Jack the problem with public transport, is your less free in the way you can travel around. Its really minimally inconvenient in large densely populated centers. Rural or sparsely populated areas (if they even have public transport) runs a lot less frequently meaning you if have things to do you have to plan an entire day because theres several hours between trips (it might be better in the US i don't know). Also if theres only one form on public transportation available then you can be quite limited in where can travel to, for example trains can take you to stations quickly but unless there are buses or trams you really can't travel that far from the station.

I live in a rural area and three buses are run a day, unless they can run buses every 30 minutes (which would be incredibly wasteful and defeat the purpose of public transport, as you may only get one passenger or even none at certain intervals) I won't be using public transport.

Theres a difference between gun control and car control. If people want to spend $300-$400 for a full tank of fuel and burn it in less than a week with their gas guzzler then let them. If you personally don't want to blow your weekly paycheck on petrol then buy a small car, a hybrid, or even an electric or hydrogen car, or simply drive less. The fuel industry's days are numbers, and even if people don't buy hybrids etc the biofuel industry will pick up because biofuels will become cheaper then petrol.

When your considered an adult then you should be allowed to do whatever you want. If some people think you should be only allowed to drink at age 21 then you shouldn't be considered an adult until then. Its quite stupid saying that "We think your old enough to be considered and adult, your free to make your own choices we feel your responsible enough to do so. But your not allowed to drink yet we can't trust you to make a responsible decision were only doing it for your own good."
If a youth is going to become a problemed drinker its got nothing to do with how old they are allowed to drink. Also whats the age your allowed to smoke in America?

At 5/1/08 10:32 PM, literate wrote: The point it, why does an ant need to reason, it doesnt, so it never picked it up

If an ant could think it would become a greedy bastard. With little consequence I would imagine, as think of the amount of ant industrialization needed to effect the planet.

Ah the origins of civilization. Its important to note that we were not the only species they could have developed civilization but all other species of hominan have died out for reasons we can't come to consensus.
Things that allowed us to develop civilization:

Hunting caused us to use teamwork and our brains, increasing intelligence and causing us to form community, which is the important thing but hunting produced it (essential for civilization because it allows sharing of knowledge)

Tools allowed us to achieve things that we would have otherwise been unable to do. Make fire, hunt more efficiently, build things, farm the land.

Agriculture provided us with a larger and more stable food supply, allowing larger population numbers, and also allowing specialization of labor (allowing us to further develop).

Competition causes a drive to develop, to outperform rivals. Look at places where there is minimal competition and warfare in early man, and to when whey are discovered. You will find that more competition produces more development.

Without these four things civilization is not achievable, many animals have a sense of community, some use tools, and some animals engage in warfare, but we are the only animals so far to use agriculture. I think if dolphins and whales were able to use tools then they too would have developed civilization. Plus its also important to note that our hand (opposable thumbs) allows the most versatile adaptation of tools, than any other animal. If apes had hands like ours (or any other community animal) then its a possibility that they too would have developed civilization.

At 4/30/08 11:05 PM, Bookman60 wrote:
3. How has our climate changed in the past century? Maybe one degree? Climate changes go through periodical cycles. That's why it's colder one year and warmer the next, and vice versa.

You should understand the sheer magnitude of energy required to raise every atom of the earth by one degree, its a colossal amount. The general consensus being that we have caused this, is a warning that if we continue what we are doing, consequences (possibly dire but probably can be regarded as hysteria) will follow. Theres the decent point that if we start to address the problem now then there will be less frantic work (and money) needed when we are completely sure that we need to take action, also there will be less damage done to species in sensitive habitats where one degree will actually significantly effect their survival, also climate conditions effect the breeding season for some life which cause an inbalance in the food chain which is much more damaging in most cases than actual temperature.

Example, mosquito numbers are increased = animals are fed on more by them = animals skinner: winter is potentially more fatal = decreased numbers = if the animal is prey then less food for the predator = cycle repeats to the top of the food chain.
animals need to eat more = less favorable time frame for breeding (more time spent on gathering food rather than breeding) = decreased offspring numbers = if the animal is prey then less food for the predator = cycle repeats to the top of the food chain.
There are many other scenarios what could effect the food chain, also you could say that mosquito's would be forced to reduce numbers because there weren't enough animals to feed on, but by this time the number of animals may be too few that they may become endangered or even extinct.

Nature is a very complex and intertwined system, it regulates its self, and very dramatic changes occur. But its in our interests to maintain this system as it is because we're throwing away limitless potential knowledge each time we allow a species to become extinct, and also because we are not completely independent of this system we call nature yet (some like to think we are, but we are not yet).

Well adleast they uniformally stand up for what they believe in.

At 5/1/08 08:27 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: People aren't getting aids in Africa because they want the virus, and the first part of raping and pillaging wasn't developed as a military tactic.

People are getting AIDS in Africa because there is a lot of ignorance about AIDS in Africa and how it can be prevented, and in case you didn't know AIDS can be transferred other then sexually. It also doesn't help that a lot of Christian aid organizations try to prevent people from obtain condoms, just because it goes against their organization.

Promiscuity has its benefits from a natural viewpoint, monogamy is putting all your genes in one basket, your offspring are likely to be similar so if one change in nature is unfavorable to your offspring then your genes future prospects don't look too bright. Promiscuity is diversifying your offspring, which may produce a board spectrum of qualities in your offspring for better or for worse, this still applies in our civilization (monogamy could produce children with a greater risk of obtaining a disease, genetic defect (example down syndrome), or just have stupid kids). Also if we were ment to be monogamous why weren't we born already married.

Prostitution is illegal?

But in Nevada go can go to a "gentlemen club" and give a woman money to have sex with you. Brothels are legal, its the pimp and a girl on the corner thats illegal, why? Because pimps don't make turnover statements and declare income, whatever the government can't tax is illegal.

At 5/1/08 08:15 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 5/1/08 01:37 PM, poxpower wrote:

And the Vatican never lifted a finger to stop them, denounce them or excommuniate them.

Do you know the historically accepted reason for why that was so? The reason that i got from a holocaust survivor, as well as a museum guide in that same holocaust center?

[I'll give you a hint, it has to do with organized religion being dangerous]

Well if mass killing was no good reason for the catholic church to speak out, then why do they get their panties all up bunch about homosexuality and people using condoms (regardless of the HIV rates in certain countries).

At 4/30/08 07:05 PM, Zeistro wrote:

:: Compared to today eugenics(or at least the nazi version) is absurd. Sixty years ago they were more scientifically enlightened.

I actually have some really old scientific journals from the 1920s that scientifically criticize eugenics, and (at the time) religious hold on academic learning.

At 4/27/08 11:07 PM, poxpower wrote:

At 4/27/08 04:06 PM, LazyPint wrote:

Is there any better method that would actually work in practice?

A race of giant benevolant all-powerful robots from space that know exactly what's best for us at all times.

Yes finally an anarchy that can function, true freedom for everyone. All hail Xenu

Yeah I don't see what the big deal is. I think some people in power are living in the past, and take everything out of context.

At 4/27/08 05:15 PM, Jinkinko wrote:
Rappists: Castrate them

Castrate them? You know thats a kind of torture don't you, and it doesn't matter what anyone has done they don't deserve torture. Although I'm sure some people would disagree with me even if it means going against their countries philosophy.

I'm an environmentalist, but not one of the crazy one that I have only just become aware of. I don't think its wrong to eat meat, and I don't care for animal rights, I support capitalism as long as its responsible. What I do care about is the impact that the some industries have on natural environments that don't have substainible practices in place (unregulated fishing and logging, irresponsible actions like insufficient quality control which may lead to contamination of a biosphere). I also think we should try to be as efficient as possible in every aspect of industry, this not only makes sense economically but also allows us to make the most out of the resources he have. Why do I care about this impact? For me its a simply scientific (and quite insensitive) standing, the more species we eliminate from this planet the less we get to learn from those species and the less knowledge is gained which could be adapted to technology or medicine or maybe just our knowledge of nature. If we were able to learn everything we could from nature and were we certain we learned everything, then I could care less if we destroyed nature (although I would miss it).

It seams that there are a lot of people that support green things because its trendy, I've always thought this as been a good thing as even if they really don't give a shit adleast their hearts are in the right place. But its come to my attention that a lot of environmentalists are retards, they know absolutely nothing about the things they are against, I think this has come to hurt the reputation of genuine environmentalists who hold fairly rational viewpoints that are usually open to debate and have a decent knowledge of the things they care about. Heres an episode of Penn & Teller which may be a bad example, but I'm quite sure that this is the stereotype of an environmentalist (and I was wondering why everyone thought I was crazy whenever I raised green issues).

In conclusion if you want to support the now trendy green cause learn a bit about it before you sound like a retard and make us all look bad.

Mason I think you have persuaded me to pro gun ownership (for US anyway). You are much more intelligent then cellardoor which he gives the political viewpoints he supports gives them no justice at all. I think if you don't need a gun then why have it, but if there are actually legitimate risk to which may cause you to defend your self then maybe owning a gun isn't such a bad idea after all. I would feel a bit uncomfortable if some of my neighbors were to buy guns though (irresponsible adults that have children buying guns to "protect" their homes in a low crime community doesn't exactly make me think we should have that right). I'm sure even pro gun people shouldn't have much of a reason to not want reform in gun control, maybe more red tape when it comes to obtaining a firearm and no more loopholes (like no background checks required if your buying a gun from a gun expo), that way if the "criminals" will have to resort to purely black market guns, that way your government officials can get tough on illegal guns much like drugs, thus they gain support and if pro gun people say is true then public safety is also increased. I also hope America can fix its problems, crime and police corruption sounds quite bad if pro gun ownership people aren't exaggerating.

Yeah theres that saying power corrupts (you know the rest). If a country could have a leader that was un corruptible then a dictatorship would be the best form of government. Mabye the world needs an advanced robot to run the world, look out Japanese election 2020.

Mason although you do make valid points. I'm a little confused on how your trying to blame Europe over the Iraq war. I don't recall any European leaders jumping up and down about WMDs on the news prior to the invasion of Iraq. Plus I'd be more inclined to say that colonialism in Africa has caused the most damage.

Arnie should be president, if negotiations don't go well he could crush all opposition with is muscles, or single handedly take down the other countries army, after all his alter ego is detective John Kimble.

Good question. If I needed to make someone suffer to do evil things then I guess I would, if it involved me getting into a good afterlife. Its kind of like the same situation of being put into war, its either you or them. That said this god is evil, I probably cant trust it. I would want to bind it by some law that applied to it or some godly contract or something like that, otherwise I'd say I would get exiled to eternal damnation whatever I did.

The reasons I've heard is because women have periods (yeah you wouldn't want anyone bleeding in a combat situation) and in case of close combat reasons, but not all guys are built like Arnold Schwarzenegger and they would be allowed to fulfill a combat role is they meet requirements. If theres no physical reason I don't see why they shouldn't participate in combat roles if they want to.

I'll bet you will be making the same post in a few years about the war in Iran. In terms of damage on both sides, Iraq is quite mild in contrast of wars decades and centuries ago. But considering the time we live in I would have to say it is the least justifiable war in the 20-21st century wars that, you know us "good guys" have been involved in so far (remember we still have 92 years left of this century).

Wow a questionnaire, politicians send me fridge magnets and calenders with their face on it when an election is coming up.

Yeah, but what can you do mason. Its not like you can take those kind of social services away. I'm quite sure that your Government (like ours) is not giving overly generous with unemployment payouts etc. Just enough to keep the poor people from resorting to steal their food, or crime to pay their bills. I'm also sure that the majority of people receiving Government benefits aren't sponging. You take those things away and that would probably be your last decision in office.

At 4/19/08 06:07 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

:: How is the "actual shit" any different from what can potentially be created within a computer program? As in, how do we know we are not inside a computer program right now?

Don't go there, you could destroy the universe. Our universe has to remain absolute right now, otherwise our primitive brains will explode (or maybe just mine), NO ONE will be able to distinguish what is real or not, you are trying to cause mass psychosis.

Woah thats deep. Reminds me of some old science fiction movie I saw, where some guy convinced some computerized bomb that it was god. I think anything is possible, it may be entirely possible to reverse the universe, maybe theres an anti-parallel universe that is spawned into existence once our universe entropy increases to maximum, and vice versa (%u221E>years later) when the anti-parallel universe dies ours is born again.

I hate these topics, I try to answer but it only makes more questions. The chicken and the egg type of questions.

I checked that budget out, you guys sure are paying a hell of a lot on interest how much debt is the US in?

Also did I read right that your current budget is running at a deficit of 2.8 trillion dollars?
Is that a normal kind of level? I don't know as I think you spend more on International assistance then Australia's entire budget.

At 4/26/08 04:50 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:
I have also yet to see a valid explanation as to how homosexuality is a biologically advantageous trait; or how it could contribute to society in any way other than the ones that have been provided within the last say... 3000 years as a result of agriculture.

Its advantageous for humans if it stops us from breeding to the point of destruction, which I think we are already at that point. Contribute to society? Theres no guarantee that a heterosexual person will contribute much to society either.

At 4/26/08 04:05 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Yeah dude, this post is just disguised as a stupid gayness threrad when its jsut another ant religion thingy, evilution is a religion n so is atheism I guess, you can't hide from your faith hahahahaha!

Say what? Whats evilution? If you mean evolution then no its not, its not a religion in the same way as knowing how to change a flat tire is not a religion, or knowing that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way round.
Atheism is a religion? As in atheist: someone who lacks spiritual or religious belief either purposely or by ignorance (if no one tells you about religion then your also an atheist). Atheism is a lack of religion so how is it also a religion, if atheism is a religion then an atheist can't be an atheist as soon as they are an atheist is the moment they become a theist.

At 4/26/08 12:42 PM, TheMason wrote:

Fuck YEAH! Fixing our fiscal policy and getting a handle on spending is my main concern...even ahead of guns. Not just VP, I want to see who these people will appoint as SecTreas, SecDef, SecState & NSA.

I don't want to sound like a wise arse but wouldn't the war in Iraq be highest level of expenditure in the US budget?
Thereby if I'm right wouldn't McCain be the worst choice for your economy?

You don't need to get dogmatic, if I'm wrong simply explain why.