Momento Mori.

Oh man, I love how my thread has turned out.

 

I found a note on a piece of paper yesterday in one of my notebooks. I can't recall where I got it, or even if I wrote it:

 

"A true believer does not justify their actions through their God. A true believer justifies their God through their actions."

 

And rarely can I recall a better thing spoken.

 

Goes to show you haven't been reading my posts.

When considering a question of morality, one should look at both points of view from the worst possible situation. In a pro-life standpoint, one might consider a future where impregnating and aborting is commonplace, and pregnancy holds no reverence. From a pro-choice view, one looks at an impoverished, raped woman with no support from anyone.

 

Surely there lies unsettling ultimatums on both sides of the extreme points of view here: the magic of child-bearing replaced with a cold calculation of whether having a child or not is convenient; or the involuntary, painstaking labor to care for a child which a wrongful action wrought.

 

Who am I to tell a woman she can or cannot do something? I have no right to make her do or refrain from doing something, for it is her body and she owns the impregnated egg, right? Then who is a woman to decide the fate of a conglomeration of cells which in several months form a human who has inalienable rights? A matter of months, and the morality of the issue is clear that aborting would be murder.

 

Can such a sensitive subject be legally decreed one way or the other? But it already has been decreed, for years in fact. Can a consensus be formed, a democratic decision on morality?

 

Now if morality is defined by a consensus of humanity, can that morality be trusted? Those which created the morality innately must trust it, but history tells of horribly flawed consensuses.

 

If the party of pro-life bears the true morality, the situation is one of life and death in every instance.

 

If the party of pro-choice bears the true morality, however, the situation deals with a type of convenient choice, or choice which puts the fertilized egg bearer in an easier position labor-wise, excepting complicated births and raperegnancies.

Edited October 2, 200817 yr by Blank

Hey Blank, shine my shoes. Do it now.

Paste or wax polish? And the conditioner is a dollar extra.

Oh man, I love how my thread has turned out.

 

I found a note on a piece of paper yesterday in one of my notebooks. I can't recall where I got it, or even if I wrote it:

 

"A true believer does not justify their actions through their God. A true believer justifies their God through their actions."

 

And rarely can I recall a better thing spoken.

 

Goes to show you haven't been reading my posts.

 

 

And you haven't been reading my behind!

Yes I did. It says "Kiss this you ass kissing sack of ****."

 

BUT I'D RATHER KICK IT!

What is love? Baby, don't hurt me. Don't hurt me no more.

Love is overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate.

Love doesn't rot your teeth.

not like crystal meth does at least.

 

taks

Love is overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate.

 

Not really.

 

Chocolate contains phenethylamine, which is a precursor chemical to the neurotransmitters adrenaline, noradrenaline and dopamine. But not only is it rather weak in potency as a neurotransmitter in its own right, it doesn't get past the blood-brain barrier, and is destroyed in the bloodstream after about 5 minutes.

 

Furthermore, 'love' is feelings regulated by endorphins (natural opiates), endocannibonoids, oxytocin, dopamine, and serotonin, mainly. Chocolate contains none of these, and even if it did, again, they'd be mostly destroyed in the blood stream before they reached the brain.

 

Unless you're taking a strong MAOI, the most you could work with is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate#Aphrodisiac

plus hardly anyone rubs one out after seeing a box of chocolates with its top off, well maybe Hades

What is love? Baby, don't hurt me. Don't hurt me no more.

 

Love is overrated. Biochemically no different than eating large quantities of chocolate.

 

Not really.

 

Chocolate contains phenethylamine, which is a precursor chemical to the neurotransmitters adrenaline, noradrenaline and dopamine. But not only is it rather weak in potency as a neurotransmitter in its own right, it doesn't get past the blood-brain barrier, and is destroyed in the bloodstream after about 5 minutes.

 

Furthermore, 'love' is feelings regulated by endorphins (natural opiates), endocannibonoids, oxytocin, dopamine, and serotonin, mainly. Chocolate contains none of these, and even if it did, again, they'd be mostly destroyed in the blood stream before they reached the brain.

Geez. I was just quoting Devil's Advocate.

not like crystal meth does at least.

 

taks

 

Crystal meth doesn't rot your teeth.

 

It's a combination of teeth grinding, not brushing your teeth, and eating primarily junk food (especially soft drinks) while on it which is what causes 'meth mouth'. There's nothing chemically dangerous about meth for your teeth.

 

So brush your teeth, avoid fizzy drinks, and grab some chewing gum if you find yourself grinding your teeth.

It's a combination of teeth grinding, not brushing your teeth, and eating primarily junk food (especially soft drinks) while on it which is what causes 'meth mouth'. There's nothing chemically dangerous about meth for your teeth.

no kidding. you are completely devoid of the ability to understand a one line quip meant to be humorous.

 

taks

It's a combination of teeth grinding, not brushing your teeth, and eating primarily junk food (especially soft drinks) while on it which is what causes 'meth mouth'. There's nothing chemically dangerous about meth for your teeth.

no kidding. you are completely devoid of the ability to understand a one line quip meant to be humorous.

 

taks

 

Yours are usually never humourous to anybody but yourself. Consider it a boom that I save them by tying them to obscure-but-interesting scientific trivia. Take a chill pill.

Yours are usually never humourous to anybody but yourself. Consider it a boom that I save them by tying them to obscure-but-interesting scientific trivia. Take a chill pill.

i think you're the one that needs to chill out. yet again you take issue with a minor quibble, over a point that you didn't get, and you tell me to chill? btw, your "obscure-but-interesting scientific trivia" is quite plainly stated in a wiki article on the subject, so it hardly amounts to either obscure or trivia. any idiot can read it, and for that matter, as llyranor posted in another thread, any idiot could have written it.

 

taks

That's interesting because I learnt it when I was reading one of my mother's pharmacology books. I'm so sorry it's in wikipedia taks. This shocks me actually - I never knew they were aiming to be a comprehensive source of knowledge or anything. Seriously, chillaxe dude.

Yeah dude. Chill, or I'll have to bite your ****ing head off, understand?

Edited October 3, 200817 yr by random n00b

I wish I had chill pills.

 

I'd totally take 'em.

I had them prescribed to me once (anxiolytics?). I didn't last long taking them.

 

And it shows

You're all gay (derogatory)

Thanks for clarifying. I might have been offended!