All of mine would require mass gene manipulation. Which is pretty objectionable stuff, so while an alternative..
"Most miss the clear motive because for most murder, especially of a family member, and especially for someone they don't even know, is not sensible." Exactly, but this is a thought process that comes not out of purely empathy, but simple reasoning and considerable societal influence.
I just had a thought though; sociopaths, you would say, have an easier time figuring the story out. Is this not an altered case of empathy? Doesn't the sociopath recognize the (murderous, plotting) thoughts and feelings and motives of the sister to work it out?
I have a feeling that this may not be the best example. What prevents many people from guessing the intended, inferred killer isn't empathy for the family, it just never occurs to them that (SPOILER!) 'love' for a stranger is enough to bring about murder. You can try to guess the motive all you want, but if the above thought isn't there, you're never going to get it. But, watch a few investigation shows and suddenly you're the best detective in town, sociopath or not.
Other than that, it's a good explanation.
I'm confused about the man who is blocking her from the camera. Does he realise that they could get into deep criticism because of their outright idiotic racism, but continues to agree with the woman?
"Any harmful condition, as of the mind or of society." -one of the definitions of disease, so in that regard, you could probably argue for. Do the negatives outweigh the benefits of love though? From an evolutionary standpoint, I wouldn't think so. Love in all its forms helps parents, families, communities stick together which was vital to learn human emotions like empathy, and to provide the support needed to raise babies that required extended nurture. In individual cases however, where love causes severe emotional distress and physical ailment, I can see how you could call it a disease.
non-American Soo, it's really a no-lose situation?? Cool. Thanks!
Unless you happen to have a wormhole just lying around.. But even then, the effects are really only speculation.
Wait. Achievement is a factor in Christian consideration for entrance to Heaven/Hell? I guess I'll never understand this concept.
"Global warming is polarised because you have to believe in it to be accepted". Acceptance is not telling of truth. Global warming (to varying degrees) is accepted by all reputable scientists because of data collected and calculated by machinery and mathematics far more sophisticated than your sham argument.
Surely an alien species would not use their entire population to invade Earth? Destroying the Earth would be meaningless. There is a whole planet of life that your aliens don't seem to be interested in, and it's worth a lot more than some petty revenge.
I don't even believe our knowledge and judgement in this field is sufficient for the possibility of making these decisions.
I just wanted to point out that it's not so black and white. Turning 18 is not a magical day when everyone suddenly becomes mature adults. As children grow, parents need to hold back gradually more and more, even if it means they make some mistakes. Hopefully, by the time society deems a someone ready for adult responsibilities, they really will be ready. Even then, parents are vital sources of encouragement and advice. Parents will always have a role in their children's decisions, and their active involvement in the child's life beyond childhood is priceless.
Sounds good, but where does integrity come in? Or did they not have a word for that back then?
[Rick Santorum is more popular than Paul???? :/ Woooow. This world.]
[Can someone please explain why Ron Paul is out of the contest??]
Analogy time! Natural disasters are a bit of a lottery right? Sure, you can predict their frequency over time and even perhaps the intensity, but rarely individual events. Global warming only makes the lottery an unfair one. Throw in a few 23 balls and you'll get more 23's in the lottery . Similarly, in a very, very simplified example, rising temperature (just like adding 23's) may create environments more susceptible to monsoons (having more 23's pop up in the draws).
Totally. Reading and participating in these debates has really challenged me to think twice about accepted ways, including the religious. While I may not have changed religion, I absolutely believe that debate is the way to gain perspective. 'You think you know everything until you know better', and these discussions prove it.
Sadly true. If there's money in it, you can be sure the supply will follow. Or when they run out of oil, whatever comes first.
Animal circuses. I cannot think of anything more degrading, worthless or embarrassing for humanity.
On CD? Could you provide some examples? (Though, without the times up, there's not a lot of verifiability..) If it's only a few minutes apart, I wouldn't immediately conclude plagiarism, and neither are popularity or 'praise' the be-all and end-all of arguments.
They're developing artificial photosynthesizers right now, and the generated energy would be direct too. The only real problem is getting past the 30% efficiency limit, but I'm sure they'll find the right compounds soon.
Not fully developed? This idea has been around since the 60's, no? Boy, have we got our priorities sorted.
