As to euthenasia- absolutely. Humans have ultimate right to their own
selves. If you want to die, go ahead. Your only responsibility is to not
hurt someone else in the process.

Ok, enjoyment *is* a subjective. That we can agree on. And nothing in
those higher-end physics says that there's no absolutes. Even if they
are true, that makes THEM the absolutes. Merely because we haven't found
that absolute point, doesn't mean it's nonexistant.


And it's not my mind, or anyone else's, that chooses what's "right" and
"wrong". That's what souls were DESIGNED for. Or, at least, part of it.
Certainly one of the functions, at least.


Absolutes on capital punishment? Sure, why not. A being that would
commit such a violation of the very nature of what our souls are- can't
have a soul in and of themselves. So killing them really is no
difference than putting down a dangerous, man-killing animal.


However, there's a very real possibility of convicting an innocent
person. So capital punishment, although not wrong, is too risky to
engage in. But if there was absolute proof- I'd flip the switch, myself.
I'd certainly take no enjoyment from the act- except maybe the feeling
of security knowing there's one less monster in the world.

Oh. And quoting Nuremburg means nothing. Saddam didn't care about that
little document- he violated it like (analogy to horrible for polite
conversation). And we enforced it. That simple.

But, of course, Clinton should have used America's military muscle in
over a dozen choice events during his administration. I have an open
mind. I look to the whole probem. And for the facts that have nothing to
do with the obvious claims.

Haven't seen her saying anything to that effect. I did apologize to
her. If she feels it's not enough, she can tell me, and I can apologize
again.

I acknowleged that some failures occur. More than I'd really like.
Change is more than welcome. But it's *still* better than nothing.


You, on the other hand, have yet to apologize to me.

You're. Kidding. Right?


The ultimate way to turn around the morale problems with these wars,
and in the process give the republicans a chance in hell of winning any
election in the next two decades, would be to find Bin Laden.

Too many Americans hate him. It would be, however erroneously, viewed
as the ultimate proof that we're somehow winning this war.

Simple answer- incompetence.

Long answer- A LOT of incompetence.

I've done nothing wrong. What you're asking me to do is stop playing in
the park because I occasionally get in the way of your frisbie.


And I did apologize to Red. Now apologize to me for your insults,
fraudulent claims, and open threats.

First- there's a difference between "betrayal" and "failure".

Second- a lot of your argument, I don't see a problem with in the first
place.

Third- much of it's just innacurate, anyways. Iraq wasn't about 9/11.
Afghanistan (rightfully) was. But Iraq was about some nutjob who kept
being a douchebag. In all fairness- the Iraq war shoulda happened about
midway through the FIRST Clinton administration.

And I've stated I'm going to post in whatever threads I see fit. I'm
not targeting you. And if you don't like the fact that I can cut apart
your points.... sorry.... get better points.

Ok, to the site. It's Gross Misrepresentation. Is that enough for you?

Hmm. Who's he running against? If it's Gore again- I'd have to vote for
Bush. Although I'd probably just move to Canada.

With a certainty. I've run into enough non-corporeals to know there's a
*something* beyond the veil of death. More details than that, are pure
speculation.

Who gets there? Does everyone get there? Is there differences for good
or evil people? Is it merely a transition phase to an even further
mystery? Will we meet our relatives? Will I finally get to find and mock
the guy who invented atheism? I don't know any of THOSE answers. But
there's certainly a something beyond this world.

Well, that works. But why do you place value in this? In expressing? In
learning?


As far as I'm concerned, the human quest for knowlege and learning
isn't a "subjective" good. It's an ABSOLUTE. It's good, because it's
good. Of course, it's still a tool and can obviously be put to horrible
applications.


And Einstein's theories don't prove that there's no "absolutes" in the
universe, or even implies that's the case. It merely proves that our
small little world isn't sitting on said absolute. No more than a
mountain valley is at sea level.

Flying squirrels don't make sence. They never should have evolved those
membranes, if the laws of Natural Selection had anything to say about
it.


And Ostriches USED to fly. Or, at least, something in their ancestry
did. And it's shown that every few thousand years or so, their wings
shrink by about an inch. Those serve to prove my point, not rebuff it.

Well, it'll be nice to have an intelligent opponent. If AB thinks you're
good, then we can have a real debate. And not this massacre.

You know- if you really want to prove evolution as a purely natural
process- explain flight. Explain winged, flying, birds. I said already
that half-wings are evolutionarily detrimental. Evolving (over millions
of years, no less) into full flight would be no different than water
flowing uphill.


If it does happen, it's due to another force that has nothing to do
with ordinary nature. I've little doubt that our Creator would establish
evolution as a method of construction and regulation. A micro-management
program so there wouldn't need to be a Divine Miracle every time the
climate changes a couple degrees or a species wanders somewhere new.

And by "base"- I mean something about which you can say "this is good
because it is good- not because someone says it's good- but because it
*is* good."


If you lack that base, then you don't have anything by which to support
anything. After all, if your view is that mine is subjective- what gives
you that idea? Subjective would be, by definition, subjective.

And yet, we're the only species to have subjectivity. At least, the
only one in this corner of the universe. That should mean something in
and of itself.


Besides. If all things are subjective. Why are we talking? I know why
*I* am. But why are you? If your opinion and mine is subjective, then
you can't be truly "right" about anything. And you can't believe you can
be (except maybe on things such as basic mathamatics).


I, on the other hand, believe in objectivity. I believe there is
clear-cut right and wrong. I can justify debate with concretely valuable
reasons. Such as advancing knowlege (which I feel is objective- if
knowlege is subjective, why pursue it?).


And so on and so forth. No matter what you believe, you ultimately have
to a concrete base.

Actually, no, they don't have the same genes we do. They have the same
basic chemicals.... the four chemical compounds that form all genetic
chains.... but the combinations (aka- genes) are COMPLETELY different.
That's highschool biology. It doesn't change.