Smoking is healthy - Anti-Smoking is Leftist propagander

[Alpha66]

The leftist propaganist governments in the US, have created this conspiricy to stop, people enjoying them selves.

First its smoking,
then its alcahol,
then its sex before marrage,
soon even coffee will be banned by the evil leftist governments.

Of course the leftwing governments deny this, they deliberatly make people ill by injecting people with tetracycline 1,2,3 tri-methyldecaptane, this causes the lung canser which is viciously blamed on smoking.

[CubanFox]

All those things (except the sex one) do kill you eventually. And about the injections. What the hell?

[Alpha66]

See the evil leftists deny the conspiricy to make more lung cancer to blame on smoking, Evil leftist propagander

[Politrickian]

LOL!!!!!!!!!

Yes, it's the same evil leftists in the government that fight so harshly against drugs. Just take a look at the far-right government the Netherlands had in the years they started to legalize marijuana.

[ComradeJunichi]

Alpha66, you've got some serious paranoia.

[Alpha66]

no you leftist fool, it's the RIGHT WING who SUPPORT Drug LEGALISATION Not the dictatorial LEFT WING

[ComradeJunichi]

Damned troll, ban him.

[CubanFox]

Get your facts straight, Mr Conspiracy Theorist.

Most people who think drug legalization is a good idea (note: most people, not all) just want an excuse to get stoned.

[Politrickian]

Quote: from CubanFox on 1:25 pm on May 2, 2003
Most people who think drug legalization is a good idea (note: most people, not all) just want an excuse to get stoned.

And what's wrong with that? :D

[CubanFox]

It's perfectly fine if you're open about it...I mean, people who say "Legalize weed. I like stoning!" are cool, but people who try to hide it with weak political arguments = :(

[Liberty Lover]

How sweet to be an Idiot,
As harmless as a cloud,
Too small to hide the sun,
Almost poking fun
At the warm but insecure, untidy crowd.
How sweet to be an idiot,
And dip my brain in joy,
Children laughing at my back,
With no fear of attack,
As much retaliation as a toy.
How sweet to be an idiot. How sweet.

I tiptoed down the street,
Smiled at everyone I meet,
But suddently a scream
Smashes through my dream.
Fee fie foe fum.
I smell the blood of an asylum.
(Blood of an asylum. But mother, I play so beautifully. Listen. Ha ha.)
Fie fye foe fum.
I smell the blood of the asylum.
Hey you. You're such a pennant.
You got as much brain as a dead ant,
As much imagination as a carvan sign,

But I still love you. Still love you.
Oooh, how sweet to be an idiot.
How sweet. How sweet. How sweet.


--"The idiot song" Monty Python

[Hell raiser]

I don't care if you guys smoke, but you propably die of cancer if you do so ;)

[Alpha66]

Of course you die of cancer, at least you do if you go to a hospital, they give you nasty chemicals which make you get cancer, smoking itself is totally harmless, indeed, non-smokers die on average 20 years before smokers.

[CubanFox]

Where the fuck did you get that statistic?

[Zombie]

Smoke cigarettes or smoke weed?

[CubanFox]

I think he means tobacco.

[Alpha66]

weed smoke they inject you with chemicals which give you brain damage, it's all an evil leftist plot to stop people enjoying themselves. They keep files on people they see smoking and get them in hospitals, STAY AWAY FROM HOSPITALS!!!!

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

While the govs. exagerate just a bit about the health risks, smoking is still harmful.

Left wing against drugs? hah, the left wing seems to be a bunch of stoners to me

[CubanFox]

When he says left he means right.

[Moskitto]

Alpha66, there is something very wrong with you.

[Zombie]

Quote: from Alpha66 on 10:46 am on May 2, 2003
weed smoke they inject you with chemicals which give you brain damage, it's all an evil leftist plot to stop people enjoying themselves. They keep files on people they see smoking and get them in hospitals, STAY AWAY FROM HOSPITALS!!!!


i see you didn't like that last psychiatric clinic you just got out of huh...
tssk hey you remind me of Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys. Great movie, except he was funnier than you.


(Edited by Zombie at 2:51 pm on May 2, 2003)

[Goldfinger]

You seem like a very interesting person, Alpha.

[synthesis]

Alpha 66 exhibits the usual intelligence of a member of that fascist organization.

[chamo]

First of all, the paranoia and stupidity that cigarettes do not give you cancer and that the hospitals are trying to kill people.

Cigarettes do kill, how the fuck do you think they are healthy?

The same goes for alcohol and liver disease...
Alcohol and tobacco (nicotine) are both drugs as well.

Most leftists want to legalise or decriminalise marijuana, most right-wing groups are completley against it. You really aren't that intelligent are you. Then again you are from (supposedly) alpha66.

[Anonymous]

12 monkeys really was a great movie.

[Anonymous]

Quote: from CubanFox on 10:32 am on May 2, 2003
Where the fuck did you get that statistic?


He took is hand, reached way up inside his ass, and pulled really hard.

[canikickit]

It's perfectly fine if you're open about it...I mean, people who say "Legalize weed. I like stoning!" are cool, but people who try to hide it with weak political arguments =

You clown, there are perfectly logical political arguments for legalisation.

[hawarameen]

i cant believe it, i have been living a lie for so long, i quit smoking, drinking, sex, drugs and for what? NOTHING.

i am very scared, i am never going into a hospital ever again, please guide me alpha, tell me what to do,

FOR THE LOVE OF JUDAS TELL ME WHAT TO DOOOOOOO

[CubanFox]

You are right there, canikickit. It just seems to me that alot of people who want it legalized are just desperate stoners.

[IHP]

It's a shame when arguments like this are presented. Really it is.

--IHP

[Zombie]

Quote: from hawarameen on 6:51 pm on May 2, 2003
i cant believe it, i have been living a lie for so long, i quit smoking, drinking, sex, drugs and for what? NOTHING.

i am very scared, i am never going into a hospital ever again, please guide me alpha, tell me what to do,

FOR THE LOVE OF JUDAS TELL ME WHAT TO DOOOOOOO


i feel the exact same way. Will Judas ever answer us?

[BorgHunter]

All right, how the FUCKING HELL can anyone think that inhaling smoke is healthy?

[Blibblob]

Depends on what you mean by "healthy".

[BorgHunter]

I suppose I mean at least "not detrimental to one's health".

[hazard]

I think maybe we should give alpha a chance to defend himself. I mean, obviously he feels strongly about these ideas. I'd really like to know how he reached these conclusions.

for instance, I consider anti smoking a right wing plot.

it is popularized as a red herring tactic to stall ecological improvements across the board. so, the auto manufacturers can maintain current emission levels. so the heavy industry can maintain current pollution levels. so the transport industry can maintain its wastefrul levels.

as long as people are made to think that smoking is the "leading" cause of diseases, all of these capitalist industry's are left alone. for the time being at least.

as far as smoking is concerned, nobody really knows how unhealthy it is.

what I'd like to know is how unhealthy it is in a POLLUTION FREE environment. but since such an environment is non existant, I'll never know.

why hasn't anybody ever sone such an experiment? I mean, a small pollution free bio sphere and like a hundred monkeys who are all addicted to tobacco, right? just to see what the result is. thats called a controlled environment, and is the only truly scientific way to find out.

[dopediana]

2 words for alpha66.

free love



and i don't advocate smoking, 1st hand, 2nd hand or otherwise. but do it all you want, just don't expect me to kiss you.

[CubanFox]

Two more words for Alpha:

get help

[Nic8]

I thought it was funny what Alpha66 said. What I found even funnier was that everybody else took him seriously and no one realised he was probably joking.

[革命者]

yes-- worrying. altough i think it was just T Blair registering a second account-- why would you need a second account, Tony?

that's just stupid!! :angry:

[CubanFox]

This Alpha guy is serious, which disturbs me.

[Urban Rubble]

I'm pretty sure this T Blair is a guy that followed me here from a skateboarding board. We always debated about socialism and he seemed pretty smart and well spoken. Well, after a while he started getting weirder and weirder, making weird post's and just saying stupid shit. After awhile all my posts about communism started disappearing, thisis an un-moderated board, then it started happening here too. THEN someone on here started posting with my nick saying things about how communism can't work. I'm not sure if it was him, or if this is even the same guy, but it's all very weird .

[革命者]

che-lives unmoderated?

how's that?

[onepunchmachinegun]

In Denmark there is a city called Christiana that is a sort socialistic and the law that normally controls/opresses the country is invalid in Christiana. They make their own law...
In Christiana Cannabis is legal, but not hard drugs. Sex is free and they ban marriage from the church...

[Comrade H]

Fact about smoking - it was first said to be dangerous by Nazi scientists, so I don't really see how you can accuse the left of being anti-smoking. Also, what is Cuba's most famous product? I rest my case.

As for drugs, it's clear that they've ruined enough lives to make it obvious to people not to take any. That said, at the moment Im in favour of legalising all drugs, but while educating the population how stupid they are(the drugs, not the ppl!).

[Nic8]

Quote: from Comrade H on 5:21 am on May 8, 2003
Also, what is Cuba's most famous product? I rest my case.

Uh, isn't Cuba's most famous product sugar?

[CubanFox]

Most plentiful = sugar
Most well known = cigars

[Zombie]

I believe the one and the only who is the understand Alpha66 is the Mr Akbar!

[GCusack]

Alpha?! wat the fuck?! Ive watched my grandda die from lung cancer and the doctor saw the linning of tar on his lungs!! all WAS to do with smoking! if he hadnt smoked he would be nice and healthy like my great uncle and great aunts from the same family, therefore same genetic make up, therefore same chance of lung cancer and they didnt get it and none of them smoked either!! U blame us for killing people do u? IDIOT!!!

[Nic8]

Quote: from CubanFox on 7:08 am on May 8, 2003
Most plentiful = sugar
Most well known = cigars


Oh yea. I'm an idiot. Sorry. I didn't thin of that.

[El Che]

I wish I could stop smoking. Its one hell of an addiction. I`d hate to think what heroin would be like.

[Soul Rebel]

Quote: from CubanFox on 1:01 am on May 3, 2003
You are right there, canikickit. It just seems to me that alot of people who want it legalized are just desperate stoners.


Have to totally disagree with you on this- most people who are for the legalization of cannabis have very intelligent political reasoning for it. I know a lot of people who dont smoke marijuana and are for legalizing it or decriminalizing it. I have been smoking it for 11 yrs. and am for decriminalizing for political beliefs- not because i am a desperate stoner. i will continue to smoke it even if it doesnt go legal. please if you want to learn more go to http://www.norml.org

At this site you will learn why people really want to legalize it. there are medical, environmental, economic reasons for it. please before you make the comment of calling us desperate stoners get the info. first. :) And next time you encounter someone who smokes it and has no clue about the politics behind it tell them to get educated too!!! They're giving pro-marijuana activists a bad name!!!

[atlanticche]

smoking isn't healthy this are backed by scientists not politicians
weed may not be bad for your health, unlike smoking, but it is dangerous enough that it should be kept supervised
the western governments aren't enemies

[Soul Rebel]

the only reason some western countries want to keep it illegal is because they cant control its growth. marijuana is very easy to grow-trust me. so if the governments did decide to legalize it they would want to have control over its production. they would want to make money on it. however they cant because it can be so easily grown. it has nothing to do with being dangerous. alcohol and cigarettes are dangerous and they are still legal. its all about the money.

[atlanticche]

weed cannot be legalised in western countries because they believe it would spread to quickly and vastly so that it stops people from going to work so less is produced
also if weed was to be legalised no company could truely make any money from it because as SenoraChe said it can easily be grown so nobody would want to pay for it
also if it was to be legalised it would lead to more things wanting to be legalised

[Moskitto]

Quote: from Comrade H on 12:21 am on May 8, 2003
Fact about smoking - it was first said to be dangerous by Nazi scientists, so I don't really see how you can accuse the left of being anti-smoking. Also, what is Cuba's most famous product? I rest my case.

As for drugs, it's clear that they've ruined enough lives to make it obvious to people not to take any. That said, at the moment Im in favour of legalising all drugs, but while educating the population how stupid they are(the drugs, not the ppl!).


Dr. Isaac Adler was the first to strongly suggest that lung cancer is related to smoking in 1912, long before the Nazi era, and the Brosch experiments with tobacco carcinogenisis on guinea pigs were carried out in 1900. Langley and Dickinson published landmark studies on the effects of nicotine on the ganglia; they hypothesized that there are receptors and transmitters that respond to stimulation by specific chemicals, in 1889. All this long before the Nazis were in power.

[Invader Zim]

Do you know that the major dealers and barons are very much pro keeping it Illegal. It is for the simple reason that if it were legal then they would be out of buisness or at least have major cuts in profit.

[Hegemonicretribution]

Quote: from atlanticche on 12:35 pm on May 11, 2003
weed cannot be legalised in western countries because they believe it would spread to quickly and vastly so that it stops people from going to work so less is produced
also if weed was to be legalised no company could truely make any money from it because as SenoraChe said it can easily be grown so nobody would want to pay for it
also if it was to be legalised it would lead to more things wanting to be legalised


Actually tobbacco is also VERY easy to home grow, although the companies probably don't want you knowing that. You can smokeall you want for under $50 a year.

As for health risks....fuck it I can't be bothered lol...too many threads all ready been aout this.

[Harmless Games]

this thread is to dumb, this kid doesnt deserve attention fro being an idiot

[Urban Rubble]

"this thread is to dumb, this kid doesnt deserve attention fro being an idiot"

If you would read the posts before criticizing us you would see we're talking to each other, not the kid who started it. Also, should if you're going to call people idiots know that when you're saying "this thread is to dumb" you should be saying "this thread is too dumb".

As for the tobacco thing, I heard it's illegal to grow, anyone know if that's true ?

[Hegemonicretribution]

Lets not get pedantic with the old grammar now. Nearly every one uses slack "lingo" on the internet.

If you were to correct himsurely you would of added the capital letter in, or the appostrophe, or, maybe even placed the correct punctuation at the end of the quote. ;) Sorry I am off education until September, and it is early.

[Moskitto]

It might make sense for people who want to smoke drugs like tobacco and cannabis to grow them at home so saving land (often in the 3rd world) for cereal foods which are desperately needed in those countries, and also saving money for those who do smoke such drugs. Although the government would loose a lot of income from cigarrette sales if this happened, perhaps also a licencing system to prevent gang dealing?

[redstar2000]

Some of you may find this of interest...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/health/3026933.stm

A first tiny crack in the neo-puritanical crusade against smoking...???

:cool:

[Invader Zim]

Its funny how that report was funded by a tabacco company, im sorry but i dont believe blatant corporate propagander like some people.

[El Barbudo]

This should go in chit chat. OPERATOR!!!

[RAM]

By the way retard 2000 sorry red star 2000 they last checked the peoples records in 1972 when by now some of them must have health problmes. It sucks red star 2000 just like you do everynight!

[CubanFox]

Quote: from RAM on 6:18 pm on May 16, 2003
By the way retard 2000 sorry red star 2000 they last checked the peoples records in 1972 when by now some of them must have health problmes. It sucks red star 2000 just like you do everynight!

Resorting to petty name calling about someone's supposed homosexuality, are we?

Chances are you're gay yourself and are too scared to admit it, RAM.

[Urban Rubble]

Every post I read from this Ram guy is fucking ridiculous. Was he the one asking how the U.K could by "MAOB's" ?

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Urban Rubble on 6:47 am on May 17, 2003
Every post I read from this Ram guy is fucking ridiculous. Was he the one asking how the U.K could by "MAOB's" ?

Every post I read from this Ram guy is fucking ridiculous.

You are flaming RAM now because he flamed RS2000! That is the hieght of hypocracy and every post i have read from you is meaningless as well, so dont critisise. I happen to know RAM personnaly he is very clever.

they last checked the peoples records in 1972 when by now some of them must have health problmes.

That small piece of post has more relavance than anything i have seen you post on this board.

PS Cuben Fox he is actually not gay.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I don't know RAM, but God help us all if he's the definition of "clever". The guy gets off on bombs and killing foreigners, and actually asked the good people here how much a MOAB would set him back, because he thought his government ought to have some more weapons of mass destruction...

That's pretty much the extent of my experience with him, and it may very well have just been a bad brain day for him, but those are no doubt among the very stupidest threads started on Che-Lives so far this year.

This is not a flame, just reading those threads is enough to bring any sane person to the same conclusion. But once again, I apologize if I somehow misunderstoof them or they were unrepresentative of the totality of his contribution...

In fact I really really hope they are unrepresentative.

--- G.

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 7:01 pm on May 17, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 10:58 am on May 17, 2003
I don't know RAM, but God help us all if he's the definition of "clever". The guy gets off on bombs and killing foreigners, and actually asked the good people here how much a MOAB would set him back, because he thought his government ought to have some more weapons of mass destruction...

That's pretty much the extent of my experience with him, and it may very well have just been a bad brain day for him, but those are no doubt among the very stupidest threads started on Che-Lives so far this year.

This is not a flame, just reading those threads is enough to bring any sane person to the same conclusion. But once again, I apologize if I somehow misunderstoof them or they were unrepresentative of the totality of his contribution...

In fact I really really hope they are unrepresentative.

--- G.

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 7:01 pm on May 17, 2003)


Hmm that was a bit off... in that MOAB thread, however that was not standard practice for him. Try having a debate with him about geography or religion and and then you will see that he is by no means stupid, quite the oppersit infact.

[Dhul Fiqar]

K, I guess I was a bit rash.

[Moskitto]

I don't know RAM, but God help us all if he's the definition of "clever". The guy gets off on bombs and killing foreigners, and actually asked the good people here how much a MOAB would set him back, because he thought his government ought to have some more weapons of mass destruction...

he's a bit of an obsessive, but he's extremely clever in certain areas such as philosophy and geography.

[RAM]

Quote: from Moskitto on 3:49 pm on May 17, 2003

I don't know RAM, but God help us all if he's the definition of "clever". The guy gets off on bombs and killing foreigners, and actually asked the good people here how much a MOAB would set him back, because he thought his government ought to have some more weapons of mass destruction...

he's a bit of an obsessive, but he's extremely clever in certain areas such as philosophy and geography.

Thank you!

[Urban Rubble]

Hey AK, how do you figure I "flamed" him because of what he said about RedStar ?? I could give a fuck less what he said about RedStar, I'm not in the practice of defending message board celebrities. Nice assumption though, that's cool we got a mind reader at Che-Lives.

The reason I posted that is because the kid was posting asking how the U.K could get "MOAB's" and saying stupid shit like that. I'm sorry I offended you though.

[Urban Rubble]

AK, go to the "Should America use MOAB bombs on the Taliban?" post and tell me you still don't believe this kid is a fucking idiot. That one or the "How much does a MOAB cost ?" one, this kid is the epitome of stupid, but don't listen to me, I'm just pissed because he flamed my hero RedStar.

[RAM]

Redstar 2000 is not a hero due to his lies and I would not look up to him and hes smoking doesn't cause cancer talk. What rubbish!

He is a stupid old man who smokes and leaves in the past and uses a forum where the majority of members are in there 10's, 20's and 30's.!!!!

NEVER LISTEN TO HIM!!!

(Edited by RAM at 9:36 am on May 19, 2003)

[Zombie]

Quote: from RAM on 4:32 am on May 19, 2003
Redstar 2000 is not a hero due to his lies and I would not look up to him and hes smoking doesn't cause cancer talk. What rubbish!

He is a stupid old man who smokes and leaves in the past and uses a forum where the majority of members are in there 10's, 20's and 30's.!!!!

NEVER LISTEN TO HIM!!!

(Edited by RAM at 9:36 am on May 19, 2003)


that old man knows more shit than a thousand of you, and i'm dead serious.

[Dhul Fiqar]

ROFLMAO

Maybe if you could actually express yourself and had an original and unoffensive thought inside your head, people might pay attention to you. But you don't, and redstar does.

He's extremely well read, well informed, and every single post he writes is well structured, builds on an actual argument (as opposed tousing caps lock and insults).

Not to mention he tends to start threads with more than one word or sentance in them.

I certainly don't agree with everything he says, we have some major differences on issues like religion and possibly on tobacco (even though I haven't really gotten into that with him). Yet there aren't many people here who's oppinios I respect more than his, because he always makes an intelligent case for whatever point he is arguing.

There are not words to express the irony of you, the village idiot, telling people not to listen to one of the most articulate members on the board. It amuses me a great deal ;)

--- G.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Oh, and one more thing, RAM you again showed your lack of intelligence by totally misunderstanding the irony directed at you. He was saying that the argument that he was only against you for flaming a man you apparently claimed to be his hero was a ridiculous one.

He was trying to make you understand the fact he couldn't give a shit if you messed with the pope himself, much less a poster on a messageboard. The reason he, and a lot of us, are pissed off at you has everything to do with your posts and your attitude, and nothing to do with personal loyalties.

--- G.

[CubanFox]

Quote: from Zombie on 9:49 am on May 19, 2003

Quote: from RAM on 4:32 am on May 19, 2003
Redstar 2000 is not a hero due to his lies and I would not look up to him and hes smoking doesn't cause cancer talk. What rubbish!

He is a stupid old man who smokes and leaves in the past and uses a forum where the majority of members are in there 10's, 20's and 30's.!!!!

NEVER LISTEN TO HIM!!!

(Edited by RAM at 9:36 am on May 19, 2003)


that old man knows more shit than a thousand of you, and i'm dead serious.


d00d j00 4r3 //r0||g.

You need to add a few more digits to that number. :cool:

Seriously. Look at the Redstar Papers. You'll realize that this guy belongs at the helm of a nation.

[Moskitto]

Quote: from CubanFox on 11:01 am on May 19, 2003

Quote: from Zombie on 9:49 am on May 19, 2003

Quote: from RAM on 4:32 am on May 19, 2003
Redstar 2000 is not a hero due to his lies and I would not look up to him and hes smoking doesn't cause cancer talk. What rubbish!

He is a stupid old man who smokes and leaves in the past and uses a forum where the majority of members are in there 10's, 20's and 30's.!!!!

NEVER LISTEN TO HIM!!!

(Edited by RAM at 9:36 am on May 19, 2003)


that old man knows more shit than a thousand of you, and i'm dead serious.


d00d j00 4r3 //r0||g.

You need to add a few more digits to that number. :cool:

Seriously. Look at the Redstar Papers. You'll realize that this guy belongs at the helm of a nation.

He's a fool anyone who tries to deny all tested science is a fool.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Moskitto on 11:59 am on May 19, 2003

Quote: from CubanFox on 11:01 am on May 19, 2003

Quote: from Zombie on 9:49 am on May 19, 2003

Quote: from RAM on 4:32 am on May 19, 2003
Redstar 2000 is not a hero due to his lies and I would not look up to him and hes smoking doesn't cause cancer talk. What rubbish!

He is a stupid old man who smokes and leaves in the past and uses a forum where the majority of members are in there 10's, 20's and 30's.!!!!

NEVER LISTEN TO HIM!!!

(Edited by RAM at 9:36 am on May 19, 2003)


that old man knows more shit than a thousand of you, and i'm dead serious.


d00d j00 4r3 //r0||g.

You need to add a few more digits to that number. :cool:

Seriously. Look at the Redstar Papers. You'll realize that this guy belongs at the helm of a nation.

He's a fool anyone who tries to deny all tested science is a fool.

Agreed, RS2000 seams from what ihave read of him to be an idiot who will die of lung canser while in middle age, but he refutes even the possibility of this. Im sorry but his smoking case has been proved false time and time again by moskitto and he calls the evidance capitalist propaganda, then goes and posts sites from lawyers (the biggest capitalists of the all (with the exception of accountants)) and posts reaserch into passive smoking funded by tabbaco companys. I have no respect at all for him.

Seriously. Look at the Redstar Papers. You'll realize that this guy belongs at the helm of a nation.

A very small one where he cant cause any damage.

builds on an actual argument(as opposed tousing caps lock and insults).

HAHAHAHA good joke, you have evidentaly not read all the ones where he calls anyone who disagree's with him a " SERVILE LACKY OF US IMPERIALISM"

That is a quote streight from a thread about the war in Iraq. Cap's and bolded and flame. Sorry Dhul but i disagree.

Oh, and one more thing, RAM you again showed your lack of intelligence by totally misunderstanding the irony directed at you.

Well mnaybee he did not spot that piece of Irony but i can garantee he is more intelegent than any individual on this board. Thats a fact.

RAM post your Geography class work marks the ones which go A, A, A, A, A etc.

Or post one of you philosophy essays.

Dhul do not insult what you do not understand, as chanses are RAM will make you look a fool.

[Moskitto]

It's "Servile Lackey of US Imperialism" if you disagree with his politics and "Neo-Puritan" if you actually know anything about biology.

I love the way he believes anti-smoking was started in Nazi Germany, LOL. I never realised Nazi Germany existing in pre-WWI USA.

[Moskitto]

I personally think Redstar2000 should be castrated to stop him passing on his genes, although since he would not be raising his own children being as they will leave him when they reach 7 years old, I don't see the point.

If Redstar2000 was incharge of any country he would be assasinated without hesitation.

[Dhul Fiqar]

He smokes, he doesn't accept it's all that dangerous, what business is that of anybody and what does that have to do with his politics? And you found a couple of all caps flames, WOW! I'm sure NONE of use EVER loses their temper in the heat of a discussion. Just doesn't happen here, does it?

This is personal mudslinging shit, the only ones to attack him are the people who have clashed with him over that ridiculous spam campaign against smoking, which he and I and many others rightly protested as excessive. Perhaps you drove him over the top, I dunno, and one thread is not exactly enough to tarnish the months of valuable posts he's made.

You could say the same about most people here, that they have a closed mind on some issue or another and they have flamed a couple of people at one point or another.

The fact remains any person without prejudice against him could read one of his posts and respect the way it's put forward and that only a person of intellegence would do it that way. I admit I didn't take part in the smoking thread because it's pointless, non-political and mostly just doesn't interest me much.

There would have to be pictures of him abusing children sexually in that thread to make it even conceivable that one thread would so devalue all he's said and done here in the past few months.

I personally clashed with him in a religion thread or two, and completely disagree with much of what he said there, even got into some light flaming. But to be honest he presented his argument better than I did, that dosen't mean he's right it just means he's articulate. This is a major requirement for a messageboard, the ability to communicate complicated thought in a structured way.

As for RAM's grades, that honestly doesn't help in my oppinion. To get grades like that in a public education system you either need to be willingly brainwashed by the institution or genuinely with enough interest in the subject/s to make a personal commitment to memorizing details. This is a function of memory, not intelligence.

Judging by RAM's sparse use of the English language (one word threads, single sentance flames instead of basic explanations), I'm inclined to think he's a geography buff with a somewhat limited scope and verbal skills.

Seriously, though, some of the most politically naive and ignorant people I ever met were the eggheads in my class back in High School, who got all A's. That's not to say that truly intelligent and socially conscious people can't do well at school, it's jut not very common.

--- G.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 2:52 pm on May 19, 2003


As for RAM's grades, that honestly doesn't help in my oppinion. To get grades like that in a public education system you either need to be willingly brainwashed by the institution or genuinely with enough interest in the subject/s to make a personal commitment to memorizing details.

--- G.

Excuse but now from heavily flaming the guy, calling him a racist and misjudging him completely you are now calling all those who achive in school brainwashed by the institutian. With that comment you have probably insulted the intelegance of half the board. Which i have to say is not a sign of massive intelegance of your own, if i had not read much of your other threads i would judge you like you are judging RAM, an intolerant fool, however i know your not. So why dont you give him a chanse to pleasantly supprice you?

[Dhul Fiqar]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar-
That's not to say that truly intelligent and socially conscious people can't do well at school, it's jut not very common.


I did acknowledge that it happens, but I probably went overboard too.

You're right, though, I have crossed the line from stating arguments to flaming. I'm sorry for that, but I feel strongly about the issue of sanitized war, the images of mushroom clouds do not convey the pain and suffering of civilians on the ground.

Yet the images we see from 9-11 clearly convey this horror, and the media focusing on it has meant that people seem to actually unconsciously think it was much worse than anything America did in Afghanistan. But in the end we're all people, the horror was arguably worse in Afghanistan because they have no medical help available and no painkillers. If you lose a limb, prepare to die sometime next month from a horrible, slowly rising fever and other medical problems caused by gangrene.

I sincerely feel he does not understand what it's like in war, and what unspeakable horrors MOAB's have done to innocent people.

That being said, I did over-react and I did at times turn this personal, for that I am truly sorry. However, my feelings about the MOAB thread are the same...

In any case, I made a quick two paragraph explanation of my whole stance on the whole MOAB thing (man I'm getting sick of that word :biggrin:), and I'll let that be it, along with my apology for presenting my case in a disrespectful and often times unhelpful manner.

Peace out,

--- G.

[Moskitto]

As for RAM's grades, that honestly doesn't help in my oppinion. To get grades like that in a public education system you either need to be willingly brainwashed by the institution or genuinely with enough interest in the subject/s to make a personal commitment to memorizing details. This is a function of memory, not intelligence.

This is why people agree with Redstar, because they have the stupid notion that somehow science is brainwashing, you know, 2+2 isn't really 4, it's really 3 but we've been brainwashed into thinking it's 4. Like you get 2 apples and add 2 apples to them, you don't really get 4 apples, 1 just disappears into nowhere, right. Do people somehow get the idea that such concepts as Free Radical Formation, Global Warming and Van Der Waals forces are propaganda? why the fuck is a government going to tell people that Van Der Waals forces exist? How the fuck is science brainwashing, what does the government gain from it? Educated people, that's what.

Philosophy you don't get marked on what you say anyway, in the education systems of free world countries there are mark schemes based on how you express ideas. In the Redstar education system, marks are awarded for what you say, and a I mark is awarded for supportive answers of any quality and N or S marks are awarded for opposing answers of any quality, such a sad system is the Redstar system.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I am not talking about good universities, I am talking about the experiences of myself and others with public schooling in some of the most affluent Western countries in the world. You would be amazed at the level of propaganda and TOTAL lack of any critical debate present in many if not most of these institutions.

That being said, I am cyurrently in a university that is the polar opposite, actually having a critical mind is encouraged. In my old school I was punished for questioning my teacher's oppinions.

--- G.

[Urban Rubble]

Ak-47, again, go to the "America should use MOAB's on the Taliban" post. How can you defend a guy that posts pics of bombs exploding and then says "Look at how bloody big it is!!!". He sounds like a fucking 10 year old.

"No becuase MOAB should be used on the taliban and anyone who support 9/11 should be MOABED!!!! "

This is a statement from the person you are defending as "smarter than anyone on this board". I have to say, that is fucking hillarious. I don't give a fuck if this kid is a geography proffesor at Harvard, it doesn't change the fact that he is 1. A warmonger. 2. A moron (except with geology apparently).

I'm not going to go into the RedStar thing, but implying that I'm defending him by flaming RAM is an untrue assumption. He is a smart guy though, definately one of the most informed on here. I also have disagreed with him a few times, he's still a smart guy. RAM makes us all look like geniuses. Except people that defend him.

If he such a fucking genius, show me something to change my mind. I know it won't be about politics, he's already proven his ineptitude in that field, but seriously, link me to ANY topic that this kid shows himself to be anything but a fool.

[RAM]

Quote: from Urban Rubble on 8:21 pm on May 19, 2003
Ak-47, again, go to the "America should use MOAB's on the Taliban" post. How can you defend a guy that posts pics of bombs exploding and then says "Look at how bloody big it is!!!". He sounds like a fucking 10 year old.

"No becuase MOAB should be used on the taliban and anyone who support 9/11 should be MOABED!!!! "

This is a statement from the person you are defending as "smarter than anyone on this board". I have to say, that is fucking hillarious. I don't give a fuck if this kid is a geography proffesor at Harvard, it doesn't change the fact that he is 1. A warmonger. 2. A moron (except with geology apparently).

I'm not going to go into the RedStar thing, but implying that I'm defending him by flaming RAM is an untrue assumption. He is a smart guy though, definately one of the most informed on here. I also have disagreed with him a few times, he's still a smart guy. RAM makes us all look like geniuses. Except people that defend him.

If he such a fucking genius, show me something to change my mind. I know it won't be about politics, he's already proven his ineptitude in that field, but seriously, link me to ANY topic that this kid shows himself to be anything but a fool.

Ok I will. You can choose I could post my theodicy of storge love, mathematical ethics theory, A grade essay questions in Philosophy, B/A grade in Ethics Questions, Grade A Geography work and my Theology work? Which one?

I also get pissed off if I don't get A's in Philosophy, Ethics, Theology and Geography work

[RAM]

Quote: from AK47 on 12:17 pm on May 19, 2003

Quote: from Moskitto on 11:59 am on May 19, 2003

Quote: from CubanFox on 11:01 am on May 19, 2003

Quote: from Zombie on 9:49 am on May 19, 2003

Quote: from RAM on 4:32 am on May 19, 2003
Redstar 2000 is not a hero due to his lies and I would not look up to him and hes smoking doesn't cause cancer talk. What rubbish!

He is a stupid old man who smokes and leaves in the past and uses a forum where the majority of members are in there 10's, 20's and 30's.!!!!

NEVER LISTEN TO HIM!!!

(Edited by RAM at 9:36 am on May 19, 2003)


that old man knows more shit than a thousand of you, and i'm dead serious.


d00d j00 4r3 //r0||g.

You need to add a few more digits to that number. :cool:

Seriously. Look at the Redstar Papers. You'll realize that this guy belongs at the helm of a nation.

He's a fool anyone who tries to deny all tested science is a fool.

Agreed, RS2000 seams from what ihave read of him to be an idiot who will die of lung canser while in middle age, but he refutes even the possibility of this. Im sorry but his smoking case has been proved false time and time again by moskitto and he calls the evidance capitalist propaganda, then goes and posts sites from lawyers (the biggest capitalists of the all (with the exception of accountants)) and posts reaserch into passive smoking funded by tabbaco companys. I have no respect at all for him.

Seriously. Look at the Redstar Papers. You'll realize that this guy belongs at the helm of a nation.

A very small one where he cant cause any damage.

builds on an actual argument(as opposed tousing caps lock and insults).

HAHAHAHA good joke, you have evidentaly not read all the ones where he calls anyone who disagree's with him a " SERVILE LACKY OF US IMPERIALISM"

That is a quote streight from a thread about the war in Iraq. Cap's and bolded and flame. Sorry Dhul but i disagree.

Oh, and one more thing, RAM you again showed your lack of intelligence by totally misunderstanding the irony directed at you.

Well mnaybee he did not spot that piece of Irony but i can garantee he is more intelegent than any individual on this board. Thats a fact.

RAM post your Geography class work marks the ones which go A, A, A, A, A etc.

Or post one of you philosophy essays.

Dhul do not insult what you do not understand, as chanses are RAM will make you look a fool.


The Impact of Deforestation

1. Positive Impacts

Increase employment and incomes
More land for settlement and farming to feed and house a growing population
Reducing debts through increased export earnings
The opportunity to go along a road of development to improve the quality of life for the country’s inhabitants
A source of food, timber and drugs for the MEDW
A scenic resource for tourism

2. Negative Impacts

Physical
Impact on the water cycle

Bare soil increases over land flow. Means that there is less interception due to a lack of vegetation
Reduced interception of moisture due to a lack of vegetation
Increased flood risk in rivers and streams. Due to increased overland flow
Reduced transpiration may reduce rainfall. Due to a lack of vegetation
Increased sediment load in rivers. Due to increased overland flow

Impact on soils

Increased soil erosion through overland flow. More water to erode the soil
Gulleying. More channels for water to go down
Increased risk of landslides and mudflows. Due to soil erosion
Increased leaching causing loss of soil nutrients. Soil is less fertile
Reduced soil fertility. Harder to grow crops
Formation of impermeable duricrusts on soil surface. A hard layer of crust, which is hard to break

Impact on climate

Greater reflection of Sun’s rays from lighter soil surface (increased albedo). Increased temperature
Tree burning increases carbon dioxide levels in the air contributing to global warming. Hotter
Increased daily (diurnal) range of temperature. Greater variable in night and day temperatures
Rainfall decreases. Less water for crops
Reduced production of oxygen. More CO2

Impact on plants and animals

Primary forest destroyed, replaced by anything from bare ground to a less species-rich secondary forest. Rainforest can’t be replaced
Reduced biodiversity. Less Varity in the type of plants
Threatened extinction of some species. Reduced number of species
Reduced net primary productivity. A low biomass produced

Socio-economic and cultural

Loss of traditional way of life for indigenous people. Being modernised
Loss of land. Can’t live on the land
No immunity against new disease introduced. Some will die
Killing of local people who try to defend their land. Reduced population
Migrants moved into rainforests often have a very low standard of living. Can’t adapt to the environment

3. MEDC’s fuel deforestation by demanding rainforest products such as rubber, drugs and hardwood timber. MEDC’s use 20% of tropical products to make all their drugs. Cheap meat supplies in the MEDW are achieved by using cheap animal feeds such as cassava grown on farmland created out of rainforest. The USA obtains meat supplies from huge ‘hamburger’ ranches set up in the rainforest of Mexico, Panama and Costa Rica

4. Sustainable Development

Conservation of areas in national parks with core areas, where no disturbance is allowed, and other zones that allows tourism and native settlements as in Malaysia
Sustainable management of the forest by replanting strategies
Developing rural village communities for local populations to reduce pressure on the forest
Developing green tourism and eco-tourism
‘Debt for nature’ where foreign debts are written off in return for conservation of specific areas
Charging higher prices for timber and products and increasing recycling
Sustainable management of fuelwood supplies or providing adequate alternatives

Costa Rica Case Study

1. Sustainable farming- plant amongst trees
Organic crops e.g. bananas/coco
2. Sustainable forestry
3. Ecotourism

C/S The Effects of Deforestation in Indonesia

BenefitsProblems
PhysicalIncrease employment and incomes. Reducing debts through increased export earnings. A source of food, timber and drugs for the MEDWPhysicalImpact on the water cycleBare soil increases over land flowReduced interception of moistureIncreased flood risk in rivers and streamsReduced transpiration may reduce rainfallIncreased sediment load in riversImpact on soilsIncreased soil erosion through overland flow GulleyingIncreased risk of landslides and mudflowsIncreased leaching causing loss of soil nutrients Reduced soil fertilityFormation of impermeable duricrusts on soil surface Impact on climateGreater reflection of Sun’s rays from lighter soil surface (increased albedo)Tree burning increases carbon dioxide levels in the air contributing to global warmingIncreased daily (diurnal) range of temperatureRainfall decreaseReduced production of oxygen Impact on plants and animalsPrimary forest destroyed, replaced by anything from bare ground to a less species-rich secondary forestReduced biodiversityThreatened extinction of some speciesReduced net primary productivity
EconomicIncrease employment and incomes. Reducing debts through increased export earnings. A source of food, timber and drugs for the MEDWMigrants moved into rainforests often have a very low standard of living
SocialMore land for settlement and farming to feed and house a growing population. The opportunity to go along a road of development to improve the quality of life for the country’s inhabitantsLoss of land
CulturalA scenic resource for tourismNo immunity against new disease introducedKilling of local people who try to defend their land Loss of traditional way of life for indigenous people

Comment was: -

A Excellent work, (then my name)

[Dhul Fiqar]

I'm working on scanning a picture of a stick figure I drew when I was seven, I got an A+ in my art class for that ;)

--- G.

[RAM]

Well done! Ok then maybe I should post some A grade Philosophy work then!

[Moskitto]

I should post my essay about the use of recombinant DNA. that was a great essay.

[RAM]

Here is some of my A grade Philopshy work then: -

Philosophy Questions on Evil and Suffering

2ai) Natural evil comes from the physical world and is generally not the fault of humans. Examples of these are earthquakes and volcanoes. Man cannot stop this and a best can be prevented. Moral evil comes from man. Examples of this are the Holocaust and 9/11. It depends on whether you believe in hard determinism (All our actions are controlled by God and that we are not responsible for our actions) or do we have free will, which would make us free to choose good, or evil and that we therefore responsible for our actions.

ii) Each type of evil challenges a belief in God. Natural evil would challenge their belief due to the fact that it is uncontrollable by man in some cases. It could be put down to God entirely. It would not be mans fault but a possible design fault by God in the world. I accept that some of the evil in the world was essential for the formation of the earth e.g. flooding in the form of water. We would need this water to live so having flooding would be essential. Some natural disasters like earthquakes are not essential to the formation of the earth. I would think that man would find natural evil worse then moral evil as it is nor in our control. All we can do is prevent or reduce the effects. Only being able to prevent the effects of natural evil is a lot worse because none of it can be prevented.

Where as with moral evil we are all responsible and this evil can be attempted to be stopped. E.g. speed cameras. These prevent us from going fast and causing an accident, which would prevent evil from happening. There may then be another problem with this, which is our human nature. Do we have free will? Do we have predestination and what is evil? Why did God create people to have a potential for evil? If we have free will then was God surprised when man committed evil? If we have predestination then why does God create some people deliberately evil e.g. Hitler? Why do we all have the ability to affect each other lives for the worse? Why did God create evil in the first place? We could have a world free from the potential of evil. This process of speaking hyterthetically of the world is called counterfactual hypothesis. This is not the case unless you believe in Monism where ever thing is good and there is no such thing as evil. It is an illusion in our minds. These are some of the problems that are faced by people weather religious or not by the two kinds of evil, which are natural and moral and will continue to be a problem until a solution is found to explain why the all loving and all powerful people to suffer. Some may use the eternal cop-out clause, which is where you say that there is some deep meaning for evil and suffering and that only the divine can know the answer.

Comment: -

A/B very pleasing

Here is some of my own private work: -

Why God is responsible for Evil

God Exists

God created the Universe

He is omnipotent. He can create everything including emotion. He is also all knowing so he knows what will happen in the future and the past

God created the world

God created everything in world including Adam and Eve

God created human nature

God put the tree of knowledge in the Garden of Eden and the Serpent

Because God created man he would have known what would have happened when the tree was placed

Because he knew what would happen he is responsible for tempting Adam and Eve

Evil came from God and he deliberately brought evil into the world

And My Theodicy of Storge Love: -

The Theodicy of Storge Love

I am going to answer a philosophical problem that has troubled man from the begging of time. From Socrates to Hume. Why do we suffer with a all-powerful, all-knowing and all-loving God? Why do we feel pain?

This has been sited as a reason against an all-powerful, all-loving and all-knowing God. He can’t exits because of our suffering. The problem is combining the 3 qualities so that God can have all 3 qualities at once. I believe that I have the answer to this problem. I accept that he is all knowing and all-powerful. If not then how was the universe created? My area of investigation is the all-loving part. We must ask what is love? What qualities must love have? I have decided that my answer will not be an it’s worth suffering in the end answer. It is this: -

God is all knowing
God is all-powerful
God is all loving

I believe that the love is an important characteristic of God. Who is to say what kind of love that is? Most of us have and do assume that God’s love is the love of Phila and Agape. The love of compassion and selfless love (in this case us humans his creation). What about if that love is the storge love. This love is different from the eros sexual lust love. God would with storge love create the universe out of storge love. This would then apply to our characters as humans and as emotions. This would mean that the pain that we feel would have been created by God in our characteristics that are now free from God in free will. We feel the pain because of the storge love. He created us like this because he does not love us as human beings with emotions but as storge. We are only people not humans. So as people he wanted to let bad things happen to us, as he does not have a loving lustful bond. You may then ask how can this be love? I would say that that is life. We have set backs and we learn from them. In the case of death we die and what happens to use after that is a matter for debate but it is the storge love of God that allows the suffering to happen.

(Edited by RAM at 12:20 pm on May 20, 2003)

(Edited by RAM at 12:21 pm on May 20, 2003)

[Dhul Fiqar]

Do you actually believe in Genesis, though?

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 6:47 pm on May 20, 2003)

[RAM]

No! Just for the argument!

[RAM]

Quote: from Moskitto on 10:34 am on May 20, 2003
I should post my essay about the use of recombinant DNA. that was a great essay.


Yes. I would love to read it!

[RAM]

Dhul Fiqar have you changed your opinion of me? (Predicts he will say no and call me a retard even though a retard must have an IQ of below 70 or 60 depending on which test you take!)

[Invader Zim]

I would post a history essay, but im to lazy.

[Dhul Fiqar]

RAM: No, I wouldn't call you a retard actually (not to mention the fact that mental redardation is a handycap one shouldn't really invoke as an insult).

I don't personally agree with your take on good and evil, but I must say you put forward your views FAR better in those examples than anything I've seen from you before, so in that respect, I guess I have modified my position.

I may be an asshole sometimes, but I try to be fair ;)

--- G.

[RAM]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 11:34 am on May 20, 2003
RAM: No, I wouldn't call you a retard actually (not to mention the fact that mental redardation is a handycap one shouldn't really invoke as an insult).

I don't personally agree with your take on good and evil, but I must say you put forward your views FAR better in those examples than anything I've seen from you before, so in that respect, I guess I have modified my position.

I may be an asshole sometimes, but I try to be fair ;)

--- G.

Thank you! We made up then cos I have! Im sorry then for posting a stupid topic then!

[RAM]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 11:34 am on May 20, 2003
RAM: No, I wouldn't call you a retard actually (not to mention the fact that mental redardation is a handycap one shouldn't really invoke as an insult).

I don't personally agree with your take on good and evil, but I must say you put forward your views FAR better in those examples than anything I've seen from you before, so in that respect, I guess I have modified my position.

I may be an asshole sometimes, but I try to be fair ;)

--- G.


What is your take on Good and Evil then? Are you Monism?, Augustine's Theodicy?, Irenaeus Theodicy?, Freewill Defence?, Process Theodicy or an option not listed here?

[RAM]

Most of this is aimed at Urban Rubble!

(Edited by RAM at 11:44 am on May 20, 2003)

[RAM]

Here is another piece that I have done. Is there a God?
This is still a work in progress and I did it off my own back and it is not for school so here it is: -

Is there a God?

I would like to say that if there is a God then it is a personal thing to each and every person. I.e. I would not call anybody or the rest of the world wrong for believing in a God.

But does this God have to be God in the conventially manner? It could be a brick wall or a chair as long as people believe in this thing and are happy with their belief? So I am effectively arguing with my self and my own personal view. I believe religion is a very personally thing to each of us and your beliefs are your own. I don’t think you should have to put on a show or whatever. I have been to numerous church services and family occasion where this being my only experience of Church and then having to put on a show for my religious family to go and have a blessing at communion. The point is that I am being forced to take something I would not normally do. I also believe that there is not a physical God out there but in your mind.

I think how can there be a God if there is so much suffering and evil in the world. E.g. famine war 9/11 if God didn’t want suffering then why would there be it. God’s meant to be benevolent then why would he put us through this torture and pain and then to perhaps find nothing on the other side what’s the point? People will say what caused the big bang my response I don’t know. That doesn’t mean that I believe in God. It means that I and science don’t know yet. Also if God is all powerful than he can end evil and suffering why doesn’t he? He could assert him self in ways that we couldn’t tell e.g. a mechanical failure on the hijacked planes on 9/11. I believe that there should be some evil in the world but only natural evil in earthquakes and not moral evil which occurs in humans e.g. 9/11 and there is the matter of how one human can inflict pain on so many others. So you wouldn’t get a world free from pain and evil as that would be boring and stupid.

I would also like to ask why people have a belief in God? This is a difficult question and one that is personally to everyone. I believe that it comes from wanting comfort and in the past for the simple reasons of the fact that you died young, died of everything and had little scientific knowledge of the world. E.g. volcanoes, earthquakes and eclipses of the sun, that were thought to be acts of God. Now to be explained by science. But in this science, modern world I find a belief in God harder as theses reasons are removed. Also why do people need a God anymore with material objects and long life expectancy and improved health? These reasons that I mentioned early are gone. If I were living at that time in the past I would believe in God as a source of comfort and hope for something better after my time.

The reasons for a belief in God are that we have a universe, wow! What a thing and the world! I agree that they are very impressive and good things but I don’t believe that some all-powerful being thought I’m bored I’ll make a universe and a world. I also feel that we as human beings have a need for something as a creator to explain why we are here and some feel that the answer is God and it makes us feel better about ourselves and to have a beginning. I also feel that being brought up in a Protestant country as its official religion has corrupted my beliefs and me. I always wondered what would happen if someone was left and grew up without being told about God weather they would by themselves come to the conclusion that there is a God? Who knows?

There is also the free will argument. People say to me the fact that I am sitting here now proves the argument that God gives us free will. I would agree but that doesn’t prove that there is a God. There could not be a God and I can still debate this. Or there could be a God who has given us free will. Amway if God is Omniscient then he should know what every person that has/is and will live actions will be so he presumably knew about Hitler and 9/11 did he do anything no! What good has come out of theses events happening none! For one thing we may not have the Israel Palestine conflict going on because the Jews wouldn’t be persecuted and wouldn’t then want to set up there own state and take over Palestine.

Ok, I am not saying that anyone who believes in God is wrong or a nutter but theses are my personally reasons as to why in my eyes there is not such a thing as a physical God out there. I feel that if there is a God then he is in all of our minds. Not in the trees and the Universe.

I heard this argument for God is that he can chose not to know and he is no longer omniscient and then perhaps, no longer omnipotent than perhaps only leaving benevolent left. He says God is benevolent by not knowing rather than not wanting to know and that it would be bad if we lived in a world where there was no free will and he says that people have abused God’s loving gift of free will. It is better to live in a place where evil happens rather than no evil. I agree he also says that its better to live in a Democracy rather than in a dictator ship and I agree. But if God chooses not to know and to use his omnipotent power to not know then why would people need a God if he had no impact on our lives? That would appear to get rid of the fatalist view that God decides what we do and it’s our fault.

I argue this own destiny point by saying if I don’t revise for an exam or not turn up at one is it my fault or God’s fault? I and everyone else would say mine not God’s. We control our own lives. What’s the point in wanting or believing in a God? I think this may be a reason for a falling belief in God over time. There are still many people that believe in God but the numbers are falling. I also think that God is a comfort thing and a belief in a being more powerful than we are. I would say that at times I have had a belief in a God of sorts, though as comfort and I think that we all needed it with 9/11. I though if there is a loving God then why let such evil happen and kill so many innocent people for the aim of the terrorists. Some of them would statically have been religious and I wonder what they were thinking when they knew that they were going to die or the people who starve in famines what’s the point? why doesn’t God appear to love them? Why would he turn he’s face away? how can there be a God in the classic form?

People would now turn the question back on me and say why couldn’t there be a God? I would answer this by saying that if there was/is a God then he would be different why would he want evil an suffering if he loves us why would he chose to not look at war? why doesn’t he care when innocent people die when they abuse God’s gift of free will? He has some of the power to change things and he doesn’t and if I control my own destiny then why would I need a God?

I will know layout my personal argument as to why in my eyes there can’t be a God: -

Premise 1
God has power to change things

Premise 2
He doesn’t when he could change things

Premise 3
If I control my life then why would I need a God?

Premise 4
God is needed for comfort

Premise 5
Can still have free will with no God

Conclusion
There cannot be a God

Or

P1+P2+P3+P4+P5=C

This is a posteriori argument as it is based on by experiences rather than logic.

I heard this argument that there could have been an infinite number of big bangs and then a infinite number of other universes which would then mean that it could be natural and that God would not be needed as the universe and everything in it would have created itself and that in the end the earth would have been created.

The Nature Of God

To find out weather God exists one has to find out what qualities God has. I have always believed that God is the sum of mans virtues that they would like to have but being imperfect humans never can.

There are a list of main characteristics and these are that God is: -

Personal
Holy
Omnipresent
Omnipotent
Omniscient
Immortal
Good
Immutable
Forgiving
Loving
Creator
Diligent
Worthy
Eternal
Loving
Judge
Saving
Forgiving

God is Personal



God is Holy



God is Omnipresent



God is Omnipotent



God is Omniscient



God is Immortal



God is Good



God is Immutable



God is Forgiving


God is Loving



God is Creator



God is Diligent



God is Worthy



God is Eternal



God is Loving



God is Judge



God is Saving



God is Forgiving



Pro God Arguments

There are 5 main arguments for God. These are the: -

The Cosmological Argument for the existence of God.
The Design Argument for the existence of God.
The Ontological Argument for the existence of God.
The Moral Argument for the existence of God.
Pascal’s Wager for the existence of God.

The Cosmological Argument For The Existence Of God

There is a decent argument for the existence of God. The cosmological or first cause argument. It says that something must have started of the big bang and the only thing with the power to do that is God. We are not omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. He is so great that he is outside the time and space. You can’t say what caused God because he has, is and will always be there. There is no beginning to God and therefore no creation. Even if people say they cause of the Universe doesn’t have to be God then they are admitting that there is something there and that the something is not God in there minds.

Critique Of The Cosmological Argument For The Existence Of God

The Cosmological argument is the first cause argument. I.e. God caused the big bang etc although this doesn’t allow for infinity. Aquinas and Craig said that infinity can’t exist but God is infinite and is being hypocritical because how God be infinite and not have infinity in its self. Although these laws don’t apply to God. Why does the cause of the universe have to be God? Why can’t it just be physics? The universe doesn’t have to have a beginning it could have always been there.

The Design Argument For The Existence Of God

The universe. Look at it and the chances that the universe formed and even the chances of planets and one having a chance of life! That can’t be cowensidence can it? I can see a planet getting made but a planet that is the just the right distance from the sun no an act of God. Also if this God and bible thing was made up then would it have fizzled out by know. Also how can most of the world be wrong? Everybody believes in something. Also what about even the chances of there being intelligent life to even comprehend its own existence. There could just be bacteria and they can’t comprehend the existence of God. So to say it was coincidence is bad because there must have been a diving input somewhere along the line. There is the classic Paley’s watch theory. It says that if you where to find a watch then you would come to the conclusion that there is a designer in the watch in this case a human because of the way it works. It couldn’t have formed naturally and it must have had a designer. The designer of the Universe is God because who else could have designed such a great thing. Anyway having a God ends the what caused that watch caused that watch caused that argument that you get. You then imply that the Universe didn’t have a beginning, which it does. So you deny science. Anyway God is outside time and space so logic can’t be applied to him. You are then undermining Gods power.

Critique of the Design Argument For The Existence Of God

The Design argument says look at the world around, your eyes the universe, it has order man can’t make that it must be God. There probably is a designer of the Universe but it doesn’t have to be God. Kant said that from our experiences the world may look ordered but if it wasn’t we wouldn’t know because of our experiences. The Universe probably is designed but why does it have to be God? We don’t have enough experience of the world to say that God designs the Universe.

The Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God

This argument for the existence of God attempts to prove God by the meaning of the word God. It depends on the understanding of the nature of God. Everyone has a definition of God. Even the atheist to say that he does not exist.

Critique Of The Ontological Argument For The Existence Of God

The Ontological argument is the argument that proves god’s existence from his nature and the word God. This is a priori argument. This is bad as it says that because there is the word God then God must exist. It has no other evidence apart from the word. This is the worst of the 4 arguments in my opinion.

The Moral Argument For The Existence Of God

This says that there is a God because of the morality in the world (apart from the occasional lack of it!). It says that all people in this world have the same morals and know what it right and wrong. Is our conscience the voice of God inside us all? These laws must have been put there by God. Our conscience is a direct experience of God in us all.

Critique Of The Moral Argument For The Existence Of God

The moral argument is one, which says that are morals come from God. I think this is poor as we have society and others so I don’t think you can say that our morals come from God so God must exist. Also how come there are differences on belief on abortion etc. How could these differences come from the same God?

Pascal’s Wager for the existence of God

He said that reasons cannot prove the existence of God but he said that we would be wise to live a life where we assume that he does exist then we would be rewarded in heaven where as if God does not exist but we thought that he did exist then we would have lost nothing as we would have lead a good life.

Critique of Pascal’s Wager for the existence of God

Why should we believe in a God to just come out on the winning side? Some say it is blasphemous to believe in God based on a flick of a coin. I think that this is a bad argument as although it is a new way of looking a God like Aristotle’s virtue ethical theory is a new way to look at ethics where you do the thing to make you a better person this is also radical as it says well lets believe in God just in case. It has no logical argument bases and is bad.

I Will Also Address Some Of The Other Pro God Arguments

They could say look at miracles and how people have mercilessly recovered from illnesses. I find that they can be explained and if not then it’s a miracle but I wouldn’t say it’s an act of God. Maybe if you believe in God and you want it to happen so badly that it does. Anyway who says that God gives us free will. We would still have it if there were no God! So I don’t think you can use the God loves us free will no dictator ship and that people abuse free will. To me it says there is not a God and he lets us make up arguments to make the very simple evil and suffering argument wrong and to prove that there is a God. I also heard one argument that says, “only God knows why we suffer” pathetic it’s like me saying, “only God knows why the computer crashes” how bad would that sound? not very good. That kind of an answer that suggests ignorance about the world and knowing deep down that there is not a God and trying to defend it with bad argument.

You may say how can billions of people around the world be wrong? I say if there is a God then how come he hasn’t come to earth again and made it conclusive and no more arguments about his existence. If he was going to come again then he would need proof before he is sent into a mental home. I want proof of his existence. I think that there is strong belief around the world because of comfort and wanting hope. If you go onto a warship and go to the church service on Sunday there will be hardly anyone there if you then go back and the next Sunday and a war is on then it will be packed so it could be comfort. I also think it depends on the attitude of you and your parents. If you live in a religious family and you go to church then you will believe in God and not question his existent. So upbringing has a key if you believe in God. I think that there are a large number of followers of religion that follow their religion for comfort and insecurity and upbringing so the numbers are high. I also feel that man will always need comfort and security and God provides that.

I don’t question weather the universe exist do I because that it beyond doubt. I say if there is a God then why am I hear debating it because if there was a God then I would not be hear debating it because there would no doubt that there is a God because of so much proof.

Like I said earlier God is used as the get out clause. What caused the big bang? I don’t know? oh it must have been God then no! We don’t know at the moment just like 2,000 years ago they may not have known about eclipses and volcanoes and though that they were a sign from God as a punishment. God is used as the ignorance clause i.e. we are ignorant now of what caused the big bang so we say God because we don’t know what caused it.

The pre-destination argument says that God controls our lives and knows what were going to do so does he then create people deliberately evil and some deliberately good then how can he give us free will?

I heard this argument that to God we would look like robots because we would choose good most of the time so free will would be an illusion.

I will know confuse my self and answer as to why there is a God and contradict my previous arguments.

There is also actual experience of God in religious experiences

Religious Experience As An Argument For The Existence Of God

People who have had a religious experience believe that the fact that God has communicated through them proves that there is a God.

Critique of Religious Experience As An Argument For The Existence Of God

The problem of this is that it will involve emotions and therefore it can not be empirical tested. Alcohol or drugs can produce the same results! If an individual undergoes the experience then it would be hard if there is one person rather than a group to compare events. God appears to people in different forms. For some God is talking to them for others they can fill distant from God in the religious experience so the results are no consistent.

What Is Evil And Suffering?

Evil causes suffering. There are also two types of evil. Natural Evil and Moral Evil. Natural Evil is natural things e.g. earthquakes and volcanoes. Moral Evil is caused by us humans. E.g. 9/11 was caused by man. The problem of course for religious believers is how can an all-loving and all-powerful God allow evil and suffering to happen. This means that either God does not exist or that God is not as powerful as we thought and he is then no longer worthy of our worship. God created the universe so therefore he is responsible for everything in it and therefore as he is omnipotent he has the power to end all suffering and how can suffering be a sign of God’s benevolence. Yes despite all of this power evil and suffering continue to exist. Others say that God has a reason for allowing us to suffer and that only God knows why. A problem with this is that if evil is not God’s fault then how can evil had come into existence? It could not have just created it self and so you would have to lay it at God’s door for evil. Also there is the idea that there is Hell in Christian Philosophy. This would suggest that God anticipated the world to go wrong and planned for it.

A Counter To The Evil And Suffering Problem

I will know get round the evil and suffering problem that is sited as being oh there can’t be a God. You get round the problem by saying that as God is omnipotent then he can use his power to not know what’s going to happen to us and to then give us fee will. Moral evil happens when humans abuse the benevolent god in giving us free will. Also what caused the big bang it must have been God. How would you like it to have no Universe or a Universe? I reckon it’s the last one. Anyway we are way below God and can’t see how he works so we are to far below God to understand. How would you like a world were there was no evil only good. Would you want no free will and you only did good. That would be boring and the evil is not caused by God as we humans have free will not to commit evil.

I will use the free will defence to counter the evil and suffering problem. It says that for all of us to be human we must have free will. The gift of being able to do harm or good. If we do not have this gift then we are not humans and are robots programmed by God. You may say oh what about 9/11 that was large-scale suffering and how can God allow that? Well if God intervened at the large scale evil then he would be an overprotective parent who would not let the child out of his sight and God intervening would not then make us have the gift of free will. It would also take away the gift of human responsibility.

Monism argues that evil is an illusion in our minds and that everything in the universe is good. We can not be perfect, as only God can be perfect. This is also reflected in Hebrew. Traditionally 7 is the number of perfection’s and man has the number 6 because man can never be perfect and only God can be. Also I think that man will never know why evil happens in this world and only God will know.

The evil and suffering problem is a double edge sword as for the atheist it will provide proof that there is no God and how can pain and suffering be a expression of love and I say that it can be if it then prevents more suffering in the long run then yes it can be a solution. E.g. terrorism can be at the time a bad thing but if in the end it then makes security better and leads to improved safety than it would be better to have the evil then to not have had that evil in the long run. Also how would it be if there were always good? You could never commit evil then there would be no morals and a boring world where everything lead to good? Anyway and for the religious evil and suffering can be argued that God has also provided the gift of free will which will allow evil. Just like grief is the price that you pay for love. We have other gifts and we should be grateful that we have a life and a world and thank God for that as we where not needed by God. But we need God or some kind of religion.

We are made free which is a reflection of God’s image.

We all believe in something and God is sometimes used at the worst times. Some people may say 9/11 proved that there is no God if God is loving and he didn’t want us to suffer why did it happen? I would say all 9/11 proved was that there are terrorists and it doesn’t prove that there is no God. You also may have had a personally experience that makes you believe in God a vision or a miracle that may make you believe in God and there is nothing wrong in that.

I know this sounds wired as I am referring to the arguments that some people might say that I used early in the essay! I am trying to argue against my self and give a balanced view.

I will argue using my premises and conclusions for there being a God: -

Premise 1
Chance of universe being formed is small

Premise 2
Evil explained by man abusing free will

Premise 3
God loves and gives us free will

Premise 4
How can most of the world be wrong?

Conclusion
There is a God

Or

P1+P2+P3+P4= C

This is a posteriori argument as it is based on by experiences rather than logic.

There is also evidence for a God part of the brain and if you believe in God then you live longer as your faith keeps you going. Also as it has been proved that there is a God spot in the brain then your brain and mind are kind of already wired in to believe in a God. I’ve also had this idea that there is a god/ human relationship in a continuers loop. This is what I mean: What created humans? God. What created God? Humans. So it's a continues circle and gets rid of the what caused God argument because humans did.

Some say to me what about evolution and the bible then? I say I don’t believe in that book. (Sorry to any Christians!) I am also doing A-Level New Testament studies so I know what I’m talking about a long with Philosophy and Ethics.

Everything has a cause and the cause of the Universe could only be God. So God exits.

Religions seem to believe in the same God. God must exist and religion discovers God.

Life seams to have a meaning and purposes and their must be a God to give it meaning.

Science explains how things happen, religion explains why things happen.

Some final questions: -

Why didn’t God create beings who had free will and who would never commit sin?

That would be so boring with no evil and we would not have the opportunity to commit evil so that would not be true free will.

So we choose good most times, would this mean that from God's view we weren't made free because he knew that we would never choose evil?

No it wouldn’t.

Then we would be boring because we would be robots because our actions had already been determined by God when we were made?

Pre destination sucks not true.

If God knows what were going to do does that mean that God supports evil?

There is no pre-destination.

If he had no idea what we would do would that mean that evil took God by surprise, which would mean that he is no longer all-powerful?

He can choose not to know. He also doesn’t need to use his power. Do you always have to use your power? No and if God has to use his power all the time then you are limiting God.

Evil And Suffering VS The Design And The Cosmological Argument For The Existence Of God

This is a tricky problem. What’s more important evil and suffering or the probability of a God? I can see why there would be a God from the design and first cause argument. These sound possible and make sense. The idea that there must have been something to start of the process and that this must have been God. People say what caused God and I say nothing causes him as he is outside the laws of logic and time. So he is infinite. People who say that this idea is bollocks say that why does it have to be God? I say what else could it be. I appreciate that people who have had evil happen to them would not care about the theory and be annoyed or upset. The design argument says that the world was designed and the designer was God. The biggest problem is evil and suffering. I believe that evil and suffering in the long term is a expression of love. I know that in the short term it is not. In the long term if it prevents more deaths then it is an example of love. You may then ask well why doesn’t use his power to end all evil. If he choose to do that then he would end his love. He also does not have to use his power just like you don’t always have to use your power to get your way and not using your power can be better then using your power. If he has to use his power all the time then you are limiting God. He can choose not to know about evil. You may say ahhh but what about time where no good comes out of that evil. I would say that death that is the price that we all pay for being born and if someone else kills you then that is the price that all of man can pay for free will. Weather you like it or not we all have got free will and it is what we do with that free will is the important fact. I accept that these evil and suffering theories do not explain why a man or women would want to turn away and use the power of free will to commit evil. I believe that God made the universe and us so therefore he has responsibility for everything in it including humans. He could have chosen us to be robots and to follow God all the time and always know what good is. I also think that if we had good I know that we would not know what evil was but I also think that we have a curious nature and If we were in an area where no evil would happen we would want it if we knew what evil was. We hate to be under a iron fist and that would be the same if their was a God that would give us no free will then we would be under an iron fist and that would be bad and all people crave freedom when they don’t have it so free will gives us that freedom and the ability to do evil. People choose to do evil because the system has failed them not that they have failed the system. For this reason it is we humans who have abused the gift of free will and it our fault for evil in the world. There is also no point saying why weren’t we made a different way as that is a lot of ifs buts and has beens. You may say well if we choose to follow free will then how is that free will, as we would be told what to do? I would say that it is the possibility to do evil that does not please God and the chance to do good. Good and evil is all relative. 9/11 most of the world would say that that was a bad thing but if you where part of it and you hated the US then that would be a good thing. So that would not cause pain to you but others. So I think that the idea of evil and good are relative to your audience. I accept that good and evil do exist and that they cause happiness and pain to people.

Conclusion

Crunch time for my essay. This is where I will weigh up the for and against arguments of God. I believe that there is theoretically evidence for God.

I do not believe in pre-destination which says that it doesn’t matter how good I am as a person as long as I don’t believe in a God then I go to hell! So that would give me the right to do what I like as its not going to make a difference. So I kill lots of people because it’s not going to matter. Maybe I should be a terrorist!! (Joke!) God sucks! (Or at least some of his apparent supporters do!) So that means that God only wants me to believe and not do good! God sucks!

I also don’t like Christians saying in the bible in the bible. SHUT UP!!! Use your brain not the bible. I believe that this is bad as you are pinning yourself on a book which may not be true.

I have also been on the skeptical side and have tried to use evil and suffering for a reason against the existence of God but I have found that I can’t win. Atheist do more thinking because they have got to see both sides and a Christian may not because they wouldn’t want to lose there faith and to see arguments against God. An atheist would loose nothing and say be a Christian where as Christen or believer may lose their religion and be converted to atheist so they wouldn’t want to argue against the existence of God.

Some may say it’s silly saying God is outside the Universe and time and human comprehension that’s dumb and you are afraid to debate it because you would lose the argument! I would say no it isn’t as God is above us and those people just don’t understand.

I believe that the cosmological argument and the design argument are theoretical possibly. I wouldn’t go as far to say that there is a God.

Although no one has yet proved that God does not exist. In the film Miracle on 34th Street the character of Chris Kringle who plays a Santa Claus a Coles store in New York assaults a man behind him and is sent to jail. In the trial a challenge is set for the prosecution to prove that Santa Claus does not exist. In the trial reindeer and army chiefs are brought in to prove that he does not exist. This happens and the trial is won for the defense on the words “In God we trust” on the one-dollar bill. The judge in the film concludes that if the treasury can put its faith in a being that has no proof of its own existence he concluded that it was ok if the state of New York put its faith in Santa being a being that there is no proof of its own existence then if there is no evidence to the contrary that he does not exist then it was ok to say that Santa did exist and the character on trial Chris Kringle was the real Santa. The defense won and it was a great end to the film and got me thinking. This is the Principle of Credibility. This is used in British Law. Every man women and child that appears before the court is presumed innocent until proven guilty and is a valuable and great legal principal.

Also I do not think that it matters if God is real or not! Even so I think that religion has provided help and security for billions of people in the past, present and will do in the future for all time.

There IS a God and there will continue to be in people’s minds from the beginning of time until the end and for evermore. You may not like God at times say when a family member dies but he is still there. Also there are deathbed conversions to God as well so I think man needs a God.

The Principle Of Credibility

This is the simple principle that unless you can prove other wise then in British law you are innocent until proven guilty. The same can be applied to God or Santa for children. If you say to a child prove that there is no Santa then they can’t. I can apply the same to God as well. Have evidence that most of the world is wrong and that we are only here by chance then there is no God.

After Thoughts

Could there be a God that created the Universe but is choosing not to use his power?

Yes. He doesn’t have to use his power. If he has to use his power then you are limiting God.

God will always exist to some.

[Dhul Fiqar]

Well, first of all I don't really believe in the terms "good" and "evil", both because of their subjectivity and because they are socially constructed with their roots in religion and morals, rather than internalized ethics (the terms morals and ethics are often used interchangably, but they're actually fundamentally different).

Foucault is definitely my main guide in this matter as in most others, but Nietzsche has a lot of interesting input too, most notably in his famous work "Beyond Good and Evil".

Foucault developed this further, focusing on the subjective nature of the terms. Something that is sad, physically harmful or dangerous in some way, is only "evil" to the person or persons it affects. There is the distinct possibility that it is at the same time "good" for someone else, it all depends on perspective. Thus there is a value judgment inherent in the terms, it depends on the point of view you adopt.

This is probably best suited to Theory, but I'll leave you with a quote from some guy (saw it on the net and copied it because he put it so well, he was actually making a point about crime prevention). It sort of summarizes the Foucaultdian approach:



"My tentative answer is an ethics ‘beyond good and evil’, a Foucauldian ethics of ‘everything is dangerous, which is not the same as bad’ in the sense that ‘if everything is dangerous, then we always have something to do’.

Thus, to continue Foucault’s line of thought, the main task that confronts us is to determine which is the main danger."

Of course this is only half-baked and probably not all that well worded at this point, but I hope you get the general idea.


--- G.

(Edited by Dhul Fiqar at 9:48 pm on May 20, 2003)

[Urban Rubble]

RAM, just because you can write an eloquent paper doesn't excuse your posts in the other topics. You basically sat there and laughed while people died. For that I dislike you.

I admit, those papers are good, I take back my comments about how mentally inept you are.

I still think you're sick and that you shouldn't be allowed to post.

[RAM]

Quote: from Urban Rubble on 7:55 pm on May 20, 2003
RAM, just because you can write an eloquent paper doesn't excuse your posts in the other topics. You basically sat there and laughed while people died. For that I dislike you.

I admit, those papers are good, I take back my comments about how mentally inept you are.

I still think you're sick and that you shouldn't be allowed to post.

I never laughed at the deaths just said that terroits deserved to be bombed

[Dhul Fiqar]

MOABS don't just hit terrorists, this you should know...

[RAM]

Are you against there use in peace time? even though a war on terror would mean that they could always be used

[RAM]

What about if it achives the greater good? Would you be against the dropping on bombs on military targets?

[GCusack]

Im still confused as to how smoking is healthy!!

[RAM]

So am I!

[Dhul Fiqar]

Quote: from RAM on 4:07 am on May 21, 2003
Are you against there use in peace time? even though a war on terror would mean that they could always be used


The sooner you accept the true nature of this so-called "war on terror", the better. That's all I really have to add on the matter, I'd rather not go there again, there is a pletorah of posts by both of us making our views on the subject abundantly clear.

These bombs target no-one in particular because they are by nature weapons of mass destruction, indiscriminate tools of murder who destroy areas and not specific targets. In Afghanistan they were dropped on populated areas, killing thousands of innocents, this is mass murder at least equal to 9-11, but where is the memorial and the weeping media?

I accept you're not the idiot I presumed you were, and I apologized, but your morality is at best questionable and at worst reprehensibly in it's servitude to imperialism.

--- G.

[RAM]

Quote: from Dhul Fiqar on 8:29 pm on May 20, 2003

Quote: from RAM on 4:07 am on May 21, 2003
Are you against there use in peace time? even though a war on terror would mean that they could always be used


The sooner you accept the true nature of this so-called "war on terror", the better. That's all I really have to add on the matter, I'd rather not go there again, there is a pletorah of posts by both of us making our views on the subject abundantly clear.

These bombs target no-one in particular because they are by nature weapons of mass destruction, indiscriminate tools of murder who destroy areas and not specific targets. In Afghanistan they were dropped on populated areas, killing thousands of innocents, this is mass murder at least equal to 9-11, but where is the memorial and the weeping media?

I accept you're not the idiot I presumed you were, and I apologized, but your morality is at best questionable and at worst reprehensibly in it's servitude to imperialism.

--- G.

My Morrality questionable!

Huh!

If you have ever studed ethics then you will know that making the assumption that we have a common inherent set of morals is a dangerous statement to make!

We have differing morals not me being amoral!

(Edited by RAM at 8:34 pm on May 20, 2003)

[Invader Zim]

Ahh shut up James we all know your intrisically evil and Amoral. Stop lying to the nice people. Come on lets go back to the ward for your chat with that nice phychiatrist you spoke to earlier.

:)

(Edited by AK47 at 8:47 pm on May 20, 2003)

[RAM]

Quote: from AK47 on 8:47 pm on May 20, 2003
Ahh shut up James we all know your intrisically evil and Amoral. Stop lying to the nice people. Come on lets go back to the ward for your chat with that nice phychiatrist you spoke to earlier.

:)

(Edited by AK47 at 8:47 pm on May 20, 2003)


You learnt intrisically evil and Amoral from ME!

(Edited by RAM at 8:52 pm on May 20, 2003)

[Moskitto]

Quote: from RAM on 8:24 pm on May 20, 2003
So am I!


I think anyone who's ever read a biology paper would be.

[Invader Zim]

Quote: from RAM on 8:51 pm on May 20, 2003

Quote: from AK47 on 8:47 pm on May 20, 2003
Ahh shut up James we all know your intrisically evil and Amoral. Stop lying to the nice people. Come on lets go back to the ward for your chat with that nice phychiatrist you spoke to earlier.

:)

(Edited by AK47 at 8:47 pm on May 20, 2003)


You learnt intrisically evil and Amoral from ME!

(Edited by RAM at 8:52 pm on May 20, 2003)


Come on James you no what the Docter said about getting angery affecting your temprement, and you go on a rampaging murderus killing spree.

[Moskitto]

James, you've allready admitted you don't practice exocytosis.

[RAM]

Quote: from Moskitto on 9:33 pm on May 20, 2003
James, you've allready admitted you don't practice exocytosis.

How can I not!

[Anonymous]

One cannot be both evil and amoral.

[RAM]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 10:05 pm on May 20, 2003
One cannot be both evil and amoral.

Yes they can as just becuase they have no morals does not mean that they can't commit evil acts that other would see

[Anonymous]

Their actions may be evil, but they themselves are not.

[RAM]

Quote: from Dark Capitalist on 10:15 pm on May 20, 2003
Their actions may be evil, but they themselves are not.

No cos Amoral means having no morals, no good and bad to them so I don't get your point????

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think some people are being confused between immoral and amoral.
Immoral beings are capable of morality but choose not to be moral.
Amoral beings are incapable of morality full stop.

[Dhul Fiqar]

I used the wrong word anyway, "unethical" is much better. Morals are just based on socially constructed values, ethics are are more profound internalized belief in what should or should not be allowed to happen.

--- G.

[RAM]

Quote: from NoXion on 11:22 pm on May 20, 2003
I think some people are being confused between immoral and amoral.
Immoral beings are capable of morality but choose not to be moral.
Amoral beings are incapable of morality full stop.



I am correct

Amoral= To have no moral rules or principles at all so you don't have to be incaperable of making moral decision to be amoral

Imoral= An immoral act is one that is considered bad or wrong

[RAM]

Quote: from CubanFox on 12:09 am on May 17, 2003

Quote: from RAM on 6:18 pm on May 16, 2003
By the way retard 2000 sorry red star 2000 they last checked the peoples records in 1972 when by now some of them must have health problmes. It sucks red star 2000 just like you do everynight!

Resorting to petty name calling about someone's supposed homosexuality, are we?

Chances are you're gay yourself and are too scared to admit it, RAM.


I am not gay and if Iwas then it should not matter or you are homophobic!