JaKiri

Not necessarily. They do not necessarily not have dimension, we just haven't measured any, and it makes sense for them to be point mass/charges. Forget everything from ABHOT. Read The Elegant Universe by Brain Greene instead. The particles size is effectively measured by their mass, as that dictates how 'spread out' they are by quantum uncertainty. Whether they have actual dimension is neither here nor there; that they don't is a personal conjecture, not actual theory, but it makes sense.

Yah. Since when was murder irrespective of the individuality of the murdered? Most murder, especially domestic, is based entirely around the individuality of the murdered.

I wanted to be the first to post this. God it's great.

It's not only irrelevent, it's also not particularly true. The only murder I can think of that the murdered's individuality isn't relevent is a robbery related one.

Thomas Jefferson didn't oppose slavery, yet supported 'Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'. Anyway, going back to your origional point... Does the state have the right to torture suspects? Do we have the right to intervene in cases such as state sponsored genocide? The people there were members of the state, and therefore submitted their fundamental rights to it. Your statement proposes a state with no boundaries of morality; is that what you meant to do?

"Resolved, that the inhabitants of this Province are unalienably entitled to those essential rights ["founded in the law of God and of Nature"] in common with all men: and that no law of society can, consistent with the law of God and nature, divest them of those rights." We can quote contradictory things from pre C20 american politics all day long.

If we're gaining CO2 due to loss of photosynthesis, the main reason for that is the pollution of the oceans which reduces the level of photosynthetic life in them.

Methinks Europe is a good counterexample to your 'citizens need guns' thang.

Revenge, and emotions in general, aren't a good basis for a system of governance.

I can count the available DVD games on the fingers of one hand. Many games still come on one CD. What's to stop them putting games on multiple DVDs? Your statement is factually inaccurate, methinks.

Indeed.

Assuming it is correct is an opinion. In your face, sayo

Paradigm the synergy.

I'm not an expert in evolutionary theory, but as far (and my source for this information) as I am aware, monkeys are a different evolutionary branch.

It doesn't appear to have any testable variants from the normal theory, and in every way we can measure the universe is fairly regular.

Yes.

We didn't come from monkeys. We came from apes. There's a significant difference. [edit] To quote 'National Geographic' magazine: WAS DARWIN WRONG? NO

Shock as 'easier discoveries made first'. It doesn't mean the scope of possible knowledge is any lest vast, or that innovation and discovery are slowing down.

Can you respond to my post please?

One of the origins of scientific method was with trying to find a philosophical validation for god. That doesn't mean that science is religion. Mathematics, and logic, are entirely abstract entities. ENTIRELY. Whatever issues you may have with their application, they are not based in measurement, but on axiom. Mathematics is correct for its set of axioms. If you disagree with one of the axioms, then you're just making a different mathematics. Oh, and re- apple =! apple... what if the only property you are measuring is that it can be referred to as an apple? Surely then any given apple = any other, or indeed the same, given apple, since the only properties you can compare are that they are, in fact, apples? Space and time are not absolutes. This has been empirically proved over and over and over again. Daymare, you're arguing with invalid technical and philosophical arguments.

Of course not; any other course would be inconsistent. You equate prison with the death penalty; however, the freedom of the state is a right provided by the state. Life is not. To put it another way; does the state define what you can do or what you can't? I don't think the boundaries are as clear cut as you think. There's the obvious inference of hypocriticality, but I, by and large, haven't found that in this case.

You're confusing 'time' with 'things'. I have a book from 1943, it doesn't mean it's 1943 where the book is.