The US also has huge borders, and an inability to regulate them. guns dont have to be legally sold in the US for them to be readily available to criminals. GB is a small Island nation; what works for them doesnt necessarily work for the US.

ofcoarse you would prefer a great 4 hour movie to an average 2 hour movie or else the 4 hour movie wouldnt be great and the 2 hour movie wouldnt be average

A) If you look hard enough you are destroying life.

so? i never said theres anything wrong with destroying life. all life destroys life.... whether its bacteria killing other bacteria or me eating a steak.  i stated a problem with mass murder.

B) Progress requires you to think beyond the possible life of one.

we're not talking about the life of one, we're talking about the life of millions. and what progress? adult stem cells have been much more successful so far. and its only a matter of time until they can be manipulated to do everything embryonic ones can do.

> Zidi wrote:

> Avo. If you cut out the Heart, and all those thigns he said. All you would have is a hunk of flesh. Is a hunk of flesh an animal? Or something that was an animal then? A 3 day old egg with sperm in it, is not even a zygote yet. Its something could be life, but isnt life. But, sperm is something that could be life as well, as well as eggs. Everytime someone goes a month without getting pregnant, they are stopping a possible life from being born? The arguement it has its unique dna?

Honestly this is something that is an opinion, science does not have the one answer people would like to think exists.

if a scientist noticed a particular member of a species survive without certain organs, they would not classify it as another species... a scientist would not claim a embryo isnt a member of the human race. he would not argue it only part of the mother or a lump of cells. he would say its a human at its earliest form. you just dont want science to have the answer, but it always has. he would not make up bogus criteria for being human like breath or neurological function, or circulatory system.

> A10 wrote:

> >ok, now the wheels were never designed to take nearly that much abuse and theres no way a 747 would be able to take off with their wheels destroyed.

I thought we'd assume magic wheels when we constructed the magic conveyor

why not a magic airplane altogether then?

"First you're constant post editing means I'm probably lagging a version as I write this."

sorry, i try to state it easier for you to understand, and then after i edit it, i see you made a response to the earlier one, so i try to go back.

with a frictioness surface, what do the wheels do when the plane moves forward? they would slide, but you already told us, "he wheels don't start sliding"

> A10 wrote:

> >The wheels and conveyer belt are of equal and opposite velocitites, but after a point due to a lack of the wheels capabilites of turning FOR SOME REASON, the wheels start to slide over the conveyer belt accelerating the aircraft from 0m/s to some take off velocity.

No. The wheels don't start sliding. The conveyor can never put more then 2klb of force apposing the plane. The wheels still turn at the same speed as the conveyor which is now the speed the conveyor was going when the plane was being held back by the conveyor [PLUS] the planes speed relative to the observer. The plane accelerates and takes off with it's wheels now spinning [Much faster then normal].

The wheels don't skid when the plane starts to move relative to the observer. The wheels/conveyor just move faster. The conveyor can't push against the plane more then 2klb which isn't going to stop a 747's 200klb of potential thrust.

@Avo

Maybe you don't get that this problem is NOT about can a plane take off when standing still. It's really asking can a conveyor hold back a plane. A conveyor can hold back a car, but it cannot hold back a plane. That's what I've been writing. That's what you don't get. You keep talking about the conveyor continually matching the wheel speed and thinking that has any effect. The conveyor just can provide enough friction to hold back a plane. End of story.

Avo Don't talk to me until you shave.

See Pixie, told you, you were giving him too much credit.

ok, A10, why do you think the question isnt asking whether a plane can take off when standing still, but that its asking if a conveyor can hold back a plane? we are not saying the conveyor is holding it back. imagine a toy plane in your hand. imagine, your hand is the air that the plane is pushing off of. now, when you have the plane on the ground standing still, the wheel speed is the same as the ground speed. now, by moving the plane on the ground, without making the wheels slide, try to make it so the wheels are not rolling forward faster then the ground, is rolling back. that is what you're claiming the plane is doing. do you see how that doesnt make sense?

> K. William Fancsali wrote:

> I think this whole topic has been strangely warped in the US.

I just signed a release yesterday to have my records sent to doctors in California. If they think it may be useful they'll be using stem cells from my bone to try to fix up something that was damaged 8 years ago. if they think it may be useful we'll be doing it in Mexico. Because this cutting-edge work just isn't done here. While we're whining and moaning that we should be allowed to grow and destroy human beings in labs for research that doesn't yield results (that is, desirable results. it does yield tumors sometimes!), we don't do the research on and work with stem cells (which do not require growing and killing anyone) that already exists and isn't morally questionable.

yep, the liberals hide the success of adult stem cells inorder to help them justify their "right" to kill other human beings.

> Wild Flower Soul wrote:

> lol.. Flint defying the rules of physics Why don't we get over with and just say all we know is an illusion created by some god!

you're just jealous becuase Flint's God is bigger then your God.

> Zidi wrote:

> > avogadro wrote:

> why am i not surprised. first he creates big government with trillions in new government spending, then he pushes for the government to control how the entire population lives and dies, now legalizes mass murder. he will go down in history right next to Hitler and Stalin.

------------
Firstly, most stem lines come from excess eggs during IVF. For IVF treatment they generally take 8-10 eggs, insert one or eight if your crazy, and save the rest in case you need to come in again later. Do you know what normally happens to these embryo's? They get washed down the drain for new space eventually. What is so wrong with using these IVF embryo's if consented by the parents? Also, its not mass murder. If that is consider murder, everytime one of your female friends menstrates do you go up to them and say "because you didnt get pregnant you just murdered two children" or every time you jack off "omg im a murderer." I realise they have 3-5 days of fertlisation, but essentially it boils down to the same question.

zidi, you're a dumbass. you obviously know nothing about this, when you use embryo and egg interchangeably.

eggs are no more a human being then any other cell. an embryo is a human being for all purposes other then religious individuals who insist being human requires certain physical characteristics such as a brain or a heart or live birth, but when you start defining humans by physical characteristics, you can start defining them by having certain skin color, height, or weight, someone who supports killing embryos is no better then someone who supports killing certain races, or overweight people, or short people.