of the "soul". In this interpretation I label "the soul" as simply what prevents me from experiencing the thoughts of my neighbor; it is what makes us, us, rather than some other human or living individual on the planet. In reality, we as humans are just flukes brought upon by very specific biological circumstance, so the belief that humans have a soul, or one superior to those of small insects, would sound a bit ego-centric. Is it not lucky that you were not born as a raccoon? Meaning that since your perceptional presence is only able to be in one being, it would be almost objectively better to have that presence in a creature with higher intellect, self-awareness, etc. (although if you were a raccoon, its not like you would be jealous of humans). In the past, and even now, I say that our consciousness is merely a product of our physical bodies; however, the way I'm approaching the consciousness is a little more philosophical. What is your thoughts on the matter? Why are you, you?

Lol. [hide=amidoinitrite][/hide]

Psh I only counted 5, it's not that bad. Yes, but since aware of this strange hierarchical smiley trend, I LMAO whenever I see the thumbs-up smiley now. :lol: [hide=]:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:[/hide]

I got a little carried away. Billy Mays uses the IN-YOUR-FACE attack, forcing the opponent to buy a myriad of useless chotchkies and the equivalent to a year-supply of OxiClean for an FDNY fire station. As these useless products gain dust on their kitchen countertops, the opponent begins to seek sympathy in various outlets, only to realize it was their gullibility that led to their financial demise. As a final blow, Billy Mays uses CARDIAC ARREST, thereby nullifying any court actions against him and leaving the opponent in a awkward position of being angry at a dead man, at which point their feelings become inverted. They now feel nothing but sympathy towards Billy Mays, and spend all their money on OxiClean, thus concluding the final effects of IN-YOUR-FACE, but leaving the opponent no money for basic necessity, wherein they die of starvation. The card owner WINS!

http://shop.ebay.com/items/__original-L ... op=1&_sc=1 and more specifically http://cgi.ebay.com/MICHAEL-JACKSON-THR ... 1|294%3A50 Looks to be worth around $200.

I'm not an artist, or anything close to it, but once in a blue moon I will get a level of boredom so extreme that I actually whip out a pencil, pull out a sheet of printer paper, and draw something. I have a couple more drawings, but the following drawings I already took pictures of at previous dates because I made them for people right here on the forum. [hide=(1) Made for Spa_ins first 99][/hide] [hide=(2) Made for Adrenal, for the hell of it (portraying a man with a kidney for a face with the adrenal gland resting atop)][/hide]

Nope, I have a friend who has about 20 Lacoste lightweight jackets though.

I always learn a lot about RuneScape when reading Necro's articles, and the secondary was interesting too. Good job guys. :thumbup: Zonor's captivating writing style is really enjoyable too. Can't wait to see the continuation.

I think it is inappropriate for a school to encourage abstinence. A school's purpose should stay within its originally conceived borders, strictly providing an education and nothing else. Sure, schools can teach about STDs and all of the dangers they entail, but when you start to label sex in any (legal) way, shape, or form as irresponsible and bad, or any other opinionated attribute, you really lose all impartiality. It shouldn't be a school's job to impress upon the tender minds of young children what is "right" and what is "wrong", but rather present the facts and let the process occur naturally. Of course the lifestyle of a child will be formed by other external sources, such as friends and parents, but I think education organizations should do nothing more than their name entitles. And while avoiding sex will ensure no STDs, avoiding it because of propaganda is a distortion of the truth.

Don't really care to be honest. Good luck with your studies faceless Jagex employee! Yay for self-explanatory appliances.

The Jonas Brothers have been selling pornography to little girls since 2005. Oh, and they don't have souls.

No, it hasn't taught us anything in that regard. And would you really consider it suicidal? Sounds a bit melodramatic in my opinion. Would you consider someone who walks in outside to get their mail during a thunderstorm suicidal? Or rather, given the relative odds we're talking of intercepting extra-terrestrial life, it would be like considering anyone who walks outside suicidal, given the myriad of natural things that can kill you: meteorites, falling trees, falling satellite debris, etc. You seem to agree more with me than Arch, in that you acknowledge the possibility of alien contact. Arch has presented us with the probable reality, and I simply stated the "what ifs". It seems like from your point of view, there is a significant threat of long-distance traveling, earth-hunting belligerent aliens, the combination of which I find implausible.

Was bored. Messed around with my webcam. [hide=Embarrassment] I want to make it clear that I do not own a tiara, this is a webcam effect. (My hair is not naturally like this.)[/hide]

What is improbable? That there are more technologically advanced lifeforms? We are already talking in unknown odds, and there are many upgradable inherencies to our species (as discussed below). Oh, and stellar lifespan can range anywhere from a couple million years to a hundred billion, depending on the size (smaller the longer), so I wouldn't rule out the possibility of an existing planet much older than ours that is sustainable for life. Yes, so you acknowledge that inadvertent circumstance can boost technology, but you can't say that the rocket ship was not conceived and realized directly because of the airplane; it was. I hope you understand the gist of the proposed phenomenon: once you make the snowball and tumble it down the hill, it will only get bigger. X amount of people on Y amount of land with Z amount of resources = 2X 2Y 2Z We wouldn't need to contrive of some more efficient way of doing things, as there would still be the same ratios. When introducing a civilization into evolution, things don't remain the same. Characteristics won't prevail based on the same nature dictated reasons as before. Take for example, my generation compared to someone of the same age, in the same location one hundred years ago. I have the internet, a resource that the past teen would never have dreamt of. If humans as a whole are more intellectually stimulated in one way or another, their collective intelligence will only gain. Many anthropologists theorize that the internet is very beneficial in this regard (It has also been theorized that thumb-dexterity has increased since the release of game-consoles). Are you talking about an interplanetary "indians vs. Americans" war? Improbable hypothetical situations are always possible, but that's kind of ridiculous. And unless they planned on inhabiting our planet, which their physiology would probably not allow, our planet is no more exploitable than Venus. People don't necessarily want extraterrestrial life to exist, but it is the job of science to figure out whether or not it does or would.

The arbitrary values Drake himself assigned to the variables in the Drake Equation makes me angry, but that's a different story. In the end, yes, technology most likely will destroy humanity. But until that final spill, most people would agree that technology has benefited more than not. Modern medicine and transportation has increased the lifespan and population of the world at an exponential rate. With all major diseases, even terminal diseases AIDs, there are always immunities. With all shortages of food, there are always the ones who have it. With all wars, there are always the unaffected, etc. Despite this, I still think it is safe to say we will end in a self-destructive way. I caught myself thinking, "Well if we somehow colonized every dense planet in the solar system..." only to realize I wasn't looking far enough into the future in that scenario. The biggest point I disagree with in your argument is the backbone of it: that just because humans will self-destruct before capturing the ability for efficient long-distance space travel, it is impossible for other lifeforms to. Here's a few variables to consider concerning the probability of intelligent lifeforms being capable of inter-solar system travel (given that it is within scientific possibility): -How fast the technology progressed (many major advancements in human technology were results of accidents, the right person or a visionary being born) while the same level of intelligence was still there. We went to the moon within a century of when we created the first airplane; what if it had been invented two-hundred years earlier? -Elemental resources -Size of inhabitable area of a planet (Overpopulation sets in later, causing more people to be born, more minds to create). What if an intelligent lifeform had five times as many offspring on average than a human, and their inhabitable land area was the size of Jupiter? The more minds, the faster the advancement. -Inherent creativity or any other physiological reason that would make intelligent lifeforms more able to create something (example being 4 arms, instead of 2) along with ability to collaborate ideas, etc. Who is to say that there are not more capable or technologically "lucky", lifeforms in the universe? While your thesis may hold for humans, I wouldn't consider it a universal standard.

I.Q. tests are not accurate. I've taken three 'official' I.Q. tests and the scores were- 142 at 11 years old (Done by a doctor) 74 at 16 years old (Done by a speech therapist) 114 at 17 years old (Done by my highschool) My highest score, 142, is near the genius level. My lowest score, 74... well you need a minimum I.Q. of 80 to be in public school, no further explanation needed. 114, which I believe to be the most accurate, is 14 points above average. But in any case, I believe that I.Q. tests to be inaccurate and biased, (apparent with wildly fluctuating scores,) and should not be taken seriously. But that doesn't change the fact that I dislike Sarah Palin. Obviously IQ tests are not a precise measurement of intelligence, not to mention there are two types of scaling, but they are recognized as a good approximation. For her to get 83, she either had to be really careless and distracted or plain dumb.

Lol, I just wrote about this in the "American Independence Day" thread, not even knowing that there was a thread dedicated to this very topic. Anyways... The drinking age in the United States is not 21 because the government doesn't trust 18-20 year olds drinking. It is because people aged 21, in general, have far fewer friends that are under 18. The government considers the brain not fully developed until age 18, and if you allow drinking for 18 year olds, there would be a lot more inter-friend solicitation to minors.

The drinking age in the United States is not 21 because the government doesn't trust 18-20 year olds drinking. It is because people aged 21, in general, have far fewer friends that are under 18. The government considers the brain not fully developed until age 18, and if you allow drinking for 18 year olds, there would be a lot more inter-friend solicitation to minors.

On this day, two hundred thirty-three years ago, our forefathers...blah blah blah. Happy Fourth of July!

Pretty sure it is not a fake.

A Shiny Countertop. Remembering everything in one second. Emotion regurgitates it in a single drop. Gathering, My tear falls Just a piece of meat seeping salty, Like a jar of cold water in heat. Emotion fills this jar. Condensation, Beading I pick up the cold jar from the countertop, With shallow lines in my fingertips. The beads of liquid, The slippy hands. Colliding with the cement below, Spill I stand in horror, As my emotion climbs the air. Rudely expelled by the sun-sizzled concrete. I am paralyzed Numb My jarred emotion now rain, Unforgiven by umbrellas all over the world. I look back at the now-empty countertop, A wet patch still remains where the jar no longer does. A few drops of liquid A shiny counter top Encapsulating my being And the numbness felt.

Dictionary.com is ran by Ask.com :shame: Use a real dictionary. [hide=m-w.com]1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement 2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement 3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction[/hide]

Same can be said for everything on television nowadays. There are no suprises anywhere. There are a lot of surprises! Just not as many as there needs to be. [hide=][/hide] The internet is full of surprises. :mrgreen:

I agree with the character who thinks that RS is not "real". "Real life" is called so for a reason, it is our standard for what is real and what is not. The very arguments the anti-RL character was using, such as that we have to worry about what others think and such is what makes it all the more real; we are accountable for our actions, and don't have a username as a sense of anonymity to mask ourselves with. I won't even give an opinion on the money aspect of the conversation, as I'm still on the fence for the importance of money in my life. But I will say that I do think it is an oxymoron to work, to make money, to be happy, given that you do not enjoy working and do not have some monetary obligation towards your family (or some mafia thug).