Callipygous

not quite. its more like the decision should be based on what is best for society. thats not necessarily whether the member is productive, but whether they are detrimental to overall societal health to the point where it is worth the time, effort, and money to remove them. also, whether or not it is possible to remedy the individuals flaws so they can be beneficial in the future.

if hes running xp he doesnt have dos running underneath. to get to dos on a computer with xp you have to have a floppy or harddrive with dos on it. dos doesnt work with NTFS so thats out too. 1 sec seems a bit fast, but if its a quick format it didnt actually write over the whole disk, it just marked the entire disk as empty. if you dont care about file security and windows says the disk is empty then i wouldnt worry about it. if you really feel like wiping it you can boot from your windows install cd and one of the first things it will show you is a screen for formatting your partitions. figure out which letter is the one you dont need and tell it to format that partition. (or, like he said, just dont do the quick partition)

obviously not since the whole point of the post is that ending any life is a more complicated and serious action than people should ever make. im aware that you are joking about offing your children but you seem to be making fun of my post by saying your going to get rid of them because you have decided they are holding you back. the point is that you cant decide. that post focusses on the human side of killing. as for killing the chicken, in the human side of it an exception would be in self defense. that member of society is 1. violating the rules himself, and 2. ending your life in the process. killing him and letting him kill you both involve the code of conduct being broken, you are entitled to make it end in your favor. when you kill the chicken to eat it you are doing it so that you can survive. we have no one above (in a judge-esque position) to decide if the chicken or the human should get to live that day, so it goes down to the same situation as selfdefense, where both fight for their survival and only one gets it.

ill give it a shot mustang... our society has a set the limit for "sexually mature" at 18 years old. evolution has installed a totally different and incompatible measurement system in every guy. according to that system, if a girl is sexually arousing shes ready. if a girl has full breasts at the age of 13 the second head doesnt care about her actual age, evolution has programmed it to see that as a woman who is capable of feeding a child, and therefor ready to mate. make up generally makes girls more attractive, its the same issue. which one is the "main problem" isnt really answerable. i would have to go on a case by case basis for that one. basically the message is dont let your 13 year old act and dress like shes ready for action (dont cut off her breasts either though).

i dont really give a da.. about the ten commandments. part of understanding what im saying probably requires you to know something about my beliefs. im an athiest, i believe there is no god and that people invented him to explain things they didnt have the science to understand. the bible was written by people who were far ahead of there time and thought that the world would be a better place for everyone and that they and everyone else would prosper if people followed a certain code of moral conduct. ie everyone is happier and more productive if they arent getting robbed and raped and murdered. so they wrote this code of conduct that they believed would make the world an easier place for everyone if only they could get people to follow it. but how do you get someone to obey? people act based on there own best interest, most people at that time arent highminded enough to understand their actual reason for following this code of conduct and people will simply pretend to go along with it and then abuse the system by not following it them selves because they think everyone else will obey and so there will be no return fire. so how to convince people to do this? they attached personal benefit to following their rules. "if you dont do what this book says to the best of your ability each and every day then the supreme ruler of the universe (who, by the way, is the one telling us all of this) will banish you to a fiery pit for all of eternity where your existence will be nothing but suffering and torture for ever and ever and ever amen." now people will do what they say because there is a punishment associated with not believing. on to my next point: the average person is a dunderhead. they decided that, yes, there are people that are not productive members of society and are probably detrimental to overall progress. however, leaving that judgement to the average, emotionally charged, self interest driven, shmuck is not going to work very well. people are going to get mad at the productive members of society and kill off some people we could actually use. so well tell them that they have no right to take lives, but well enstate a person (a judge) to determine which people are a detriment to society. hell be impartial and he will try to make the correct decisions about who is best for societal progress because doing so will be in his best interest (because well pay him for it). so, in summary, killing is wrong because you are a dunderhead who doesnt have the perspective, motivation, or liscence, to decide whether killing that person is right or not. such decisions are left to specific people because it is not something people as a whole should tamper with. you harm society as a whole and thus you harm yourself. its wrong.

yes. its been a while since biology, but i believe it has to do with the strand of DNA splitting and then which half actually goes and pairs with the egg. someone more grounded in this wanna clarify?

this made me laugh. the entire discussion is about "what is the moral high ground in this situation?"

no offense, but i dispise that kind of logic. say what you think, not what will make people happy. especially since here you have nothing to lose. the problem here is that no one is "pro abortion". there isnt anyone out there saying "yeah, lets kill the little bastards!" however there are people who say that a womans rights are more important than that blob of cells thats only been around for a month. saying "pro abortion" is like saying "anti life" thats not what it is. "pro choice" really is the best discription because its not that you WANT babies to be aborted, its that you think the mother should have the right to decide. i absolutely disagree. quite frankly im somewhat insulted, just because of this part: "kill the other side in a war". comparing what soldiers do for their country to the holocaust and slavery is pretty disgusting in my opinion. i can go into the details of exactly why if you want but i dont think its quite related to this thread. i dont think its the same thing. once again, its not that the thing doesnt deserve to live, its that the mothers rights are more important at that stage.

you said because they cant reach "ddt"? whats that?

[hide] WAS IT A BAR OR A BAT I SAW TEN ANIMALS I SLAM IN A NET POOR DAN IS IN A DROOP palindromes (sp?) [/hide] anyone here have aibohphobia? : P

i believe the term you are looking for is "function." as in "for the function f(n), f(13)=7 and f(2352)=16" still working on the actual problem. : P

you just broke our presentation of math. the fact is -2 does not equal 2 (obviously). just because the answer could be -2 and 2 does not mean that it actually works. when solving this in a real life equation if you left it at that, instead of plugging things in (or using logic) to remove one of the answers you would get a big fat "0". try telling your teacher its -2 feet some time.

and the point is...? actually, before intelligence came into the picture they probably did breed to max capacity. without intelligence were just like every other animal, which means life is eating, sleeping, and sex.

EVOLUTION doesnt care about quality of life. intelligence does. we dont live crappy impoverished lives because we dont want to. evolution, by definition, only cares about propogation.

the rope isnt tied to anything

whats strange about that? all my conversations end with explosives... dont yours?

oh wait, you said not to give it away, sorry if people saw that. : P

thats, um.... interesting. so now what we are gaining is the reduced friction from not having to turn the axel... im sure that amounts to a lot.

if reinstalling once didnt do it the second time wont either. feel free to reinstall, but i wouldnt waste your time doing it just for this.

i thought we already agreed that no ammount of lift will help your gas consumption. are some people still not getting this? its the same mass (more actually) same inertia, same force required. its not weight that matters. its mass.