Just an interesting question that popped into my mind the other day. How many siblings do you have. I have five. I probobly have the most.

_________________
If VB is fun, what's everything else?

[ This Message was edited by: dxprog on 2002-05-16 02:33 ]

[ This Message was edited by: dxprog on 2002-05-16 04:43 ]

heh, i think the polls should stay at least somewhat programming-realted

I couldn't think of anything else. [addsig]

but this is where you talk about off topic stuff... i have a brother.

I got a sister.

I've got an older bro. [addsig]

I've got a younger brother and an older sister.

I have one brother he is 11. [addsig]

I've got only 1 younger bro.
[addsig]

dxprog: Looks like you were right...you got the most! [addsig]

/me has one sister. but my mother had 4 siblings! that is, they were 5..

Cool. My dad had six sibs. Oh I forgot to mention. I have 4 bros and 1 sister who is the youngest. I'm the oldest.

2 older sisters

_________________
Huh? Stop confusing me.

[ This Message was edited by: AntiHalcyon on 2002-05-17 08:58 ]

dxprog:
it wonders my, since we live in the world where 3 children is considered much...
how can it be that you have 5?
where do ya live ?
.... explain ?
[addsig]

I had a freind at school who had 12 Bothers/Sisters, He was from Tonga.

What or where is Tonga? [addsig]

http://www.vacations.tvb.gov.to/

We just don't believe in the small family theory (if you want to call it that). Actually big families are coming back in "style" lately. The church we go to we are one of the smaller families. The norm there is six or seven. [addsig]

Hmm...this "theory" as you called it is somehow very true where I'm living. Two children are the average I'd say, but five or even more are very extraordinary. [addsig]

Over in China I think the law is you can't have more than two kids. The abortion rate is unbilievable. They don't get it do they. [addsig]

one question: "Are your siblings intersted in programming" my brother say:"you are so crazy becouse i´m don´t play pc games" [addsig]

well, the law in china makes sense. that doesn't mean i support it, because it is a major invasion of privacy by the government. but in china, wherey the have literally billions of people, can you imagine what would happen if all of them got 5 children?

Henning: The only one that comes close uses a drag-and-drop game creator. He does do a little HTML and has been thinking of joining the YPN.

fscara: That doesn't mean you have to kill innocent little babies. There is such a thing as adoption. [addsig]

and, I bet they _will_ have 5 or even more children if they were allowed to!
[addsig]

dxprog: Surely, adoptions will help against overpopulation

Did you read what fsvara was saying or were you just joking?
[addsig]

the law in china doesn't forbid having a lot of children. however, if you have more than one, you get some "disadvantages"... like, having to pay more taxes, for example

Make you pay more taxes? The government already owns everything. What more could they need? Oh by the way I'm not slamming anyone living in China. If I have offended anyone, sorry. [addsig]

the government doesn't own everything... china isn't really communist... they're opportunists... it's capitalism in disguise

mh, and btw, abortion doens't mean "killing innocent babies". when "babies" are aborted, they aren't really "babies" yet but just a few cells... of course, you have to do it early enough... as you just cannot say when a human becomes conscious... nobody is talking about killing a newborn...
oh, and i suppose you don't eat meat? i mean, if you are really serious about "not killing innocent babies", how can you support killing innocent animals? and who told you plants don't have consciousness? you shouldn't pick flowers... they die...
hoping not to have sounded too ironic, i really mean it but you can't eat nothing...

hey, could we stop this discussion at this point? This is _really_ a matter of your ethics and how you look at it. Not everybody think like svara. Everybody has his/her own opinion of this, and we're not really here to talk about if "cell-balls" are babies or not
[addsig]

Okay. But I must say one thing.
1) From the moment of conception that is a human being.

2) Animals aren't sentinent beings.

End of discussion

_________________
If VB is fun, what's everything else?

[ This Message was edited by: dxprog on 2002-05-28 03:20 ]

If a human has the right to live then an animal has too. It's just - they taste so good [addsig]

Quote:
2) Animals aren't sapient beings.

End of discussion



no.. not "end of discussion"... i don't know what you mean by "sapient", but you CANNOT know in what way they are conscious. you simply CAN'T. no matter what the bible, your parents, some guy or some book told you, you can't.
And for that matter, there is simply no reason for thinking that animals don't feel and percieve like humans. They certainly have less intelligence, but that is not a reason for denying them the right to live, like a human.

I'm going to spare you a long discussion about divine revalation, but I definately have to agree with MoX. They do taste good. Now end of discussion.

Ignore this. It was an accident.

[ This Message was edited by: dxprog on 2002-05-24 02:19 ]

dxprog: you can actually delete posts.

As for the discussion: "taste" is a subjective pleasure of ours, and prioritizing it over not causing suffering is cruel.

dxprog, what do you mean by "sapient" anyway? The question is not: "Can they reason?" nor "Can they think?" but "Can they suffer?". And they can and do.

Now let me not get into animal rights issues, or do you really want me to?

The substantial question about abortion is whether or not humans have a soul (and whether or not only humans do). And this, gentlemen, is a totally subjective. None of us can know the truth on this issue. And if we say "no", then the inconsequency that svara pointed out still stands, even though it might be awkward.

I don't agree to the plant part, as that's wild theoretizing and has no support in science and it is still not relevant (as 10 times as much plants is consumed to produce 1kg of animalic proteins than eating vegetable proteins directly). We know for certain that animals do suffer, and - depending on species - have a certain grade of feeling spectra.

My personal viewpoint on abortion is that it should be avoided as much as possible. I totally disagree to those claiming it should be forbidden by law. But I really hate it when young people can't take care of themselves and, for that sake, kill a human life (whatever the real value of it is, the word itself carries a lot of weight - anyway it _is_ for certain an independent life and philosophically put, it has potential to be a human like us).

There are issues, like Thaiwanese child prostitutes, who would not survive giving birth to a baby, or victims of rapists, etc. where it is of course a different thing.

For me, it's all about situation ethics, but generally, I am against the killing of sentient beings, even if it concerns their pre-sentient status. Don't ask me how come, it's in a lot of cases totally innecessary to kill, so why do it?

I doubt that we will ever agree on the matter. I am however ready to defend and further explain my views, of which some is plain facts (as with causing suffering; nobody can really question the existence of this suffering).

Have a nice day/night.

Shoot. Okay I meant sentinent being not sapient (crud). Let's just let things stand as it is. I really don't want to heat things up to much more. When I get in these theological discussions I tend to overheat a little. To everyone I may have offended, fsvara in mind here, I give my sincerest apologies. Why don't we talk about something a little cheerier, like programming. [addsig]

Aren't scientist working on meat substitutes? I don't mean that soya crap that tastes like nothing at all...

With a nice tasting substitute the number of "vegetarians" will probably rise faster.

But what do we if everybody was changing his mind and stops eating meat? I mean, what happens to all those pigs and cattle that was breeded only for being meat later. Should we let them free? They prolly would not survive for long. What then? Keep them forever one generation after the other and feed them and so on to purge our sins? [addsig]

Quote:
On 2002-05-23 21:49, fsvara wrote:
the government doesn't own everything... china isn't really communist... they're opportunists... it's capitalism in disguise

Exactly! State ``Socialism'' and State ``Communism'' are contradictions in terms. Anyone who advocates these, or indeed thinks they can exist, is lying (because they are closet authoritarians, for example Bolsheviks) or stupid (because they are Marxist-Leninist sheep who support the Party without understanding what it really wants, or (and here ``ignorant'' would be a more appropriate adjective) they live in the US and they follow the national religion, Anti-Communism, with no understanding of what Communism is).

Quote:
On 2002-05-24 05:42, Peter wrote:
...
I don't agree to the plant part, as that's wild theoretizing and has no support in science and it is still not relevant (as 10 times as much plants is consumed to produce 1kg of animalic proteins than eating vegetable proteins directly). We know for certain that animals do suffer, and - depending on species - have a certain grade of feeling spectra.
...

I don't think plants are concious. However, they do feel pain, or at least some do. There was recently some research as NCSU (North Carolina State University) about this. I don't know much about it, I just heard about it from some faculty there.

I heard about that one too. I'm doing plants in my biology and they're pretty interesting. [addsig]

So we can no longer walk on grass because that hurts the green little guys? [addsig]

Quote:
On 2002-05-27 15:08, MoX wrote:
So we can no longer walk on grass because that hurts the green little guys?


No, you should never have walked on it!

/me thinks of "Don't step on the grass, Sam"

lol [addsig]

1, he is my twin