atinymonkey

Are you capable of posting anything other than questions? What are you hoping to contribute? What, if anything, is your point?

That's super. Thanks.

Sorry, you can't be mature and a child. Those two words are opposites. Maturity is the state of being fully developed, childhood is the precursor to that.

In the UK, all we see is an eye catching blurred effect. The same thing in 'Pop Idol' et al. We just assumed it was some American drink we never see, made of blur. They do the same thing with logos on clothes in the TV shows. We thought the shirts were subtlety advertising blurred drinks.

The mapping of the human genome underlined the process that Darwin theorys had alluded to.

Darwin wrote 'The Origin of Species', which is one of the texts taken to be in contradiction with the Bibles account. It doesn't deal with the origin of life, but then few people actually read it. I'm including me on the 'haven't read it' list btw. Even though I have the book on my shelf (stolen from sayo, heh).

The thread is, but you are making invalid comparisons between murder and abortion in order to justify ill defined ethical positions. The only reason I posted was to make the point that your comparison was invalid. Nor will it. I'm not attempting to enter into a discussion about at what phase a sperm and an egg become capable of being defined as a human entity. That definition has already been made by the medical community by labeling the trimester, and it will not alter according to your belief structure. Your deliberately ignoring your own posts that are making the invalid comparison between muder and abortion: - You apparently do not. If you did, you would not make the crass comparisons that you seem to enjoy. I have implicitly stated I have no opinion in regards the status of human development. If your attempting to draw me into what is obviously playschool level debates, your not going to do it by inferring I have an argument where I have none. Focus on presenting you are counterpoints and rebuttals within the linear context of the thread.

Yeah, I rephrased my reply to remove rudeness. Sorry about that. I was in a hurry to invoke 'Link to Godwins Law' ! I actually don't have an opinon either way on abortion, I just didn't like the comparison with shooting a person in the head.

Er, deer don't breed like rabbits. They breed in the wild in the UK and control the population themselves. Just incase you fear the onset of a deer rebellion if hunting declines.

Funny you should say that. The Third Reich was the most stringent anti abortion state ever to exist. That, and the invoking of Godwin's Law, kills of any point you may have had.

Yes, there may well be a large segment in the US that are anti abortion. There is an equally large segment that is pro abortion. That people believe in an idea adds no weight to an argument. In the eyes of the law, society is affected by the murder of an individual. Society is not affected by early term abortion. I'd love to hear a theory why that is not so. Extending a counterpoint to ridiculous extremes is called strawmanning, it's pointless and only serves to highlight the flaws in your argument. No, I don't happen to think that a fetus is inhuman. That's idiotic. No, I don't ascribe toenails the same rights as unborn children, that again is ridiculous. I don't expect individuals to shoot people in the back of the head simply because they don't disagree with abortion, that's a childish assumption. My point is that the murder of an individual is perceived by the state to lessen society. The abortion of an early stage pregnancy does not lessen society. Ergo early stage abortion is not murder as the state defines it, so comparisons with the murder of a fully grown individual are invalid. I've yet to find legal president in any democratic court that shows such a impact on society.

Natural Selection is not => evolution. Nor was it excluded. If you are simply talking about survival of the fittest' date=' then how does that interfer with the Bible? He suffered from depression. It's rather cruel to label that psychosomatic. It also has nothing to do with his theorys, but lay in the death of his daughter.

Slightly off topic, but I've got a question. Why is it that every other week there is a story about an American that had to chew off his hand/foot/arm/torso after getting it stuck under a rock? Whats with that?

Wait. Is that the same Hans Blix who was appointed by the UN to undertake the weapons inspection? The same Hans Blix who repeatedly said Iraq had no WoMD? The same Hans Blix who referred to the staff in Washington as 'bastards' for conducting a smear campaign so they could invade Iraq without justifying the wild and unfounded claims? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3326077.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3730540.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2966639.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2867913.stm Nah, Blix was wrong. You see Mr Bush could see the weapons in Iraq. He has magic powers. He's like Harry Potter, but older.

Glue the toothpicks into a wheel shape and attach an axle. Or you could do the members of the forum a favour and actually put your homework in the homework forum. You haven't even said 'hello'.

I presume modern hunting is base around a need to control. Control over the hunt, and to an extent nature itself, is provided to the individual. The achievement of set goals, like the challenge of a hunt, will help to constitute a general feeling of fulfillment in life.

It's not the place of the US to make decisions for the UN. It was a baseless accusation.

The insurgents have candidates. Some of the 244 parties stand for a return to the old regime. It's not my concern, Falah al-Naqib was the nervous one. I think he's got a slightly better handle on events that, say, you. To the vast majority of a population, the leader is just the leader. To put it another way, you could say George Bush Jnr carpet bombed Basra killing thousands and George Bush Snr bombed the retreating Iraq army killing over 2000 solders who had already surrendered. Perspective, national pride and tolerance are three reasons why there is a base of Iraqis who don't particularly mind Hussein.

Saddam Hussein and the Iraq regime has had, and continues to have, no links to terrorist activities. No country or government has ever remarked on a possible link between Iraq and terrorist activities aside from Mr Bush, which he later recanted. Here are some links that piss on your theory: - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/publications/General_Powell.htm http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-05-03.html http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Anthropology/publications/General_Powell.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-10-04-alqaeda-saddam_x.htm http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/10/1055010937064.html?from=storyrhs&oneclick=true What ways?He had no WMD, as the UN stated repeatedly. He had no Terrorist links, as the UN stated repeatedly. He had no plans to attack America, as the world govenments stated repeatedly. The US is at war with Al Qaeda, not all the Islamic fundamentalists. Pick the correct enemy. Your not fighting 'fanatics' in Iraq. The people that the collation troops are fighting are insurgents, often with no religious affiliation at all. What the insurgents comprise of is groups of people who resent the hostile occupation of Iraq. The US had exactly the same breed of insurgents against the English when the fought for independence, it can't be that hard to see the similarity even if you can't agree with the methods. The solution is far from that simple. You broke it, you fix it. Democracy by itself does not solve the issue. Al Qaeda is funded by a multi billion dollor budget produced from Oil. Osama bin laden is a highly educated man, far more so than the average American. Really? Like democracy prevented the American Civil War? Like Democracy prevented 90 years of the IRA attacks? Like Democracy solved all the issues in Palestine? You mean submission to the will of the Iraq population. It's their country, and they can decide what they wish to do with it. The majority of insurgents don't really give a damn about govenment, they just want the American troops to stop decimating cities like Basra and get the hell out of Iraq. Imagine how you'd feel if Russia had invaded America and killed your entire family 'for your own good'. Have some empathy for the Iraqis.

Perhaps it simply means any person with Iraq as country of origin on a passport. I can't imagine Iraq still has a functioning list of foreign nationals, and it seems the easiest way of assessing eligibility would be via the passport.

I think the change of govenment is viewed important enough to allow retroactive eligibility. The reasoning is a great many citizens left Iraq due to the conditions, who still have a right to vote and then return. In reality, I think the reasoning is a great number of the Iraq population resent the hostile occupation forces and the ex-pats may provide an edge in the voting. There is a real fear that Hussein will be voted back in, which would devastate Bush and Blair. It may even lead to an impeachment of Bush, given his current popularity.

Actually, that a good point. During the Nuremberg War trials there was no concept of torture to illicit confessions. The idea that Sami Mohammad Ali Said al-Jaaf can be judged and questioned in a more depraved manor is horrific.

I think this conversation is drawing to the inevitable stalemate. Demo is homophobic, but doesn't understand why that is wrong. We know this, but the internet is not a medium best suited to re-education of deeply embedded beliefs. Can we just agree to close the discussion now?