Macroscopic

No. If time stops, nothing changes. It wouldn't be absolute zero because that's not what it was when time stopped.

That has nothing to do with maturity, it has to do with fear. Are you saying that some women who get raped are immature for not telling? They don't tell because they are afraid that the person that did it to them will hurt them again, and it is the same with child sex abuse cases; maturity is not involved.

That seems like a problem, but it's not. It doesn't really have anything to do with gravity. Water would stay in the air because that is where it was when time was frozen. If gravity had an effect on it and brought it down, I think that would mean time wasn't really frozen.

It was not meant to be condescending. What I meant by that a few years ago I was one of those children you mentioned. I can still remember that, and most of us did have the maturity to make decisions. When I said "I am in a position to know", I just meant to say that my recent experience shows otherwise, not to condescend.

We're talking about two different meanings of the word 'maturity'. What I was talking about was mental maturity, and it is possible to be mature and be a child, if you have the meaning I do. What you are talking about is physical maturity.

What are tachyons? All I know about them is that they exist above the speed of light. What do they do? What are they for?

We should care. If we just completely ignore them (like it's tempting to do), we are being just as closed-minded as them. Knowledge can't be gained through closed-mindedness. I don't think it is just Evolution, or just Creation. They don't have to be separate. I believe God Created us through Evolution.

I disagree with that. Most kids do have the maturity to make their own decisions. It's only the minority that are the way you picture them. I'm in a position to know. For the ones that can't make their own decisions, the parents should help them until they can.

I doubt it, too. It was just some stupid story made in a poor attempt to explain away the theory that they feel opposes their religion. It is not based out of facts but lies and hate.

Yes. There is no reason to remove 'under God'. People like him try to say that that is against his religious freedom, but it's not. No one is being forced to say it. Anyone can just skip that part, it's not that hard. It's easy, see: ...One nation, with liberty... Trying to take 'under God' out of the pledge does not promote religious freedom, it seems like it opposes it. Church should be separate from state, but this is taking it to far.

One problem is that there is to many people. It would be even harder than it is now to make decisions.

"Sorry about that, I think that if it is in self defense or the defense of others then it would be ok." Agreed

"True, but the question said just two numbers, so the example doesn't fit the question." Never mind, I wasn't looking at it right

"Say X = 5 and Y = 2 then X - Y = 5 - 2 = 3 So the difference = 3 and X > 3 and Y < 3" True, but the question said just two numbers, so the example doesn't fit the question.

"I say not, murder is always wrong." "In defense of someone else, or myself, of course." Here you say murder is ALWAYS wrong. Then you say it's ok to murder someone if it's in defense. Always and sometimes don't go together. What you have said is self-contradictory and doesn't add up.

Really? It's easy to say that when it doesn't personally concern you. If those were your daughters, your set of morals would be very different. Murder is needed sometimes. Picture this: You walk into your daughters room and there is a guy in there with a knife and is going to rape her. He doesn't know you're there, and he's in a position where you can easily kill him. If you try to stop him without killing him, he'll kill your daughter, then you. In this situation would you really not kill him to save your daughter? I doubt it. Almost anyone would kill him, and believe it was the right thing to do.

Maybe it is, but I still agree with it. The only reason I want him to live is because he doesn't want to. If he wanted to live I would be happy to watch him die.

Perfect.

I would normally say yes; they deserve the worst punishment we can legally give them. But this guy wants to die, and if we killed him we would be giving him what he wants. For him death wouldn't be the worst punishment. Life in prison would be worse for him, so that is what we should give him. We should not do what he wants.

Sure. I mean that time is a dimension like the dimensions of space. That second part is what I said if you drop the space part. How can an object move through space-time, but not space or time indivually. Could you explain?

I don't think time moves. Time is a dimension. I don't see how a dimension could move. It's more likely that we move through time.

Yes. It is very simple. He is a mass murderer . His potential victims are not, they are innocent people who just want to live. I don't see why his life is being placed above others:confused: , which is what is happening if we don't use whatever methods are needed to get him to talk.

These are the kind of things I meant, I should have specified. I agree with this, and it seems like a lot of people do that. It is sad that this happens, but it does. Compare the suffering that these types of families go through, to the suffering of the nation as a whole. If we didn't take action against the terrorists, more of these types of families would be created than if we didn't. The deaths caused by us are accidental, but the ones from the terrorists aren't. And we will be there for a limited time, but the terrorists are there killing people until we stop someone. That kind of pain was there before we came, and would've continued if we hadn't come. This had to happen a few times, or it would have continued, and there would have been more suffering. It was for the greater good.

Origanally posted by Sayonara3 I know that sounds a little messed up, but he is a murderer, and he doesn't care about other people life, and/or suffering. We should use whatever methods neccasary. His life and suffering SHOULD be placed below others.Origanally posted by -Demosthenes- I agree with that. We can execute a criminal based entirely on circumstantial evidence, but when someone starts talking about torturing terrorists, everyone starts complaining about human rights. You are all trying to make him sound like a victim, but he's not. We should use whatever methods are neccasary. It does sound cruel, evil, anti-human rights, whatever you want to call it, but should be used with the same justification as going to war: Sometimes to do good, you must do bad first. That's just the way it is. That's what we use to justify it on a large-scale, why sould it be any different small-scale?

True, but the more we hurt him, the more likely we are to catch his buddies. We get his blood on our hands; maybe that'll show terrorists that we'll actually do something, and that we really are out to get them.