Don't see how finding Bin Laden has anything to do with anything. We're
in Afghanistan due to 9/11- but we also stated we were going to rebuild
after winning.


And Iraq NEVER had anything to do with 9/11. And our reasons for being
over there (except a few people too stupid to realize there was a
difference) was never about 9/11, either.

You know, citing bacteria isn't entirely fair. After all- if ALL
bacteria are ONE. Then all the animals, down to the lowest protozoan,
would be counted as one. Bacteria are a vast catagory, encompansing many
millions of species. Im fact, some bacterial life is so alien that some
biologists have proposed creating a new taxonomical catagory called
"Domain" that is above kingdoms. So if you took that state, all plants,
animals, fungi, and whatever that last type is- all at once against the
bacteria. Either way, bacteria, not fair. Unless you limit to one
species at a time.


And.... if it came to a war between us and all other beasts.... we'd be
essentially screwed. If we WON, we'd still lose. Although we do have the
dubius status as "one creature actually capable of destroying all life".

Considering that news would have instantly spread without stop on the
news in every country that's even HEARD of 9/11.... probably not. Or if
he is dead, he's probably not been found.


Although if he has been found, and is dead, I could see why some might
hush that up. How about if we wait until the rest of the international
community verifies the stuff.



And if he did die, I doubt it was typhoid. I mean, yes, it's a
potentially fatal disease- but it's not common anywhere in the
middle-east. In fact, it just doesn't like dry climates. So if he got
typhoid- it was germ warfare. Which, while, I wouldn't put past the
Sudanese, I'd think they'd rather just shoot him and claim the glory
(and billion dollar reward for him, or his body, offered by the USA).
They could still get the money- no matter how he died- but not so much
the glory.


Plus, he was always around his "advisors" and whatnot. If he died, his
survivors would have burned the body until not even ash remained.

Oh, and just because something is "inferior" doesn't make it
undeserving of compassion and mercy. Killing an animal is one thing.
Torturing it in the process is quite another. We do our best to help
members of our own species that, for whatever reason, are not blessed
with the same abilities as the rest of their kin.


We're dependent on lower lifeforms to provide us with the necessities
of life. Nothing's built to do it all by themselves. Although humans,
one day, will probably be advanced enough, scientifically, to live
solely with the aid of our machinery. Heck, we may just genetically
alter ourselves to the point of absolute survival without any other
organisms.


Of course, that potential "chain" in evolution DOES bother me. Creation
is the ultimate work of art, and our dependency upon it makes our
appreciation of it that much deeper.

I've heard the other arguments. I've acknowleged that we cannot be
truly INDEPENDENT. But that doesn't mean we're not superior. If we build
a house of cards, the top card cannot stand without those under it. But
that doesn't change its status as top card.


I've played the "subjectivity" game to its innevitable conclusion- if
all is relative, then nothing matters, and there's no true answer to
anything.


I've played the "human action vs animal behavior" card. And got the
subjectivity response. Nothing concrete against me in that argument.


I mean, really, WHAT MORE COULD YOU POSSIBLY ASK FOR.


Oh, and the steak thing wasn't goading. I really did want a steak. I
settled for pizza. And in the process, ended up eating three different
species of animal.

Does anyone here think there's anything so morally wrong with that that
it's the quivilant to murder and cannibalism of three human beings?

"Amazing...fancy that two differing opinions...

in your mind you are right, and sadly have not been able to hear an
opposing veiw, or allow any dialogue to happen....

makes one feel superior huh?"


You call that anything other than insults in the form of ironic
sarcasm?

Well, I changed my mind. The dictionary thing may be "trite"- but, hey,
whatever works.


1 Higher than another in rank, station, or authority: a superior
officer. - Hmm.... only if you accept the spiritual aspect.

2 Of a higher nature or kind. - I think this is the crux of the
question's definition- but then you must define "higher".... and
"nature" for that matter

3 Of great value or excellence; extraordinary. - survival, as the
ultimate measure of success, puts us in the win on this one

4 Greater in number or amount than another: an army defeated by superior
numbers of enemy troops. - Obviously, not. Although we ARE better
organized

5 Affecting an attitude of disdain or conceit; haughty and supercilious.
- Ok, so, this one humans have in the bag.... not that it's a good thing
in this case

6 Above being affected or influenced; indifferent or immune: "Trust
magnates were superior to law" (Gustavus Myers).
Located higher than another; upper. - Of course we're not. Nothing is
untouchable.

7 Botany Inserted or situated above the perianth. Used of an ovary.
8 Printing Set above the main line of type.- neither of these are even
applicable.


9 Logic Of wider or more comprehensive application; generic. Used of a
term or proposition. - we are "wider" and "more comprehensive" in our
applications. Nothing spreads like we spread.


So, of NINE definitions of "superior". We've got a couple irrelevant. We
have three definate "yes"- one definate "no"- and three debatable
points.

And your ideas are different- but hardly "threatening". No more than
someone claiming that clouds are made of taco meat is threatening. I
merely ask you to provide a good reason why you have the opinion you do.
I gave you my points, and I don't see why you can't give me the same
courtesy.

Hey, I never said being "superior" meant we could exist without them.
That's not what superiority means. I'd have to have to go bring up a
dictionary definition to PROVE what "superior" means, it's trite and I'd
like to believe we're smarter than that.


And as to being superior to the rest of you? Well, I didn't resort to
insulting and berating. I kept to respectful points and counterpoints,
and asked you to back up your opinions as I have mine. It may not make
me a better person- but it does make me a stronger debator. I'm sure you
all have strengths in your own areas that overshadow mine. This,
however, is one of my best areas.

I'd be happy to fight with you, Eagle. But can you at least do a better
job of it than my other opponents? I'd like to break a sweat, if nothing
else.

Well, everyone that claimed that there wasn't enough wreckage in the
pentagon crash. I showed you the proof that there was. From uncontested
photographs. That no one, not the (respectable) conspiracists- nor, of
course, the normal investigators- has stated problems with. That enough
of a "liar" for you?


You called me a "friend" of Clinton and Bush. If THAT isn't an insult,
then nothing is. Except maybe accusing me of being a child molester.
Yeah, that'd be more insulting. Not much more, but more.

You also compared us to.... what was it.... ah, yes- stubborn mules.
Because calling someone a foul tempered, sterile, stinking half-bred
horse/donkey is exactly the compliment that gets you into everyone's
heart.


You've also claimed we did not read the stuff you wrote, though we said
we did. Thus calling us liars. You claim you read our posts, and yet you
have yet to respond to any of our counterpoints. Which is pure
hypocracy.

Was that before or after they located those undersea methane deposits.
The frozen ones, that if they melt, would make our planet look like
Venus? So many theories on how global warming's gonna kill us that it
isn't even funny. But at least we're all agreed that it's gonna kill us.

That'd be you. Either in post #13 or #15. Depending on if you could
count 13.

Another fancy new toy for the military budget. I hope they get their
money's worth for this baby.

Oh. And so what if we're the same make. A spear and a tank are made
from stuff found on the same planet. They both have the same function.
They're certainly not "the same".

I'd love to hear your "proof". I've looked through everything and found
nothing I haven't already addressed. Debate works through
point/counterpoint. One person states something- the other states how
that doesn't work- and the first states the situations that make the
second's statement, if not wrong, than at least not completely
applicable to the point.


Bait, I might do, but not with ignorance. At least I'm not resorting to
insults.

Oh. Hell. Yes. They do. That much is certainly true. The Patriot Act
was intended (if not by the designers, then by those who voted it into
law) to be a fine-edged tool. A laser to give the justice system power
to act with precision. The FBI has been using it like a freakin' weapon
of mass destruction. It's abuse, without a doubt.


But, that's why the judicial branch is seperate from the executive and
the legislative. To prevent these kinds of events. Or to rapidly crush
them when they do occur. Thus far, it's doing a pretty good job. Better
than any other nation on earth, at least.

Nope. You'll just use all that dirt you dug from the canal to build
yourself a nice island off your own (now nonexistant) coast.

But slam a multi-ton vehicle into steel, and the steel is damaged
beyond repair. Those towers would have collapsed even without the
flames.


And we told you repeatedly why the money means nothing. Because it's a
LIE. Even if it existed (which I doubt)- human denial would prevent the
truth from being heard by those who offered it.


Prove to a blind man that light exists. Then get back to me. If he does
not wish to believe, and cannot see for himself, then it's impossible.

Oh, I'm aware of the jumping. I'm not aware of how it MATTERS. Does it
confuse you that I can use more than one subject to hold up my point?