On 08/09/2006, at 3:14 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote:
The Fool wrote:
E. You know nothing. You are a Fvcking idiot and a troll.
Maybe I missed a memo, but I thought we didn't do this kind of shit
around here. IAAMOAC, and all that.
Are we suspending the guidelines when our dedicated atheists
On 08/09/2006, at 3:47 PM, Ritu wrote:
Okay, I can often do diplomacy. So here goes:
I think that agnosticism is the only rational position in this
argument,
that everything else, atheism included, is as much a matter of
personal
wishes and comfort as anything else.
I disagree -
On 08/09/2006, at 5:15 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Bloody cold medication says don't drink. So I stopped taking it
- there's no way I'm not drinking at my own party tonight... :D
Well, that's one way to handle it, I suppose. :) Of course,
you're going to be sorry
On 08/09/2006, at 7:37 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
Agnostics don't believe that it is true that God(s) exist.
Not quite - agnostics assert that it is not possible to prove or
disprove a deity...
Atheists believe that it is not true that God(s) exist.
...whereas atheists disbelieve
On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to having
a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet.
There is nothing rational about a vegetarian diet. Vegetarianism is
just a form of holier-than-thou
On 07/09/2006, at 8:29 PM, William T Goodall wrote:
On 7 Sep 2006, at 5:06PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 07/09/2006, at 6:58 PM, Brother John wrote:
William T Goodall wrote:
The atheists eat less babies than the theists though due to
having a rationally designed, probably vegetarian, diet
On 06/09/2006, at 3:51 PM, John W Redelfs wrote:
I wonder if anyone has two machines, a Mac and a PC?
iBook, Athlon 2200XP based PC currently running XP SP2, Claire's
iMac. Had a dual-boot to Fedora Core 3 but I use the PC for media
storage and Civ and Half-Life and I currently don't
On 06/09/2006, at 10:33 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Short-term egoistical goals
for theists mean do good or God will punish you. Short-term
egoistical goals for atheists lead to mass murder.
Hope that's satire.
Charlie
___
On 06/09/2006, at 11:31 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
No. You're commiting the basic theological falicy (again, in Jewish
terms) of thinking of G-d as a Human. To eff the ineffible. Which is
understandable (especially since Christians HAVE adopted a Human
aspect to their G-d) but from our POV
On 04/09/2006, at 5:58 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 4 Sep 2006 at 5:36, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 02/09/2006, at 6:41 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the
universe...
...apart from all the major ID spokespeople have said at various
On 04/09/2006, at 6:28 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Just wanted to add my belated felicitations. I hope you're
enjoying your honeymoon in Cyprus.
Cheers dude. We're playing fight the jetlag at the mo (plus oooh
it's summer here).
May you have a long and exceedingly happy marriage!
Ta.
On 03/09/2006, at 4:30 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
And you know who fights them? Not your precious atheists, it's
Christians and Jews.
Sweeping statement. And utter bollocks. Your attitude towards atheism
is hard to distinguish from Will's baiting about religion. How about
you *both*
On 04/09/2006, at 6:44 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Really. So Keith Henson is not an atheist? I'd be surprised to
learn that.
Yes, there's allways the odd one. But in my experience, the people
opposing Scientology are in the ratio of arround 20:1
theists:atheists.
Maybe because the
On 04/09/2006, at 8:05 PM, Dan Minette wrote:
3) A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings
of a spiritual leader.
Now, #4 is consistent with Tom Cruise and Scientology, but it is
also consistent with you and atheism.
And number 3 is also consistent with
On 04/09/2006, at 2:58 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 3 Sep 2006 at 23:08, William T Goodall wrote:
On 3 Sep 2006, at 10:53PM, William T Goodall wrote:
It seems pretty obvious to me, but it's not a subject I find
important enough to put any extra effort into. If you want to prove
me wrong
On 02/09/2006, at 6:41 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Further, ID has very little to do with belief that G-d created the
universe...
...apart from all the major ID spokespeople have said at various
times that the designer is God, and a number of them are YECs who
were convinced that
I don't know if you know who Billy Graham is, Charlie. He's the
most famous
American evangelical preacher of the last 50 years.
...and I've seen him evangelise.
A friend of mine is
sending me an email quoting Billy stating that evolution and
Christianity
are fully compatible He
On 31/08/2006, at 2:35 PM, Dave Land wrote:
On Aug 30, 2006, at 9:07 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
On 31/08/2006, at 1:35 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Isn't a cult a subset of religion?
Sure Charlie, just as poisons are a subset of chemicals.
Precisely - they're all toxic at a high enough
On 01/09/2006, at 5:19 AM, David Hobby wrote:
Andrew Crystall wrote:
Okay, apparently some people on the list don't know about
scientology. Scientotology itself is a UFO cult founded by a
mentally ill science fiction writer.
Andrew--
No, Scientotology is the belief that all is science.
Probably won't be about much for a bit as I get married in 8 hours
Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 01/09/2006, at 9:52 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 31 Aug 2006 at 18:26, David Hobby wrote:
O.K., if it's purely a money making venture, why all
the wacky UFO doctrine? Seriously, with all that money,
L. Ron could have hired a GOOD writer, who would have
come up with something guaranteed
On 01/09/2006, at 11:50 AM, David Hobby wrote:
Thanks, but shouldn't you being doing something else
about now? : ) Best wishes to you and Claire!
Cheers!
I'm sitting with my best man Glyn and a certain Gord Sellar, having a
coffee, and just having a last look at mail before heading off
On 31/08/2006, at 12:56 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 31 Aug 2006 at 2:36, William T Goodall wrote:
What's your point? The guy was [allegedly] responsible for forcing
girls as young as 12-y.o. to marry older men, giving the girls no
choice in the matter. Are you suggesting that under
On 31/08/2006, at 12:56 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
On 31 Aug 2006 at 2:36, William T Goodall wrote:
What's your point? The guy was [allegedly] responsible for forcing
girls as young as 12-y.o. to marry older men, giving the girls no
choice in the matter. Are you suggesting that under
On 31/08/2006, at 1:55 PM, Ritu wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
What is religious freedom if it isn't that?
That you're, again, deliverately using a cult - NOT a religion
Isn't a cult a subset of religion?
Yep. But it is also a subset of 'society' and 'politics', and
non-religious cults do
On 31/08/2006, at 1:35 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
Isn't a cult a subset of religion?
Sure Charlie, just as poisons are a subset of chemicals.
Precisely - they're all toxic at a high enough dose... ;-)
I don't think the differences are as huge as you do - yes, there are
the indicators
It seems to me that the real problem isn't religion as such but
ideological inflexibility in the face of rapidly changing conditions.
...somewhat like the current US administration?
Charlie
GCU Or The ID Movement
___
On 18/08/2006, at 9:26 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
Dave and I are laughing out loud... but on the other hand, just
encrypt your
wireless, ya dolt. Too much time on his hands, perhaps.
As he says I could encrypt it or alternately I could have fun.
Which is awesome... 'cause what are they
On 10/08/2006, at 4:02 PM, Richard Baker wrote:
David said:
So what, the rest of us don't get to answer it?
Of course you do. I'm just especially interested in what Charlie
has to say.
I'm thinking about it. :-) It warrants a considered reply.
Do you think morality is part of social
On 10/08/2006, at 4:33 PM, Richard Baker wrote:
Charlie said:
I'm thinking about it. :-) It warrants a considered reply.
I like asking questions like this :)
As long as you post your answer at some time too!
I'm sitting here trying to write vows. Wedding in 3 weeks. :-o
Charlie
On 10/08/2006, at 6:33 PM, Richard Baker wrote:
Charlie said
I like asking questions like this :)
As long as you post your answer at some time too!
I prefer thinking about questions to which I don't have answers :)
Play fair. Your musings count too. Or are you being uber-Socratic?
On 10/08/2006, at 10:47 PM, Julia Thompson wrote:
As long as you post your answer at some time too!
I'm sitting here trying to write vows. Wedding in 3 weeks. :-o
Good luck! (And I hope the wedding all goes well!)
Cheers Julia.
At the moment, I reckon we've got enough material for um...
On 05/08/2006, at 11:34 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote:
It was not an error to overthrow Saddam. Sure, your government lied
to you about the reasons, and by all means call them to account for
it, but overthrowing that sort of unstably dangerous tyrant isn't a
mistake.
It is if you're replacing
On 06/08/2006, at 3:19 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
Given the situation, I don't think there was a way to ratchet up
pressure
from what it was. The US was forward deployed and combat ready in
a way
that it wasn't ready to sustain for a year.
Because of the way they ramped up. There was a UN
On 06/08/2006, at 7:13 AM, Robert Seeberger wrote:
Modernized now.
G
Pop culture topicalised now...
Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 06/08/2006, at 12:33 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
The US has also been a leader in the
crisis in Sudan.
:-o
I'm just going to have to withdraw from this thread.
Charlie
Different Realities Maru
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 04/08/2006, at 8:59 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
If one accepts - From a medical standpoint, an 8- or
15-week fetus is not an infant or a child.
Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are different
from men,
premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown
On 04/08/2006, at 9:20 AM, William T Goodall wrote:
Medical categories are just that, categories. Women are
different from men,
premature infants display less cognitive ability than some grown
non-human
primatesyet killing an infant is murder, just as killing an
adult is,
and just
On 04/08/2006, at 9:25 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads,
including for
a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with
extended
range.
Ah yes. The missiles. That I, and the British Army base I lived near,
were well in
On 04/08/2006, at 1:56 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We assess that they possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads,
including for
a limited number of covertly stored Scuds, possibly a few with
extended
range.
Ah yes. The missiles. That I
On 02/08/2006, at 9:19 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, you are saying that in 2002, a major intelligence agency
concluded that Iraq had no WMD stockpiles of any kind?
No. You've inverted the statement. The NIE, as well as Tenet in
On 31/07/2006, at 4:17 PM, Brother John wrote:
Doug Pensinger wrote:
Are you a fundy? Do you believe that the earth and heavens were
created in six days approximately 6000 years ago?
No, I think that the six days mentioned in the Bible are more
properly thought of as six creative periods
On 31/07/2006, at 4:33 PM, Brother John wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Your lack of imagination is unsurprising.
Recently, a cat baiting exercise near my old house resulted in the
poisoning of many pet and stray cats. Including all three of mine.
This was done for pest control reasons
On 31/07/2006, at 11:00 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
We do now know that if Neanderthals interbred with modern people,
there are no traces of Neanderthal genes left in modern
populations.
Neanderthals have no genes in common with modern populations???
Are they from
On 01/08/2006, at 3:55 AM, Richard Baker wrote:
snip nice summary
However, it's at least logically possible - or so it seems to me;
Charlie or someone else more knowledgeable might correct me - that
some modern humans are descended from Neanderthals but that the
characteristically
On 01/08/2006, at 8:20 AM, Brother John wrote:
This is what I was trying to say in another post. We fed ourselves
better, and reproduced more prolifically. So our culture replaced
theirs.
Shooting them may have had an effect too.
It will happen to us if we stop reproducing. We will
On 01/08/2006, at 8:45 AM, Brother John wrote:
As a child that raised white mice and rats as much as I did snakes,
I can attest that white rats are much, much better pets than white
mice. Mice bite and their urine stinks something awful. Neither is
true of white rats. Rats actually make
On 31/07/2006, at 2:35 AM, Brother John wrote:
The Fool wrote:
From: Charlie Bell
On 30/07/2006, at 1:03 PM, The Fool wrote:
Well if you mean writing. The sphynx is estimated as being 8000
+ years ago.
About 1-2000 years after the domestication of the cat.
Domestication
On 31/07/2006, at 2:38 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
Charlie wrote:
Good start. I'd suggest that's enough of a teaser for now. I'm
going to try to get the book from the library today, failing that
I'll see if they have an unloaned copy in another branch. Failing
*that* I'll see if our
On 30/07/2006, at 11:01 PM, Alberto Vieira Ferreira Monteiro wrote:
Richard Baker wrote:
We do now know that if Neanderthals interbred with modern people,
there are no traces of Neanderthal genes left in modern populations.
Neanderthals have no genes in common with modern populations???
On 31/07/2006, at 3:34 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
To me they are, to others they are an unwanted burden. Still
others are indifferent. How many women in the past were having
babies not because they wanted them but because it was their duty?
Or because their husband/master/owner wanted
On 29/07/2006, at 10:45 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
Well, now you've left me confused. Neither a 1-month old infant,
nor a 7-month unborn child are capable of either of those things,
and you clearly consider them to be human. So, there clearly is
something else at work in defining humanity for
On 30/07/2006, at 2:25 AM, Brother John wrote:
It seems to me that most of the atheists I know are just as
ethical as anyone else, and spend a lot of time thinking about
social responsibility and equality issues.
We have to spend a lot of time thinking about ethics because we're
On 30/07/2006, at 9:38 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We don't need to think of a sperm or zygote as sacred. But
we should consider what we do when we cultivate a sentiment
among us
that babies don't matter and are no more worthy to live
On 30/07/2006, at 4:21 AM, Gibson Jonathan wrote:
Charlie,
I've read over RFK's piece in Rolling Stone, Was the 2004
Election Stolen? http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/10432334/
was_the_2004_election_stolen and it seems pretty damning against an
honest election this last go around.
On 30/07/2006, at 1:03 PM, The Fool wrote:
Well if you mean writing. The sphynx is estimated as being 8000+
years ago.
About 1-2000 years after the domestication of the cat.
Domestication? ;)
Charlie
___
On 29/07/2006, at 12:52 PM, Brother John wrote:
Perhaps it is an overstatement to say that every sperm is sacred,
but human life most definitely is. And if our popular culture no
longer values the sacred, or even understands the meaning of the
term sacred, we have lost a big part of
On 27/07/2006, at 7:00 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 02:34 AM Thursday 7/27/2006, Matt Grimaldi wrote:
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Biologic laws are not like the laws of physics (at least not
superficially).
I've heard of one that *is* like the laws of physics: it states that
the pile of
On 27/07/2006, at 9:23 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The definition I gave (interbreding
populations)
Doesn't this definition fail to account for species that reproduce
asexually?
Somebody needs to read ahead before replying... ;-)
Charlie
On 28/07/2006, at 10:26 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Another problem is that members of a species may never have an
opportunity
to interbreed.
That's not so much of a problem - if there are two distinct breeding
groups that are separated, they can be considered separate species
even
On 26/07/2006, at 8:42 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Very easily. _Homo technologia_ could be the next step,
if they form a separate breeding group from baseline humans.
Yes, and this separate breed will have no males :-P
Species change and branch and fade. That's how
On 26/07/2006, at 9:06 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Physical, yes. Biological, no.
Huh? Do you mean what you said, or do you mean Physical, I agree,
Biological I don't.
Yes - but I think I said that. Didn't I? What did I say?
I wasn't sure, that's why I asked.
The evolutionary
On 27/07/2006, at 3:42 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes - I'd want abortion to be replaced with transfer of the
foetus to
the artificial womb. In fact, if technology progressed so far, I
suspect many people would avoid the risk of pregnancy and childbirth
altogether.
This seems to be an
On 27/07/2006, at 7:05 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
I also think that the idea that many people have views somewhere
between the
pro-choice set of axioms and the pro-life set of axioms is
fairly valid.
The debate I've seen doesn't reflect this. Most of it is between
people who
know their
On 27/07/2006, at 8:02 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Some people have c-sections because they can schedule them
round their yoga, or because they need to fit childbirth
into a certain period of the financial year for tax or
government incentive reasons,
The above reasons
On 27/07/2006, at 8:20 AM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Specially if gay men decide to have children. So, maybe we will
have the hellish opposite scenario of the lesbian utopia: a world
where most people are gay men :-/
LOL
Or we'll just have a 50:50 world, where 10
On 26/07/2006, at 10:43 PM, PAT MATHEWS wrote:
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
So souls can be combined as well as created? Or do identical
twins share a soul?
The ones I have met have each had their own soul, and from all
accounts, that's even true of conjoined twins
On 27/07/2006, at 10:04 AM, PAT MATHEWS wrote:
I wish you hadn't asked me that. I had a long-time friend who has
been in the hospital with a massive stroke for some time now. The
person in her body is like a sweet, passive small child with
amnesia. I have finally got a gut feeling for
On 27/07/2006, at 10:49 AM, Damon Agretto wrote:
How many pregnancies are planned, and how many are accidental?
I guess it would all depend on the technology. But whether people
plan their pregnancies around the tax season or their new-age
hippie health classes is irrelevant to the
On 27/07/2006, at 11:43 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of the problems with your mode is thinking is the by
definition part.
This is way we used to think about species before Darwin.
...and a long way after. The Biological Species Concept was developed
through the mid-1900s, with
On 27/07/2006, at 1:35 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But whether people plan their pregnancies around the tax season or
their
new-age hippie health classes is irrelevant to the question:
Yoga is a new-age hippie health class? Since when?
One of the biggest reason for C-sections over here
On 27/07/2006, at 2:06 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Charlie said:
One of the biggest reason for C-sections over here is to ensure the
time
of birth. So that the kid's horoscope is auspicious
And there you have it. :-)
The prize for silliest possible reason? ;)
LOL I'm sure I can
On 26/07/2006, at 3:35 AM, Richard Baker wrote:
Charlie said:
It's been done with other mammals, and I wouldn't be at all
surprised if there aren't a handful of chimeric humans out there.
Apparently 8% of fraternal twins are blood chimerae because of
cell exchange through a shared
On 26/07/2006, at 9:23 AM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
That's all I've got time for right now. I'm on vacation (and away
from my computer) for the next four days. I'll get started on Part
1, Modern Montana, when I return. Any suggestions on or off list
are encouraged and appreciated. I'm
On 26/07/2006, at 11:30 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very interesting ones, but
indisputably human.
You use that word indisputably, but doesn't the fact that a new
species name has been proposed *by definition* imply that at least one
On 26/07/2006, at 11:32 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would think that by the standard definition of a species a cell line
cannot qualify. A species is a group of individuals who can or do
interbreed. I
don't know how a cell culture can qualify a species.
They're free living (on
On 26/07/2006, at 11:43 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There's something else to being human, and
it's to do with our minds not our bodies.
Conjoined twins, parasitic twins. See you
avoided the rest. They're uncomfortable thoughts
On 26/07/2006, at 1:07 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
After all, how can you
propose a new species name for humanity?
Very easily. _Homo technologia_ could be the next step, if they
form
a separate breeding group from baseline humans
On 26/07/2006, at 3:05 PM, PAT MATHEWS wrote:
From: Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Subject: Re: Wealthy couples travel to U.S. to choose baby's sex
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 13:15:19 +1000
On 26/07
On 25/07/2006, at 12:25 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
HeLa cells came from a tumor of Helen Lane.
Helen Lane was a pseudonym used to protect the patient's identity.
Her real name was Henrietta Lacks.
They are unquestionably human
cells. They have a mutation that allows them to continue to
On 25/07/2006, at 1:40 PM, David Hobby wrote:
How terribly disappointing. How anyone could consider a half-cell
to be human is beyond me.
JDG
You're right. Sperm and eggs would be some of the few cells
that would NOT count as human, since they don't have enough
chromosomes. : )
Jesus
On 25/07/2006, at 1:04 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
How terribly disappointing. How anyone could consider a half-cell
to be human is beyond me.
A sperm is not a half cell. It is a highly specialised full cell that
happens to have a half-set of chromosomes. Same for an ovum.
Charlie
On 25/07/2006, at 1:14 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No, I'm saying WHAT THEY'RE CALLED is beside the point.
Which I continue to fail to understand. Obviously, some very
intelligent people believe that HeLa are of, at minimum, another
On 24/07/2006, at 9:16 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
But the point remains. These are free living human cells, with a
full complement of human DNA. That someone has suggested they're a
new species is beside the point - these are free-living human
cells... so why aren't they human beings with the same
On 24/07/2006, at 11:33 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
Now, I realize that for some of you, this weather might just be
routine,
especially if you happen to be serving in Iraq.
Last Wednesday night, I was in 36C. Last Thursday night I was in 2C.
That's a hell of a shift.
Charlie
On 24/07/2006, at 9:19 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Anyhow, if one changes the example such that on the second floor
are
150 Senior Citizens, I suspect that most people save the infants
first. Of course, I doubt that you would
On 24/07/2006, at 12:01 PM, David Hobby wrote:
Welcome back. I think you're missing Charlie's point.
To me, his argument is that it is VERY hard to draw a clear
line between things that can turn into adult humans and things
that can't. I advise conceding the point, unless you just
like to
On 22/07/2006, at 8:14 PM, Brother John wrote:
Now, I don't think it's wrong to say that human life starts at
conception, but I just think it's meaningless, as a zygote isn't
actually any more human than an ovum - it's still a single cell.
Sure, it's been given the infusion of extra DNA and
On 23/07/2006, at 12:07 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
This is, of course, an absurd hypothetical, sort of like the
questions we used to ask as a kid - would you rather slide down a
set of razors into a pool of rubbing alcohol or be burned alive?
Maybe so.
Anyhow, if one changes the example such
On 23/07/2006, at 2:50 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
RFK Jr's statement didn't adress this at all. I'd argue that both
Democrats and Republicans give half truths that favor their
position. It's
not that RFK Jr. is a champion of truth against those lying
Republicans.
He certainly isn't.
On 20/07/2006, at 12:23 AM, Dan Minette wrote:
So, I don't think it is helpful to make arguments based on one's
own axiom
set and then expect them to sound reasonable to someone who holds a
different axiom set. What we can do is look at the consequences of
various
definitions.
This
On 21/07/2006, at 4:32 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
Now, I don't think it's wrong to say that human life starts at
conception, but I just think it's meaningless, as a zygote isn't
actually any more human than an ovum - it's still a single cell.
Sure, it's been given the infusion of extra DNA
On 21/07/2006, at 9:14 PM, Ray Ludenia wrote:
On 21/07/2006, at 4:47 PM, Charlie Bell wrote:
Hate it when I do that. Blame the jet lag.
Welcome to our newest Aussie member!
Cheers Ray. We'll come down and see you sometime, but probably not
'til October at the earliest - it's a bit
On 22/07/2006, at 2:19 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
Hello, hello? Can anybody hear this?
Just nod if you can hear me is there anyone at home?
Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Hey chaps,
I'm flying to Melbourne tomorrow, so I may not get a chance to reply
to some mails for a bit. Will catch up once the jetlag abates...
Charlie
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
On 17/07/2006, at 6:50 AM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Charlie Bell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 15/07/2006, at 3:43 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
We weren't discussing abortion.
Yes we are. We are talking about conceiving a number of
children,
and eliminating the children
On 17/07/2006, at 3:04 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 02:49 AM Monday 7/17/2006, Charlie Bell wrote:
Cancer is undifferentiated balls of cells too. Is a tumour a human?
The obvious difference is that if left alone a blastocyst has a
chance (if nothing goes wrong) of becoming a human
On 17/07/2006, at 7:12 PM, Jim Sharkey wrote:
I also wonder, if such tinkering becomes viable, does it have the
possibility of damaging an egalitarian society?
No. It's likely to make any society *more* equal in the (possibly
quite) long run.
Charlie
On 17/07/2006, at 8:10 PM, Doug Pensinger wrote:
I imagine that even if the manipulation of traits becomes illeagal
here it will be legal somewhere and rich people will have access to
it anyway. In any case, in the U.S. people from different social
stratta have a tendency to mix so I'm
On 17/07/2006, at 8:33 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
Charlie Bell wrote:
Because whatever traits that contribute to discrimination would be
weeded out. The population will likely become homogeneous...
Yes, like the Y-chromossome that will be eliminated, ending up
with a lesbian society :-P
701 - 800 of 1013 matches
Mail list logo
