Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/14/04 11:20 AM, TomFulp wrote: The console version of Alien Hominid has won the "Biggest Surprise of 2004" award from IGN! Check it out here! Booya!

Sweeet. It also came half a point from winning a silver award from Electronig Gaming Monthly (EGM) which stacks it up there as a pretty damn good game. It actually had one of the highest scores in that issue, but it didn't win game of the month because it was stacked up against some other titles... like Halo 2, MGS3, and Paper Mario 2 :/

I have to admit, it's a kickass game. Very Metal Slug-esque, especially the closeup knife move. It has some nice innovations Metal Slug doesn't have though, and I commend you for that unique improvement (amongst many others). It's not as hard of a game as others make it out to sound, it's actually relatively easy if you stay on your toes and watch for the quick shots the FBI agents get off. That damn PDA game is addictive as heck, especially with multi-players >.< I spent a couple hours on end playing that one nonstop.

At 12/14/04 09:23 PM, Tal-con wrote: That's because i read and believe what The Bible says, and The Bible addresses your question. Or maybe I'm just smarter =D

I don't know if you're qualified for a Ph.D in philosophy, but you are smart I'll give you that much, just probably not on the same level as the doctorates in that field. You're right though, in terms of the "christian" bible, it does address and answer this question. I have to check with my critical thinking professor to see if that's an acceptable counter-argument though.

At 12/14/04 09:27 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote: Thats only because they're always trying to find the more complicated answers.

More-sound doesn't necessarily equal more-complicated. They're just trying to find an answer that satisfies the argument's premises and nullifies them in order to prove it wrong such that God does exist and the world is perfect, but in a sense, it's a paradox.

The reason: Free Will.

Don't drag a fusion of topics into this. :(

At 12/14/04 09:51 PM, -poxpower- wrote:

At 12/14/04 09:27 PM, Soul_Chamber wrote:

The reason: Free Will.

which we don't have to begin with :o

See what I mean? >.<

At 12/15/04 01:22 AM, afliXion wrote: That is a big load of bullshit! The Bible tells you write in the first book that God's original creation WAS perfect. Then adam sinned, and through Adam death and suffering entered the world. It also tells you there is away to escape this death and suffering through Jesus Christ.

K, I've already arrived at the conclusion that the bible attempts to present an acceptable answer to this argument.

That 'problem of evil' is obviously being asked by somone who doesn't know anything about the Scriptures.

The basis of this argument isn't whether you know anything or not about the scriptures, it's whether your belief of God's existance satisfies the current state of the world or not.

Most people in the world do not follow the Bible principals.

Bandwagon fallacy.

Insert a plethora of biblical quotes.

Thank you for that... insightful sermon.

At 12/15/04 12:11 AM, Rydia_Lockheart wrote: *kicks a frog*

*Clenches his side in agony* ;o oh the pain! I thought the frog would be respected by now, clearly I was wrong. *Croaks* X.X

At 12/15/04 01:42 AM, ERPMISTER wrote: I'm not a regular, but I'll post for the utter joy of politics.

Then plz be so kind and turn back the other way and walk out the door whence you came.

Oh I just thought I'd share this. A couple days ago I was at work, and I took a chocolate cake to a suite (I work in a catering service). What I didn't know was that Ice Cube was in that suite and that the cake was for his son's 18th birthday x.x I met Mr. Cube and shook his hand n' all. Later on that night I thought I'd drop him a friendly email, so I googled to see if it came up and this was what I came across! Feel free to read the small article, it's quite amusing.

At 12/14/04 08:43 PM, SexualWhiteChocolate wrote: Humans arer merely a manipulation of the elements which has been manipulated to manipulate. if u bake a cake out of eggs flour milk and butter is it still those things? no. so sure we cant make up anything new but that doesn't mean we cant make anything different

*Perplexed expression* O.o wtf?

Take Philosophy 160: Critical Thinking... or any philosophy class that teaches critical thinking for that matter, and then come back to the politics bbs.

At 12/14/04 08:36 PM, BeFell wrote: Who has that graph that shows where all of the regs scored on the political compass test?

I think I lost mine x.x all I know is I was low left in quadrant III just a tad bit to the left of and a little above Mahatma Ghandi.

At 12/14/04 08:45 PM, IllustriousPotentate wrote: Pfft. I stopped watching Cartoon Network when they stopped showing all the good, old school cartoons like the Looney Toons and Droopy and Yogi Bear and Snagglepuss, etc. The only time I ever watch it is when I can catch Tom and Jerry during the weekdays at noon.

Urgh Cartoon Network is going the same way of the WB network, showing some gh3y ass anime like Megaman NT Battle or YuGi-Omgtehsuck! And of course... Pokemon -.-

Cartoon Network had it better when they were showing oldschool DBZ, Trigun and Cowboy Bebop.

Oh, what do y'all think about the picture below? It's a half size version of a fractal I've created, and I was planning on submitting it to Retrogade.com.

Pretty damn sweeet. I'd like to see an animation like that in Media Player or iTunes... actually... iTunes has one sort of like that, except of course, it moves to the music. It works wonders when you listen to Dark Side of the Moon in the dark... not stoned.

At 12/14/04 07:58 PM, Tal-con wrote: I have a very simple answer to this post. The world will be perfect, after Judgement Day (aka "The Apocalypse"), of course) but God can't just give anyone he creates the honour of living in Heaven, he's going to see who "deserves" it or not, and as you've mentioned Hitler and Stalin didn't "deserve" Heaven, they were downright evil people, and will likely burn in Hell. But alas, this is just my Christian opinion, probably not true in every aspect, but what i percieve it as.

So you have the ability to answer this post so easily, yet other philosophers (that have doctorates in philosophy) struggle to come up with a dismal answer?

The argument doesn't really argue whether the world "will be (in the future)" perfect or not, it argues that since God is perfect, then everything he creates is perfect, yet this world isn't perfect (doesn't matter if it will be in the future) and since it isn't perfect, then there was no perfect God to create it. This argument states (in present-tense) that either God isn't perfect, or there is no God.

Btw, i use the term "deserve" loosely, since no one really deserves Heaven or Hell.

I'm sure Hitler is more than qualified for a couple thousand laps around the lake of fire.

At 12/14/04 08:37 AM, -Gooie- wrote: Great job, guys!

</emo> Plz?

At 12/13/04 07:34 AM, -poxpower- wrote:

At 12/13/04 04:08 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: How does the path say that? What if the path says "you will meet John" and all of a sudden John dies? The path has changed. That goes to show that the path is always changing, it's not set.

Its sortof of a "if it happened, it was supposed to" argument. Like, if John die, then you weren't supposed to meet him in the first place, and since you can't prove he was supposed to meet your or not, well whatever happens is what is supposed to happen, and the proof that leads to believe this is scientifical determinism :o

That's just like saying "oh I knew you were gonna make a witty response, yeah roll your eyes, mhm, walk away, yeah flip me off." You're just saying that everything that happened was going to happen in the first place, but there is no way to anticipate to such a level what a person will do. I'm starting to think this argument is going to run in circles if we keep it up.

yup that's pretty much it :o Since whatever you do is determined on an atomic level anyways. And since you'll just make the most logical choice anyways.

Yes but atoms don't follow logic, they follow the laws of molecular and atomic physics, we follow the laws of what we know, of rationalle, and of logic.

Like, have you ever had one of those dreams that predict the future?

Yes and No. I've dreamt certain places that I will be, but the decision is always blank. Furthermore, when I look back on my dreams, I know that I would do something different in real life what anything I do in them, because I'm in a different state of mind and most of the time in my dreams... I tend to just plain act stupid.

Its like.. crazy. No matter what you try, you'll always do things rationaly.

Nope. Sometimes my actions don't seem rational to me at all.

Yes but the protocol and coding is much too different >.<

no, not really :o
Its just that so far, we're much more complex, but at the base, we're similar. VERY similar.

How do I think in binary? You might want to argue that it's the Neurons going on and off at certain times in certain ways with one another, but that's not necesarily binary... I think I see where you're getting though.

you don't get my point :o You just do it because you want to live, and you'll feel discomfort at the time of the non-doing of it, same as a smoker will feel discomfort while trying to quit, hence why most people can't quit.

*Gasp* I get your point now that you explained it :P however, the smoker (at least most smokers) is aware that if he/she/it ceases to smoke, it won't end the smoker's life. If you do stop defacating though, you die, regardless of discomfort or not, the smoker should know that lung cancer can be quite uncomfortable once the symptoms get harsh and that brown teeth aren't necesarily a turn on in every part of the world.

They have a physical and mental need to smoke IN THE PRESENT, so its their "will" against the smokes, and depending on the person, they'll light up or quit.

Yes, once again this goes back to my argument that different people have different forms of will and that they have the freedom (or at least the knowledge) to make a choice.

Keep in mind that there are many idiots out there that do things without even considering the future.

so?
that makes their choices illogical to you? Or what? :o

Extremely illogical, that's not logic, it's a lack of logic.

anyways I had 5 hours of sleep and now I must type 2 "term papers" haha. But they are easy :o

Pfft :P I'm done with my schoolin' for this year. I go back Jan2 though -.- G'luck with your finals.

At 12/13/04 04:34 PM, Damien3003 wrote: In nature, the weaker species/organisms die. Humans can fix that, if we choose to. It doesn't make GE right, or wrong. But it does make it superior to nature's blind, simple approach.

True that Damien. Genetic Engineering would most-certainly change the statement of "only the strong survive" but then again, genetically engineering someone would be essentially making them stronger, or at least better in some way, to the statement partially holds true.

At 12/14/04 07:39 AM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote: So alone.

Psh, that's almost every night on the BBS for me, and every day n' night IRL for me. >:P don't look so glum, you're better off than I am.

At 12/13/04 07:19 AM, -Gooie- wrote:

At 12/13/04 03:51 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote: Glad to see we're keeping our maturity at healthy levels. >.>

This coming from a Toadie >:)

It's not a toad it's a Frog >.< And that's MR.FROG to you, bub.

At 12/13/04 11:57 PM, JusticeofSarcasm wrote:

Best Reg

Maus

Worst Reg

Gooie (for bashing on me when I first arrived at the lounge) >:P I still <3 ya bro.

Biggest Spammer

Damien3003 (too many consecutive posts)

Biggest Attention Whore

Erm... *reads rules "no self nominationf"* er... BeFell (with his damn bear suits)

Best n00b trap

The Illegalize Masturbation thread.

At 12/12/04 04:59 PM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: Time can be as big a dividor as distance... this could be the best of all-possible worlds in the future. The bible, as I was taught by Brother David Barth, my Exegesis professor, was not to be taken entirely literally.

Of course the bible isn't to be taken literally, or else the book of Apocalypse would be impossible to make sense out of because the bible (especially that book) is chuck-full of symbolism and metaphors. Seriously though I'm going to have to ask my Critical Thinking professor about that out come of Eden though, because I think that could be one way to come dismaly close to solving this argument.

At 12/12/04 12:17 PM, -poxpower- wrote:

At 12/12/04 03:56 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

Ugh I'll try to answer this on just 3.5 hrs of sleep -.-

How does one know the path says you will choose that?

no one can.
We can't even predict how 2 particles will act, it'll be pretty hard to figure out how someone, who is made of trillions of particles, will act :p

Yet we do, through psychology we can guage a person's reaction and anticipate what their response or following reaction(s) to certain things will be.

Different people might influence you and change the course of your decisions from the one you would have originally made according to the path.

yes, but the path says I'll meet these people. That's the whole point of fate, is everything that happens was "supposed to". Well now that's physical faith, observable and logicaly most likely correct, but since we can't predict it, its for all practicles uses pretty useless.

How does the path say that? What if the path says "you will meet John" and all of a sudden John dies? The path has changed. That goes to show that the path is always changing, it's not set.

The train can't "choose" to stay on the tracks, it has to get off because it has hit something that does not allow it to go any further.

its a shitty analogy

yea it IS a shitty analogy, but I just decided to go along with it, since you proposed it :/

How is that not random?

Once again you state that every choice we make "will be the most logical one" but you have to keep in mind that not everyone has the same sense of logic, thus choices will differ.

nope, still doesn't work. If you have a poor sense of logic, the choices you make will still seem the most logical to you.

Yes but how is that not a way of free will, if one resides on their own knowledge that they have independently collected through their life? Do you mean to tell me that making an educated choice or guess by exercising your thoughts and knowledge isn't the use of free will?

You also state that such a way of logic is "just like a computer" however, I don't recall hearing myself think in binary code... unless you can somehow scientifically prove that we think in binary code or C++ or Java, or some other program.

We think with atoms and quarks n' shit, same as computers and rocks and everything. We're all the same base elements :o And logicaly, we do work like computers.

Yes but the protocol and coding is much too different >.<

The smokers know that quitting is the most-logical thing, yet they can't do it.

They are physicaly addicted, like when when you take a shit.

Listen bro, if defacating was an addiction, I would have quit a long time ago k? It's a necesity, something that you need to do to live, like you said in regards to sleep. You can not-smoke and live, believe me, I'm not a smoker and I'm very much alive.

people that are forced to stick to doing something and can't choose to do anything else.

omg stop breathing you poor non-free will person

You have no other choice in that matter, it's a way of living, like sleeping or defacating.

or they continue smoking (which they percieve as the least-logical thing to do).

in the LONG run they perceive it as so, but remember that choices are in the present. So every choice you make, you have to think of the future, but in the present, its the most logical thing you'll do

Keep in mind that there are many idiots out there that do things without even considering the future.

Glad to see we're keeping our maturity at healthy levels. >.>

At 12/12/04 04:03 AM, BeFell wrote: I found out that my copy of AH arrived yesterday but my girlfriend isn't going to give it to me until Christmas.=(

You're talking about the game when you say "give it to me" right? Because she isn't supposed to remove your special mormon undergarnments yet, right?

I think she's holding it hostage to ensure that I do indeed buy the ring.

Omg teh one ring to rule them all! No but seriously, you getting engaged bro? Or is she just hustling you for your cheese?
Btw don't stress over the game, you'll beat it in a few hours or so. It's that damn PDA minigame that's addictive with multi-players. I want a damn Pico beat em' up-type game (like Final Fight, or Streets of Rage) >.< *emails Tom in hopes that he gets some response or result.*

At 12/12/04 12:34 AM, AntiangelicAngel wrote: Maybe the world isn't ready yet, and it will be ready.

This little statement was wat caught my attention. The rest is just random propositions but this one started an epiphany. If this argument is based on the christian God, then this is the answer my friend. You unknowingly answered this argument (only if it's about the christian God, not about a "god" then you didn't do much) because the bible states that the perfect world would be the new Eden, which we are not living in, thus this is not the best of all-possible worlds, and we have yet to get there.

At 12/11/04 08:54 AM, TheShrike wrote: Maybe God had a hangover that day

Hmm, are you implying that God goes binge drinking?

At 12/11/04 11:39 AM, FUNKbrs wrote: Define good. I think ice cream is pretty good, but there are vegans who would tell you icecream tortures cows and funds south american oppression.

You are using a fallacy of equivocation in regards to the word "good." You can clarify what you meant by good in order for the fallacy to go away. From what you said, it seems like you think Ice Cream is "good" in the sense that it tastes good and it makes your day. From the perspective of the vegans, they say ice cream is bad through the process in which it is created. The word "good" is applied in two different ways FunkehBro.

From the perpspective of God, the world IS perfect.

If you mean it is perfect now, that is questionable because you don't know God. Unless you can pinpoint that somewhere in the bible.

At 12/11/04 12:26 PM, -poxpower- wrote: So then, whatever I do, its all perfect, right?
Like, if I kill you, torture you, kill all the Jews and Blacks, do everything that is wrong, then its all God's will, and its perfect.

Thank you Pox for vicariously bringing another good point to my previous argument (above.)

At 12/11/04 12:28 PM, -poxpower- wrote: hence why nothing shoudl be based on God.
Face it, we can't see him, prove him, OR understand him.

He's COMPLETELY useless as a concept :o

That's an appeal to ignorance because you can't prove that he doesn't exist either. For the sake of the argument, let's assume that there is a God (a christian God) somewhere, out there.

At 12/11/04 01:34 PM, TheShrike wrote:

At 12/11/04 01:12 PM, NotYouZ wrote: Then where does Satin come in?

I prefer silk, actually.

Likewise.

In Christian mythology, Satan was originally an angel. CREATED BY GOD! =O

According to the Mormon religion (related to christianity) Satan (not satin) was created as a brother to Jesus. If this is so, then wouldn't it seem somewhat believable that perhaps Satan and Jesus were God's way of keeping things "balanced?"

At 12/11/04 09:40 AM, specimen56 wrote: 1) Why must god be good? Why can god not be neutral, surely that would make more sense, possible of good and evil?

That's the same question I ask myself. And I find that to be the only possible answer: that perhaps God does good things and allows bad things to happen to have a sort of "balance" that only he/she/it can describe.

2) Is it not possible to say that all things in this world are both good and evil to someone somewhere. To Hitler, his actions were not evil, so therefore a clear-cut black and white idea of good and evil is beyond contemplation. Life is circumstancial (sp).
So under closer scruteny your argument holds no water. Unless your talking about the christian God, in which case you need to look at a wider scope and recognise that theres more than one religion.

I'm sorry, this argument was created based on the God of the christian religion, or Jehova. Just in case anyone was confused about that, I'm sorry to anyone of a different religion if this confused you.

At 12/12/04 02:25 AM, -poxpower- wrote: First off, we find out if we're truly geneticaly completely nuts and prone to killing each other until the end of time, and then we just modify our genes so we're not complete assholes anymore.

I don't think whether you're an asshole or not depends entirely on your genetics. Your experiences in life and how you are treated by others plays a large part in character-development.

At 12/11/04 12:21 PM, -poxpower- wrote:

At 12/11/04 08:23 AM, EnragedSephiroth wrote:

Thus, it follows that human beings move around in the only way that they could move around, and so it seems that human beings do not have free will."

what Steve would say: "I think its pretty sad you have that outlook on life, because its sad for some reason to admit the truth : ("

What I say: The truth on this issue is rather objective depending on the person. Even whether it's objective or not is objective itself, once again, depending on the person.

we are free to choose which ever one we want, regardless of whether it is based on logic or not.

o.o
how can you not link the previous statements to this one? We're just a bunch of frickin dust. Your choices are all virtual, because in the end, you'll choose the ONLY thing that the path says you will, wether you believe you have a choice between cake or death.
You can't trick maths.

How does one know the path says you will choose that? You have to keep in mind that there are anomalies in life. Different people might influence you and change the course of your decisions from the one you would have originally made according to the path. The way I see it: the path is constantly changing, being layed out by you inch by inch with every choice that you make, it's not an already-paved road for you. I can vouch for this since I'm at a cross-roads at my life right now and I have to choose whether I go to school or join the work force. What do I do? I do both because it seems most logical to me, of course, but it also seems more logical to other people to drop out and be unemployed and get stoned and be losers rather than try to succeed, however, it should not imply that had they (the losers) been affected by some anomaly (by another person influincing them or changing their views, for example a "good" role model) that they'd still be in the same state of their lives because their logic would have been altered and they chould change the path they were originaly set on.

As for your statement that "you can't trick maths" no one is saying you can trick it, but what I do want to ask is how can you mathematically prove this?

regardless of whether they do it out of logic or not, they have the freedom to decide.

well that's like saying a train has a choice to get off his tracks. No it doesn't, its ON THE DAMN TRACKS. Its like a train moving trough fog, yo don't see the tracks, but you'll always be on them.

A train is not alive, but for the sake of an example, I will play along to your statement of the train: keep in mind that anomalies do occur and there could be an entire herd of cows laying on the tracks, thus derailing the train (given that the train plows into them) thus resulting in the train going off the tracks. The train can't "choose" to stay on the tracks, it has to get off because it has hit something that does not allow it to go any further.

a choice does not imply free will, because the end result will follow the path, the ONLY path of this Universe. And you can't even pick something at random. No one can do that. There is NO random in the Universe :o So every choice you'll make will be the most logical one, exactly like a computer.

What do you mean? Anyone can close their eyes if they're faced with multiple options and just point at a random direction while spinning without knowing where they're gonna point at. How is that not random? So you say that "there is no random in the universe" omfg teh questionable premise x.x extremely questionable I should add, especially when it comes to living things. Once again you state that every choice we make "will be the most logical one" but you have to keep in mind that not everyone has the same sense of logic, thus choices will differ. You also state that such a way of logic is "just like a computer" however, I don't recall hearing myself think in binary code... unless you can somehow scientifically prove that we think in binary code or C++ or Java, or some other program.

You can't make the least logical choice, its NOT possible. Whatever you'll do, it'll seem to you like the most logical thing and the best decision to make at that precise moment.

So it's the most-logical thing for smokers that are trying to quit, to not be able to quit? The smokers know that quitting is the most-logical thing, yet they can't do it. Those kinds of people state that they just don't have "the will" to do it, and it is exactly those kinds of people that don't have "free will", people that are forced to stick to doing something and can't choose to do anything else. Those kinds of people admit (the ones that are honestly trying hard to quit) are the ones that are trying to make the most-logical choice but instead continue to make the least-logical choice, thus this proves (at least to a certain degree) that it is possible to not make the least-logical choice. I must also add that it is the least-logical choice because they only have two choices in this scenario, either they quit smoking (which they percieve as the logical thing to do) or they continue smoking (which they percieve as the least-logical thing to do). Keep in mind that this only applies to people who are honestly trying to quit, and admit it.

One more thing Maus. I just saw your beloved Scizzor Sisters on SNL a minute ago. Honestly, I thought the lead singer from Velvet Revolver was effeminate, the dude from SS tops him tenfold, he even has the female-ish voice to boot. I noticed the only girl (person with no y chromosone) in the band was a bit... bulky? I think she's pregnant. Anyway, yeah, nice band :P a bit too cheery for my taste, but I could so-picture you listening to them with your trademark Maus smile.

At 12/11/04 11:45 AM, Maus wrote: AH! Found it! This is how I signed everything when I was in High School. LOL, an art fag is me. :o

o.o how cute! Maybe too cute >.>... nah that's about right.

I bring to you an argument that has continuously vexed many philosophers for ages. You may look this argument up in books, or you can google it. Let me know if you find a clear answer to it. Let me know if you spot anything seriously questionable in it as well.

The Problem of Evil:

"If this world is not the best of all possible worlds, then there is no God who created this world, for if there were a God then he would be all-good and all-powerful, and anything created by an all-good, all-powreful God would be as good as it could possibly be. But it is obvious that this world is not the best of all possible worlds, because it contains people like Adolph Hitler and Stalin. Therefore, it follows that there is no God who created this world."

Pox. Smart man, smart topic. I recently heard a similar argument in my critical thinking class. Allow me to share:

"The world is made up of a bunch of tiny particles. Moreover, there is no element of chance in the way that these particles move around- -they bounce around according to completely deterministic laws of motion, just like little billiard balls. Therefore, these particles move around in the only way that they could move around, given the laws of motion. But everything in the universe is made up of these tiny particles, and so it is true of everything in the universe that it moves around in the only way that it could move around. Thus, it follows that human beings move around in the only way that they could move around, and so it seems that human beings do not have free will."

Alright. If I may try to disect your essential argument, you are stating that everything that we do is not out of free will. You have given admittable reasons why, however, you did not consider that when we are faced with situations with multiple choices, we are free to choose which ever one we want, regardless of whether it is based on logic or not. Even if it seems more logical to the person to choose to, let's say, drink coke, that should not suggest that there are other alternatives, like if the person could choose between sprite, coke, or pepsi. The person would find it more logical to drink coke probably because they like coke, or like you said, they could do something else, like drink a sprite, just to prove someone else wrong, which is also a decision made out of logic. But these situations don't portray that there isn't another choice, the person does have choices, they can choose to drink one of the sodas, or none of them at all if they wanted to, in the end the choice is in their hands, regardless of whether they do it out of logic or not, they have the freedom to decide.

At 12/11/04 02:56 AM, ursamajour wrote: Once you're engaged, you must see it through to the finish. I was against the war, but we are engaged.

Whoops I thought you said Enraged.

But no seriously Rooster you make it sound as if liberals don't want the U.S. to succeed in Iraq. Of course I want the U.S. to succeed or "win" the war (in my point of view) but I don't think that it's a war they should have gone into in the first place. But hey, they started something so now they better finish it, they can't leave the work half-assed finished.

At 12/10/04 07:33 AM, ReiperX wrote: Sometimes, to make mistakes is human, sometimes we do make mistakes, but at the same time I believe that sometimes the things we create are superior to natures in many ways. But like all things, there are pros and cons with everything.

In a lot of cases (especially those regarding politics) there is a bad side to something good. I believe the reason some man-made things are "superior" to nature's things is because of our(humans') ability to get things done so quickly, whereas with nature it takes centuries upon centuries of slightly altering gene-endings or killing off a species and replacing it with another in order to get things done.

At 12/10/04 10:42 AM, Maus wrote: I'm not a liberal, sweets. :)

Regardless of what you are in terms of politics, you're still a great and intelligent person (as far as I've read).

But I'm not a man, either. :\

Win some, lose some.

Aye. I was half-right, and half-wrong, it balances out... I hope.