tvashtarkatena

Thanks for helping us get over our shyness issues, Rev. Keep the faith.

Holy shit, the world is one great big game of Grand Theft Auto. That explains a lot.

Olympus Mons vs Tvashtar Catena:

One step up from your moranic ass. Not sure what 'moranic' means, but you being one step up from my ass sounds about right. Better than one step away from my ass, in any case.

Just don't post your diaphram.

Talking dirty can get you somewhere....

Interesting points. But the moral righteousness of bombing and deliberately causing collateral damage deaths on the premise of preventing even more future deaths relies on an assumption that the country choosing to bomb knows with certainty the long term outcomes of either choice (to bomb, or not to bomb). It may or may not be the lesser of two evils, yet it's the course always chosen with this rationale in mind. How do we know that some 12 year old Iraqi boy who otherwise would've become a doctor but whose entire family was blown up in front of him by one of our bombs accidently isn't now instead going to become the guy who drops a huge nuke on New York City in the year 2031? Well we don't, and that's an eccentric example, but the point is, these justifications for war have been recycled forever and we don't know what the wide ranging effects of war really have had- except that there's a cycle of violence within this supposed moral imperative of "no killing". Using airstrikes for assassination in urban areas is certain to cause civilian casualties. War planners know and accept this; therefore those deaths are every bit as deliberate as the in the case of stoning. There is a difference in scale, of course. The stoning kills one person, the bombing many. I would also argue that our nearly psychotic paranoia regarding the vastly overblown terrorist threat is similar to the paranoia of those muslim nations who feel that female infidelity will lead to an unraveling of their social fabric. In fact, I would argue that our society IS unraveling as a result of our paranoia and pre-occupation with national security at the expense of all else. Essentially, we've allowed ourselves to become a pathetic bucket of angry, frightened kittens just because a few pricks took out a couple of our buildings. Lately, however, it seems that we might have a chance to get our balls back and move on.

So why can't they figure out how we work? Or do they know how and just feign confusion? My wife pushes my button all the time. That's what you get for letting a vole rummage around in your pants. I have no moral code.

I think you're both retarded.

So why can't they figure out how we work? Or do they know how and just feign confusion? My wife pushes my button all the time.

Trying to convince us sprayers to become PC is like trying to convince us sprayers that Seahawks isn't a moron.

All that and no operating manual.

Now I know who actually reads that stupid relationship shit on MSN...

Despite the physical equivalence, these two actions are in no way morally equivalent to one another. It's one thing to deny that different moral codes exist, another to insist that all moral codes are equally rational, just, and humane. Maintaining a moral distinction between intentional and incidental homicides - mowing down a pack of pedestrians because you want to murder them, and hitting suffering a stroke while driving which results in the same outcome, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, - is a basic element of any moral system worthy of the name. While I would agree that public stoning is neither humane nor a morally justifiable, none of my examples included purely accidental deaths. For example, an Iraqi or Afghan might say that bombing a target and killing scores of civilians to assissinate one bad guy is neither inadvertent nor morally justifiable. One person's collateral damage is another person's murder, as the varying opinions on this very forum will tell you. Societies must decide what is justifiable punishment to remove a threat. In this sense, my examples are very similar. Stoning removes the 'moral' threat of infidelity at the expense of the woman's life. Bombing removes the physical threat posed by a terrorist, at the expense of nearby innocent bystanders. Two different societies striking a balance between removing a threat and the harm its willing to inflict to do so.

It seems that high functioning voles have been bred as much for their competitive aggressiveness as for their math skilz. This thing would go ape when another vole was present in the lecture hall. Finally, it turned on it's hapless owner. We finally had to part ways in the men's room of Math Building...

and the latest issue of "Bodacious Ta Tas"

I got through engineering school with a TI 72 and a pocket vole that could solve linear equations like nobody's business. I finally had to get rid of it, though, because it had the annoying habit of gnawing on my nipple during tests.

Unleash your inner pitbull.

I got through engineering school with a TI 72 and a pocket vole that could solve linear equations like nobody's business.

Man, Ah don' know 'bout mah dawg doin' no Foiyay Ser's Diffrenchal E-quashuns, butt he sho got me huppin to when he need feedin. He gots de E-quashun "1 + 1 = FEED MY ASS" down real good.

Let's take "pedofilers" (cycling secretaries?) as an example. Man boy love was common and accepted in ancient Greece. Marriages between an adult and an early or pre-teen are still common in many countries today. In the U.S., however, most states have statutes protecting children younger than 18 from the advances of their elders. In each instance different societies determine, codify, and sometimes change what is considered right or wrong with regaards to one of the most fundamental forms of human interaction. Or take murder. Brazil is infamous for turning a blind eye to "crimes of passion" when a husband kills his wife. Our own society often turns a blind eye to the murder of innocents during warfare with it's "Sorry, shit happens" excuse. Yet that very same society would consider public stoning for infidelity, proscribed by law in some Middle Eastern countries, murder. Here again we see moral relativism with regards to one of the most fundamental norms of human behavior. Bringing the issue down to the personal level, we all must decide how we will behave. After all, "right or wrong" is about behaviour, not just thoughts. It doesn't matter whether one follows a religious or secular code of ethics, we are all burdened with the responsibility of deciding how to act. Religious leaders are free to decide whether or not to rape children, and atheists are free to decide whether or not to rape religious leaders.

Well, last time I checked we do live in a relativistic universe.

Seagal you've been around Kevbone to long, spewing shit that doesn't even make sense. Yes you are right! Atheists should be lumped in with "pedofilers". Cause everyone knows that doesn't happen when you have God in your life!! Must...not...touch...the children...

Why the fuck is anyone in jail then. Dumbass. Hey, why the fuck IS anyone in jail? Seahawks calling Oly a dumbass. Every once in a while from this forum springs a perfect singularity of irony.

The Boys from Ballard.