I think immigrants get paid the same as American-born people doing the same job. If not, they should sue for discrimination.
You misunderstand me. They don't take the same jobs because they are willing to work for less.
The point of word problems is to develop your reasoning ability, to make you better able to tackle problems that aren't so simple.
Fair enough. I guess I've never really had problems tackling problems that aren't so simple, so constantly drilling me on it just comes across as tedious and irritating.
That's a rather extreme reaction to a high school math problem, don't you think? Not everything in life is super easy. Might as well get used to it.
Not an extreme reaction when the problems are presented as something you might actually need to know and use later in life. That's just a blatant lie, and I'm going to call it out as such.
I'm well aware that not everything in life is super easy. In fact I'm incredibly aware lots of things in life are quite difficult. That's part of the reason it seems foolish to me to deliberately make things more difficult on yourself, such as choosing to complicate a simple question by making it into a word problem, or choosing to solve something by hand instead of with a machine. If we just cut through the unnecessary bullshit we're forced to waste our lives upon perhaps we'd have more time to dedicate to things that actually matter.
I would be okay with assumptions in math if every answer was written 'somewhere around ___.'
The US is "dependent" on immigrants because they'll always work for cheaper, and the US is above all a capitalist country.
When those immigrants do those jobs, do they deliberately pick the most difficult, complex, and time consuming way to solve each problem, or do they just, say, punch the numbers into a calculator or computer program and let that do the work?
My point is my phone has a stopwatch. In that regard it is a device specifically designed to measure lengths of time, how long it takes to do something. When I (and everyone else) has that technology readily available, and can do the same work you could with your awkward word problem, except you could do it faster and more accurately. Why would you choose to do it any other way? The immigrants you're referring to don't. My accountant uses a calculator. My tax person uses a computer program. There are tools available to allow you to do math faster and more accurately without having to spend a decade trying to memorize archaic, bullshit methods of figuring things out i.e. these word problems.
The fact that she's gone through and individually thanked almost every member for any vaguely complimentary thing they might have said about her here pretty much says it all; she's very, very nice, almost absurdly so. Not that I'm complaining. Nice is nice. And it helps to balance out the abundance of assholeishness and bitchiness from the other men and women on this website. She's a welcome addition to the regulars, I hope she sticks around.
Seriously though. Will all word math questions there's either some impossible factor that would make it impossible to use in a real life situation (here the notion that you can instantly go from 40 to 60, and that you can hold at 40 and 60 exactly) or something that makes it pointless and redundant; many questions like 'if you're going down a river at x speed and blah blah how long does it take you to get there?' I don't fucking know. I don't care. If I did want to know I would've just pulled out my phone and timed the thing, not worked up some complex math equation that will tell me the same thing.
Holy are you
Holy are you
There is no God but you
There is no God but you
Praised be the Lord
Years and years of saving, earning, and hard work traded for a little makeup and some yoga?
Seems fair.
Also if he wants a sexy wife for the rest of his life, he's going to have to keep remarrying. Unless he's already like 80.
I used to skip on by questions like these in school. I'm going to do the same now.
You're off the hook for responsibility and it's entirely his fault... if you only let this happen once. That would be understandable. You didn't know. He overpowered you.
If this happened repeatedly it means you chose to go back to him knowing full well he is an abusive rapist, and therefore you shouldn't be unduly surprised by the rape and abuse that came your way. If you chose to give him another chance you are partially responsible for what happened after that point.
I will never for the life of me understand why people get so attached to people that are bad for them.
I mean, I smoke cigarettes, so I guess I can justify a bad decision to myself, but at least I know what a cigarette will do to me and I have control over that situation. With people you never know, and you rarely have control.
Ahhhhh the logic feels good to read.
This is why I missed you, man.
I disagree. People don't like what they fear. They want it gone. I fear spiders, for example. Because I fear spiders, whenever I see one I immediately kill it, that way I don't have to sit around being afraid of the spider in my vicinity.
If you're feared by people around you they don't like you. They want you gone. And eventually they will succeed in making you go, one way or another. I would say this makes the likelihood of getting betrayed quite high.
On the flip side, if people respect you, they want your approval and acceptance and friendship. Those dont seem like things that would be helpful in trying to betray someone you respect.
Interesting. I didn't know that was how we formulated titles to our opinions.
I support gay marriage. I should now call my self "pro-choice" in regard to gay marriages, and not "pro-gay marriage?"
I support the right of people to own guns. I should now call my self "pro-choice" in regard to gun control, and not "pro-gun?"
I support the legalization of many drugs for recreational use. I should now call my self "pro-choice" in regard to drugs, and not "pro-drug?"
You see how this could get confusing?
The funny thing is the choice is implied in every single position, proabortion included. The only difference is "pro-choice" could apply to any opinionated position where there is more than one way to do things. I.e. pretty much every major social issue. Proabortion means the exact same thing, but it specifically applies to the issue of abortions, and not to literally every other issue.
The abortion debate is really the only one where there's this bickering about what each side is called. In literally every other pro_________ position the choice is implied. Pro-gay marriage, for example, doesn't mean you think everyone should get gay married. It means people should have that option. Pro-gun doesn't mean you think everyone should have a gun. It means people should have a choice. Pro-Israel doesn't mean you think we should all move to Israel. It means you support those things as legitimate, legal options.
So why, then, does it all of a sudden change when it comes to the abortion debate and you specifically need to state that you are for being able to choose (prochoice) to have an abortion as opposed to just stating that you support abortion as a legitimate legal option (proabortion)? It's already implied you get a choice.
You can't just tell people they are wrong and expect that to count for shit. Obviously you think I am wrong. Obviously I think you are wrong. That's why we're fucking debating an issue and not agreeing on it. Now that the blindingly obvious has been stated for us both, can we move on to WHY you think I'm wrong? Y'know, debate the issue instead of endlessly stating the fact that you disagree?
I mean, lets turn this around: You're wrong, Ismaila.
There.
That's it.
Do you feel refuted?
Has your point been adequately disputed?
Do you understand why or how I disagree with your point?
Have I actually supported my point at all?
If you answered yes to any of these you're an invalid.
Okay, that said, if you're interested in actually engaging in a discussion about our opinions and can refrain from stating again that you think the person you are arguing with is wrong, here's the sum of my rebuttal:
In your own words, define "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion," each.
Well by this point I've seen half a dozen different contradictory definitions of the word... I'm surprised you still think you can assert its objective meaning.
A rape is a crime because of the physical (molesting) aspect of the assault. The sexual component is just that... a component or aspect.
I'm confused... are these part of the same point? They're one right after another with no real conclusion or link so I assumed they were.
I'll tell you this, if you find the answers for yourself... you'll not only see my point is valid but you will have a whole new appreciation for the applicability of the word in various situations.
I'm well aware of how to use words in different situations. 'The caravan arrived at the city unmolested,' for example, means the caravan arrived undisturbed, not arrived un-sexually abused. 'The Rape of Nanking' doesn't refer to anyone actually physically inserting their penis into a city against the will of the city, it's just a play on words to illustrate the horror and depravity of what happened in Nanking.
We can use words like this because it gets the point across and people still get what we mean when we talk like that. However, if you want to get extremely literal about this practice, you start to destroy the point of language by making everything too vague and ambiguous to be of any practical use.
For example, one of the words used to define "rape" is "violate." If we consider every time anyone violates anything - a trespassing law, the trust of their friends, a contract, etc - legally the exact same thing as rape, our prisons would literally be packed to the ceiling with convicts. If you tried to claim a baby crying in a restaurant was molesting you because he was annoying you, technically, according to your subjective definition of the word, you're correct; you'd also look like a damn fool and nobody from the Supreme Court on up would take you seriously.
The problem is you're working language backwards. Most people try to find a word that most clearly and accurately describes what they are trying to say. You're doing the exact opposite, finding words that can just barely by some stretch of the imagination be made to work in certain, specific circumstances.
I've said several times before the word you (and those lawmakers) are looking for is "disturb."
1 Interfere with the normal arrangement or functioning of.
2 Destroy the sleep or relaxation of.
It fits perfectly. It doesn't need to be altered or bent, no part needs to be ignored or omitted for the entire definition of the word to seamlessly apply to the situations you are talking about.
And if you had said "abortions are a form of disturbing things" nobody would be arguing with you.
But you went out of your way to choose a word with an overtly sexual definition, like rape. I can only assume this was to be inflammatory, which is why I argue with you now.
Joe does shit like this all the time.
They're a bunch of fucking hippies in Pac Grove. I'm not unduly surprised their law doesn't make any sense.
And using what I said above, if we want to use the full, complete, comprehensive definition of "molest" it doesn't apply to butterflies or to fetuses. Unless someones diddling butterflies, I guess.
If we want to use a partial, selective, incomplete definition of "molest," we can make it apply to just about anything we like, abortions and butterflies included.
Mature titles for each side, there, Izzy. Way to go on acting your age.
Anti-abortion means you are against the practice of abortion being legal.
Pro-abortion, like pro-gay marriage, pro-Israel, pro-gun, etc means you are for the practice of abortion being legal.
It does not mean everyone has to have abortions all the time, like being pro-gay marriage doesn't mean you think everyone should have a gay marriage, or being pro-gun doesn't mean you think everyone should have to have a gun. It just means you think those things should be legal and allowed.
Please define prochoice and proabortion for me and see if they don't have almost the exact same meaning, when it comes down to it. You might be able to use different words for each but ultimately they both mean supporting abortion as a legitimate, legal, medical option.
I don't know why the fuck you included parenting and adoption on this, but prochoice and proabortion are the same thing for all intents and purposes.
I think if you were going to go about cooking an egg for one meal and a full grown chicken for another meal you would go about preparing the different meals very differently. That's about how different fetuses and infants are.
Gods and goddesses are not a sympathetic, understanding lot. They're more likely to horribly disfigure you for seeing them naked, or something.
Seeing as how what you really mean is "undisturbed," one small, incomplete part of the definition of "molest," why don't you just say "undisturbed?" If this debate was titled "abortions are a form of disturbing," I think pretty much everyone would agree. But you specifically picked a word with overt and well-known sexual connotations and deliberately chose to ignore all that in favor of using a minor, incomplete part of the definition to make your inflammatory point. This must be why they call you "troll."
You should include the full definition, the part about to make annoying sexual advances to ;specif : to force physical and usually sexual contact on (as a child). I feel it might be kinda relevant, here.
However if you want to stick with the partial and extremely vague definition of the word, sure, abortions are a form of molestation. So is everything else, including walking, driving, talking, playing music, going to school, digging a hole, getting surgery done, hell, I'm molesting you right now as surely as you're molesting me, if "annoy and disturb" is as specific as we want to get with that definition.
Kids who are kissing in school are learning... they're learning both kissing and how to interact with the opposite sex... arguably they are learning much more important life lessons than those they learn in class, which is mainly how to jump through hoops and how to brown-nose your superiors.
And there are already far too many restrictions on distracting things. School is nothing like the real world. School is supposed to prepare you for the real world. The real world is full of distractions. Therefore part of the thing school has to prepare you for is being able to deal with an abundance of distractions while still getting your shit done. This cannot be accomplished by putting blanket ban on anything that might distract a student in school. Quite the opposite; banning distractions would be quite harmful to the students because then when they end up in the real world with distractions left, right, and center, they won't know how the fuck to conduct themselves and get distracted and side tracked at every turn.
I like how you always state your opponent is wrong before you dispute them. Like that makes a difference. Of course you think I'm wrong. Of course I think you're wrong. Stating so does absolutely nothing for your argument, and it's made even worse because you frequently use "you're wrong" instead of an argument.
Anti-abortion means you are against the practice of abortion being legal.
Pro-abortion, like pro-gay marriage, pro-Israel, pro-gun, etc means you are for the practice of abortion being legal.
It does not mean everyone has to have abortions all the time, like being pro-gay marriage doesn't mean you think everyone should have a gay marriage, or being pro-gun doesn't mean you think everyone should have to have a gun. It just means you think those things should be legal and allowed.
Please define prochoice and proabortion for me and see if they don't have almost the exact same meaning, when it comes down to it. You might be able to use different words for each but ultimately they both mean supporting abortion as a legitimate, legal, medical option.
I stop participating in debates when it becomes evident it is no longer about anything other than getting the last word in. I've been there done that with you before, joe.
It is actually. People who are for choice are also for abortions. It's just that "pro-life" people aren't actually pro-life because a) they go out and kill doctors and nurses at abortion clinics and b) because they could better be described as "anti-choice." Many pro-choice people choose life; anti-choice advocates want to eliminate the ability for others to make that decision.
Borrowing from Idiotbx, here:
Molestation- the act of subjecting someone to unwanted or improper sexual advances or activity (especially women or children).
Resource: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
So non-sexual molestation would be defined as: the act of... nothing because molestation is a sexual act. Saying non sexual molestation is like saying non-sexual fornication. It doesn't make any sense.
These things can happen with any kind of electronic entertainment, from watching TV to browsing the internet.
Because he's too busy trying to turn this site into a reddit/uberhumor hybrid.
Hahaha just kidding. Well no he is actually trying to do that, but he does also occasionally engage in serious debate. Occasionally. We just got into it in a real debate over gay marriage.
For a troll, I actually felt like we were making progress. I feel like we were making a real breakthrough in getting him to understand that rape is not the same thing as sex, and I was working on finding him a medication that might finally help him.
Oh well. Water under the bridge.
Just an uber-troll who was racking up like 150 points a day in completely retarded posts and debates. Nothing unusual, I guess, just altogether too prolific, and the CD community started to get pissed, as you can see in a few debates made about cracking down on trolling and spam.
I'll give it at least a 75% chance he comes back. Perhaps you will be unfortunate enough to converse with him yourself, some day.
Interesting. I guess "terrorist" has been a media buzzword for longer than I thought.
Request that a doctor remove the tiny, dried-rasin-esque sack you keep tucked between your legs - and perhaps the little AAA battery you have attached to it. And then talk to a therapist and find some medication that works. And then abandon technology and go live a few thousand miles from civilization because even with no testicles and a semi-healthy mind you'll still be irritating as all fuck, and nobody in the civilized world wants to put up with you.
Both. They're using terrorist techniques for freedom fighter reasons.
Why are they mutually exclusive, in your opinion?
A terrorist is someone who uses fear and terror to accomplish their goals.
A freedom fighter is someone who has the goal of freedom and is willing to fight for it.
So what is there to say you couldn't have a freedom fighting terrorist who uses fear to achieve his freedom?
23
M
German
America
Godless heathen
AA and trade school degree... imo they're pretty equal
Chef, independent contractor, and I run a swim team
So long as you're embracing her, bro....... she just needs to be loved.
Yeeeeee go Srom. Apparently you grew some since we last argued. Or I just never pissed you off that much.
Sorry I can only give left-handed compliments.
That says tradition. Does the government of that country currently age it's citizens differently based on sex, more to do with lunar cycles than age, and using some guesswork as to when the parents might have conceived?
Like if twins were born in a hospital in Eastern Outer Mongolia today and one was a boy and one was a girl, would they really write different ages on their birth certificates as per some moons gone by?
I mean the same wiki page says they traditionally count newborns as one year old in China... shows how much they know.
I'm of two minds about this.
On one hand, I agree, it's a problem. It's irritating having to filter through a handful of spam-esque posts for every good one you read. And some debate and users have no redeeming qualities whatsoever. They are blatant troll debates and troll users.
On the other hand one thing that I really like about CD as opposed to other debate sites is it's barely regulated. You can get off topic, you can be informal, you can post random funny shit, and you can talk shit for fun. These are all things I enjoy, but also thing that in the context of proper debating could be construed as trolling or spamming.
I understand it's a slippery slope fallacy, but I feel that any serious crackdown on the trolling, at least, would be the first step in making CD a more serious, formal debating site. And that very well could mean the end of genuinely funny joke debates, casual dialogue, off topic discussions, and shit talking members like Prodigee every time they spew the contents of their fetid mind all over this website.
Actually nix that last one... if there was a crackdown on trolls there would be no way members like Prodigee would last a day. So there would be no opportunity to shit talk them.
Ideally something would be done about at least the spamming and some of the more blatant trolls. I just hope it doesn't somehow interfere with the freedom and flexibility that have made me prefer CD to other debate sites.
Hahahahaha good comeback, bro
Still, these third grade responses are what I've come to expect from you. Our conversation to this point made me wonder if perhaps someone had hacked your account. Or perhaps they finally found a medication that works for you. Unfortunately, neither of those seem to be the case.
Still, welcome back.
I'll be expecting an incredibly distasteful music video in the near future.
Obviously everyone has a little bit of imagination and a little bit of knowledge, bare minimum. With the exception of possibly vegetables, I challenge you to find me any adult who doesn't have at least one piece of information and who has no imagination, creativity, or ingenuity at all.
Everyone has different opinions, but my opinion is the one that everyone (including every government in the world) actually uses. Nobody counts any period of time you spend in the womb as part of your "I am __ years old" identifier.
Wow, an articulated argument. I was so expecting to see you post yet another horrendous video I wouldn't watch or pointless link I wouldn't click on.
I don't have to assume he is above you; based on my limited interactions with you and what I know of him I can safely say that the statement "Einstein is more knowledgeable than Prodigee" is as true and factual as anything can be in life.
And I told you my reasoning for why doubting him was stupid. You can throw about hypothetical and what-if's and speculate but here we actually have a guy who actually was incredibly knowledgeable and he's saying fuck all that imagination is more important - and I'd know.
Your state of delusion humors me, I find it hard to believe someone like you is capable of getting a girlfriend ;).
This is less winky face than you might think. By his own admission he can't differentiate between sex and rape. When he said "and I walk with her to her house and carry out a few Satanist rituals if you know what I mean ;)," I think he meant something along the lines of "and I chloroformed her, carried her to my basement, and raped the shit out of her, if you know what I mean ;)"
Interesting. I always wondered why people would view this site and not join it... you have to be a member to post, you have to post to refute stupid comments, and there are a lot of stupid comments to be had on CD. I joined up right quick.
Anyways. Welcome. See anything notably humorous whilst lurking?
You guys should just meet up irl so you can suck one anothers dicks in private instead of all over this debate.
