Aardvark

A joke? Creationists are characterised by an incapacity for reason, logic or the understanding of factual evidence. They display a complete lack of intellectual honesty or constistency, accept in regard of a rigourous and relentless twisting of every fact, event and opinion to fit with their deep seated delusions. On an objective basis it can be seen that creationists suffer from is a deep seated paranoid delusional pyschosis. As such they should be removed from society and subjected to treatment until they may be cured. This seems the only reasonable response.

I'd love that. Why do you think some bloody tyrants attract all the attention, while others can murder and torture all they want and not get noticed? I know oil always gets a mention, but i think it is more banal than that. The Wests foriegn policy seems to be driven by what sells newspapers. If there were journalists and reporters in Zimbabwe printing front page articles then the politicians would probably be acting right now. If something isn't on the front pages, no one notices, no one cares. If it's not news it it isn't happening.

Not wanting to seem faecitious, but a sleeping person is not self aware. That person has the capacity to become self aware through time, but is not self aware. By your reasoning, a sleeping person is not entitled to the same rights as you ascribe to yourself. How do you deal with this ethical dilemma?

A slight difference of semantics. A high degree of intellectual development is required to achieve self awareness, ergo the rights an individual enjoys under this system of ethics is judged by the degree of intellectual development. Personally i find this system of ethics rather dubious. How do we define self awareness, or even degrees of self awareness and why is self awareness so important in itself? It seems rather vague and arbitrary to me. Perhaps you can answer my concerns? Certainly, my view is that abortion is a minefield of conflicting 'rights' which makes it impossible for me to honestly completely agree with the positions of either the 'right to lifers' or the 'pro-choicers'. I think anyone who claims to have the final answer, as in, all abortions are fine, or all abortions are wrong, is being by definition absurd. Admitting that the rigid application of logic has failed i turn to my emotional, irrational response (i have a healthy trust in my instincts) and pragmatism. My basic instincts impell me to be protective of the weak and defenceless. My pragmatism tells me that forcing women to bear children they don't want is unacceptable. Therefore abortion should be legal to the end of the 1st Trimester. Moral and practical support should be provided for vunerable women who might otherwise find themselves tempted by abortion out of hardship. Adoption services should be encouraged, just because the natural Mother is unable to care for the baby doesn't necessarily mean that it could not have a loving home. I consider partial birth abortion to be murder. The abortionist and the Mother should go to prison for a very long time. As you can see, i make no claims of certainty for my stance on abortion, i'm not a zealot on the matter and like to think i have a moderately open mind. Abortion is a very complex moral matter and i don't believe in simple easy answers.

Actually, i not 'going' anywhere with this, i'm trying to understand your viewpoint. Singers view quite clearly states that he believes that the degree of intellectual development in an organism is the objective measurement of its 'value'. Which is why he would consider the suffering of an intelligent chimpanzee to be more important than that of a retarded human being. If you don't actually believe that, then what do you believe?

I think it's about time creationism was officially classified as a mental disorder.

Actually the GMC does not operate like an old boys club. It operates more like a kangaroo court with a presumption of guilt. Good doctors and surgeons are being forced out of their professions in circumstances similiar to a witch hunt. Other than this resulting in shortages of doctors and surgeons, it also means that those who remain are far more cautious, being less likely to intervene in serious cases. Better to simply tell the patient that nothing can be done and let him die, than attempt surgery and risk litigation.

Would it be fair to say that you place a value on life according to the degree of intellectual development? Or am i over simplifying?

That's none of your business. I'd already inferred that. In what way does pointing out that Americans have funded terrorism make as much sense as attacking Saudi Arabia? I am pointing out that the terrorism from Ireland is international terrorism, not an 'internal law enforcement matter'. I am also pointing out American hyprocrisy, supporting terrorism then turning around and condemning it as the worst thing ever, justifying all sorts of brutal responds. I note that you have still failed to answer my question. How would you feel if i was to send money to Timothy McVeighs buddies to set off another bomb in Oklahoma? Maybe if i phrase it differently, how about if i sent money to Aryan Nation to firebomb a few synagoges?

Your faith in the rest of the world is touching. Not quite so sure that i'd be happy to see any of my countrymen die for New York though. Still, good luck, will New York be part of the same country as California, or are you going for two seperate states?

I'm aware of Peter Singers views. Are you serious in that you agree with him or are you just trying to provoke an argument?

At what point do you consider does a foetus come close to becoming a life?

Isn't seccesion supposed to be a bit naughty in the USA? You don't want Bush doing an Abraham Lincoln on you do you?

As Hussien is not standing as a candidate anyone afraid of that happening needs to calm down, steer clear of the coffee and relax.

What studies?

True, and it probably wouldn't be half as much fun for the bull.

Calling the terrorism from Ireland a 'little lapse of law and order' is offensive. However as you confess ignorance in this matter i will withhold rolleyes or angry faces and try and explain. I am not Irish, i don't live in Ireland. And yet, nevertheless, IRA bombs have gone off in towns i have been living in. It is international terrorism (remember that?). Not an internal matter or a purely law enforcement matter. I hope that is simple enough for even you to understand. I note that you didn't answer my question. How would you feel if i was to send money to Timothy McVeighs buddies to set off another bomb in Oklahoma?

Putting rolleyes in your posts doesn't make you look big or clever. Britain never sent large sums of money and moral support to the rioters in American. And to compare those riots to terrorism makes me seriously doubt your judgement. In what way are IRA bombs in my city an 'internal' affair any more than terrorism in New York? And why would being an 'internal' affair make it less important? If that was 'basically an internal affair' then why were Americans sending millions of dollars to the IRA? How would you feel if i was to give money to Timothy McVeighs buddies to set of another bomb in Oklahoma? Seriously, how would you feel about that?

Actually Iraq was not a know supporter of terrorism. For all his sins Saddam was never linked to 9/11 in any way at all.

Sometimes i think that Americans don't think anything is truely real unless it is happening to them, anything else is put in the same catergory as the bangs and flashes of an Arnold Schwartzenegger film. Britain has experienced years upon years of terrorist bombs and murders. And during that time what did America do? Make cute comparisons between the murderers and lepricons, send large sums of money to them through Noraid and invite there leaders to the White House. Worse things have happened in the world than 9/11 and you haven't earnt any particular special sympathy when it comes to terrorism.

I am saying that humans possess inescapable urges and instincts towards behaviour that can be bad. Xenophobia for instance seems to be an instinct which is pretty deeply hardwired in our natures, it can be seem from the jungle inhabitants of Parguay to the people of the 24hr hour cities of Melbourne or London. I am not saying that it is inescapable that we follow those urges, but it is inescapable that they exist. In order to find better ways to act it is necessary to fully acknowledge them, then we can better deal with them. Sometimes people use human nature as an excuse for behaving badly (a weakness of some on the right) and conversely some people try to deny its existense. (a weakness of some on the left). I hope i have made clear to you that i think both of those approaches are flawed.

No. Terrorism existed before 9/11. I don't see what makes New York so special.