atinymonkey

Did he say that, give you stange look and carry on peeling your banana?

Pah, it's because it's a definition from my crude brain thing. Proper definition here:- http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=8&q=hate

This has less and less to do with the thread.

I'll tell you what, edit the list, delete all replies from 311 and close the thread. It's all going nowhere, and not settling anything. You two can get all semantic on each other asses in the mod's forum, if you really think it's important. Don't make reach across the internet an he-bitch-man-slap your asses.

Thanks for the correction. I'm sure that Arenageth will appreciate it too. Double thanks.

Hate means hostility, indisposition, animosity, dislike, distaste, hostility, scorn, disfavor etc. So, yes, if the view you posted is your view on homosexuals then you hate homosexuals.

That might be due to the draconian laws and the views of the Bible belt in the US, but it might be because you have all those handsome mounties around. That’s quite an interesting statistic, is there much homophobia in Canada? I’m assuming the French base makes it quite tolerant towards different sexual persuasions.

Christ on a bike. 1000 years of town criers and layers of preparation for the return of Viking hordes, defences built mottoes written and all you can worry about is if you fear God? I mean, honestly. I give up.

Spam

Ooh, the sticky side of marital law. You may as well ask why a common-law marriage doesn’t hold the same weight. All three would afford the same rights in the eyes of the law, but outside the judicial system it is another matter.

Arrrrggg, a Viking raider:eek:. Run for your god fearing lives!

Apart from lawnmowers and deathbeds? What's your comment got to do with anything? What have any of you comments in this thread been to do with anything? Repeating the same statements over and over again ad nausium is pointless. If youve got nothing original to say, shut up and leave the thread alone. That's what it means. Oh yes. If you can't be topical, be funny.

So, anyway, on his deathbed he suggests that I buy the lawnmower off him. I said no.

hooker

There are basically two apposing arguments:- The pursuit of true knowledge to the exclusion of every other factor would need the ethical boundaries to be removed. It’s much the same for most projects, focusing on the one goal with the exclusion of all other external interests will yield a more productive project. The little detractors that cause us to slow down research could be dropped and we would advance technology and knowledge rapidly. The other side is that we are human, and driven by the instincts that make us human to better society and ourselves. Any benefit must balance the detraction, what use is a technological advance if it cost’s us our moral values? We are not able to balance the loss of one human life to save 10 others. Any advance must be constrained within our moral code, or at the cost of moral values. That leads to the question, what makes a person a good person? Ultimately, everyone must answer for what they have done in their lives. Be that through God, Society or with themselves. Your question to answer is, do you think a person's individual accountability is enough of an ethical boundry?

Pinch, your theory is ok upto the magic gene water. That's the bit that make no sense. A crock and a dinosaur cannot cross breed, it's the equivilent of a crock and a toad or a fish and a dolphin. We can see, observe, test, map the genome and prove that it is impossible. But, the regressive gene theory might hold some water if you look at it from a different angle. There was a change in climate, and a regressive gene may have prevented any useful biological evolution from occuring in the period it was required.

It's not theoretical. That's not a theory. You see, there has to be something (evidence etc) to substanciate a theory.

The British stepped into the Korean dispute, the US involvement was later. Truman was reacting, and not policing, due to the political pressure after the delayed involvement in the 2nd World War. North Korea didn't even exist until the 48th parallel was crossed and ...........Oh, I can't be bothered. Historys a big place. Why not go for a stroll sometime?

This has gone down the crazy hole. Skimmed? Please, the subject demands more effort than that.

Pah, you usually make more sense than me anyway.

Crocs predate dinosaurs, actually. But I think it's just an example.

The Lusitania was World War 1. I can't really express how much this is annoying me.

No, the decision to become 'world police' came in the 60's with McCarthyism and Vietnam. The concept got its metaphorical head kicked in when the US went into Somalia in the 1990’s. During the 2nd World War, Britain was still a superpower and it didn't require the level of support that it would in the modern world. Russia still doesn’t. What your saying is Russia, Britain and the US became the world police; with is just nonsense. It’s like saying China are the worlds diplomats, or North Korea is the head of television because they have a broadcast system. Putting forward the view that it was just the US involvement that ended the world war is an insult to the hundred upon hundreds of thousand members of allied forces who died to protect your free world before the US decided to involve themselves. I understand patriotism, but show some respect.

Not at all, if Maverick and Goose hadn't save our ass in the Battle of Britain who know where we would be.

The worm men. They live in the worm holes. Presumably.