 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Jomb |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 |
| User | Post | ||
Jomb Deddorokku                    Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| It would make us feel better if we were completely faultless in this matter, but i doubt that we are. Climate shifts on its own, yes, but its also a known fact that green-house gases raise the temperature by holding in the heat of the sun, like a green house does, hence the term green-house gas. It is also a known fact that automobiles as well as many other machines of man put out a vast quantity of green house gases. So, putting 2 and 2 together, man is responisble for at least some of the global warming. Why its happening is important, but the fact that it IS happening is more important. Instead of arguing back and forth over who caused it, we should be working to find a solution to it. | |||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
Maybe i'm being too much of a computer scientist here, but it seems to me you have 2 Bool variables, one for if you could find yourself attracted to the same sex, one for the opposite sex. With 2 true/false values there are 4 possible outcomes. Of course it is possible for people to change their stance over time, but at any given moment all people would fit into one of the 4 catagories. I dont see how its possible not to fit into one of the 4 catagories. Someone give me an example of someone who does'nt. Its like asking someone what their sex is, either male, female, hermaphodite or eunoch, and then getting the reply "mammite-verion-tublu". The machine does not compute!  |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| "I don't find it an odd insistence. Scientifically, a zygote (and any advanced form of it) is alive. The requisite follow-up question is the issue of what species of life it is, and its genetic code clearly asserts its humanity. So, we know it's alive, and we know it's human - it's human life. That's my logic. "
This comes down to our difference of opinion on when meaningful life begins. To you it is immediately at the single-cell stage, to me it is after thoughts and feelings develop. By your definition other forms of sentient life are'nt worth protecting, in my definition they are. "I tried to dismiss this as a simple difference of opinion. You believe that awareness and sentience are prerequisites for humanity, I believe my above stated criteria are. We can't argue much there, except that I'll point out how a very young child is hardly all that aware, yet you wouldn't approve of its death. " A child immediately after birth, and even to some degree before birth has thoughts and feelings. Fear is a common one just after birth. A zygote has none of these things and wont have them for many months. "You talked about how the loss of a single life from an abortion would not be such a big deal, considering the world's overpopulation. My diatribe about rescue workers and whatnot was to point out that, even in a world that is overpopulated (which is not necessarily true, depending on your source), a single life is held in great regard. " No, i said the loss of a POTENTIAL life is not a big loss in a world overpopulated by humans. You immediately turned it into some thing about rescue workers as if i had said one actual life is meaningless, which i did not say. Any source that claims there are too few humans on Earth is bordering on criminal misrepresentation of the facts. You need only look around or compare the actual number of humans on Earth to the number of any other mammal. "You remarked that a zygote is the epitome of mechanical process, and I pointed out that it's impossible for a zygote to satisfy that distinction because once some mechanical process actually occurs - that is, it begins to divide - it is no longer a zygote at all. I don't have enough of a familiarity with the biological terminology to be perfectly accurate at all times, but that doesn't change anything beyond the fact that the word "embryo" in one of my previous posts should be changed to "blastula." " We're getting caught up in semantics here and its not important to either of our arguments. A zygote up to several months later is simply a mechanical chain of cell divisions, this is all i meant. "I don't mean to be incendiary when I place such emphasis on this statement, but it makes no difference what the source of my opinion is - that is not up for contention. I've said that several times, and I can no longer find a way to phrase it any differently. Whatever my motivation for my views - belief in a soul, DNA, whatever - the views themselves stay the same and would not change even if I never even mentioned that part about the soul. I could edit it out right now, and it wouldn't change a thing. " Actually yes it does. An opinion formed on logic and reason is a flexible opinion which can change with changing facts. An opinion based on religious faith is an inflexible opinion which cannot be changed by reasoning, logic or new facts. "I know that a zygote has no functioning nervous system. This isn't an issue of my limited knowledge of science. And no, I would not begin to argue on the basis of a soul; any argument I've set forth so far has not even alluded to any religious basis, and none of those arguments would change all of a sudden. " Whether you realize it or not, this sort of reasoning is exactly what screams religious argument to me. If you realize a zygote has no nervous system, no thoughts, no feelings.... other than a soul what could possibly make it the equivalent of a full grown human being? You are'nt arguing the zygote's loss would be cruel to the zygote because it has no feelings, you are'nt arguing it would feel pain. So what logical reason could you have for considering its loss a capital crime? This is where i'm not following you. "Since that zygote cannot survive outside of the womb, I would argue that you are indeed commiting an act of murder. Just as abortion, even at an early stage, is reprehensible to me, so is that roughly equivalent act. It doesn't matter whether it's been killed while in its natural "home" or in vitro." How is this any different than a woman having her period or a man ejaculating? Those sperm and eggs each have human DNA and are potential humans, just mix them together. "Give me a hard source before I will address this. " I'm not online at home to sit around digging for online information, but a quick search came up with this This article mentions the very mouse i saw in Wired a couple years ago with the human ear growing on it. Is this a human now? Would killing it be murder? Its got the DNA you so treasure. "In that inarguably distant, perhaps even impossible, circumstance, I would hardly encourage that other sentient beings be "slaughtered" but I would not afford them the same protection of humans. But I'm not really sure it's a valid topic for debate, considering that it's a distant and unimaginable hypothetical that has no real world precedent. " Thats where you are wrong. This has actually happened before here on Earth. Maybe not with aliens per se, but there was a time in the past when Homo Sapiens was not the only species which had sentience. In the distant past Neanderthals and Homo Erectus existed alongside Homo Sapiens. All of which were sentient beings. Even today the great apes and dolphins are also sentient beings, though not as intelligent as man. (edit- my link does'nt seem to show up, try this: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2001/02/05/BU135680.DTL ) (edited by Jomb on 04-25-06 07:23 PM) |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| Of course the planet will survive, thats not in question. What's in question is whether it will continue to be a pleasant place for humans to live.... | |||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| I'm not sure about the rest of the world, but here in the US our justice system is corrupt and counter-productive beyond belief.
I dont believe we should have a death penalty. Beyond that the entire justice/prison system needs scrapped and re-done in a way which actually works. As it is right now, when someone goes to prison the chances are very high that when they do finally get out they will be much more violent and dangerous than they were going in. Something about being beat down regularly, raped, stripped of all humanity and made to live like an animals for years on end makes people become violent, resentful and animalistic. If we really want to help civilization in general, the victims, and the offenders themselves, we need to concentrate far less on punishment and far more on redemption and rehabilitation. When you brand somebody for life, then tramatize them, the chances of being able to be a productive crimefree citizen at some point in the future becomes slim. But on the death penalty in particular, i think someone who is really sick, like Jeffrey Dahmer for example, should not be executed because they are obviously mentally ill. I'm not saying they should be set free, they should be seperated from society for people's safety, but it should be done in a humane way. A gret philosopher once said that you can judge how civilized a people are by the way they treat their prisoners. By that measure we here in the US are base savages. |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| You are bi-sexual, because you can see yourself in either a homosexual or heterosexual relationship. I'm not seeing the gray area you are. Yes, i understand that there are various degrees of attraction one way or the other, but it can still be loosely defined as bisexual.
Also, i think such labels are actually useful, because then people know whether its feasible for them to pursue a relationship with the person they are attracted to. |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| "An infant has no coherent thoughts of any consequence, and its feelings are the same instinct-driven reponses common to any lower animal. In short, any mental processes are comparable to or even less advanced than those of certain animals. "
I'm not sure i buy this, infants i've known convincingly displayed fear, likes, dislikes, joy, sadness, etc. "Also, the ratio of humans to any other mammal is hardly an indication of the over- or underpopulation of either species. Like I said, depending on your source, Earth may either be nearing disaster from overpopulation, or things may be just fine. " It is when the ratio is ridiculously skewed towards man and man's own livestock. You view man as the rightful ruler and dominator of the world i'm assuming, which is again a religious conviction. I see man as one part of the natural world, when men outnumber other mammels to an absurd degree it's disturbing to me. When man extincts other animals in a need to accomodate his ever increasing mass of bodies, that it also disturbing to me. "However, just because a zygote (which is not the proper term, I know) is simply a mass mechanically dividing cells doesn't compromise its value. The human body, save for the brain, is very much a mechanical being. " This is my point exactly, what seperates a sentient form of life from a beetle or a salmon or whatever, is that very part you mention, the brain. "Also, after only a period of weeks, more commonly accepted "human" traits begin to be displayed by the embryo. Not "several months." " The only human trait i consider to be worth preserving is the ability to think and feel, to be self-aware. Any other trait minus that is not worth fighting for to me. Would you consider a vacate human body worth saving? One without a brain other than the parts related to sustaining the mechanical processes of the body? "Your opinion is not based on religion, yet I don't recall it adapting to the changing arguments presented in this thread. " But it COULD, that is the point. If a new study came out which convincingly showed that a very early embryo actually did have more of a mind than we thought and was thinking and dreaming, then my position would change and i'd be wanting to fight for their rights along side of you. "I have made that exact argument - that a zygote is equivalent in worth to a full-grown human - several times over in this thread. And not one of those times have I used religion as any sort of justification for what I've said. Why do you repeatedly question my motives instead of addressing those arguments that I've put forth, each of which has been backed by non-religious rhetoric? " The only argument i recall you making was that human DNA in any form what-so-ever (except when its inconvenient for you, like an amputated limb) is equal to a full grown human life. This is an argument which makes no sense to me and i've been trying to get you to explain it in a way i can understand. So far the only thing you've said to justify it which made any sense was that you believe in souls. "Because in neither a woman's period nor a man's ejaculation is a zygote expelled. I've never tried to equate a single sperm or egg cell with a full-fledged zygote; the former two are expendable in my eyes" A sperm an egg and a zygote all contain human DNA, are potential human life and all have no feelings. Why do you make a distinction between them? "Is cutting a human's ear off considered murder? It may not be a nice thing to do, but I certainly wouldn't equate it with a legitimate killing. " bravo, thats what i've been saying all along. But that ear contains human DNA. every bit as much as a zygote does, so why do you treat them differently? "The day a full human grows out of a mouse's back is the day I begin taking issue with it. I don't think the current line of experimentation is that great of an idea in the first place, but it's not murder. " I agree once again, but still dont see how you fit this into your "any human DNA should be protected the same we are" world view. "The great apes and dolphins are not sentient in the human sense of the word. They do not have the degree of mental complexity seen among man. In any case, Neanderthals and Homo erectus aren't around anymore, so it's inconsequential." Are'nt they? They can recognize their reflection in a mirror, something lower animals cant do. They are self-aware. They have the same fore-thought we have to make tools. They can be taught language. They have complex social structures they live in, just like we do. They are as intelligent as us, but they are still sentient. Neanderthal and Homo Erectus may now be extinct, but the fact is they lived alongside man at one time, and you said that Homo Sapiens encountering another sentient species was so remote as to be not worth thinking about. But the fact is that it happened before, so you are wrong in thinking its impossibly unlikely. |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| Whats going on here, Plus Sign, your name is now on the post previously credited to Kasumi. | |||
|
Jomb Deddorokku  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| "Not to any more magnitude than the family dog will display those same behaviors. "
Maybe the family dog should'nt be butchered either, but never-the-less i've known month old babies who clearly displayed likes/dislikes and the ability to learn at a very fast rate, like a human
"I do view man as the ruler and dominator of the world, but it's hardly a religious conviction and more of an acknowledgement of how things are. We as humans have the greatest mental capacity, by far, of any lifeform on this planet, and we have the unique ability to devise tools with any degree of proficiency. It is the logical chain of events that the most well-suited creature should rise to a seat of absolute control. I would say that it is that creature's responsibility to harness that power and care for the natural world that surrounds him, but you can't compel all of humanity to wake up one day and just start caring about the environment... No species becomes extinct because of the bulbous mass of manflesh is suffocating it. Unwise ecological action - sawing down rainforest and similar acts - are what adversely affect animal life, and that action is not representative of a wildly expanding human population. When wildlife in Prince William Sound was devastated in 1989, it wasn't because a bunch of humans suddenly moved in and set up camp there, it was because of a stupid error that caused a human resource to spill from a boat. Lack of responsibility in man's interaction with the environment is what hurts animals, not simply brute overpopulation. " I'm not saying man isn't acting as just that, i'm just questioning whether or not its the way things should be. And it is a religious view, the religions which came out of the Middle East believe as a tenent of their faith that the Earth was given to them by God to rule over. This was a point of contention with the religions that pre-existed in Europe who had a radically different view on how man and nature should be. I dont think man should lord over nature, i think man should be one part of nature. But that is no longer possible, because of our obscenely vast population, now the best we can do is try to preserve what's left of nature. To your second paragraph... why do you suppose it's necessary for people to sawdown rainforests and such on a grand scale? Its because we have enormous needs due to our enormous lumbering masses of people. Were there less people there'd be less need. Less need equals less sawed down rain-forests, less polution, less shit being spilled from boats accidently, etc. "What also separates a sentient form of life - namely, humans - from a lower lifeform is simply the status of "human." Surely it's something of an intangible, but it's worth considering nonetheless. " And this is an intangible you claim to define by DNA. I define it by sentience. This is still the heart of our disagreement, and unlikely to be resolved
"A vacant human body, one without a brain, cannot live anyway. So, no, it's not worth saving; you can't save something that's already dead. " You misunderstood my example, i said vacant of mind, but still possessing those neurons responsible for keeping the machine running, so to speak. Like a person who has permanent brain death but can have their body survive on life-support, or a child born in such a state. A body with no mind still has human DNA, and with great effort can be preserved. By your definition it should be done, by mine its not worth fighting for. "it's because I have a point of view that I am able to logically and reasonably defend. " In your mind yes, but its not coming across as being very logical or reasonable I see many holes which you never adequately fill in.
"I don't recall ever stating that human DNA in any form is to be protected. Skin cells die and fall from the body every minute of every day, to the tune of several billion (or a similarly immense number) over the course of a lifetime, but I'm not taking issue with that. The only time I invoke the human DNA line is in justifying the humanity of a zygote: it is alive, so that can't be argued, and when determining what "kind" of life it is, its DNA indicates that it is human. Therefore, it is human life, and worth preserving. I haven't been fighting for the DNA argument only when it's convenient, I've brought it up under very specific circumstances. " You told me that the reason a mindless zygote is worth preserving is because it has human DNA, and had nothing what-so-ever to do with a mind. Therefore it ought to follow that since a human limb has the exact same DNA your zygote has, it ought to receive the same protection. Really there are many more similarities between a limb and a zygote. Both are alive, both have the same identical human DNA, both a parasites which cannot survive on their own. Yet, for seemingly arbitrary reasons you would fight to the death for the zygote but not care about the limb. If you would just admit its about a soul then it'd make sense This is the best example of where you fight for DNA when convenient and ignore it or dance around the topic when inconvenient.
"Good luck turning a sperm cell into a person. " I could, with an egg cell. The day may be fast approaching when its quite possible to take a mix of amino acids and fabricate a sperm cell in a machine with any characteristics we want to give it. Then what? "I've never argued humanity on the basis of how intelligent we are. I know that apes, while not nearly of the mental capability of even a young human, still have some degree of ability. That's not in question. " Chimpanzees have the logical ability of a human child between 5-6 years old. They are clearly sentient. I would look upon anyone who killed a chimpanzee in cold blood as a murderer, because its the sentience which matters to me, not the DNA. "I said Homo sapiens encountering an extraterrestrial lifeform, as in your example, is so remote as to be not worth thinking about." Yes, but then i changed my example to the historically accurate but remarkable similar and not at all far fetched example which you just ignored completely twice. |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| I'm not suggesting letting the worst of the worst run free. I'm saying we should have the decency they lacked and isolate them from the rest of us in a humane way. Someone who molests children or serial rapes or serial murders is not a sane person no matter what the law claims for political reasons. Think about it, would a sane person have an over-whelming obsession with child-sex? Or would a normal person find it exciting to torture and kill someone? These cases are the very most rare in the system, but they are used to justify everything else. Like my friend doing serious hard time for having a consentual relationship with a girl just a hair below the age limit. His time was justified by the child-rapists who he has no actual relation to. But regardless, gut emotions are not what real justice is made from. Letting the victims choose the penalty is no better than letting the offender choose his own penalty. The penalty should be solely based on what would benefit society the most. This would either be a humane seperation of a criminally insane person from the rest of us, or the treatment of those who can be helped. As it is now, those that can or could have been helped are traumatized, branded for life, beat down, brutalized, and forced into a choice of either becoming very violent as a survival tactic or living a life as a homosexual slave to someone who is that violent. In this system the people who are nonviolent and want help going in are the ones most likely to be victimized, while the hardened violent sociopaths get to continue committing their crimes, but now on people who cant do anything back and have no real protection from the authorities anymore. This helps no one, it drains society, and it pumps people back into society who are more dangerous and unstable than they were going in. Its got to stop. | |||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| I also like hair, thick and dark preferably. On the head and pubic region anyway.. |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| Kasumi - Now that you've described your situation i would consider you to be the following:
bool SexIsOKwithFemales; bool SexIsOKwithMales; SexIsOKwithFemales = true; SexIsOKwithMales = false;
I'm not saying that to attack you or anything of the sort, its just what the facts appear to be. Classifying is a human response to complex situations. It makes life much less confusing and easier to deal with. Being a male, the above classification of you makes my life a hell of a lot easier, because if i found myself sexually attracted to you, i would know not to get all worked up over you or waste my effort pursueing you because you are not interested in sex with men. This frees up my time to pursue people who i have a chance with. Nothing more, nothing less. Without such labels i could wastes lots of time and emotions chasing women who have no interest in men. I have better things to do. (edited by Jomb on 04-27-06 11:36 PM) |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| The day Microsoft's operating system collects data on my ROM collection and the contents of my personal email, and sends it out over the net, is the day i say "fuck convenience" and switch to Linus |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| "Then you've sure known a lot of superbabies. As a general, virtually unexceptionable rule, a month-old baby will not be capable of any sort of emotional exp My textbook to my Psychology class claims that human babies/children are exceptional learners, and infact learn some things easier than adults (language for example). I consider learning to be one important aspect of sentience. "The only way man can be part of nature is to live in tents, wear loincloths, and eat tofu. At this point of development, the human race is no longer a part of the natural order of the world, and cannot practically reassume that role. That's not a function of our "obscenely vast" population, but of our state of technology and lifestyle. " No, man can be part of nature by being part of the food chain like any other animal. This is no longer possible because the vast quantity of people would rapidly extinct all game animals if we were trying to live off of them, and we would'nt be able to forage enough plantlife for humanity to live on anymore. Therefore it is essential that we keep livestock and grow food on farms for survival. I'm not arguing that we are part of the natural order anymore, i'm arguing that due to our ridiculously overwhelming population we no longer can be. "No, rainforests are sawed down on such a grand scale because Earth's reasonable human population cannot control its consumption. If the people on this planet were not used to such excess, then we wouldn't need to saw down rainforests, we wouldn't have as much pollution, and there'd be fewer oil spills. Don't make it out as if the current rate of consumption is just barely satisfying humankind when, in reality, it's far greater than what the population "should" require. " So you actually believe that, were we to just recycle and conserve energy, rainforests would'nt get sawed down? Actually though its irrelevant to the discussion whether you think that or not, because argueing how things would be if only humans were all perfect is silly. We can only argue how things actually are in this not-at-all-hypothetical situation. The fact is that people consume this much, and its not going down, actually its only going to rise, and dramatically. Were their less people, we'd have to try pretty damn hard to tax the environment. When you're talking about 8 billion or more people, the environment will be taxed no matter what, and over time it may be broken permanently. "Whether you agree with me or not, I don't see how you can say that I'm not being logical or reasonable. " I say that because the DNA thing makes no sense and seems to be only applied when convenient and shrugged off when inconvenient. Saying that a zygote is the same as an adult human being also makes no sense and is illogical. But, when you admit that in your belief the zygote has a soul then it all makes perfect sense. Then i may disagree with you, but at least i can understand where you're coming from. "I think you're taking the DNA criterion to a kind of unecessarily ludicrous level by comparing a severed limb to a zygote. Separated from a body, that limb quickly becomes useless and thoroughly dead. But that zygote is 100% of its being - that is, the entire organism is contained within that physical object. A limb is a piece of the greater human body, and is not itself a human being in any sense. " How so? Seperate the zygote from the host body and it to will die, exactly like that limb. So you believe that the brain is just one part of the human body and if surgically removed the body left behind is still a human worth protecting, but the brain, as a component part, is disposable in the same way a limb is? "Ok, now stop bending my proposal to fit your needs and instead tell me how you'll turn a sperm, on its own, into a human being. " Lets just take your argument one step further, you would tell me that a sperm is disposable, so lets say i collected that disposable sperm. Then you'd tell me an egg is disposable, so lets say i collected that disposable egg. Behind your back i merged these two inconsequential things. Now i have a zygote, which to you = a full grown man. The sperm and the egg have the same potential to become human that the zygote has, why do you protect the zygote, but not the sperm and egg? This is another example of where your logic fails. "The ability to learn through basic conditioning is not an indication of any sort of overwhelming sentience. Any animal can be conditioned, either operantly or classically, to respond according to specific stimuli. The higher natural intelligence of apes allows them to take that sort of learning to a greater level, but you must distinguish between the ability to learn and the actual characteristic of sentience (which, for definition, is essentially self-awareness). " You just said it yourself, sentience is self-awareness. This is the exact trait great apes have been proven to possess, and its what allows them to make tools. You cant make a tool without first imagining a future situation in your mind in which it would be used. Great apes are among the few creatures on the planet which can recognize themselves in a mirror, which is the test for self-awareness. "Homo sapiens - that is, the modern human - is genetically distinct from earlier evolutions. If you have basic knowledge of taxonomy, you know that Homo erectus, by virtue of its different Latin name, is a completely different species. However, I don't know enough about the characteristics of that species to say much more about it. " There was a time when Homo Sapiens existed alongside Neanderthals. Neanderthals are related to humans, but are not their ancestor, more like a seperate evolutionary direction. Neanderthals left behind clothing, spears, etc. Things which only a sentient could make. There is some evidence that they had religion, as in some areas they buried their dead with dead bears. Homo Erectus also existed, though very briefly, alongside Homo Sapiens. Homo Erectus is generally regarded as a likely ancestor of man, but they were still distinct specie. Homo Erectus was not as intelligent as Homo Sapien of Neanderthal, but was still clearly sentient. There is evidence that they would seek out fire to use for heat and possibly for cooking, for example, which is something you'd need sentience for. There was also a time when Australopithicene lived alongside other sentient beings, and they were a different line of evolution altogether, being more related to a gorilla than man. They appear to have used simple tools, such as clubs and sharpened rocks. But really my whole point to bringing up any of this is to try to figure out if you'd extend to other sentient beings the same regard you give a zygote, not to give you a primatology or archaeology lesson
Arwon - yes, from what all he's told me, Silvershield regards a mere zygote as not only being equivalent to a late term fetus, but also being equivalent to a full-grown person. |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| ROM - some things about the Earth do change over vast periods of time. The magnetic poles have shifted, the continents themselves change shape and position on the earth as the tectonic plates slide around. Antartica was not always at the South pole. The real question to your theory is whether or not it was at the South pole for all times in which man has existed to put a culture there.
Vyper- i'm not suggesting that we give up our lives or change radically, only that we put serious and not half-assed effort into getting off of fossil fuels and onto something better. It would not only help the environment, but would also made us more independant. |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| Kasumi - I'm glad i'm not offending you, because that was never my purpose I still dont see how anyone could possibly fit outside the 4 possible sexualities though. I'm not trying to simulate people, i only used the booleans as a way to explain why i dont see how anyone could not fit, at least generally (which is good enough for my purposes), into one of the 4 catagories. I understand and agree that there are nearly infinite shades and ways that people get to their sexuality, but still dont see how any of that makes a difference in what catagory they'd fit into. I know my sexuality fits quite nicely into one of those 4 catagories and so far everyone i've ever known or heard about does to.
Tarale - If you know a sexuality which would not be a type of either Heterosexual, Homosexual, Bisexual, or Asexual, please share!  |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| my only complaint with hentai is that much of it i seen has a barbie-doll crotch or over-simplified look, and i want details |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| All i meant by inconveniance, is that most every program i have or use runs under windows. I love the idea of Linux and can see its a superior operating system, but i'd be very limited in what programs i could effectively use if i switched. But, if windows ever gets into the DMA bullshit then i'll switch anyway (edited by Jomb on 05-07-06 06:52 PM) |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| You know what, i dont ever remember signing up for any draft... If i did it, i did'nt realize thats what it was. Does'nt matter anymore anyway, i'm no longer fit for military service |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 5910 days Last view: 5910 days |
| ||
| I could care less how many registered sex offenders live in my area. The whole thing is being handled terribly so it does'nt mean very much. I once interned in a program that worked with sex offenders, and what i quickly realized was that the vast majority of the poor scmucks being listed as sex offenders did'nt really deserve to be. Most were men who had consentual sex with their teenaged girlfriends when they were pretty young them damn selfs. But you'd never know that by the registry, because it either listed no details of what actually happened, or only listed the name of the charge, and the name of the charge seldom had much to do with what actually happened and usually made it sound much worse than it actually was. For example, i knew one guy who had consentual sex with a 16 year old. His charge was indecent sexual assault on a minor. If i had only seen the charge name i'd have thought he forcibly raped a small child. I would also occasionally meet someone who had done something very fucking serious and not have to register at all. I met a guy who forced a girl to give him oral sex at knife-point, and all he got was a corruption of minors charge in a plea-deal, which means he does'nt have to be listed as a sex offender. Another guy raped his 6 year old daughter regularly until she was 11, and only got the charge of endangering the welfare of a child, so he also does not have to register. Those were the rare cases though. At leat 60% of the 150 or so i came across in my internship were really ordinary guys who got hooked up with a slightly underage girl and got hammered hard for it. Thats why we have 3 million + sex offenders in the USA, because people can be made to register as one over the pettiest circumstances. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - - Posts by Jomb |
