Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Sakura Nihil
Stimulus
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 04:16:00 -
[61]
Depends.
But am I open to the possibility of it in dire circumstances? You bet.
Goal Line Blitz, an American Football browser game. |
DrBiologist
W.A.S.P The Nexus Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 04:59:00 -
[62]
Why is this thread not locked? canabillism is not a joke, its disgusting and wrong for humans. Go back to ebaumsworld forums if you want to be a sick **** _____________ USA! USA! USA!
|
Amastat
Omegatech
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 05:29:00 -
[63]
Originally by: DrBiologist Why is this thread not locked? canabillism is not a joke, its disgusting and wrong for humans. Go back to ebaumsworld forums if you want to be a sick ****
/Signed
Nuke the thread please Navigator. ____________________
"All warfare is based on deception... we must seem unable...seem inactive...and crush him " - Sun Tzu |
Kusha'an
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 14:06:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Mary Me'Belle Edited by: Mary Me''Belle on 05/06/2008 14:00:28
Originally by: Kusha'an Evolution actually has ZERO proof to back it up. Only models and guesswork. Darwinian evolution, defined as one species changing over time into another, entirely different species, has not and cannot be observed
Originally by: Kusha'an
Speaking of straw men, you claimed that I defined "all of evolution." I did not do so.
Your arguments are wrong.
ah sorry, i guess i associated the general statement "Evolution actually has ZERO proof to back it up." with the the definition that directly follows. my mistake.
so this definition you have given of Darwinian evolution that is simply not what Darwin said 150 years ago, um, you going somewhere with that?
you going to show me how this wasn't a straw man?
What would you prefer, Darwinian evolution, or neoDarwinian evolution? Or would you like to define Theistic evolution?
---- What part of "shorn't" do you not understand? |
Micheal Dietrich
Terradyne Networks
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 14:21:00 -
[65]
Aw man, the cry babies are ruining a humorous thread.
To the guy that would rather get shot - Gun thread is that way --->
To the religous nuts - Your information is here and here
To the environmentalists - this
Obviousely the mods have been through this thread and have no issue with it. Stop ruining it. Nothing is forcing you to read the comments other than your own perverted curiousity. Don't ruin my friday by forcing dull boring topics on us.
|
Mary Me'Belle
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 14:27:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Kusha'an
Originally by: Mary Me'Belle Edited by: Mary Me''Belle on 05/06/2008 14:00:28
Originally by: Kusha'an Evolution actually has ZERO proof to back it up. Only models and guesswork. Darwinian evolution, defined as one species changing over time into another, entirely different species, has not and cannot be observed
Originally by: Kusha'an
Speaking of straw men, you claimed that I defined "all of evolution." I did not do so.
Your arguments are wrong.
ah sorry, i guess i associated the general statement "Evolution actually has ZERO proof to back it up." with the the definition that directly follows. my mistake.
so this definition you have given of Darwinian evolution that is simply not what Darwin said 150 years ago, um, you going somewhere with that?
you going to show me how this wasn't a straw man?
What would you prefer, Darwinian evolution, or neoDarwinian evolution? Or would you like to define Theistic evolution?
lol wut?!
what i would like is for you to to take the definition you gave and then deconstruced in the exactly same manner that Darwin did 150 years ago and tell me how this become "Darwinian evolution"?
|
Kusha'an
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 15:01:00 -
[67]
Edited by: Kusha''an on 05/06/2008 15:05:54
Originally by: Mary Me'Belle
lol wut?!
what i would like is for you to to take the definition you gave and then deconstruced in the exactly same manner that Darwin did 150 years ago and tell me how this become "Darwinian evolution"?
I said what I needed to say. There is no 'proof' of evolution anywhere, and evolution itself has not been clearly defined.
Your attempts to pigeonhole me are nothing but straw men.
It is also fact that nobody's mind will be changed here, and this isn't the place to have lengthy scientific discussions. There is nothing to gain by continuing to play your silly little game over semantics when you can't even make your case in general.
When you come up with a clear, concise definition of evolution, please post it in another thread, as we are getting off topic.
This article should answer your absurd question.
---- What part of "shorn't" do you not understand? |
Kirjava
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 15:02:00 -
[68]
Would I?
Om nom nom nom
Haruhiists - Overloading Out of Pod discussions since 2007. |
Ryan Scouse'UK
omen.
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 15:18:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Ryan Scouse''UK on 05/06/2008 15:18:26 I eat two girls out a week - whats not to like mmmmmmm wet lips bring me more!
Question if you was made of chocolate would you eat ur self ?
no EVE related content in signature. ~Weatherman |
zombiedeadhead
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 15:57:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Kusha'an
It really doesn't take a lot of faith for me to believe that this universe in all its complexity and vastness, compared to which we are nothing but an infinitesimal speck, was created by CCP.
|
|
Kusha'an
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 16:39:00 -
[71]
Originally by: zombiedeadhead
Originally by: Kusha'an
It really doesn't take a lot of faith for me to believe that this universe in all its complexity and vastness, compared to which we are nothing but an infinitesimal speck, was created by CCP.
LOL good one, I lol'd. And I'm flattered by your use of my phraseology.
07
---- What part of "shorn't" do you not understand? |
Shirley Serious
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 17:29:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus WTH is Tesco?
Tesco is a UK supermarket. Classier and a bit more expensive than ASDA (Wal-Mart runs ASDA), but not as classy and pricey as M&S.
|
Larice
Seven Provinces
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:31:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Kusha'an I said what I needed to say. There is no 'proof' of evolution anywhere, and evolution itself has not been clearly defined.
Funny how you can make such absolute statements about such a poorly defined term then eh.
I also liked it when you replied to my post trying to ridicule the things I said. Then when Mary Me'Belle called you on those statements you back out, basically saying that your reply wasn't not all that related to my post. In case you don't want to check back: my post didn't even mention the word 'evolution' outside the quoted part, yet you went ahead and defined it for me.
Why would evolution be a 'big joke on mankind'?
|
Magnus Nordir
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 20:32:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Magnus Nordir on 05/06/2008 20:32:40 Guys, take your futile attempts at discrediting the Holy Bible with your evolution and old Earth nonsense* somewhere else. This thread is about delicious humans, om nom nom nom!
*Obviously sarcasm since I'm not American. ***************************** Love is like a war - easy to start, hard to continue, impossible to forget. |
MassonA
coracao ardente Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 22:01:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Kusha'an There is no 'proof' of evolution anywhere
AHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!
you can go away now
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 22:45:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
...To the environmentalists - this
Who is this guy, he's not funny, he's certainly not angry enough to be funny, he's not smart enough to be funny unless in a very shallow genepool. That's someone I'd boil and serve you, eating him myself not so much.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Kravick Drasari
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 00:22:00 -
[77]
This thread got ******* stupid.
Lets get back on topic, which is would you eat a tasty human? --- My cat Putter approves of this post. Be a Ninja! You know you want too: http://www.animecubed.com/billy/?Kravick |
das licht
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 00:26:00 -
[78]
No human meat! But blood from wife. Because it is good for the health.
|
Micheal Dietrich
Terradyne Networks
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 00:33:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
...To the environmentalists - this
Who is this guy, he's not funny, he's certainly not angry enough to be funny, he's not smart enough to be funny unless in a very shallow genepool. That's someone I'd boil and serve you, eating him myself not so much.
Have you been living under a rock for 40+ years?
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 00:39:00 -
[80]
George Carlin's awesome
() () (â;..;)â (")(") |
|
Mr Friendly
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 02:34:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
...To the environmentalists - this
Who is this guy, he's not funny, he's certainly not angry enough to be funny, he's not smart enough to be funny unless in a very shallow genepool. That's someone I'd boil and serve you, eating him myself not so much.
Wow. You've never seen Carlin before? Wow. That's nearly as bad as not having seen Monty Python, tbh.
If you don't 'get' him, fair enough... but he *is* excellent at what he does. I'm sorry you don't understand.
|
Morion Hakata
Hakata Group Blade.
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 16:07:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Aw man, the cry babies are ruining a humorous thread.
To the guy that would rather get shot - Gun thread is that way --->
To the religous nuts - Your information is here and here
To the environmentalists - this
Obviousely the mods have been through this thread and have no issue with it. Stop ruining it. Nothing is forcing you to read the comments other than your own perverted curiousity. Don't ruin my friday by forcing dull boring topics on us.
That guy is awesome! Thanks for introducing me to his awesomeness. For some reason I've never heard of him before, but oh sweet mother of Matari, he's awesome!
|
James Dickey
Black-Sun Pitch Black Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 16:19:00 -
[83]
Edited by: James ****ey on 06/06/2008 16:19:03 Cannibalism is a part of evolution. If carnivores have no meat, they eat plants. If herbivores have no plants, they eat meat.
Cannibalism is an antropological fact.
That doesn't mean it isn't sick, but what would you do if there's noting else to eat?
Soilent Green
|
Bish Ounen
Omni-Core Freedom Fighters Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 17:44:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Shirley Serious If you could buy human meat at Tesco, would you?
If you were offered it, maybe by one of those tribal cultures, would you eat it?
What's it taste like anyway? would it go with pasta? I like pasta.
I only eat Certified "Delicious" Hobo meat.
It tastes a bit like wet felt, but it warms to the core.
And it gives you a health bonus... from a dark source.
|
ReaperOfSly
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 17:55:00 -
[85]
To the guy who said humans aren't animals. Bull****. Humans ARE animals. Clever animals, yes. Clever animals with pointy sticks, wheels, fire, agriculture and DVD players, but animals nonetheless. Take a look in the mirror one day and ask yourself why you have the exact same number of eyes, limbs, noses, ears, etc as a dog. Yes, I'm comparing humans to dogs. __________________________
Quote: ...bored, skint, no charter, and a ship that looks like an explosion in a girder factory...
|
Kusha'an
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:26:00 -
[86]
Humans have the ability to reason. Dogs do not.
---- What part of "shorn't" do you not understand? |
Micheal Dietrich
Terradyne Networks
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:29:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Kusha'an Humans have the ability to reason. Dogs do not.
My dog like to chase the horses and **** them off to know end until one fateful day when Charlie kicked him. The dog reasoned that it hurts and tries to keep his distance now.
He also reasoned to stay out of the trash a long time ago.
|
ReaperOfSly
Lyrus Associates The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 18:31:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Kusha'an Humans have the ability to reason. Dogs do not.
Thus, clever animals. Why does having the ability to reason stop us being animals? Also bear in mind that while humans have the ability to reason, many choose not to exercise that ability. Or is that too cynical? __________________________
Quote: ...bored, skint, no charter, and a ship that looks like an explosion in a girder factory...
|
Mary Me'Belle
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:20:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Kusha'an Humans have the ability to reason. Dogs do not.
from here
Dog Intelligence and Abstract Reasoning Filed under: Dog Intelligence - 12 Jun 2007
Imagine this:
You work in a warehouse. You see a worker with his arms full of boxes enter a room. The lights in the room are not on, so the worker uses his elbow to flip the light switch on. If you were to later enter the same dark room (without carrying anything), you would probably turn on the lights by using your hand. Why? Because you would assume the previous worker used his elbow because his arms were full, and because using your hand is your natural, prefered method for manipulating a light switch.
Now, imagine the same worker enters the darkened room without anything in his arms, yet he still uses his elbow to turn on the lights. You might assume there was a good reason for him to do it this way - perhaps there is a chemical or foreign substance on the switch, or something sharp sticking out - and later duplicate his actions when you entered the same room. (Or, you might just think he was nuts :)
This demonstrates a level of abstract reasoning previously thought to be reserved for humans and other primates. ThatÆs no longer the case. Our dog friends can do the same thing!
In a landmark study, this exact kind of abstract reasoning was demonstrated in dogs. HereÆs how it worked.
A female Border Collie named Guiness was trained to push a lever with her paw in order to get a treat, rather than using her mouth to do so. She was then observed by two groups of dogs. The first group watched her use her paw to get the treat, but she had a ball in her mouth while doing so. The second group of dogs watched the same demonstration, but this time her mouth was empty.
Guess what? 80% of the first group of dogs used their mouths - their preferred method - to operate the mechanism. They assumed Guiness used her paw because her mouth was ôbusyö. The second group reversed that with 83% using their paws, assuming that ôempty-mouthedö Guiness was demonstrating the ôrightö way to get the treat. A third group - the control group - who never saw Guiness demonstrate the mechanism, performed as expected with 85% using their mouths the first time.
So, what do we conclude? Simple. Dogs can reason abstractly, and they can adjust their performance accordingly.
Brian Hare, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Germany states, ôWhatÆs surprising and shocking about this is that we thought this sort of imitation was very sophisticated, something seen only in humans. Once again, it ends up, dogs are smarter than scientists thought.ö
|
Kusha'an
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 19:24:00 -
[90]
Animal "Rights" and the New Man Haters
By Edwin Locke, Ph.D. Recently a sixth grade student threatened to bomb the headquarters of a prominent corporation, the Gillette Company. Gillette's "crime"? The use of animals to test the safety of their products. This student's role models have not been so hesitant. In the name of so-called "animal rights," terrorists have committed hundreds of violent crimes. They have vandalized or fire bombed meat companies, fur stores, fast-food restaurants, leather shops and medical research laboratories across North America. The animal "rights" movement, however, is not about the humane treatment of animals. Its goal is the animalistic treatment of human beings.
According to these terrorists, it is immoral to eat meat, to wear fur coats or leather shoes, and to use animals in researchùeven if it would lead to cures for deadly diseases. The terrorists are unmoved by the indisputable fact that animal research saves human lives. PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) makes this frighteningly clear: "Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, we'd be against it."
How do the animal "rights" advocates try to justify their position? As someone who has debated them for years on college campuses and in the media, I know firsthand that the whole movement is based on a singleùinvalidùsyllogism, namely: men feel pain and have rights; animals feel pain; therefore, animals have rights. This argument is entirely specious, because man's rights do not depend on his ability to feel pain; they depend on his ability to think.
Rights are ethical principles applicable only to beings capable of reason and choice. There is only one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life. To live successfully, man must use his rational facultyùwhich is exercised by choice. The choice to think can be negated only by the use of physical force. To survive and prosper, men must be free from the initiation of force by other menùfree to use their own minds to guide their choices and actions. Rights protect men against the use of force by other men.
None of this is relevant to animals. Animals do not survive by rational thought (nor by sign languages allegedly taught to them by psychologists). They survive through inborn reflexes and sensory-perceptual association. They cannot reason. They cannot learn a code of ethics. A lion is not immoral for eating a zebra (or even for attacking a man). Predation is their natural and only means of survival; they do not have the capacity to learn any other.
Only man has the power to deal with other members of his own species by voluntary means: rational persuasion and a code of morality rather than physical force. To claim that man's use of animals is immoral is to claim that we have no right to our own lives and that we must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of creatures who cannot think or grasp the concept of morality. It is to elevate amoral animals to a moral level higher than ourselvesùa flagrant contradiction. Of course, it is proper not to cause animals gratuitous suffering. But this is not the same as inventing a bill of rights for themùat our expense.
The granting of fictional rights to animals is not an innocent error. We do not have to speculate about the motive, because the animal "rights" advocates have revealed it quite openly. Again from PETA: "Mankind is the biggest blight on the face of the earth"; "I do not believe that a human being has a right to life"; "I would rather have medical experiments done on our children than on animals." These self-styled lovers of life do not love animals; rather, they hate men.
The animal "rights" terrorists are like the Unabomber and Oklahoma City bombers. They are not idealists seeking justice, but nihilists seeking destruction for the sake of destruction. They do not want to uplift mankind, to help him progress from the swamp to the stars. They want mankind's destruction; they want him not just to stay in the swamp but to disappear into its muck.
There is only one proper answer to such people: to declare proudly and defiantly, in the name of morality, a man's right to his life, his liberty, and the pursuit of his own happiness.
---- What part of "shorn't" do you not understand? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |