Alkali metals in action
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCk0lYB_8 c0

At 12/13/08 03:01 AM, Memorize wrote:

Who knows? Only way to find out is actually contacting other intelligent species :P

I would say that there is some type of other intelligent life, especially if you are the extent of what we would classify as "intelligent".

A single cell found in a small pond of water would likely be infinitely more intelligent than yourself.

So, how is this personal attack at all related to this thread, or are you just trolling and flamebaiting?
The new shaggy?

It's guaranteed that there is life on other planets, but the question is: How much of it is intelligent?
We could be zooming around the galaxy finding tons of amoeba, beasts, birds etc etc, but what if intelligent species are so rare there's only 2-3 of them in each galaxy?

Who knows? Only way to find out is actually contacting other intelligent species :P

Well Mason, seems that we agree on full-autos, which was what I was arguing about all the time.
I've already aknowledged the fact that many US citizens should arm themselves because of the high-crime rates, but this doesn't change my view on that fact as tragic.

Hmm...
I think this is the first time I've seen a argument coming to a closure on the politics board :P

(Btw, what Freemason lodge are you in?)

I have now stopped wearing socks. Why? Because most of the socks in the world are made by asian sweatshops were people suffer under near slavery. I know that my contribution won't affect the sweatshops in any way, but I do it to get a clear conscience.

I will not buy socks from respectable producers nor make them myself, because they remind me of the toils of oppressed humans. Join with me brothers and sisters! Join the Barefeetarianism! Everyone who wear socks are obviously morally bankrupt people that support torture and indignity towards the poor!

Dungeon Keeper 3! A real Dungeon Keeper 3, not the shitty MMO that EA has outsourced to Asia! >:(

Well Mason, seems that you can claim a small victory about the spread of full autos. It does seem that most of the US sources that I've been looking at has indeed mistaken most semi-automatics for full automatics. Yet, this doesn't change my opinion about automatics.

If you can't use it for any practical purpose, like defense or hunting, why is it allowed for the civilian market? The same goes for high-powered weapons, like the .50cal snipers. You keep asking me for reasons to ban them, now I'm asking you: Why should they be allowed?

What I'm a bit afraid of is that radical groups have the possibility to arm themselves as if they were military units. This has nothing to do about events that may be tied to crime, it has to with events that may be tied to the larger scale, like uprisings and such. The 2nd amendment allows for US citizens to carry weapons, mainly based on that the government should not be able to opress its citizens, but what if a group of citizens decide to opress other citizens, and they outgun the feds? It's the sort of event you'd want to prevent happening in the first place, not wait for it to happen and then impose restrictions afterwards. And you know US's history of radical groups (Jonestown, Manson etc)

It's also about what I like to call "Gun Attitude". As I mentioned earlier, when criminals expect civilians to be armed, they will try to outarm the civilians, and this leads to an evil circle. In conflicts that may have resulted in a fistfight or a stabbing in most european countries, it may result in a shootout in the US, because many people carry arms. And in regards to normal law-abiding people "snapping", it's not
that uncommon.

Btw, I'm from Norway. Served in the army for a little under 2 years, and I was stationed in Kabul, Afghanistan for 6 months. We also have the worlds 3rd highest registered guns/citizens ratio, only beaten by Yemen and the US (Norway wasn't a part of that survey, but we have 49guns/100 citizens, the source is in norwegian if you want it :P ). So, I already know that the availability of guns does not equal higher guncrimes, we have extremely few cases of homicide by firearms here. I am in no way suggesting a ban on all guns, I'm merely wanting the attitude towards guns to change so that they are viewed as the deadly tools that they are, not mandatory accessories or toys.

I'm not going to argue with you anymore LazyDrunk, when you consistently resort to personal attacks like that I'm just going to ignore you....

So... waiting from answer from TheMason, who can actually keep his head calm.

At 12/9/08 05:49 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: It is, at least from my side, meant as a way to explain things. It's easier to use an analogy with humans, since people have an easier time identifying with humans.

But essentially you used every example of the worst behaviour you could find in humans and then compared it to the behaviour of meat-eaters. Not once, not twice, but CONSISTENTLY througout this entire thread! It gives off an impression that you do think of us meat-eaters like you think of rapists, murderers etc etc.

And now you claim that you weren't preaching morals...

At 12/9/08 12:28 AM, D3NTATUS wrote:

At 12/9/08 12:25 AM, homor wrote: thats the least true thing i've ever heard.

I have never met a vegetarian that has tried to convert an omnivore. Ever.

Convert? Perhaps no.... Condemn? Absolutetly.

If you're a vegetarian for ideological reasons, you're already condemning everyone that isn't a vegetarian.

If you're a vegetarian of health reasons, or perhaps you just don't like the taste of meat. Sure, I'll accept that. Nothing wrong with it.

At 12/9/08 12:34 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 12/8/08 11:45 PM, Baalphegor wrote: Did I say I wanted to ban guns? Did I? I want to ban automatic weapons, not handguns, rifles or shotguns.

"I don't want to ban the alphabet, just the vowels. And only for some people. And only if they let me. And other such nonsense."

Sure, well, let's legalize mortars, rocket-launchers and artillery cannons while we're at it. Surely, they can be used in self-defense /sarcasm

It's not effective versus a single person, no, exactly, and thats why I don't understand why people should have automatics. Spray and pray shooters tend to leave alot of wounded in crowded areas because of indiscriminate fire.

Think about it. No don't think, find me some evidence for your claim, and I'll dig up some nifty stats, too.

So... you refute the claim that fully-automatic weapons are more dangerous for bystanders than semi-automatics? The North Hollywood shootout that Mason mentioned is a good example.

How do you feel about pray and spray bombers? C4 and TNT clearly kills more due to "indiscriminate" fire, as you call it. Someone "attacking", as you say, doesn't fire "indiscrimnately" since everyone is his target.

Is C4 and TNT readily available in a nearby shop?

Did you know it's rather simple to convert some firearms into fully automatic? How do you propose to ban the knowledge of such actions, especially on a worldwide scale (don't act as though there wouldn't be a black market.. there already is).

You can say the exact same thing about
crystal meth.

Because, the only time an assault rifle actually will be useful is when you're the ATTACKING party.

Which completely blows to shit your point that full-autos should be outlawed. Why disarm the bona fide citizen (who already jumps through hoops, mind you) while encouraging and emboldening outlaws? Again, laws without enforcement are meaningless bullshit designed to placate the sheeple, aka YOU.

So every person in this world is born as either a criminal or an upstanding citizen? There's no chance of someone who got his guns legally to suddenly snap?

If you want to try to say your ban will work because you'll shut down the manufacture of full auto's within the US, you'll still be left with literally hundreds of millions of rifles within dozens of nations with shelf lives of up to and over 100 years.

I never said shut down the manufacturing. Just don't let them into the civilian market.

And an honest question, too: Do you see any parallels between the proposed prohibition on autos to the prohibition of pot? Do you have any historical context to validate your claim, or one stronger than the defense of Stalingrad from the Nazis?

No, I don't see any parallels between autos and pot. Historical context? Well, what about the reason why autos exist at all? To fire as many bullets as possible in a short amount of time in order to increase the hit-probability in a stressed situation.

Who the hell is going to claim self-defense when the other guy was 100 yards away?

Hunting rifle performs same function. You dismiss the human will to kill when attacking. Foolish.

I see, you want to make it easier for someone to fulfill their will to kill, especially when they're the ones that are attacking. Understood. I take it that you always carry a rifle in case someone 200 yards away from you opens fire then?

As I said before, the reason I want automatics banned is because they are completely terrible as defense weapons, unless you're going do defend a trench against a onrushing mob. So why do we want weapons, which are primarily designed to ATTACK someone, not defend, out in the public?

Because they have their uses. Why toss a rake out of the toolshed in winter? you're just going to need it again eventually. Same with weapons systems... it's sorta why we keep nukes and anthrax and smallpox and yes, small arms, around; they fucking work.

And you let civilians buy nukes, anthrax and smallpox?

At 12/9/08 01:09 AM, TheMason wrote: How familiar are you with the civilian ammo and gun market?

1) A JHP or soft-core hunting round is about a dollar a round. So the ammo cost for the N. Hollywood shoot-out would have been about $3,000. In contrast the military rounds they used were probably in the $400-600. So yes real world observations show that most people who misuse assault rifles used military FMJ ammo because hunting and JHP ammo are cost prohibitive at 10x the cost.

Is that your argument? That most criminals won't use JHP because it's more expensive?

So if you were to go all out on a berserk shooting spree that would definately be the last thing that you do in your life, with your knowledge of arms, would you get JHP ammo or save some bucks on cheaper FMJ?

I am surprised that you were in the Army. Your comment on sniper rifles displays some lack of knowledge since the USMC's premier sniper rifle is the same calibur and built upon the design of a Remington deer rifle.

Sniper rifles? The HK G3 is what you might call a "battlerifle", an assault rifle using normal rifle rounds. If you're reffering to my comment about "high-powered sniper rifles" I'm talking .50cal and upwards, the ones that are normally used to shoot out engineblocks and such.

Also the one gun you linked was a machine gun...not an assault rifle. One of the defining characteristics of an assault rifle is the round it fires is (on the power scale) between a handgun round and a traditional rifle round. What is interesting is you're cherry picking things here.

Nope, you're cherry picking. When you say assault rifle, you mean AK-47's and M16's. When I say automatics, I mean assault rifles, submachine guns and heavy machine guns of all caliburs (and automatic shotguns). I was just showing you what I've used myself. The thing that's in common with the G3 and the MG3 is that both use 7.62mmNato, and therefore I'm more experienced with 7.62mmNato.

1) I never denied that hanguns are less powerful than AR rounds. I made the claim that more destructive rounds were more common in these caliburs.

Yes, for 5.56mm and 7.62x39mm.

I know that the AK-47 and the M-16 are notoriously inneffective in killing people, but you're arguing on the basis that all assault rifles are either 5.56mm or 7.62x39mm and always FMJ. And yes, in urban combat, particularily indoors, handguns and smg's are more effective because of their size. But if the range between combatants are 50 yards or more, assault rifles are far more superior to handguns.

This is actually irrelevent. Most crimes occur at close range. When a criminal engages a target at range they use hunting rifles far more often than ARs.

This is the other point that I'm making. Statistically speaking Assault Rifles are NOT used in crime. They are used in less than 1% of gun crime...most years less than 0.5% of the time (which rounds down to ZERO).

This still doesn't refute the fact that assault rifles are mainly made for, well... assaults. Why allow it for civilians then? And hunting rifles are more or less always bolt-action. Just as effective against one target (or more effective vs. 5.56mm and 7.62x39mm), much less effective against several.

Also Cellar and I are not talking about "real" (full-auto) assault rifle. But rather semi-auto "clones" that the media and most laymen mistakenly label as "assault rifles". I personally think we have the right level of restrictions on buying the real thing:
1) Special license to buy the guns that involves a significant financial cost and background check.
2) The weapons themselves are incredibly expensive (thousands of dollars).
3) Full-auto causes too much barrel rise to make them effective and rapidly empties the mag increasing ammo expense (making it even more cost prohibitive).

What i'm suggesting is, imposing those restrictions on normal guns (handguns, shotguns, rifles) and banning automatic weapons all together.

At 12/8/08 04:59 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: The heart of this matter is that guns provide a straightforward, effective and cheap avenue for personal protection. Given that peace on earth good will toward men isn't the Earthican slogan, I think guns are here to stay. Fuck whatever you say, you won't find people trying to confiscate guns without being armed themselves.

Think about it.

Did I say I wanted to ban guns? Did I? I want to ban automatic weapons, not handguns, rifles or shotguns.

He said the pray and spray method of operating fully automatic rifles isn't an effective application. The purpose of using a firearm is to incapacitate a target directly threatening you or your family. Semi-automatic rate of fire is preferable to fully- in these scenarios.

It's not effective versus a single person, no, exactly, and thats why I don't understand why people should have automatics. Spray and pray shooters tend to leave alot of wounded in crowded areas because of indiscriminate fire.

And yes, in urban combat, particularily indoors, handguns and smg's are more effective because of their size. But if the range between combatants are 50 yards or more, assault rifles are far more superior to handguns.

Why are you telling this to Mason?

Because, the only time an assault rifle actually will be useful is when you're the ATTACKING party. Who the hell is going to claim self-defense when the other guy was 100 yards away? As I said before, the reason I want automatics banned is because they are completely terrible as defense weapons, unless you're going do defend a trench against a onrushing mob. So why do we want weapons, which are primarily designed to ATTACK someone, not defend, out in the public?

Mason, just to clarify to you why I think assault rifles are considerably more powerful than handguns.
During my time in the army I was mostly using this and this.

I know that the AK-47 and the M-16 are notoriously inneffective in killing people, but you're arguing on the basis that all assault rifles are either 5.56mm or 7.62x39mm and always FMJ. And yes, in urban combat, particularily indoors, handguns and smg's are more effective because of their size. But if the range between combatants are 50 yards or more, assault rifles are far more superior to handguns.

So Mason, in essence, all your arguments are based on that people use only FMJ ammo for assault rifles and JHP ammo for pistols? What if someone loads an AK-47 with JHP rifle ammo and goes berserk? Or some dimwit carries a pistol with FMJ ammo? What then?

At 12/8/08 11:26 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Eh no? I haven't seen any of those statements in this thread. Using an analogy isn't the same as saying they are as bad.

Oh? Sure about that? Because it seems to me that these "analogies" are becoming a bit too common just for the sake of comparison.

At 12/8/08 05:28 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: A pedophile who sacrifices his lusts because he doesn't want to hurt children, keeping at home wanking instead of raping them, isn't that a good thing? He sacrifices for something that he really doesn't want to give up, just because he feels it's immoral to cause suffering and he realizes that raped children won't be feeling so fucking good.

At 12/6/08 05:28 AM, mythicaljake wrote: But we stun the animals, so they feel no pain...
And I drugged your sister with Rohypnol, so she won't even remember...

But it isn't wrong to kill weaker beings for food...
Good, I'll eat you.

At 12/6/08 09:58 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 12/6/08 09:42 AM, Cornbucket wrote: You take your own feelings that pain and death are bad things, and you apply that to lesser animals but not to plant life.

Unless you are against murder of retards, you do basically the same.

At 12/6/08 11:20 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: Still, that doesn't refute my point. Our body is adapted to fighting with other humans, raping, and stealing. All those things can also be shown to happen among other primates. Does that make them morally okay?

At 12/6/08 01:32 PM, Sajberhippien wrote: We weren't "designed" to do anything, we weren't designed at all. We are adapted to eating meat though. However, we are also adapted to murder and rape - that doesn't make those things more okay.

At 12/8/08 05:09 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: I agree that people shouldn't be physically or verbally attacked, however for many people, paying for the industry to kill animals is bad in the same way that paying an assassin to kill someone is bad (and to some people, it is AS bad as that)

So, still claiming that you're not spreading the "Holier than thou!" message? I don't care what you eat, you can live off a diet consisting purely of Icelandic mongoose liver for all I care. But when you start to say that your diet is so much more "morally correct" than mine, I get kinda pissed off. Morals have always been, and will always be completely and utterly 100% subjective. So when you say that you have better morals than me, you're really saying "I'm better than you, you cretinous bastard who barely deserves the right to live", you've elevated yourself to a level of "Morality" that you believe to be above us "meat-eaters" and therefore look down upon us. Why? Self-delusion? Megalomania? An intense hunger for attention?

It's not helping that you first say "Just leave us alone!" and then follow it up with "Meat-eaters are pedophile, murderous bastards who molest all living beings!", or as you said "Meat eaters are LIKE pedophile, murderous bastards who molest all living beings!".

So in this thread we've learned that meat-eaters are just as horrible as:
-Murderers
-Assassins
-Torturers
-Pedophiles
-Rapists
-Cannibals
-etc etc

Sure you're not taking this "I'M HOLIER THAN THOU!" bullshit a bit too far?

At 12/8/08 12:06 AM, D3NTATUS wrote: I'm a vegetarian.

Let me start this by saying that my concern for animals is at the bottom of my list (though it's there, don't get me wrong) for being vegetarian. The majority of this argument, from what I have seen, is about the ethics of meat and the animal's ability to feel pain. I realize that's the easiest point to argue against (and in some cases, outright degrade and demean. i'm looking at you, pox.)

But what about the other reasons?

Environmentally, going vegetarian is one of the best things a human being can do. You can argue that an animal can't feel pain, but you can't argue (well you can, but not well) that the planet's heating up, and methane and CO2 are both causing it. Oh hey, look at that- the meat industry provides our nice lil' atmosphere with a shit ton of both! I'd rather not support that, thank you.

What about fish then? Everything you just mentioned as negative aspects of eating meat doesn't apply to fish, or seafood in general. So what's your reason for not eating those?

At 12/7/08 12:17 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:
What we need is more funding to train and cultivate more BAFTE agents to fight the wars on drugs, poverty and terrorism like true American patriots here at home.

wait.... you want to train armed agents to combat the war on POVERTY? So you're gonna run around and shoot all the poor people in order to rid the nation of it's economic problems? :P

At 12/7/08 11:24 AM, heroicspatula wrote: I know, i wasn't arguing with you.
still, this topic needs to get back on gun control itself, not whether military rounds are more or less damaging.

Ok :)

Well, I do believe in gun control for several reasons, some are:
- Guns may be used to fend of criminals, but then when criminals expect that their victims will be armed, they again may resort to lethal action much quicker. It's an evil circle that never stops, "We must carry guns to defend ourselves against the criminals that arm themselves because we carry guns". I'm not saying that you aren't allowed to defend yourself, but firearms shouldn't be necessary, and the fact that it is in the US is tragic.
- Gun Culture. By this I mean that when firearms are so readily available, people tend to lose their respect for them. It's not unheard of that people have pistols lying around the house, when this combined with alcohol, emotional distress, curious kids etc etc it could have disastrous results.

I'm all in for civilians owning firearms, even for self-defense and not just hunting or sports. But when it comes to automatic weapons (Fully automatic, like submachine guns and heavy machine guns, not just assault rifles) , I don't see the reason why civilians should have them, neither do I see any reason for civilians to possess high-powered sniper rifles or other heavy military equipment.

I know both Mason and Cellar have been arguing that assault rifles are about as lethal as a plush toy hammer, but when used in large crowds, indiscriminate fire from a maniac wielding an automatic is much more dangerous then a semi-automatic. Unless the perpetrator is a cold-blooded, even-headed master marksman going around picking headshots on moving targets from 50 yards away with a pistol.

And just to remind you... Gun control =/= gun ban. Gun control means that there is a much stricter availability of firearms, with proper background checks and registration done at licensed dealers. Ergo, not prancing into Walmart and leaving with a Browning .50 machine gun. Firearms should be respected as the extremely lethal tools that they are and not be glorified to such a degree that they become yet another everyday household item.

At 12/4/08 11:07 PM, heroicspatula wrote: cause i'll use a wiki link

But no matter how destructive the ammo is, the skill of the marksman does play a great role in shootouts, not to mention that assault rifles can be used much more efficiently at medium-long distances than handguns and smg's.

True, but it's harder to get an assualt rifle than a handgun or smg, and your more likely to get caught before you start shooting.

Ehm, your own wiki link just confirmed what I stated :P
Copypasta:

Some designs of FMJ rifle ammunition inflict more destructive gunshot wounds than others. Not all FMJ bullets contain a simple lead filling. Here are some examples:

* Although British Mark 7 .303 ammunition is compliant with the terms of the Hague Convention, it creates more destructive gunshot wounds than standard spitzer bullets due to its internal design. The centre of gravity of the Mark 7 bullet is deliberately shifted towards the rear. This is achieved by constructing the front third of the interior of the bullet from a lighter material such as aluminium or wood pulp. The result is a tail-heavy FMJ bullet which yaws violently after hitting the target.
* American 5.56mm NATO FMJ ammunition has a much thinner jacket than others. As a result the bullet may yaw and fragment by fracturing along the cannelure.
* Russian 5.45x39mm FMJ ammunition uses a tail-heavy bullet which has a tendency to yaw after hitting the target.
* German 7.62x51mm NATO FMJ has an unusually thin cannelure i.e. the groove running around the circumference of a bullet which is used to crimp it to the cartridge case. When the bullet hits the target it fractures along the cannelure and fragments, causing massive tissue damage as per the 5.56x45 mm bullet.

Humans are per definition omnivores, all-eaters. There are several reasons to why someone chooses to be a vegetarian or vegan. A friend of mine is a vegetarian simply because he doesn't like the taste of meat, and I understand that. But when the reason becomes ideological, I feel my curiosity getting rused.

Just reread the thread and noticed.... you've just listed why you dislike the arguments against vegetarians, but I didn't notice any explanation to WHY you are a vegetarian. So, instead that I try to pry out your stance on vegetarianism, meat-eating and veganism by asking tons of questions and putting together the puzzle, why don't you explain your stance on it? Any previous experience with cruelty to animals? Do you own a pet? I see that you have vegetarians in the family, have they convinced you? Weightloss diet? Ever been to a farm? etc etc

At 12/6/08 07:40 AM, mythicaljake wrote:

At 12/6/08 06:45 AM, Baalphegor wrote: Cows for example are so adapted to the animal husbandry we have subjected them to during the millennia we've had them that they would never survive in the wilds. The same goes for pigs and sheep. Nature has adapted to us as well.

Fair point, although I've already covered most of this argument in a previous post - Nature has adapted to us, but that doesn't mean we have to abuse it and needlessly harm and kill animals. If a cow has become accustomed to being used for human benefit, that means it'd still have a happy life being used for human benefit, but killing it for food when we could very easily get nutrients in meat from other vegetables is needless and cruel - a bad way to end its otherwise peaceful life.

It seems to me that you believe humanity is above nature, that we do not need to abide the "kill or be killed" law of the wilds and that we should view all life as sacred. Well, we aren't that evolved. We kill, maim, burn and destroy. We wage wars for reasons that are far from logical, we plot, we possess greed, hate, anger and lust. We inflict pain, grief and misery upon others, we torture and rape, we steal and insult

Does that mean that all the things you have listed are right and justified? Most (if not all) people who maim, burn, destroy, torture and rape have something wrong with them, and most wars are fought out of a bout of self-defence, such as World War II. Of course not all wars are like that, the Iraq War and Vietnam being prime examples. But those wars are started by the leaders who cannot see that what they're doing is immoral, and they always see war as a first-resort (which it shouldn't be)

I'm not saying that these things are good, I'm saying that they are within the Nature of Man, which encompasses all that is good and bad in humans, something which you, me, nor the entire world population can do anything about. These are things we have been doing to eachother since we started gathering in tribes and it doesn't seem that we're likely to stop anytime soon. Being human does have its bright sides compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, but we're not as diplomatic and reasonable as you think that we are. And no war is fought as self defense... the attacked faction is fighting in self defense, the aggressor is not, and both are human.

What I was trying to say, you're going to have a hard time convincing humanity in putting such value in animal life when we've proven over and over again that humanity as a whole doesn't even put such value in other humans. And we're talking basic feelings here, like hate, anger and jealousy, not laws and politics.

At 12/6/08 06:09 AM, mythicaljake wrote:

At 12/6/08 05:54 AM, Baalphegor wrote: Being Pro Animal Rights does not mean being vegetarian.

But, that was half the reason why i became vegetarian in the first place - I viciously support animal rights, but became aware that still maintaining an omnivorous diet was making me a hypocrite.

I despise factory farming because it obviously isn't a good enviroment for the animals to grow up in. If the livestock is raised in a good enviroment however, I don't see the reason why not to eat meat.

We are all animals in the wider sense, and eating meat because we see other animals as inferior to us - to me at least - seems barbaric. No matter how good the animal's life is, the major aspect still remains: They are still killed for our benefit. We have evolved into a diplomatic race that is capable of reason, we may as well exploit that advantage.

Also, nobody have mentioned hunting and fishing...

I still don't eat fish for the very same reason I don't eat other meats. Hunting is also just as bad as killing an animal in any other way. If anything, it's more cruel because it's taking an unsuspecting animal out of it's natural habitat for our benefit.

We are still a part of nature. We take our resources out of nature. We depend on nature, the great biological clockwork running life on this planet in order to survive. Yet, we do not stand outside the ecosystem and siphon of it without it adapting to us.

Cows for example are so adapted to the animal husbandry we have subjected them to during the millennia we've had them that they would never survive in the wilds. The same goes for pigs and sheep. Nature has adapted to us as well.

It seems to me that you believe humanity is above nature, that we do not need to abide the "kill or be killed" law of the wilds and that we should view all life as sacred. Well, we aren't that evolved. We kill, maim, burn and destroy. We wage wars for reasons that are far from logical, we plot, we possess greed, hate, anger and lust. We inflict pain, grief and misery upon others, we torture and rape, we steal and insult.

You cling to an utopian fantasy where humanity is an enlightened being that benevolently lords over the rest of nature from our pedestal of logic and reason, but reality is much more grimy than you want it to be. We are still animals, we're just smarter than the rest.

At 12/6/08 05:47 AM, Earfetish wrote: I agree.

I always like to say, the best thing about humanity is our humanity. We might have evolved in a meat-eating environment but nowadays we have the ability not to, and we also have humanity, so we shouldn't.

Also, factory farming. Whenever I get into a debate about it I'm always like 'why is factory farming alright just so you can have a nice meal'.

Being Pro Animal Rights does not mean being vegetarian. I despise factory farming because it obviously isn't a good enviroment for the animals to grow up in. If the livestock is raised in a good enviroment however, I don't see the reason why not to eat meat. Also, nobody have mentioned hunting and fishing...

So basically you're saying that you're morally superior to us omnivores because you don't kill animals for food? What's so morally despicable about eating meat?

You're missing a whole spectre of culinary experiences!
Meat.... mmm.....

At 12/4/08 11:25 AM, TheMason wrote: This is a fallacious argument. Later on you use the term "military-grade" as if this meant that "military-grade" means small-arms that are especially deadly. This is not true at all. According to the Geneva Conventions the type of round that is legal for use in combat rifles are full-metal jacket (FMJ) rounds. The bullet characteristics of these rounds are:

* High velocity and high penetration. This means that they can defeat body armor. However, what this means is that the bullet itself enters the body with a small hole. Travels in a straight line and exits the body with a hole about the size of the entry wound. What this means are wounds that are the least life-threatening of any bullet type. Common sense tells people that military rounds are designed to kill...when it is not true. If you kill an enemy you take one soldier out of battle, merely wound him and you take out three: him and his two buddies helping him.

Oh? I was under the impression that assault rifle bullets are especially designed to induce fragmentation or tumbling. I can't remember seeing a single ballistics test where a 5.56mmNato round just popped in and out without tumbling. Though, I'm a bit more experienced in regards to the 7.62mmNato round which is quite more devastating than the 7.62mmRussian or the 5.56mmNato. But no matter how destructive the ammo is, the skill of the marksman does play a great role in shootouts, not to mention that assault rifles can be used much more efficiently at medium-long distances than handguns and smg's.

Well Menelaus, I have to disagree there.

This is without doubt the best funeral of the 20th century :)

RIP Graham Chapman
Hope my funeral is as good

I don't get the paranoia regarding fluoridation. Fluoridation has proved to be extremely effective against tooth-decay in the countries where it's used. 50 years ago it was common here in Norway that you would get your first set of false teeth at an age of 15-20. Now, with fluoridation, it's almost unheard of. Most of you are arguing the ill effects of a fluoride overdose, while still you seem to ignore that american health authorities are concerned about the same, especially since many areas have abundant amounts of fluoride naturally ocurring in their water sources. Has it never ocurred to you that the government doesn't want to hurt you? o_O (Usually)

Though I am a big supporter of Space Colonization, I also somewhat share the view of Pox that is way beyound our grasp at the moment. In order for Space Colonization to work we need a proper international program in order to get the resources for it, not to mention how much we need to improve our power sources (though we're on the brink of having efficient fusion reactors though. Cold-fusion is still far away).

But one thing that I haven't seen anyone mention yet, and that is the unpopulated 2/3rds of this planet: The Ocean O_o

What would stop us from building large undersea cities with own fish and kelp farms for food? Pressure dome technology is sufficient, we have the resources for it, all we need is a driving force in order to start such a project. It would be vastly cheaper then colonizing space.

At 11/23/08 04:35 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: Note: everything I am saying is incredibly oversimplified.

The basic idea behind COMMUNISM can be defined in the famous Karl Marx quote "to each according to his needs from each according to his abilities." The basic premise is that everyone works, gives the fruits of their labor, and the government will divide it up among the people. It has advantages and disadvantages.

Pros
1. Smaller gap between rich and poor
2. The nation is not dominated by a small upper class
3. The poor have a high standard of living
4. It can solve the problems of unemployment created by automation. For the first time the amount of workers needed to sustain the nation is less than the population of the nation. This allows for food to be distributed to the surplus population

Cons
1. Too easy to abuse - in many COMMUNISTIC societies the government will not divide up the money evenly and give disproportionate amounts of money to their friends and relatives
2. Lack of occupational freedom - people cannot as easily choose their career
3. Requires a totalitarian government in order to work efficiently

Well, thanks for describing COMMUNISM! Now, what about a socialistic democracy?

A social democracy has not
1: A lack of occupational freedom, you can educate yourself to become whatever you want. It's actually EASIER than in more capitalistic socities because you get funded.
2: Does not require a totalitarian government, basically since people vote in their own government from a phletora of parties instead of just TWO parties who have basically the same policy!
3: Cannot be as easily abused since there is no single person or party that basically has all the power in the country and corruption is severly scrutinized and punished.

Just taking some examples from here in Norway:
-Most businesses are private, with the exception of healthcare, public transportation and the postal service, although there are several indicators of there being more privatization there too.
-The government doesn't STEAL money from you, it's called taxes. The money you pay to live and be protected by the government. The government in return try to use these taxes in the best way to promote further growth in the nation. So yes, you are funding that poor sod down the street, but so are everyone else, and you know that incase you get into the same trouble you'll have the same safety net. (Just in case, that welfare is just basically what you need to get through the day, it's not luxury)
-You have every freedom of saying whatever you want, whenever you want, no matter how extreme it is. People may not agree with you, but you're not going to be executed for saying things that people dislike.

And in regards to the government buying up businesses. Well, that's because of the financial crisis that the US got us into, so don't even get me started there.

And stop saying that Communism = Socialism! Americans need to realize that the Cold War is over!