Aardvark

Shaking hands doesnt mean anything, get real.

How do you define an 'irrelevant' factor as opposed to a 'relevant' factor? That sounds a bit vague and non specific as a definition.

Anyone who thinks that WW2 was an economic boon is a fool. The depression was ending already. All over the globe, that means in countries other than the USA, where there was no New Deal. Sometimes Americans seem to have difficulty remembering that the USA isn't the whole world. Broaden your perspectives, it might help you understand things a tiny bit better. This thread originally started here, but went massively off-topic and was therefore split.

There is lots of vague talk about how much the West supported Saddam before falling out with him. Does anyone have any hard facts or is it all just lazy hot air?

What sort of medical reasons? Howe serious a reason would you require? Are you reservations emotional or rational?

Then i pity you.

Also, no mass murders were taking place before WW2, repression but not mass murder. The holocaust started in 1942 after the Wansee conference where the plan was finalised. The monoxide trucks were briefly in use in 1942 before being replaced by more efficent forms of murder.

Lets not get carried away here. It wasn't IBM which murdered anyone and the Nazis were quite capable of arranging mass murder without outside intervention. Big company bashing maybe fun but it isn't good history. With such a serious subject the truth is more important than someone trying to make some money with a book by doing some muckraking. Be a bit more critical of the sources, if someone writes a book they are probably a bit bias in favour of it, any independant corroboration?

Are you saying that is a good or a bad thing?

Devolution is something for the Welsh and Scots, not science. However it is perfectly possible for a species to lose an adaptation, we no longer have hair all over our bodies, whales dont have legs. In the future our brains could well atropy if selective pressures encourage more breeding from the lower IQ representatives of the population. If there is no particular selection actively in favour of an adaptation then it will tend to atropy, the process of genetic drift. Natural selection isnt the be all and end all of evolution, but its a major and crucial part. Work? Thats a four letter word!

I don't think evolution has paused, rather the selective pressures have changed. The fit, strong and intelligent used to have an advantage in propogating their DNA, now the feckless, lazy dole scroungers are the most successful in reproducing. This has certain pretty obvious implications.

No one is mentioning alternatives. A simple arguement about WMD or the morality of capital punishment only goes prt way. What are the possiblities, life imprisonment, exile, torture? Any ideas?

Evolution requires natural selection. In todays society these forces are no longer at work, the dull, feeble and genetically unfit are protected and survive to breed where previously they would have simply died. In the UK (and many other places) there is an inverse correlation between IQ and number of children. If anything, the human race is degenerating rather than evolving. Perhaps genetic engineering will be the solution, designer DNA anyone?

The human capacity to misunderstand the theory of evolution is awesome. I doubt that this or any number of threads with stamp that out. Perhaps it's because the theory of evolution is so simple and beautifully elegant that so many people have difficulty with it. People expect it to be horribly complicated and can't adjust to the stark, simple beauty of the theory. Odd really.

Agree with me? I was asking a question not making a point.

lifes a joke and deaths a laugh, it's true.

You suggest that i would have to pay the costs of treating the drug users or make the choice of deciding who to treat. On the contary i would not pay for anyones treatment, let people make private arrangements, i see no reason why i should pay for other peoples stupidity, whether from boxing or taking drugs. You ask if people who take drugs are stupid, the answer is yes. To work from that that all stupid people take drugs is a logical nullity which i did not suggest, perhaps you have let your emotions cloud your reason in this matter.

Ah yes, my vote. I'm sure that will protect me against the elective dictatorship. After all, we all know how responsive and sensitive governments are to minority concerns. Or are you being just a tad naive?

Without guns how would we defend ourselves against the government?

Surely 'mentaly incapable' is a pretty good definition of stupid? And what's wrong with letting the stupid people kill themselves off with various unpleasant narcotics? There might even be a profit in it from selling them the poison, now that would be a bonus!

Just find some amusingly gruesome way to kill him anyway. If he's a divine symbol when alive and a divine martyr when dead it doesnt matter what you do, so you might as well have some fun. I suggest drowning him in pork fat.

The law of entropy and peace on earth have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Your teacher sounds like a most foolish person.

The idea that EM from power lines can effect human health is completely different from the idea that the brain creates EM that then influences the persons behaviour. Since the brain controls the persons behaviour in the first place this idea makes no sense whatsoever.

No

The French strategy, 1) deny Saddam is a threat, after all he doesnt has nuclear weapons. 2) When he then develops them state, 'well, it's too late to do anything now'. 3) Pick up lucrative oil contracts from Saddam and sell him more weapons to attack his neighbours with.