This guy Kant sounds like a moral oppurtunist. That is: as a lawyer clings to the letter of the law, instead of the spirit of the law. The proverbial `letter` being that which creates convenient loopholes for greed worms to wriggle through. To this I say, there is at least one other level of understanding we must encounter here: it is a universal law that humans will act as they will and suffer the natural consequences. Next.

As Spock of Vulcan would say, "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, or the one" which is chivalry defined. But in real life, and as we saw in that movie, the needs of the crew outweighed the outcome of the valient sacrifice, (Spock sacrificed himself to save the ship, and the crew risked their lives to resurrect him). Universal concepts like this, as the universe, do continue past their obvious applied structure. Next.

In a way, I agree with this, kinda. Perfect morality is all encompassing, and requires behaviors that we mere mortals may be incapable of comprehending, much less doing. But is there a moral solution to everything we encounter, do we have to constantly look at the ramifications?

These theories are based in primitive superstitions. It reminds me of some naive religions, such as Fundamentalist Christians, who insist that the world is only 5000 years old (and shout that dinosaur bones were placed in the ground by God to test our faith), and who believe even to this day that the stars were placed in the sky by God, solely for the night time enjoyment and wonder of Man.

I've even come across New Age people who think that the Universe didn't even exist until Man imagined it. This is extreme, but a prime example of the cart pushing the horse: accepted belief excluding reality. Man needs to throw out theories that are contradicted by the facts. But then, that's politics.

OK nip, how bout this: all known gods are contrivations of a relatively primitive people and hence have morals as that local tribe understood them, at the time. Example: muslim arab cultures must wash before praying, 3 times a day; 'cuz ages ago there wasn't any bathing in that part of the world, and still very little, as water is scarce. Another observation: a war will soon arise wherever natural resources are scarce.

"Suffer not a witch to live" is King James' paranoid translation of this real obscure biblical sound-byte that meant something else completely different. Modern translation: "don't piss off the holy man." This misunderstanding, and the following penchant for burning stakes, could be said to have begun out of a noticable lack of, perhaps Man's most primary required resource, reason!

Lotsa shit got politically mistranslated: Jesus 'n family wasn't a carpenter, but a "craftsman" actually "a master of the craft" or local medicine man. There was no place called Nazareth until like 300 AD or something. A Nazarene was the PLO, KLA, IRA etc. around 30 BC. They were rebels, freedom fighters - they were occupied by Rome.Such ideas of Revolution and Nature Worship (like alchemy etc.) were dangerous to the "Powers the Were" in Europe back when.

Satan is the Celtic god Pan, the happy masculine form of Nature.There is no mention of horns 'n pitchfork in the Bible - that's Pan.If there is a god, how about the Intelligent Universe Theory ?

Intelligent Universe Theory: Imagine if you could know everything about every little microbe in your silly being (or at least had the means to find out). Only except instead of being in the sickbay of some Star Trek space station, your being is made up of actual people and planets, stars, galaxies, universes, multiple parallel cosmic dimensions etc. You flex a muscle, a galaxy expands. You retract it, it has two satelite clouds. The big bang could've been from heartburn. Or, 3D universes like ours could be simple wildlife; with children, natural habitats, prey, and parasites (namely us).

Anyways, these set events in motion that eventually effect the future of other stuff in the cosmic area. The more perception you have, the more you can comprehend. If you're aware of multiple simultaneous ten dimensional realities, just to start off with, you're also likely to know all the connections beyond karma, various probabilities and probable outcomes. What can a virus know, and what does an antibody care, about who you have sex with in some seedy hollywood bar? If it affects their shallow existence, maybe everything.

OK, now imagine you're a medieval monk, who just got laid. But because of your sheltered lack of viral resistence and the village girl's perpetual exposure to the elements you're about to catch pneumonia or something similar. The only way these creatures within you can reach you is through dreams, which you interpret as a vision. Maybe the end result of the dream is to get you to eat some bad food that'll make you puke to expel the virus. That you start puking your guts out the very next day, merely underlines the guilt and morality question to you, and makes reproduction tentative in your society for hundreds, perhaps thousands, of years to come.

Or, what if consciousness is just a manifestation of the physical form and when that's gone we disolve into nothing?

Well if you look at slavery closer, it doesn't produce true bliss for anybody (maybe short term superficial smug ignorance). As long as there was slavery in America, there has so far been almost as long a time of social unrest. One could argue that if slavery were abolished here in the 1500s, and an equal number of Africans emmigrated here, that our society would be much happier as a whole than it is today, and with a much better prognosis too.

But, in that event, would we have been ready to oppose the Axis in WW2; or would we have been too peaceful? Could we have dared invent, much less drop, the A-bomb; thereby rushing in the space age, and therefore our species' salvation? The was one particular Star Trek episode, "The Guardian of Forever," where they had to let a good woman die 'cuz her peace wisdom convinces Depression America to not enter WW2, and Hitler gets the bomb first and blows up the Earth.

All suffering is intrinsicly bad by definition, but has inspired many technological and spiritual breakthroughs. This is not to say that suffering is a preferred vehicle for evolution, but it does seem to be an attention getter. BTW - they could have taken her with them to the future and had the same results, but that's prime time TV.

Not exactly. Requiring medical care of any advanced technology does not require acceptance of cruelty in any form. Medicine is ancient even by our Earthling perspective: in the beginning, on this planet, people were tortured. You're confusing cause with effect, method with madness. Example: I'm a fan of oxygen, water, and that life evolved but against comets impacting with the planet I'm currently on.

Not falling out of the sky from 30,000 feet doesn't requisite stomaching the idea of pulling wings off flies and bees or any of the other things that led someone long ago to understand the concept of lift, jet propultion, etc. Now we have 3D computer models and other wild n wiggy things which can perfectly simulate the universal concept of flight but there will probably always have to be test pilots - at least for awhile anyways .......

But who's to say that plants don't suffer? Consciousness (as many things in nature), though unobserved, remains in existence despite Human ignorance.

That `diseased activist` thing is an old argument: popular, but short sighted and one dimensional. Your logic is not flawed, but it is isolinear: that is, isolated in mind and linear in reason. In this case, there's more than one road to Valhalla: in a Robert Planet's case, to which he is coming; or in a Zoid's case, a proverbial Stairway to Kevin.

In my case, I still like spottz-za very much; but if asked, would attempt to find other ways outside of popular vain cruel capitalistic greed to attain pepperoni, hot dogs, or volcano burgers. Example: people die all the time (meat or not) while relatively few are imprisoned, tortured, or murdered.

We humans, as a species, can be said to be in a transition phase between savagery and nobility. This is not to say the only way we can survive is to be noble: it is entirely possible that Humanity can safely vacate this star system before the Sun goes nova, and still retain our savage attitudes, or even let them get worse. But how long will we survive our own selfishness?

The point is, how much do you care? It can be seen that through inbreeding, people develop traits which are inconducive to the survival of the species, and even lead to its inevitable, selfish, self destruction. Most rascists don't think this far ahead however: and because of inbreeding, are not inclined to do so. Ironic: they need that which they hate and fear, to live. So, on the one hand, there is more than one way to get a meal. On the other, there are certain requirements for ultimate survival.

Say I'm hungry. I need five bucks to eat today. A friend of mine knocks down an old lady and steals her purse, extracting necessarry funds to which can thus ease our grumbling tummies. Upon finding out about this, I've already eaten, yet am enraged to learn the violence upon innocence which has allowed me to not pass out from hunger. Yet I am not in favor of starving to death. Should I then rethink my moral standards in favor of a more violent approach to life? After all, by your reasoning (I think): I live, therefore all methods bringing about those results should be applauded, repeated, defended, etc. But there are more ways to perpetuate survival, even as a omnivore, that don't involve violence.

The answer is, for you: as a savage, I eat today. But as a criminal, or benefactor of those behaviors, my ruin is inevitable due to personality characteristics that will eventually lead to my probably ironic downfall and that of others around me, who depend on my success. Some people like Florida, most people dislike driving I-75. Some people take planes, some of them crash in the swamp. Florida is still nice and driving there still sucks.I enjoyed my time at Cousino; Out of Hand, Hunky Dory: but loathe the chain of events that led me being there, (namely, divorce inspired bad financial circumstances).

I'm sure that there must be some real quote of some famous accredited philosopher somewhere but even if there isn't, yet, the truth still exists. The point is, that there could possibly have been other ways for our starving accessory to go about surviving one more day that don't involve terrorizing old ladies, and brutal theft. Just like there are more ways to nourish a human being besides anything derived from another animal.

Which brings me to mention that (hold on to something) I'm not entirely convinced that everything exists to which we can nourish ourselves on this world. According to the Bible, when Noah and his family finally landed on dry land, God hence told them that they were allowed to shrug off veggie tudes and eat meat; now that they were without crops and other groovy foods.

My theory is that, since at least that one great flood is a geologically proven and roughly dated historical event (discarding any argument about the existence of divinity), that many foods, that these happy campers were used to, were now extinct on this planet: washed away forever. Our digestive systems are not engineered to handle the diets of most Americans, or most modern humans. Our teeth lean more towards the herbivore side of omniverousnessism, than the carnivore side. Also, people are sposed to have lived much longer then, which would follow if air had a higher oxygen content.

One clue we have to this is the story of the rainbow. According to Genesis, no one had ever seen one before. In order for that to have occurred, there would have to have been either no rain, or no clear view of the sun. We know there was rain and daylight, but what if the disaster which caused the flood changed our planet from perpetual Venusianesque overcast cloud cover to something like what we experience everyday? That would mean a more oxygen rich atmosphere which would mean, among other things: taller trees (the ones sposed to have been used to build the ark were comparable in size to modern Giant Redwoods), and longer life spans for Humans stranded on Earth. Methusalah, Noah's granddad and wisdom teacher, was sposed to be over 900 when he died.

Now, taking all that as writ (slightly salted), how is it that we developed the technology to have something like a space program which can ultimately ensure our survival should another similar disaster befall us all? The answer is: war was the common motivator. In Western Europe, humanity finally realized that machines could be used as more than just toys and exploited this new concept to kill the neighbors. But you don't need murder in your heart to fly to the moon; you just have to have a really good reason to get there. As savages, we are oppressed by the most vile and savage among us, and therefore slave to their preferred motivations: war, power, etc. If we were primarily an intellectual species (like Vulcans), the moral eggheads would be more dominant in our culture. This is hopefully our direction, if not our immediate velocity. To say nothing of what aliens use cows for these daze. =oP

Ah, age old hassle of the Christianity trained. In the wild, say in a groovy forest full of deer: if the wolf (predator) population drops so low that there�s not enough food for the deer to eat the experienced woodsman will witness a quite gay Bambi �n Buck frolicking in their makeshift ways. This could be said to be a natural selection thing where some will not reproduce due to extra-curriculars, but I think it�s more likely the other way around ....... ie: There were gay ones anyway, but if the crowd was too thin they reproduced anyways to ensure a future deer population; and/or maybe the gay ones are the first to be wolf lunch.

Scientists have proven that it�s a gland in the brain that determines our sexuality, regardless of gender. If the gland is big, you dig dudes; tiny, you want chix. Many earth humanoid bisexuals claim that everybody is bi and just in denial, but I think it�s a perspective thing. I don�t feel bi, and I�m not even kissing any guy, but I wouldn�t mind multiple chix on the scene helping and sharing ....... ;oP

First, I don�t think homosexuality is a choice; any more than being a musician or a cosmic space cookie. People who aren�t these things see them as choices too, but they ironically have no aptitude for such things and wouldn�t know how to fake it if they tried. I would also go so far as to say that being a cog like Dilbert is not a choice. If you have no aptitude for it, you know it�s a waste of time to begin with. I know I�d sink in a week tops. Ever see a movie where an actor is pretending to play piano? It�s so obviously fake the way they move to the music. Please!

Good example with houses, nip. My dream home would probably be a sphere made of stone. Practically indestructible and hopefully impenetrable by parasites like southern roaches. A geometric figure, even a pyramid, could withstand the harshest elements, and still be aesthetically pleasing inside and out. But even the clothes we wear could be said to be unnatural. I personally prefer cotton, and not �cuz I�m in the neighborhood. It�s organic, airy - avoid plastic and leather, I already have one set of skin (so any doubles of me floating around out there wearing leather jackets are cheap impostors and should not be given the benefits of my proverbience beyond necessary mercy).

Biologically, I�m allergic to penicillin. But not most other antibiotics. And I recently benefited from some very basic invasive surgery. Though I probably would�ve lived just as long without it. This is where our tech advances become natural, if you look at it closely. We must use our natural curiosity to discover how to get off this planet before it gets hit by an asteroid or our sun goes nova, it really is only a matter of time, and we�re overdue I hear. If not, then by Darwin's Law, we have proven ourselves unfit for the universe, unable to adapt.

One race being superior to another, goes back to the lions vs. the hyenas. They both pretty much have the same needs and feeding habits, but have a society based on war with each other, over natural resources. This could go back to the caves, for us. There were the cave-painters, inventors of fire and a better spear, ultimately the bow and arrow; and then there were what has now become wrestling fans. Actually, neither is superior; merely more adaptable to the coming environmental requirements. These two tribes were so close, they were able to produce viable offspring (either through rape or invitation), unlike a mule which cannot reproduce, �cuz the horse �n donkey are too incompatible genetically.

If you ask me, the missing link is all around us, using their antagonist persona to hold back the evolution of the entire human population, not seeing the only way to go is up, and bashing the shiny happy people over the heads every chance they get. If the world were run by sane people, homosexuality wouldn�t be such a hot issue, except maybe for homos. Maybe, in this case, holding onto our more evolved sense of mercy may prove to be the most trying test of all. If we don�t refine the Cro-Mag�s antagonism into beneficial assertiveness, we will destroy each other; yet alone, neither tribe has what it takes to survive. Pink �n purple chess pieces unite! Unite or die, praise the lord ..... ;oP

If we determine that we have free will, then anything we do beyond rotting where we sit is unnatural, unless science concedes that animals have souls, feelings, and self determining intentions based on logical thought, no matter how advanced we�ve gotten in that field. Religion is based on real facts, distorted over the eons for the benefit of the clergy. Allowing animals respect given to conscious, spiritual beings would shake that murky foundation. Utter chaos in the middle ages, as opposed to the lawful order of things that history unfolded, right? Maybe free will is part of our natural state, and even predictable?

Perhaps fuck-heads like nazis can be considered part of the natural order of things though, inasmuch as fascists destroy the people�s hope, first by damning the intellectuals (no reasonable opposition), then anyone whose very existence contradicts the madness writ. I agree with you that the bible is probably actually OK with all things naturally Human in nature, and add that the things we�re told not to do in there are more like suggestions, advice on how to be a successful life-form, not `under pain of death` mandates. But this is what you get when the cro-mags are in charge of the way things ought to be. They�re more adapted to governing by force than abstract reasoning. And better at hunting than translation of ancient languages. I think even the Christian god must surely have better things to do than be a cop or even a judge. That�s all up to us, hence the manual. We can be cool and groove on that spiritual plane, or be fuck-heads and wallow in psychic-slime.

If there is a God, I think it�s more or less a casual observation from above; and then an active participation from within. All these heretics taking Divine Law word for word is what happens when you assign the interpretation of abstract metaphysical concepts (devote your whole life to these ancient texts, and you�re not allowed to ever have sex) to the sluggish minds, but who else would be interested in the slightest? This is where the chance for enlightenment becomes twisted into vain political opportunity. Hence, someone who is more of a man (espouse the bold proper thing), yet prefers the company of men, is jealously thwarted by the cro-mags currently in power. Without the misinterpretations of modern religions, they would have no sword behind their smug frowns. Hence, the Right befriends Fundamentalists, but must play on the common fear. Some say this is why aids was invented (not simply appearing one day), like heroin in the ghettos in the 70s, and even an escalated Vietnam in the 60s: to control the population of a potentially more enlightened generation. Sugar is also very popular these daze. Read on .......