-Demosthenes-

So fossils have uraniums and stuff in them?

Ah, for some reason I was under the impression that carbon dating was the main idea used to date fossils.

I've gotten it a lot on the main page, I just have to refresh and then it comes up.

I actually laugh out loud

Are you going to college? If you do then you can take a bunch of different classes, decide what you like, and change you're major around a few times. Sounds like a good plan eh?

Of course, I might brandish a gun if an intruder was in the house, or maybe shoot at him. I was thinking about places outside the house though... with old people in Florida with guns... shooting scary strangers... It was scary

Hey, I don't think I've gotten any for a while. Has anyone else's stopped?

I'd have to agree with AL. I'm mostly pro-gun owning, but you should always be responsible for what you do, and this law sounds like it could make you less responsible for the people you shoot I'm curious, what were the criteria before for a situation where you can shoot someone?

Regardless, humans can prevent this, and can make ethical decisions, and according to the "animals feel pain" and "interest in continued existence" arguments the animal should be saved, right? Of course not, but killing a an animal painlessly is ethical under your first "pain" argument (animals should not be killed because they feel pain), althought it could be against the second part of the argument (the interest in continued existence part). Most of these things don't matter as much if the animals is aware. An animal can feel pain and still not be sentient and aware. If all pain is a response to something meant to entice a reaction in an instinct driven animal, then it doesn't seem like avoiding that pain would be as important. Human beings are sentient and aware, and understand pain. They can fear pain, and are completely aware of what it is. There is little evidence to suggest that other animals understand pain in the same way, it's just a response. Aside from the vague patronization which I won't pretend that I don't completely enjoy , you said: ...and I was just saying that people don't experiment on mentally retarded infants because of sentimental value, just as you wouldn't experiment on a pet because of sentimental value, although I did go a little bit off the topic the post I responded to. I have great respect for your (In My Memory) views and opinions, and I've had fun talking about and debating them. This has been one of my favorite threads and I have enjoyed it immensely, and I hope it continues for a least a little while longer.

"I don't agree" "Well we should agree to disagree" "Na, I'll just shoot ya in the sholder"

Before you argument was that animals feel pain, now it's about taking life. There is a problem with the second argument, according to it's logic you shouldn't kill any life: plant, protist, or mold. So, according to your "animals feel pain" argument, they shouldn't be allowed to suffer (but they can be killed painlessly). And in you other argument ("life is important") you can't kill any life. What you have tried to do is blend them together and take parts from both that you like, but in reality you must choose one, because they contradict each other. Again, this means nothing if the animal is not aware. Because no one will use a mentally retarded infant in experiments. It's not a question about "mental level". Just as someone won't experiment on their pet dog or cat, no one would ever do that to an infant. I won't hurt a pet bird, but a chicken that has the same "mental level" I would eat.

Yeah, it's much safer to buy from a bigger more well known company. We found our old PS2 this summer in the back of a closet. We hadn't played it in a while (we got an xbox ) and when we hooked it up it didn't work. We called up Sony, and they said to send it in, so they could "fix it". Well I guess they gave up, because the box that came back had a brand new PS2 in it My Phillips DMM mp3 player (which was a piece of crap) had the lithium batter die after like four months. I called the company and there was nothing they could do! So I got an ipod

This is fun

Sounds vaguely painful though...

It's simply not true that we know that. It may be that infants are learning how to use their brains at first, and cannot show observable signs of intelligence. It's terribly hard to observe someone's intelligence when they haven't had enough experience to use it. Who has proven this? Come on, be serious. Let's. Both animals and plants have observable responses to harmful stimuli. But what if it is? You measure all morality on levels of pain? Using this philosophy it is better for something to die than feel any pain, better for children never to be born, and for people to never exist. Regardless' date=' a Disney film-maker would not be able to round up random [i']humans, film them walking around in a snowy landscape, and then herd them off a cliff, where they go willingly and mindlessly (like the lemmings). It doesn't really matter if it's fake, they're just as mindless either way. Exactly, animals may be able to feel pain, but there is no evidence that they are aware in any way. Pain is just a response to stimuli to entice the animal to avoid harmful things. Without awareness you got nothing. Your opinion of an infant being unaware is justifiable, but children being unaware is silly. I've been around a lot of children, and a 3 year old can be just as aware. They communicate as well, and are not much different from other people (relatively).

Thats all they can do, this isn't star trek

You're point is valid reguardless, the lemmings gave little resistance to being herded off a cliff

So maybe it's mostly based on personal morals and beliefs, but there are still potential negatives.

It's partly question or morality. Whether you think it's wrong or not. I assure you, there are a lot of people who find it quite disgusting. It's harmful to relationships, it's addictive, and frankly very offesive to many people.

I'd like to point out that zooplankton and worms (of any kind) are neither cute nor cuddly, and are therefore unprotected. Lemmings do not jump off of cliffs, this is a myth started by a disney film maker that herded a bunch of lemmings off a cliff, taped it, and put it in a nature film (I've seen it, it's quite funny). But they are stupid enough to jump off with very little coaxing.

I'd have to agree with Skye, we don't really care about fish, arthropods, or other "ugly" animals. People tend to like the cute furry animals. No one ever mentions fishing, which I would think would be the most traumatic even for any animal. No one really cares, they're scaly, and ugly. But we can't eat cows or pigs? I've caught and gutted a fish, but I couldn't stomach doing the same to a furry mammal. Or destroyed by the fact that no one would care if you did that to a fish. OF course people would care if you did something like that to a dog' date=' they're cute and furry. Unlike difference in race (where there might have a different shade of skin), there are real difference between Humans and other spices. Again, while a women is just a capable as a man, animals aren't. There are inherent difference between people and animals. You're trying to appeal to feminism and bring women to your side. It was needed to get the constitution ratified, many of the constitutional framers were against slavery (some like Jefferson owned slaves, and wrote how it was evil, mostly later in life). It was a moral sacrifice, but many Northerners thought it could die a "natural death" with the clause that they got the Southern delegates to agree to: the 20 years Compromise, where the Atlantic Slave trade would stop in 1808 (20 years later). This was largely unenforced (under Jefferson), but slavery was dying. Slavery wasn't profitable any more with tobacco prices falling. Then in the early 1800's cotton prices boomed (thanks in part to Ely Whitney and the cotton gin) and slavery boomed also. I'm not trying to defend the framers of the Constitution, but it was far more complicated than what people think, most people knew that slavery was dying, they put clauses in the constitution and planned for it's eventual demise. And it probably could have died quite easily if it weren't for the cotton boom. Who has proven this? Who has proven this?

That helps alot doesn't it?

I realize that humans are animals, but seriously, we can talk (not just because we have a larynx), we can socialize in a way that no other animal has rivaled, we can philosophize, and so many other things. Humans can do things that other animals lack the ability to even to even comprehend. Human beings have created religion and government, produced Mozart and Newton. I think it can quite easily said that the Human is more than a species apart.

What are soft movements... what?