lol, you fucking troll, why do you do that? sarcasm isn't what it used to be.

yes, its just like that. the only difference is superman doesn't have a cult that says you'll go to hell forever if you don't worship their loving entity

“The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then.” -Thomas Jefferson

This is a very valid point. Manny has come all the way up from Flyweight, while Mayweather started with Super Featherweight. The reason I don't think this will have as much of an impact as you think is that Mayweather only has 1 or 2 actual knockouts, he seems more of an out-fighter to me. I don't think there is any power advantage due to their natural fighting weights between them, and Manny is known for eating hard hits anyway, so at the least I very much doubt Mayweather could win through KO or TKO. I do respect Mayweather's quickness and out-fighting; I don't think Manny has ever fought someone as fast as him and it will definitely be difficult challenge.

IMO Manny Pacquiao would win. I'm not sure if it would be by KO or decision; mayweather is pretty good at running around. From the fights with boxers they have in common, Hatton and De La Hoya, Manny seems like a stronger boxer, as he KO'd Hatton in the second round as opposed to Mayweather's TKO in the tenth, and also Manny's TKO in the 8th round compared with Mayweather's Split Decision with De La Hoya. Mayweather has a lower KO/Match ratio, 60% compared with Manny's 67%.

Yes, eventually, but right now, I don't think its very important to search for life on other planets outside of our own solar system, and even at that, it isn't crucial. There are plenty of issues that are more important to deal with on our own planet, and I see little benefit from discovering microbial (at most) life on Mars or Titan. I see no reason to rush in our search for life elsewhere.

Why joke? That's a valid solution. Not one that 97% of people would agree with, but... lol

Immediately, it can be said that murder is a legal term applying to humans, and that it is not applicable to non-humans.

To discuss the morality of killing animals, that is up to how you define your own morals.

My personal opinion is that it is not wrong to kill animals, for sustenance or sport. It is also not wrong to kill plants, bacteria, et cetera.

If you claim killing animals is immoral, then it follows that killing plants is also immoral, because in both cases you are ending an organisms life.

There is no evidence that would support the claim that there is an afterlife, however there is evidence to support the claim there is no afterlife.

Let's establish that life is generally considered as biological activity in an entity (i.e. rocks are not alive, they are geological not biological entities), and in humans, life is considered the presence of thought (i.e. brain dead people are not often considered alive). Neurological activity of the brain is dependent on the physical matter that composes it. Upon death, this matter degrades and loses its structure and ability to function as before. This is death. There is no life after death because that is what death is, the end of life.

We would not starve. Millions of Chinese factory workers probably would.