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.
I threw that in there, but it's mostly true. He's not the scariest thing in the universe, but the form you see him in, it's the scariest it could be to you.
This panel should explain it. it basically shows some of the forms he appears to different races in the universe, the form being his embodiment of terror to the viewer.
I agree with you, bust mostly I feel a separate title should be used for people related in a 'business' sense. Marriage should be a thing separate from monetary matters, if they really want to keep it sanctified. While all the business matters marriages does attend to could be blanked under a new term 'Civil Partnership' maybe?
I do not. I mostly don't because the conspirators who try to prove it, use some absolutely foolish explanations. One of the biggest is the alleged triangle over the eye, that is done in every music video, that simply must be proof of the Illuminati and a call out to them. However I ask, why would such a shady hidden organization, with so much power and influence, and so much to lose if they are discovered to be real and doing illegal activities, why would they leave evidence of their existence anywhere, let alone every where? However let's say maybe they are leaving messages, just out of Hubris, why hasn't anyone been able to find anything better coincidences of deaths, and or the ever mysterious triangle over the eye?
The final thing, is that they're supposed to be devil worshipers, and they are supposed to actually have communicated with Satan to achieve their power... yea no.
A violation is simply the legal term for doing something you are not allowed to do. the only reason you are not allowed to do it, is because the government said no, which brings us back to the government being who decides what a right is, making them invalid as objective constructs.
What makes the claim to enter my own house valid? What makes it my home? Why don't I have that claim to my neighbor's home?
If a person tries to become violent with me yes it is their privledge to do so, I don't understand what this question is supposed to be affirming though.
I take you back to the point I've reiterated since the beginning, rights and privileges are not inherently different, the only reason they are even considered different, and you actually agreed with me on this, is because rights are legally protected while privileges are not. The reason I say rights don't actually exist, is because though they are legally protected, that protection is very thin. Martial law is a legal action against your rights, legally stripping you of them. How can you be legally stripped of your rights, if rights are supposed to be legally ensured to you? The answer is, they do not exist. Rights are what the government created to make citizens feel safe, and the line between them and privileges was drawn to lend credence to rights, when they would inevitably be taken away.
Yes, I am referring to the cherry picking. As to what you're saying about the pre existing bias, I also agree but I feel it's more so that those who used the bible to confirm what they already believed to be true morally, simply didn't know if they actually thought it to be true, and needed to see it written from some omnipotent source to confirm it. I mean generally speaking, it's agreed that killing a person or no reason is bad, yet to those who feel that morality has to come from somewhere, having no one to confirm that for them makes them question if it's true or not.
To clear up confusion on what I said at the bottom. I'll reiterate as best I can.
I feel that those who believe morality must come from somewhere, are dangerous. As for those with no moral compass at all, they simply immoral which could be dangerous, but is not inherently. Some people follow the law, not because they feel it's right, but simply because they fear the consequences.
I don't see the fantastic four beating Hulk, let alone all of the avengers.
For one the avengers have numbers on their side, two, the avengers has a horde of heavy hitters. Obviously this depends on which group of Avengers you use, but generally Thor, The Hulk, and or Giant Man are on the team, and if so, you've got one of three people who can one shot any of the Fantastic Four, led by Iron-Man who can provide some aerial support.
Honorable mentions go to:
Dr.Doom for his impeccable thirst for power, that he'd stop at nothing to achieve.
Joker for his super sanity, and overall shenanigans that both disgust me, and make me laugh.
Lex Luthor, just because he's anti-supes.
I'd ask waht constitutes as villain, but I guess even without that information, it'd be generally agreed that Galactus is a villain.
I consider him to be the greatest villain because everything about him, from the way he appears, to his purpose in the universe embodies fear, something I consider to be necessity in a villain. He has no physical body, he simply appears to us in whatever way our minds can process him, and for Earthling humans, that just happens to be a giant, ripped, purple armor wearing humanoid. As for his purpose, well he basically exists as the life garbage man of the universe. Devouring all life, storing the energy that will go back into recreating the big bang, after the big crunch happens.
I feel it's more like using the bible as a guide. So you don't necessarily know what's right and wrong objectively of the world, and the Bible is there to act as the answers, to which you then make your own guesses as to whether or not they are correct.
I don't believe the lack of a moral compass is inherently dangerous, but I feel that a person who feels that one without a moral compass is dangerous, is dangerous because they will look for objective morality, and if not for their Bible they won't find it.
Then yea, if just males and you claim you hate the way obvious homosexuals act, you're talking about that flamboyance. In some sense I kind of agree with you, or I used to. I felt like they were being so obvious, that it was annoying, eventually I though to myself, what if that's just how they are and not because they want us to know their homosexual. It also helped that I met a flamboyant heterosexual male one day, who'd grow to become a close work friend of mine.
Some people just are a certain way, if you don't like that then that's your problem, but if you show your disdain either through rude verbal abuse or violent actions then it's everyone's problem. Ultimately if you don't like them because of that personality trait, then no one can stop you. I just hope, from my own perspective, that you learn to accept it one day.
You mean flamboyant people correct, or are you generally talking about anyone who declares themselves a homosexual, acts in a manner that annoys you?
Is it the being homosexual that annoys you, or is it just mannerism that you hate, that you've only ever seen in homosexuals?
Because I'm almost certain you're referring to flamboyance in males, that air of self confidence, and femininity most commonly attributed to homosexual males, however I assure you. Not all homosexuals, male or otherwise, are flamboyant, and not all flamboyant people, are homosexual, male or otherwise.
Maybe deep down you don't like homosexuals, and after discovering that that's not socially acceptable, you distanced yourself from that, but still can't let go of the disdain you have for the personality you've attributed to homosexuals. Also are you only referring to males or females as well?
I've found that more often than not people will blindly argue their side, and will have a retort for everything you use to support your side, but what really gets them thinking is not supporting your side, but pointing out the flaws in their side.
Maslow's triangle rates shelter and protection as the second most important need, after sustenance. I'd say guns are a variation of a need that we have in a world now that they exist. What that falls under though is protection, or more specifically weapons. We need weapons to protect ourselves from those who are normally stronger than us, in nature it's the animal kingdom, in society, ir's criminals, and internationally it's every other country.
