I didn't know that was still an issue.
I feel that since the competition isn't for anything, and everyone gets a grade regardless, that no one has anything to lose by playing with someone who physically out classes them. I mean if we're dividing people up so that they can compete better, why don't we just put all the bookish people in a separate class from the athletic people as well?
Your opinions are not valid on legal issues. Take for instance the drinking age. It's different all over the place, and for a time it was 18 here in the U.S. It was then upped to 21, but the people who would have been legally allowed to drink that year were allowed to drink, even though they were under the legal drinking age, while people who were old enough weren't allowed, because the drinking age wouldn't allow them. Now nothing magically changed allowing these people to be able to responsibly drink, they were just legally allowed to make that decision, that is all that matters.
For the second point, you're talking about love as a requirement to marry, so i ask where are all of your protest signs for people who marry for looks, or for money? Their is hardly ever any love involved in those instances, yet that is perfectly legal, because they are within the guidelines. So i ask, if love isn't a requirement then why not change the guidelines to allow groups, since they aren't breaking any requirements by being in lust, like so many couples before them have.
For your third point, you're devolving to opinions again, which is something that can't be logically argued, so I'll leave that aside.
Final point of yours, wraps up with the age old 'this is an opinion' message. I'll say in the future, save it. I don't want to argue opinions, because that can go on forever, I only want to argue cold hard fact, and results.
All I have to say is what does that matter? It is in the time that they had committed the crime that proved they were unfit to live in this society, that they were unfit to live in this society. If we can't help them, then unfortunately that's it, they have to go. We can hold, and feed them, and waste resources hoping someone finds a cure to that kind of disposition. A cure might I add that no one is actively searching for. Or we can end their life, their suffering, and remove them permanently from the society that can not deal with them.
If I can use an example from a comic book, take Bizzaro superman for instance. In a Superman comic, Bizzaro was created, as a twisted version of Superman. He meant no harm, he was just hardwired to be different. Help meant, kill, kill meant help, etc, etc. Superman destroyed him because there was no other option. There was no rehabilitation, he wasn't necessarily a bad guy, and superman didn't want to do it, but it had to be done. Bizzaro could not live in a world where he was predisposed to do what we commonly accept as the wrong thing. People like that are unfit, and have to be dealt with for the rest of society's betterment.
Most likely, but as it was used as soon as it was called for, it's pretty clear that it was already created, and was probably in the process of having more created. Thus when the time came to use it, the only options were keep fighting, keeping suffering more losses, or use the bomb.
Default would be no answering the question... if the question was never presented however since the question clearly was presented, default then becomes not being in support, but by not taking a side of being opposed either.
My position states clearly that since, I'm not against kids having phones, but I'm not trying to go buy kids phones, that I don't care or don't find it to be an issue if they have phones.
What you replied does not directly relate to what I typed. I simply typed that the baby has not chosen to spite god yet. You replied that not all Christian denominations condemn gays, but that is without warrant since I also did not say all or even any Christians condemn gays.
So to reiterate, I only stated that Christians would have nothing to say about the baby, and I gave no reason why. You stated something that would require an assumption, but for you it was a false assumption.
It depends on the sense the word is being used.
In the literal sense, as in is the answer wrong or is the answer right, the answer is either or. If it's part right, but missing anything important it's wrong, if it's adding anything wrong an unnecessary it's wrong.
In the sense that wrong and right are good and bad, then it depends on the person judging. Would you say it's right or wrong that a guy stole some food, to feed his family. The court systems say wrong, sympathetic people generally say right.
Here's the thing. if a teen is of legal consenting age, the government that they live under has decided they are wise enough to make that decision, there for your point is invalid.
I asked what is wrong with marrying etc amount of people, you said there's less potential to love. I said what's wrong with it because since when is love a requirement for marriage? Look at all of the failed marriages in this country, or the marriages in other countries where love isn't even a deciding factor.