Ambassadar

I watched the old WWF when I was little with Hogan, Jake the Snake, Sgt. Slaughter, and all those guys. I didn't watch it for a long time then caught the WCW when Goldburg was around. I loved his entrance when he would blow smoke and then do that tackle to nail people. Shortly thereafter I lost interest. I don't know if I grew up or the quality of actors they had and the fun they brought to the scene went down but I can't stand the stuff now. I don't even know what TNA is.

So at what point should a person begin to have issues with another person's belief? What if a person sees thoughts being said that were the same thoughts being said in the early 1930's in Japan or Germany? Should a person step up and say hold on a minute, let's look what happens when those beliefs actually become mainstream and get projected upon the world? Sure there is a time to stand by and be nice and polite and agree to disagree but sometimes there are beliefs that are flat out scary. I guess the question I would like to hear an answer to from someone saying it is wrong to have issues with another person's beliefs is where is the line where you should begin to have an issue or do you truly believe we should never at any point have issues with other's beliefs?

I went to a private Christian school for a couple of years when I was in elementary school. They would make us memorize these massive chunks of verses in first and second grade and we would get graded on it. I hated it. I don't think having classes where you get grades or doing what we had to do is the right way to go about it. I think the way schools were originally set up is the ideal way to teach Christianity in the classroom if a school is so inclined. The class would be English but for their reading section they would read classical literature as well as excerpts from the Bible. That way the grade isn't about the religion. The grade is for English and reading comprehension. Whatever a person's views are things like "Love your neighbor as yourself" are always a good thing for kids to be reading.

I have a friend that said when he was in electrical engineering school they would leave charged capacitors out as booby traps for the next lab class.

Hmm... I wonder how much of a boom one atom of uranium could produce assuming you could start the nuclear reaction.

So British includes Scottish?? I always thought of British as more English. I think of Wales as English. I don't think of Scotland as English. Just one American's perception of things. I just can't wrap my brain around thinking of Scots as British.

So you are saying the Soviets and Chinese persecuted people merely for the fact they were atheist?

*Lower class British accent* Help! Help! I'm bein' oppressed! :P

Assassin, no one is saying Communists did those deeds because they were atheists. The only point being made here is some guy claimed atheists never oppress religious people. I was just pointing out that atheists have oppressed different religions in history up until present.

So what you are saying is that for Marxism you need atheism To my knowledge yes. however atheism does not necessarily equal Marxism correct therefor atheism is not communism correct thus you admit the examples Kant posted are incorrect in this context? Nope. Communist China and Communist Russia were/are basically atheist countries. Even today if you practice a religion in a Church not sanctioned and controlled by the government in China they will throw you in prison. This quote is talking about Christians but the same goes for Muslims and other religions in China. This is an amnesty International report on religious persecution in China happening right now. It involves persecution against Bhuddists, Muslims, and Christians. http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/chi ... reltoc.htm http://www.human-rights-and-christian-p ... china.html

If memory serves me correctly atheism is a key concept of Marxism which Communism is based from. Feel free to correct me if I am mistaken.

To the original poster. I thought the way you worded that was kinda rude. If I was an atheist I would automatically be against you after reading that. You aren't going to get anywhere if you start a conversation by calling people hypocrites. I think you will find if you look at world events and history that there are many instances where this exact thing has happened. For literal chopping of heads look to the French Revolution. To give you an idea of how extreme it got in 1793 a law was passed declaring all suspected priests and person's that harbored them to be executed. You also had anti religious people killing people believed to be religious in the Spanish Civil War, Soviet Union, China, and probably most of the other Communist countries.

Why do electric waves reflect from metal? By the way, why are electric wave reflected from metal? One of the major properties of metals is that they are packed with electrons which can move freely. Because the electrons can carry current, metal is good conductor of electricity. The same thing happens in the case of alternating current. When electric waves hit the surface of metals, electrons near the surface of these metals are given the order to move. Since there are so many electrons on the surface, the electrons which receive the order from the electric wave move from side to side, thus preventing the electric wave from entering the metal (shielding effect). Thus, the electric wave is obliged to return. This is the reflection of an electric wave. Some electrons which receive the order from the electric wave move too much, causing the electrons jump from inside metal into air. When the electrons which jump into air move to something which conducts electricity, this motion produces light (spark) or sound (pop!). This is electronic discharge. Why is it dangerous to warm up metal by microwave? (from the physics point of view) There is an instrument called a magnetron, which generates strong electric waves. The frequency of these waves is 2450MHz, which means that the wave vibrates 2.5 billion times per second. If metal is put inside microwave, the electronic discharge happens so intensively because electrons inside metal are accelerated by the strong electric wave. This also causes a bad influence on the microwave itself. There is sometimes thin metallic decoration on the surface of some coffee cups and dishes. Since the metal is so thin, we can think that all of the metal is surface. In such a case, all of the electrons in the metal run around so that abnormally high heat is generated, causing the metal itself to burn or melt. Incidentally, water molecules have hardly any electrons which can move freely. However, because the whole molecule is shaken effectively (resonance) by the electric wave generated by a magnetron (this vibration is heat), water is heated up. The frequency of this vibration is just 2450MHz. Why is it dangerous to warm up metal by microwave? (from the manufacturer point of view) The following are the reasons from the manufacturer point of view why we ask users not to put metal in the microwave: 1. If a metallic container is heated up in a microwave, many reflected waves are generated by the metal. The reflected waves return to the antenna of a magnetron, causing an increase in temperature. This causes the deterioration of the magnetron and generates electronic discharge easily, resulting in microwave failure. 2. If a metallic container is close to the wall of a microwave, electronic discharge occurs between the wall and the metallic container, causing microwave to develop problems. Also, if this happens, users are surprised at the noise and the light, then they complain to the manufacturer. And so, we manufacturers prohibit the use of metallic containers in microwaves. http://www.chemistryquestion.com/Englis ... metal.html

Regardless of the power the radioactive half life should be the same when you compare the bombs. As to how intense the initial radiation is when comparing an fusion vs a fission bomb that I am not sure of. As long as initial radiation levels were comparable then his Nagasaki example would still hold true.

That school should be sued by the parents. That is ridiculous. Let's see, what all did I doodle in school? Uzi M-16 M-60 Grenade Launchers flame throwers rocket launcers RPG's swords bows and arrows cannons civil war battles with little dead soldiers covered in blood all over the field a cartoon of two stick men fighting and then they get blown up by an artillery shell AK-47 Fighter jets bombers stealth fighters WWII tanks and airplanes WWI tanks throwing stars bowie knives stiletto knives switchblades butterfly knives and I'm sure the list goes on but thats all I can think of off the top of my head. I guess I would have been expelled at that school. I can't even fathom how they can justify suspending a kid for drawing a picture of a gun. I mean what rule did he even break? That's crazy.

If a human zygote is a person then they should absolutely have the same rights as an adult. If they did not then it would be discrimination. If that human zygote is not a person they should have no rights unto themselves. If they were not a person then they would need to be viewed as something that is owned by the parents so if it is damaged or destroyed by someone that doesn't "own" it the person that did the damage can go to trial. So according my understanding of the way you view things(please correct me if I understood it wrong) there is a grey area between conception and birth where somewhere during that time a baby should gain the right to be called a person and not a lump of cells. You aren't sure when that time is but you know it is somewhere between those two points. If a you choose to aggressively pursue abortion and not err on the side of caution then there is a very good chance people will die using your own definition of what a person is. If a mistake is made due to pursuing an aggressive plan in a fuzzy situation is that not negligence? If a person is killed on purpose would that not be murder? I think I might be missing what you are getting at here because the entire point of my argument is to clarify why a zygote is a person in the first place and since they would be a person then killing them would be wrong because killing innocent people in pretty much any situation is wrong. Are you wanting me to toss my my argument and completely make up a new argument that makes the exact same point? My argument against killing zygotes is my argument against killing people. It's the same thing. A zygote is merely a very young person. I will be glad to do whatever you are asking here if I can get a little clarification first. What exactly do you want me to be arguing for or against at each point? If we concede they are a person from conception then what is there to argue beyond that? Also, divide the category of people into what? I think neither one of us is fully understanding what the other one is getting at right now. So now we are saying we should define who is or isn't a person by if they have the ability to feel pain? There are only two options at any time to label what is inside a pregnant mother. Either it is a person or it is not a person and merely a part of the mother's body. If it is a person then they should have full rights under the law which would mean killing them would be murder. If it is not a person then the mother can do anything with it they want to do.

So that puts some mentally ill people in the same condition as a newborn child. If a person is advocating killing that unborn child is ok since they probably haven't considered themselves an individual yet then according to the same logic wouldn't it be ok to start exterminating "unwanted" mentally ill people?

Assassin, please don't forget to respond to the last two quotes in my last post as well. :P Just making sure you didn't miss them since the majority was responding to Warrior.

You are correct as long as that unborn child you are killing is not a human. If they are a human then they should have full protection under the law. If you aren't sure then shouldn't you err on the safe side of things which according to what you just said would be conception? Ty for the compliment. If my argument carries huge emotional appeal then great but don't confuse that with an emotional argument. The actual argument is cold hard logic and data. To which I countered give me a suitable definition of what a person is which you haven't done yet. :P That being the case if you don't know shouldn't you be erring on the side of caution until you do know? Lives are at stake over this issue. Because there isn't a point you can say "Ok, suddenly this unborn child is a person but they weren't a person five seconds before that point." That means they were either a person the entire time since conception or else they aren't a person until they are born. Does a newborn baby have dreams, hopes, and aspirations? If you were to kill a newborn infant that had the exact same situation then why would it all of a sudden be wrong to do it then? This goes back to my questions from before. Do we define who is or isn't a person by their thoughts and consciousness? If that is the case then a person in a coma or unconscious is not a person. But those other cells don't meet the criteria I set forth earlier in being separate human life. An embryo meets that criteria.

Just because something is legal doesn't mean everybody will do it. It does mean that more people would do it than would do it when it was illegal.

So you would be ok with killing infants since they are in the same boat?

Agreed. I am not arguing potential of human life. I am saying the present reality of everything is that a fetus is already a person. A sperm isn't separate human life. Is it separate? yeah Is it human? No, It doesn't have enough chromosomes to be human and so is missing half the genetic code to be a human. Is it life? 3: Yes it is living. Result: Not a person Seperate human life test on skin cells Human? Yes human DNA. Life? Yes the skin cells are alive. Seperate? No, same DNA as the person they were taken from. Result? Not a person The person in the coma is in the same situation. Would it be ok to kill them as well? I'm not saying a zygote shouldn't be killed because of it's potential to be a human being. I am saying a zygote shouldn't be killed because it IS a human being. You haven't disproved my reasoning for calling it a human being yet. Another thing is since Mothers create children they should have the ultimate right to kill them if they don't want them? Why should anything change when the child was outside the Mother vs. inside them? Should a mother be able to kill a child one minute before she gives birth to that child? If it is ok then you are going against your argument that a person should be defined as when they can live outside the mother's body which you said is the 20th week thing. If you say it's not ok then you are going against your point above where Mom's should have the ability to kill unborn children if they see fit because it would hinge on "viability outside the mother" rather than just on her right due to her creating the fetus. I'm not the one debating using emotion. Everything I have said is straight science and straight logic. It appears you just disagree so far because of your own emotions. Why? Because my arguments go against your feeling of how things should be even though logically and scientifically the argument makes sense. I am all for removing emotion from this debate. Propose an argument that is more logical and more scientific than the one I presented or disprove it using logic and science. Saying things like "I can't call it a person because it doesn't seem right calling a group of cells a person" is falling back on emotion for a defense. (Not trying to personally attack you Warrior, just trying to make a point to Assassin) Sorry if I sound like a [puncture] the way I am wording it but I didn't really know how to make the point I was trying to make without putting it that way.

According to this definition a six month old baby wouldn't be a person either since it only has the potential rather than the actual ability to be bipedal until it develops further which is the exact same situation an unborn child is in. Nope, see above statement. Another way this wouldn't work is what about people that were born with brains that weren't fully developed and that would never fully develop. Even if they lived to be adults could we never consider them people? I went into brains a good bit in the post above this one btw if you haven't read it yet. Feel free to come up with a better definition than the one I suggested. The one above falls apart when you apply it to infants and people who's brain didn't completely develop. Does appearance define who is a person or not? White people used to think black people were one step up from an ape because they looked so different. Does that mean those black people weren't people? What about severely deformed people? If you took a tiny fetus out of it's mother's womb and looked at it under a microscope it would probably look a lot more human than some unfortunate [developmentally delayed]ed freakishly deformed person that was missing half their face and had a mangled gnarled body. Eh... never thought I would see the day when you fell back on your feelings instead of logic and science to make a point. :P

These are some continued thoughts including a lot of questions on the topic... As an unborn baby grows it develops a separate blood supply, nervous system, etc etc from the Mother. As development continues and less care and shelter are needed for the growing human it's location changes and it is born where it continues to need the same things it needed inside the Mother which is shelter, sustenance, and nurturing in lesser and lesser amounts until it is a grown functional human adult. It is easy to try to end things right here and claim "No, it can't be separate, it is in the Mother." To this I reply with a question of my own. Should we define who is and isn't a person merely by their present location? A reply might be "Well what about when it is just a clump of cells and doesn't have a brain or a heart yet?" Does an organ define what is or isn't a person? If I lose my kidneys and need to be on dialysis would that make me not a person? What if I lost my heart and had an artificial heart installed? Am I suddenly not a person? "Well what about the brain? It's not a person until there is a brain." Why? Because with a brain we can think and that is what makes us human? Well what about the guy that was in a car wreck and is a vegetable? He can't think. Is he not a person? Another question about the brain is how would you even use this as a gage to determine when that unborn baby becomes a person? What are they when the brain is half developed? Are they half a person? What about when the first cell is formed for the brain? Is that the point they become a person? Then we get back into the zygote argument of "Oh well it's just a few cells and it isn't complete so it's not a brain." Ok, then do we say that it isn't a person until there is a complete brain in the unborn baby? So it isn't a person until that last cell falls into place and suddenly it is a person? Is it not a person the split second before when that one cell is missing? I mean it's only one cell. Oh wait, now we are doing the zygote argument in reverse. If one wants to claim that a few cells in existence isn't enough to qualify as being a person then the same applies for just a few cells that aren't in existence yet. The lack of them wouldn't be enough to claim it isn't a person. So maybe we can say that an unborn baby isn't a person until it can survive on it's own outside of the Mother's body. Isn't this just a function of scientific technology at the time? Can we define who is or isn't a person merely by how advanced our techno gadgets are at that moment? What about the instant a new machine is developed that suddenly makes us able to keep babies alive 25 weeks before the due date instead of 20? Instantaneously are all the babies in the world that fall into that age range suddenly not a lump of cells and suddenly they are people? Two seconds before that machine was invented were they not people? What if a guy murdered a pregnant woman 1 second before that machine was invented? Should he only be charged with one murder? What if he murdered that pregnant woman 1 second after that machine was invented? Should he now be charged with two murders? To sum it all up there is only one way I can see to adequately answer all of these questions. That is to say that from the moment of conception that little bit of matter is a person because it is separate human life. The only things that unborn child requires to become a full grown adult is shelter, sustenance, and nurturing which are the exact same things that child will need when it is a one week old infant or a crying little five year old that just skinned his knee while slipping on some ice outside in the snow and needs to come inside to Momma(nurturing) who will make sure he is warm(shelter) and has some hot chocolate to drink(sustenance).

I have looked at this issue from a lot of angles and there is only one way that makes sense to me personally in a logical way. If a person is "separate human life" then we need to look at this in terms of an unborn baby. Each term must be analyzed and individually checked off before the subject could be classified as a person. 1. Is a fetus at conception life? This question is merely asking if it is alive. Is a fetus at conception a cluster of living cells? Absolutely. Whatever it is, it is alive. 2. Is a fetus at conception human? The cells that make up a fetus are most definitely human. They have human DNA. They grow into a human. It's human, pretty easy answer on this one. 3. Is a fetus at conception a separate entity from the Mother? If a fetus is separate from the Mother it means it is not a part of the Mother. Is this the case? From the moment of conception an unborn child has different DNA than the Mother. This alone is enough to show it is a separate entity from the Mother. When we combine points one, two and three then all the qualifications are met to determine that a fetus at conception is a person because it is separate human life. Since it is a person killing them is wrong.