let's.

does it cease to exist when i kill it? what ceases to exist when it dies? define this 'life' thing you're talking about and why i should care.

the tomato needs the nutrients from dead things in the soil. so it eats stuff that dies too. would it be alright to eat tomatoes if i wait till they die and then eat only the dead ones? especially if i spit out the seeds? or crap in the lawn? don't seeds exist in fruits TO HELP SPREAD THEM.

so does the tomato, miracle of life. even bacteria, the simplest lifeforms, bacteria, would be seriously evil in your book since all they do is kill other cells.

see above.

so all top-rung predators are just as evil as we are? what about primates, sharks and lions? and isn't there always a top of the pyramid, unless you do away with the whole pyramid? realistically?

/\ - bacteria (living)
/_\ - people (living)
/__\ - tomatoes (living)
/___\ - rotten plant and animal matter (dead)

there's always a top.

well, ecosystems are really cyclical more than strictly pyramids, but... every step is just as crucial as the next. ok, tomatoes don't need us, specifically, but they do need nutrients from the soil, which, ironically, come from us and other dead animal and plant matter.

i won't argue that the base of a pyramid doesn't need the top, but try removing the human race from planet earth. instead of us overpopulating the planet, fish, chickens and cattle would. ie, it's a food chain (or web) - remove an important enough player and the others are in deep shit.

false. the queen of england is not hated. she is actually well loved, or, like you said, she wouldn't be the queen. she is a positive figurehead of england or whatever and as such has a useful role on an academic, political, and societal level. she lives like that because people want to have her live that way, and as such, she is performing her civic duty.

she is a symbol. a symbol which comforts the people. tradition can be very comforting. comfort is something we all need.


would england sink into the sea if she were to one day be thrown in the gutter? no. doesn't mean it should happen. if the people want to do it, they will. simple as that. they don't want to do it because she is a benign parental figurehead.


i can just flat out disagree with this. years ago when they pulled 'surge' from the shelves, i was upset, but it didn't change my life or anything. i mean, sounds like you're blowing things out of proportion. just because i use products doesn't mean they dictate my existence.

though i agree that our killing ALL the fish IN THE WORLD would be a bad thing, or even an entire species of fish, it wouldn't upset me that much. ecosystems have a way of rebuilding themselves. nature is resilient. plus, we'll always have SOME fish. we have fish farms.

still, i'm not following you. we should not eat the fish so that they're still around to eat? sounds like a catch 22 to me.

both unsubstantiated and completely ludicrous. at the rate things are going now, i'll never have to worry about hitting the bottom, and, as somebody once said, it's not jumping off a building that scares me, it's hitting the ground.

how many people is the earth 'designed' to support, moses? i won't argue that the more of us there are, the tighter competition will become, but when we reach the peak, there will be famine and billions will die (hopefully in poor places) and the human population will be controlled by hunger. we can't do permanent damage to the earth (short of destroying it with nuclear bombs, and even then i suspect some life would survive).

say china DOES start using BILLIONS of cars. the earth's climate will change, billions will starve, etc. etc. etc. and then the world population might be a few million and civilization will start over. or humanity will be wiped out. life might be wiped out. so what. boo hoo. you win some, you lose some.

tell ya what, if i get cancer in 20 years from pollution or holes in the ozone layer, i'll buy you a drink.

please feel free to show us how much u referenced your facts. in fact, step back from facts and prove to me that anything you're saying should be listened to. i could recite rules for differentiating functions, right now, and they might be right, but... well, i guess much of it would be just as relevant as what you post.

that's right, whenever you argue against people, you protest just enough, and whenever i protest against your ravings, i'm protesting too much. i'll admit, even i'm astounded i even care at all what your inane posts say anymore. maybe i just enjoy this.


turak, what upsets me most is that i'm sure you'd be capable of abstract thought if you tried. let's just do a little example to prove you can think. ok? something outside your ... comfort? ... zone, so that you might be cold and calculating about it. alright: ex nihilo nihil fit: out of nothing nothing comes to be. discuss.