pirana

I understand that humans are seen as special by most (compared to all other life forms); and I accept that to a point. What I disagree with is the position that they are so special that we must refrain from exterminating them regardless of their destructive predatorial behaviors. So I'm interested in having the anti-capital punishment crowd bottom line it for me. It can't be that we as a society, in general, believe that all life is sacred - because we don't seem to have a lot of qualms about killing millions during warfare. And most of those are killed for basically political reasons, and I doubt any but a small percentage ever committed more than a petty crime. So we are willing to send millions of innocents to die over squabbles about land and oil and religion and other political motivations; but a sizeable chunk of our population gets all knotted about sending a relative handful of scum-of-the-Earth predatorial murdering filth to their death. Makes no sense to me at all. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

While there are certainly more of them around these days, that's still a bit of an oxymoron. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Fact is, we tax INCOME, not ACCUMULATED WEALTH. The question in the OP was not about taxes, it was about what annual income makes you rich. The answer is that accumulation makes you rich; which is a functiuon of spending, savings, investment, etc. You can make $10 million per year, but if you invest poorly, spend it all on depreciating trinkets and baubles, etc, you will not be rich. You are correct, we tax income. Fact is though, rich is defined by wealth, not income. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I thought Rick James was dead. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I think you are correct. I believe our nation is still loaded with passive racism. I'd love to be proven wrong. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Egyptian Heroes of the Arab/Israeli Wars Roll Call of the Northern Alaskan Faction of the KKK Memories, by Ronald Reagan " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I'm surprised, and maybe I shouldn't be, that both candidates define rich by annual income. IT'S ACCUMULATED WEALTH! A person that makes $250K per year, but is in hock up to their eyeballs for a mortgage they can hardly keep up with and a bunch of toys that only deteriorate and depreciate over time is hardly rich. Richness is wealth, as in looking at all components of the balance sheet - not just the paycheck you bring home. And paying for the cost of running the country is a penalty when a person has to pay their own share plus the share of a bunch of lazy fucking slobs. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I think GAWAIN and auburnguy got it right. During the arms race there was a popular and horribly misguided idea held by many that the USSR was nearly even, or even, or even ahead in terms of weaponry and capability. It was never even close, and the gap has only widened since the USSR came apart. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Tougher and more strategic game if you play by expert rules, plus a couple house rules we have. No more than 12 armies on any country, ever. Nuclear war. If the attacker rolls three 1's, they lose all armies from the attacking country. If they roll three 6's, the defender loses all armies from the country under attack. Nobody inherits a defeated general's RISK cards. Unlimited reinforcement (within your contiguous realm). The number of armies received for turning in card sets starts at 3 and only goes up 1 army each time a set is turned in. We always deal out the cards to determine initial ownership of countries. The biggest effect is that most of these take some of the luck and circumstance out of the game. It also keeps a boneheaded pl;ayer from tossing the game to someone else. I hate it when a sloppy player not only gets themselves axed, but makes it easy for someone else to roll over the other players. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Threw a full can of lighter fluid on the bonfire once. Spectacular fireball. Erected a stack of about 2 dozen paletes (about 12 feet high), put a wicker chair on top and had somebody light it while I took my seat. Stayed put until the flames were singing my hairs. Some of the spectators were nearly hysterical screaming at me to bail. The good news is it was caught on video. The bad news is I accidentally erased it a few months later. Used to have a deal with the local fireworks superstore to sell us all their damaged and returned goods real cheap. Every August we'd go get enough to fill a pickup truck, for $40 or $50. We'd dump a couple hundred pounds at a time into the huge bed of coals of a burned down fire. Incredible experience. It's like being in the middle of a ground level grand finale; colorful explosions everywhere. I love fire - almost as much as I like explosions. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

In Zhills, we have a tense understanding. He isn't fond of jumpers, but was approached by an old-school local and chatted with. If someone has to come onto his property to get a chopped main, we will call first. If someone lands there, we will use the gate. Other than that, he still hates us, but it is a workable solution. I jumped there years back right after graduating AFF. After the waiver and rental ritual, the first thing I was warned about was not landing there. They said something about alligators too, but I think they were just giving the new guy the business. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Which, depending on his age, probably means he has had hundreds, maybe thousands of weeks when his dreams did not play out. Kind of takes the oogie-boogie out of it, huh? Events quantified. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Your mixing, and in my opinion only, intentionally being ambiguous. The motivations to experiment and explore are not dependent on existing proofs. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Is it your position I'm not a skeptic, or are you just making a broad statement for the benefit of everyone? Both. One a bit more than the other, but I'll let you decide if the shoe fits or not. I will say this, I don't think a truly skeptical person says "I believe in (insert thing here) because it may be possible," but rather, "show me the proof and then I'll believe." Definitely not a skeptic. A skeptic would at the least require a working theory for the mechanics behind the phenomenon. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I'm not into parlor tricks or illusion. But, I do believe telekinesis is possible. It is not only possible, but we are doing it--with help [for now] perhaps but... If you believe in telekenesis, please raise my hand. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Are you familiar with the concept of attempting to prove a negative proposition? It's a basic logic issue and essentially comes down to, "it can't be done". For instance, if you ask me to PROVE that little green mean in UFOs have NEVER visited the planet earth, there's actually no way anyone can do that. Science can't "prove" something didn't happen, only something did happen. It does that by looking at evidence. There is currently no evidence the soul exists. It can't be measured or tested for. That's not to say it doesn't exist, but it is not something that science prove at this point, therefore most scientists would simply state that, there is no evidence to support any theory that a soul exists. If you're a different kind of scientist and see the world with an alternative viewpoint, I would propose you design an experiment and see if you can define what a soul is and how to test for its existence. People have tried before. There is a fairly famous experiment where one scientist attempted to measure the "weight" of the soul as it leaves the body. It was pretty bogus but . . . hey . . . at least it was an attempt. Check it out; http://www.snopes.com/religion/soulweight.asp I'd say that brain injury is fairly good evidence against the idea of a soul. Significant brain damage definitely changes a persons personality, or even destroys it completely whereas damage to other parts of the body does not. Even an induced chemical imbalance in the brain can have a significant effect Just because the vehicle is damaged does not mean there is anything wrong with the driver. Take Stephen Hawkins as an example. Thanks to technology we can bypass the physical, and get to the non-tangible aspect of a human. Can you quantify origins of a thought? (no one has yet

Their differences arise from having different life experience. Theoretically, if they had the exact same experiences, they would be indistinguishable. Genes, environment, and brain - the triad that makes you. Even identical twins can only match on 1 of 3. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I would say that your soul is your mind. But I would also say that your mind and your brain aren't necesarily the same thing. Mind is a product of the brain. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

If defense is the only cool reason to kill, are all soldiers uncool? Don't soldiers actually go out looking to kill on a pretty regular basis? The life-is-sacred stance crumbles when the exceptions to the rule start to pile up. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

This does not seem relevant to the case to me. He is not Ray Krone, he is Joseph Duncan. A person could just as easily paste a link to the Wiki article on Duncan as the reason he SHOULD be executed. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

I heard them talking about his physical characteristics. Not so much a freak, but more like if you took every physical characteristic, and got to choose within the range found in humans the level or quality of that characteristic; he is what you would have if you decided to buiild a perfect human swimmer. Massive lung capacity, double jointed, webbed digits, etc. Except for the hair. He oughta be bald. But he does have that rubber cap thing like the others. Which makes me wonder; when will the runners get so fast that the only way to go faster will be miniscule details like shaving all their body hair? " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

They must be big in something the network isn't showing much - - fencing, equestrian and other miscellaneous gay sports. Seems that most of their medals are in swimming. I'll go check the medal counts... Didn't take long to find it: http://www.nbcolympics.com/countries/country=aus/medals/medalists/index.html Yep, mostly water sports medals Is that water sports as in water sports; or as in, . . . you know, . . . water sports? Wink wink, nudge nudge. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Thread has been open several hours and we still don't have a Jesus-is-everywhere-and-everything-if-you'll-just-let-him-in post. It's a miracle. Oops. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

They must be big in something the network isn't showing much - - fencing, equestrian and other miscellaneous gay sports. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

Velocity tells us how fast we are going in a particular direction. It has a direction component and a magnitude component. The magnitude of the velocity is the speed. Imagine a horse on a carousel. As the carousel goes round and round, the speed of the horse stays the same. The velocity, OTOH, is continuously changing (i.e. the horse is continuously accelerating), because the direction is continuously changing. Neither speed nor velocity happens "first." Velocity just offers more information. Consider the following statements: 1) A car traveling at 45 mph crashed into a car traveling at 35 mph. and 2) A car traveling north at 45 mph crashed into a car traveling south at 35 mph. From which statement are we able to get the most information? Plane Geometry as in Euclidean Geometry? Yes, I believe they are defined the same way as they are in Physics (relativity notwithstanding). Well explained. Here's looking at Eu, clid. " . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley