These advertisements are distracting and dangerous. They appeal to universal base instincts and thus reduce driver concentration. This may lead to serious road accidents and deaths. Drivers are distracted enough by signs and other road users already and should not need to deal with these extraneous aberrations

The act of driving, once indoctrinated, becomes secondary in nature, much like walking or riding a bicycle. Advertisements serve as a change of scenery and are a legitimate way for corporations to encourage us to consume products and/or services.

From differences stem conflict. Because of unaligned perspectives, anger, dissidence and intolerance rise. Only through unity and self sacrifice can we truly pursue utilitarianism. Differences need to be minimised.

What you propose is to convert civilian infrastructure to military use. Since the primary purpose of such infrastructure is non military, it follows that it will in most cases, be inferior to specialised military equipment. In Russia, there is are elite, veteran forces, well versed and readily mobilised while it would take some time to convert civilian engineers to take onboard a militant role. It's akin to raising a peasant army to defeat royal knights.

The greatest flaw with the gedaken that I know of occurs during his spell on evolution.

1. Evolution does not explain life, evolution explains how life changes

2. Evolutionary theory does contain an application; selective breeding. This is where all our specialised high yielding crops and livestock stem from.

3. Mutations do occur today, such as the hexadactyl limb from the pendactayl limb http://www.bbspot.com/News/2008/04/six-fingered-man-barred-from-guitar-hero-tournament.html as well as citrate fixing bacteria http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html

4. Evolutionary regression does occur, such as the Bats of New Zealand having reduced flight capability and resuming foraging through leaf litter as their ancestors once did for insects

5. Fails to consider the role of natural selection as the primary evolutionary force, specialisation is favoured because it aids resource exploitation, simple organisms that already exist, exist in a highly competitive environment, specialisation and subsequent complexity helps organism find and utilise new resources

6. Misunderstands how evolution occurs, new species do not appear overnight, they gradually change from their ancestors.

On another note, although this addresses string theory which I do not comprehend well, it's assumptions on major physics principles are questionable.

7. Einstein's special relativity proposes that the speed of light through a vacuum is non variable, this is proved through it's implications such as time and mass dilation as well as length contraction which have been proven via jets, atomic clocks, particle accelerators and detectors.

8. The speed of light is not constant, it can be slowed; http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/ 02.18/light.html

9. Does not address other, more widely accepted theories in physics such as the standard model of matter, which accounts for the properties of light and electromagnetism

Otherwise, Scott Adam's proposal on the mind as a metaphor generating deluded artifact stands, with some infusion from Dawkin's Memes: The New Replicators (from The Selfish Gene)

I think it is a sad day when a debate degenerates into slander and profanities. What ta9798 used is called a euphemism, it is used to either generate humor or inoffensively present a viewpoint. It is not used to incite offense.

Perhaps the bigger point is that you do not understand the purpose of debate. One debates due to interest in a subject. If you should be uninterested in considering the opposing viewpoint, then what you seek is not debate, but propaganda. Moreover, if you wish to speak on behalf of your fellow citizens, do not speculate, but provide evidence.

The ad homeniem is invalid, his arguement and yours are invalid, infact, I'm not sure any of the above arguments present any facts, and both are riddled with speculation and unsupported hypothesis.

Russia defended it's borders in the sense that early Romans 'defended their borders'. The rationale is that if you kill your neighbours, then your neighbours cannot harm you. More to the point, an incompetent leader does not necessitate stagnant leadership. If we look at Mao's mismanagement of China, we still see adept figures who are able to rise and act despite their disillusioned leader. Moreover, who do you encompass under 'we'? It is unspecified if you refer to allied forces or to America's entry into the war. I would also like to allude to Stalin's pact of non aggression with Hitler, indeed, Stalin expected Hitler to attack, however realised at the time that Russia could not sustain an immediate war with Germany because of it's technological inferiority, the non aggression pact was suppose to last until 1942 in order to buy Stalin time to build the infrastructure necessary to sustain a war effort. This strategy involved shifting industry away from the front lines to secure areas. One should then note that Russia expected to lose until such a point where it's base industry was strong enough to manufacture weaponry and equipment necessary to win battles. Yes, the USA entered in 1941, and yes, Hitler suffered from illness, but that should not discount the finesse with which Russians executed their own strategy, and indeed the significant grounds reclaimed by Russia as it engaged itself more wholistically.

The defeat of America within Vietnam, North Korea and Iraq stems not from military prowess but from social discrepancies. History has proven that invaders cannot colonise a land permanently without thoroughly cleansing it of its native inhabitants. Surely this is evident from the British colonisation of Australia, New Zealand, North America, as well as the Spanish and Portuguese colonisation of what is now known as Latin America. No people encourage foreign rule. That is why the puppet state appears, to give the illusion of the government by the people. The sovereign rules like a boat floats on water, turbulence at any moment may sink the boat. For this reason, it is unlikely that either Russia or America can 'win' against each other, they may increase their diplomatic clout with respect to each other, but both countries have and will continue to exist for centuries yet.

In reference to what you said. Specifically dealing with denial