Oh, and BTW, you may not wanna throw around the words "higher on the evolutionary chain" if you wanna be taken seriously. Just FYI.

And I hate to think what it'd be like in your world where there's a "higher up" animal than humans.

Seems to me that you're contradicting yourself a bit there, sir. I don't really like to argue, but it is my opinion that humans are under no obligation whatsoever to view their species as inherently purer and more deserving than anything else around them. There are certainly some individual humans I've met whom I'm compelled to view as the lesser of many individual animals I've met. Why should I be expected to view a human being who has treated me with nothing but contempt in higher regard than my cat, who has given me nothing but companionship and happiness throughout my life? Sorry if that troubles you, but there it is.

Hey, there's no problem with that, and I'm sorry if I offended you. But I'm tired of being constantly torn into for disagreeing with someone about the thoughts on a fictional character, as if my opinion on some character somehow makes me a lesser person.

I know I'm an easily hateable person, but I don't feel one of the reasons for me to be hated is that I don't like a fictional character others love. THere are plenty of more valid reasons to hate me.

I never said that I thought such a species existed; I said that the possibility exists. We know, scientifically, that a more advanced species could have evolved on another planet; likewise, through evolution, we know that humanity will eventually evolve into something different and more complex than mankind after several thousand years. I'm just stating what I believe to be possibly true from a scientific perspective.

Point well made. However, from a scientific viewpoint, we do know that mankind is the most complex/highly developed species, as far as we can tell. However, your point about companionship with an animal is well made, and I can't argue with such.

Also, I hope no one is thinking that I'm asserting what I'm saying as indisputable fact; even scientific facts that are established as such can be subject to change. I'm merely throwing out my opinion; I don't expect people to treat what I say as gospel truth.

Anyway......

Not Having Enough Free Time -

I really haven't had the time to do much other than work recently, or really for the past year. I haven't even be able to see any of the fifth season of Foster's, which really grinds my axe.

Well I do like to argue and you've set yourself for one here, old pal. According to 'Science', you and I have no rights either. Rights are not intrinsic, they don't exist in nature. Rights are conferred on us by higher authorities who appoint these 'rights' ultimately on the basis of vastly superior power. Normally this is a government who's power derives from a combination of collective consent and the threat of coercion. This means if they decide they no longer need your consent and you're no longer entitled to your rights, there's nothing you can do about it.

Generally most civilised nations give rights to animals in the form of laws that prohibit needless harm to them. Given that they possess instruments of perception, meaning they are experiencing the world just like we are, it seems reasonable to me to treat animals, even very basic ones, as if they're people and thefore deserving of respect.

As for your view of evolution, that's all mixed up. It's not a ladder, its a series of niches on an equal plane. A bat may look at you as inferior, for example, because you've failed to develop sonar yet. In their terms, we've got a lot of catching up to do.

I agree completely, as well as that humans have no rights either, according to science.

I can understand that. However, I feel it's more important to look after the wellbeing of humanity, as a whole, rather than the welfare of animals. That's all I'm saying.

Then I admit to being wrong and concede to you, if that is the case.

Diabetes -

My mother was recently diagnosed as being pre-diabetic. Technically, it's not expected to be too bad, but that doesn't stop me from worrying about her, as weak as that makes me sound.

Well, we're talking survival of the fittest here. I can do anything i want, if i happen to get killed by somebody else because they don't like me harshing their mellow, then it happens.

Really the only thing which holds true is who has enough power to secure the things they want. Thats all. Feel-good ideals get you nowhere. In fact, they may just get you killed. A man without a sword can still die upon one.

Anyway, apathetic people bother me. They really shouldn't, seeing as how they make me look good by comparison, but they still aggrivate me.

This Internet explorer won't download a flash player or at least can't use one. So no Youtube and even worse, no Flashchat which seriously grieves me.
Tried enabling javascript in internet options but no dice. Any ideas?

After a miserable morning I went out to clear my head, regroup. prepare myself mentally for a huge argument with my accountant, and shop. Lo and behold, Richard the perv was out and about as well. I was requested to hang around the register at Walgreens until he left, as usual. Normally that speeds him along quite nicely but today was even quicker than usual; he made his purchases and left without a word. Part of it was no doubt my expression; I presumably had something like "Go ahead, make my day" written all over my face, which was pretty much the mood I was in, and he knows I don't like him to begin with. There's also the fact that since he's banned from CVS (for now), he can't afford to get kicked out of Walgreens as well. Either way he's behaving better, or at least keeping his mouth shut, which is good for everyone. Except him, maybe, but that part I don't care about.

Just a hunch, but I'm assuming your copies of Beyond Good and Evil and Thus Spoke Zarathustra have arrived by now, as that sounds a LOT like Nietzsche's idea of "the will to power".

Being asked repeatedly who I voted for on Tuesday? Maybe, I prefer NOT to respond, thank you.