Sayonara

Bah.

If we are going to go on to find ways of behaving decently, then it isn't inescapable. I would argue we have the capacity to move on now. Just not, perhaps, the group inclination. Which is a very sad thing.

Are we all eventually doomed?

I'm not sure exactly where the problem lies.

In both cases the relationship seems to be one of equivalency.

Before anyone posts a whole new thread for it, "yes". And no, it wasn't me. And yes, I know this thread's locked.

I don't recall Ophiolite making any claims about volume...?

If anyone has received offensive or threatening PMs from Plankman (AKA Artorius), please forward them to myself or Blike. We have almost enough material to take his behaviour up with his ISP, and with his place of work/study (from which he connected to this site, so their [acr=Use of Internet Services]UIS[/acr] Policy will apply.)

Also, neither topic gets enough posts on its own to justify a devoted forum. It's not meant to suggest they are related or inter-dependent fields.

Historically, homosexuality has not really been a big deal. In fact it was a completely normal every-day thing in many cultures. There are very few societies that actually did make a big deal over it at any time. You used the words "throughout history", implying an ongoing and consistent aversion that simply was never there. Regardless, I'm not sure I see what any of that has to do with homosexuality being "wrong". When you originally asked, you used the words "same sex affection" - were you referring to sex?

I'm off to bed now, so sorry for reducing your argument down to this one phrase (although it does seem to be the jist of it.) I'm saying that that is a problem, and as usual for the purposes of convenience people fall back on it without consideration for the wider ramifications. That's the part I object to. Appealing to common practice doesn't change the fact that subjectivity can spoil as well as save. Imagine there are two people you have never met before who, for whatever reason, are fighting to the death. They both have their reasons for valuing their life over the other's. Now you come along and see them struggling. Which one will you help? Will you make that choice? If not, why not? If there is only a subjective scale for valuing life, then surely it's just as valid to shoot them both, or walk away giggling, as it is to help either one of them. Is that the society we live in? If it is, then you can see why I might have a problem with that.

I'm not a mathematician, but it gave me a few chuckles (and groans).

There was an original post?

I'm not really sure it would be faster. Consider: Traditional husbandry Bull -> Sperm -> Squirty thing -> Pregnant females Cloning Husbandry Bull -> Sperm -> Horrendously expensive batch processes -> Artificial fertilisation -> Delicate transport procedure -> Implantation of ova in females -> 1 in 1,000 females pregnant with something that will live past a year.

After they've already reduced the needs of the group to a best-bet set of numbers. Loyalty doesn't actually make a life more valuable though, does it? Saying that someone is likely to prefer one person over another has nothing to do with the actual value of those two people's lives. Which is the root of the problem. His ideology may be our enemy. His methods may be our enemy. His life is not (in fact, that wouldn't even make sense.) You argued against the main points and came to the same conclusion. How... perfectly freakish.

For a start, it is not factually correct that nothing leaves a black hole. Hand-waving with "just forget the stuff that leaves them" doesn't work without some damned good evidence.

But to say that this means that they are more willing to let them suffer is a non sequitur. Be careful - you are blending the concept of life as "a quality of the living" with the concept of life as is "possessed by the individual". The difference is that one is a continuous measure, the other occurs in discrete units. When I talk about life being sacred, I am referring to the former. Whether or not Joe Bloggs would rather Dave the burglar lost his life (discrete) than him lose his own is not in any direct way related to the value of the life (continuous) in question - it's simply natural tendencies towards self-preservation. See above. I don't mean to imply any artificial constraints; I am simply surprised that you do not have a more 'Christian' (for want of a better word, sorry ) view. Some do, some do not. There is no absolute measure that can be applied to all prisoners in the penal system. However, we can be assured that someone who is going to be interrogated will likely receive intense measures of deep anguish. To be fair, reports of his confession were released after you wrote the post to which I was responding, so you escaped answering my issues there. I understand that. My problem is that it just goes to highlight exactly how much suffering we are prepared to cause for our own convenience. So not "if they blew up their own citizens they would be terrorists", but "they wouldn't do that because they would then be terrorists". Whut? I am primarily asking you if it's okay for them to blow up Canadians, and expect not to be interrogated, under the given circumstances.

Especially if they're actually holding a gun to a hostage at the time.

Had you posted the content of reply #51 I'd understand why you might feel exasperated, but #44 is a little vague and, to be honest, non-committal.

Hence the use of "afaik", because I'm pretty sure I can't read everything that's ever been written. [edit] And I don't think disregarding "Portugal. Coastal cave. Hominid remains with mixed sapiens and neanderthalis features. According to some. And not to others.. ...Need to google" is particularly sigh-worthy either.

You have added nothing to this discussion. Well done.

You didn't take that poisonous drivel seriously did you?

I'm not arguing with you, I'm just pointing out you can't really blame someone else for your shaky faith. By definition, it's personal to you.

"Enhance"?