This very much is not the case, and hasn't really been the case from a historical point of view either. There are of course those that do only, ahem perform the acts of being a gold-digger, but these people are hardly representative of the greater population, they just kick up the most fuss and thus gain more of the attention. No, dates happen for many reasons and are conducted in many ways, and as such there will always be those who have a criteria of their partner-to-be to a level that is unreasonable, but thankfully they do not command the majority as most people are more interested in the person and not the persons worth.
Let us consider what the virus does and then consider the biblical proportions of Revelations. Now, people are dying, that is a fact. The virus is spreading, that is a fact. However, the rate of this spread and the number of people sadly dying to this virus are not nearly enough to bring the world to its knees. We have endured far greater plagues and viral menaces and have survived, and we will survive this as well. One important point to note are those affected by the virus. It seems to avoid most children who seem immune. Those in good enough health seem to recover with relative ease. Seemingly the ones dying are either quite old, already ill or suffer from health problems, or both. Now, there is plenty of reason to have concern over this epidemic, but don't let that concern draw you away from your rationality. Stay safe, stay indoors, and weather the storm!
The ethics are that these animals are suitable to be live stock and are typically seen as more useful (in the case of dogs primarily), or 'superior'. I agree with your question that if it's good enough for pigs, cows and the like, then why not all that are reasonable for consumption, i say reasonable because not all animals are namely those that would harm the body after consumption.
Humanely as it is commonly understood in this regard is to say the 'killing' of the animal in such a way that is to avoid or reduce to as much as possible the amount of pain said animal would suffer or experience. It is one thing to slaughter animals for consumption and another thing to put them through a heft amount of pain, even if the end result is consumption.
Yes, gaming CAN improve concentration but this is simply a matter of looking at WHAT games your son is playing. For example, if you said 'Does Call of Duty improve my sons concentration?' i would flatly say no. However there are games that would not only do this but also improve many other aspects of your sons education.
One such example that comes to mind is 'Portal' and its sequel. This game focuses on how the player (in this case your son) can complete the game by solving puzzles in a 'experimental' environment. The player is given a device that creates portals and is placed in a position where they must figure out how to get out of their current level to an elevator that leads to the next level. This type of game stimulates and teaches creativity, concentration, improvisation, patience, and puzzle-solving skills. There are many games like this that come under the genre of 'Puzzle-solving' games bu there are other genres too that are good for your sons mental development. Look to the likes of Nintendo for inspiration, Mario games like 'Super Mario Galaxy' and 'Super Mario Bro's' are brilliant for young minds (and older ones too), and are fun to boot!
Just like any other form of entertainment, books, movies, T.V shows, it is important to look at to whom they are tailored for. ALL games have an age rating, if the game has '18' on the box then don't get it for your 8 year/old son. PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds is rated as '18' and is thus unsuitable for your son. It shows violence and killing something that is not good for a young mind, if you wouldn't let him watch the likes of any '18' rated film or T.V show then don;t let him play '18' rated games it will really mess with his mind.
To conclude, games can be MASSIVELY helpful in stimulating a childs mind, or anyones mind for that matter, but you must choose wisely which games he is going to have access to.
The problem with that passage is that it was chosen by men with beliefs that homosexuality is wrong as they were around at a time it was seen as wrong. Anyone can write something and then say God told me to write it and you wouldn't be able to prove them wrong as you must take it on "faith" that God told them to write it. Men choose what was to be put in the bible, that women, homosexuals and all life other than men should be treat as lesser. Most of what "God" says in the bible is evidence that "God" is humanities creation. There many passages in most monotheistic scriptures that depict God as warmongering, selfish, blood thirsty, sadistic, misogynistic, homophobic, wrathful (isnt that a sin? Hmm...) unjust and quite frankly malevolent. Now im a atheist but im sure if there is a creator God, it is either not bothered by what what we humans do or with life in general (the deist God) or loves us and chooses not to interfere.
What exactly do you mean by gay acts? Sex? Kissing? Flirting? At any rate, there is in no way it is the same as "beastality", for one its in the same species, for two both people are fully giving informed consent measurable by what they convey in words or acts, you cant ask a animal if they are giving informed consent as they probably don't even know what that is. To any one who agrees with the above "question" id much rather like if you could give me a logical argument to why exactly homosexuality is like "beastality" because being gay myself i do not find it the same at all in the slightest.
I want you to give me exactly what makes a Christian good and why that would make that person a good leader. Would you consider anyone who is a pope to be a good Christian? Because if history proves anything its that popes are corrupt to. Christians are just as susceptible as Atheists to being corrupt and being a bad leader, heck look no further than George W. Bush for that.
Most certainty so. It teaches the basics of war strategy as it shows how each move is essential to winning. In both war and chess you must think about every outcome that can happen when you make a move. You must think about what could happen in the near future and the effects that can happen of each move in the late game. Chess is about predicting your opponents moves and thinking like they think, it teaches you to be patient, careful, the value of your pieces and the ability to understand the pros and cons of risk, all qualities that are required of commanders. Being in charge in war is about being able to weigh your options and make decisions in a timely manner that work to achieve victory and chess teaches this as well as it demands it.
Ive chosen clarify rather than dispute as i feel this isnt really contesting this. Perhaps the dog is associating pleasure with the sock and the outcome being sex, this would be textbook example of classical conditioning. My question is: Do you think the dog, or for that matter any animal that has interspecies sex, is aware that it is participating in interspecies sex? Or does that animal see what it is having sex with as a means to an end? The end here being primal pleasure. Food for thought. Im quite open minded and i am aware that i was quite aggressive towards you in a previous debate, but upon thinking more about it, i can see that if other animals are capable of consent then although i may not agree with it, if its legally and factually approved and backed (as i am a man of science), then i wouldn't openly dispute it. Though would you agree that there should be certain limits? Such as a degree of what comes under the heading of sex and what then comes under the heading of animal abuse and perhaps even which animals come under the category of the ability to give consent. The problem then here is to what point is consent legitimate and not misunderstood (if understood at all).
Ok i see your point and you are not entirely wrong when you say humans can understand animals, but it is to a degree. The problem is how do we decipher what consent would be and what a primal desire for pleasure would be. Ill use dogs for example, for dogs understanding humans, i believe though they can associate what is being said to a object or outcome and maybe even definition to some extent, but they wouldn't truly understand what the likes of consent is. As the maximum dog intelligence is that of a human toddler; you could tell a human toddler what the definition of consent is and even if they remember it they wouldn't know what it meant to give it, how it affects them and the consequences. This in a way applies to dogs aswell. Just because they can know a word doesn't mean they understand it. This applies to most domestic animals aswell. Ive seen you put that animals can convey consent through action, could you please elaborate?
Well were taking the assumption that God exists obviously. I think that seeing as God is omnipotent she could easily do anything she wanted and in my opinion is responsible for quite alot of disasters in history if we take the assumption she is the cause of natural events. She created evil or at least didnt do much to stop it. she created everything and knows everything, therefore she knew Satan would rebel and she created Satan therefore she created the "ultimate" evil. We need look no further than most of the holy scripture in existence and namely the Bible to see the horrid and devastating things she has done. I say Genesis, Exodus, and Leviticus are most repulsive books in the bible, for not only the violence God inflicts but the cruel and immoral laws endorsed by it (like killing those who work on the Sabbath, selling your daughter as a slave, allowing the beating of slaves, and stoning gays).
Evolution is the non-random change in a species genes that causes a new feature. Now this feature does not have to aid its survival, thats a common misconception. Natural selection is when a particular animal in a species has adapted to its environment in a way that aids its survival and because it out lasts those animals of the same species who did not possess that feature or quality that aided survival it could reproduce and pass on those genes. Just thought id make that clear.
Is anything really a fact? I'd say evolution is a theory that is very heavily supported with evidence to the extent that it might aswell be a fact, like gravity. Alot of people who dont believe in evolution often use the criticism that there isnt clear evidence of the macro-evolution (the change of one species to another). The thing is though time means nothing for evolution, small changes over vast periods of time is what causes one species to depart from what from what its predecessors were. For example, say there was a animal 20000 years ago that when we look at say a bunny rabbit and a tiger they both shared in common quite alot of genes with this animal that existed 20000 years ago. Of course a rabbit and a tiger are different but when we trace back all of each animals predecessors eventually we reach the animal that existed 20000 years ago. This animal would have went through changes over time in each generation of it that made it a tiger or a rabbit. Since there are more than one of this animal it would be logical to assume that one version of these animals went through different changes in its generations than the others to come to a rabbit or a tiger. I do believe Richard Dawkins termed this the hairpin curve. I could go on and on about this for a very long time so i only gave so very brief and concise version. Evolution is a theory but it essentially is a fact and i have yet to see any other logical theory that can effectively, with use of evidence and alot of it, disprove evolution or even rival it with some force, so that makes it a well respectable and backed up fact in my opinion and the opinion of MANY others.
I think you may be getting the impression i meant literally destroying the Earth in the sense of world ending, i did not. I meant that we destroy that which is apart of the Earth, life and such, and we did so in the past with little restraint. Like i said i don't believe we do it as bad now but we did in the past and those effects are still being felt today. The Earth has many ways to rejuvenate itself but it cannot (or would be highly unlikely/difficult) to bring back extinct species and we humans are responsible for the extinction of some species, in that sense we destroyed a part of the world that is likely never to come back. The crux of my argument was to say we are destroying what is apart of the Earth, im sorry if that caused a little confusion perhaps i didn't explain that as well. :)
For one i did not say a dog has a child's mind i said they had the mentality of a 2-5 year-olds. And no, i am not wrong. I will make this as my last statement as you are way to moronic to argue rationally. You are taking a absolutist approach and as such its futile to try and convince you as you can't be convinced through logic and rationality. Continue to fuck your dog, just know you are sick and someone should call animal services on you.
In terms of survival yes, of course yes. But there is a difference to kill a animal for use and just to abuse/misuse it. I think we should use all of the resources that each animal kill gives us, the hide, the blood, the meat, the bones and so on, and not to waste it for one singular reason. I feel we should take only what we need from nature and not to go as far to ruin life for other animals or to hunt them to extinction. A point i would use is with the whales. We almost fished them to extinction all just for their oil and blubber because we got greedy. Everything we need comes from nature and we should treat it with respect and not to take it for granted. We should kill to survive and maintain ourselves but not for sport or boredom and certainly not because we can.
I think this is perhaps to do with euthanasia so i will stick to that. In my opinion everyone has the right to live but also the right to die. If a person truly feels s/he cannot bare living any more and they are handicapped in some way that prevents them from doing the deed (whether it be physical or mental), i feel that then their wishes should be met to at least die in a way they want to by someone they can rely on (this doesn't imply to know the person). However the limits for me are if its a cry for attention or that their excuse for not wanting to live was trivial or resolvable, if otherwise then yes i would and i do think i would sleep well about it too. Life should be a choice for the person who's life it is and if they need help with the decision or outcome i think as a fellow human we should try to help, but that's my opinion of course. :)
This is rather a vague question in my opinion. In what sense do you mean destroying the earth? I choose yes because i feel that we destroy masses amount of forests that cause lots of animals habitats to be destroyed. History has shown we are responsible for the extinction of species that is completely our fault, we have hunted animals to extinction for our own pleasure or "needs". We abuse the resources given to us by our planet and contaminate the skies and waters through use of them. Though now we try to help, it would seem most of the damage we try to resolve/fix was caused by us in the first place. The Chernobyl event is a example of how we even inadvertently hurt the world. I think more accurately i would say that in the past and mainly during the 20th century we were destroying the planet and now we are trying to help it, but what we have done in the past still affects us and the planet today. :)
Dogs cannot consent because their mental age is around 2-5. How many 2-5 year-old humans do you know who consent to sex? Not many i bet, if any at all. Im an atheist so any God arguments are out of the question for me. Love and sex are very different. To express love you do not need to have sex, i think sex is self-explanatory. What you are proposing is that it should be legal to have sex with not only a different species that has no contemplation of consent let alone the ability to give it, but a species that cannot even distinguish between pleasure and love, they respect authority; their primal desire for pleasure is often mistaken for love. A dog is not on par with human sentience therefore they cannot experience love like we do and as a concept or feeling of love, a dog cannot feel that at all. Sure they feel pain and suffering, but only in the physical sense. A dogs "mental" pain can be attributed to classical conditioning through expectation of pain and no doubt maintained through operant conditioning. Might i ask what species you have seen having sex with other species? And as for a dog learning our language, they dont learn it they attribute the sound of the word(s) being spoken to a action or outcome, that is why its called training not educating.
Actually the first bit is what i remembered from a documentary i saw and the quote i found is from Vile Acts of Evil by Michael A. Kirchubel. Don't try to impugn my sources by saying i copied it from Yahoo answers, i certaintly did not.
King George III of England outlawed the interest free, independent currency the colonies were producing and using for themselves. In turn forcing them to borrow money from the central bank of England at interest immediately putting the colonies into debt. "The refusal of King George III to allow the colonies to operate an honest money system, which freed the clutches of the money manipulators was probably the prime cause of the revolution" - Benjamin Franklin. The Federal Reserve is a central bank which is not owned by the government, it is a private corporation and it makes its own policies and is under virtually no regulation by the US government; completely consistent with the fraudulent central banking model the country sought to escape from when it declared independence. A central bank is an institution that produces the currency of a entire nation. They control interest rates and inflation. It does not simply supply a governments economy with money, it loans it to them at interest. Then through use of increasing and decreasing the supply of money the central bank regulates the value of the money being issued. All they do is produce debt in the long run. "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous than standing armies... If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency... The banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of their property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson. "Our great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is privately concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men... Who necessarily, by very reason of their own limitations, chill and check and destroy genuine economic freedom. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world - no government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and the duress of small groups of dominant men." - Woodrow Wilson. After the bill passed to allow for the Federal Reserve Louis McFadden wrote - "A world banking system was being set up here... A superstate controlled by international bankers... Acting together to enslave the world for their own pleasure. The FED has usurped the government." The FED created the Federal income tax, the American public's ignorance to this tax is a testament to how dumbed down and oblivious the American population really is. The tax is completely unconstitutional as it is a direct, unapportioned tax. All direct taxes must be apportioned to be legal based on the constitution and the amendment was never met. There is no law that requires you to pay this tax. In WW1 war broke out centred around Britain and Germany, the American public wanted nothing to do with the war. Woodrow Wilson even declared neutrality. In a noted observation by Senator William Jennings Bryan - "The large banking interests were deeply interested in the world war because of the wide opportunities for large profits." War forces the government to borrow more money from the central bank at interest. Woodrow Wilson's top advisor and mentor, Colonel Edward House, a man with intimate connections with the international bankers, wanted in the war. In a documented conversation between House and Sir Edward Grey of the foreign secretary of England regarding how to get America into the war, Grey inquired, "What will Americans do if Germans sink an ocean liner with American passengers on-board?" House - "I believe that a flame of indignation would sweep the United States and that by itself would be sufficient to carry us into war." So on May 7th, 1915 on essentially the suggestion of Sir Edward Grey, a ship called the Lusitania was deliberately sent into German controlled waters were German military vessels were know to be. And as expected, German U-boats torpedoed the ship. The German embassy even put ads in the New York times that if they board the Lusitania they did so at their own risk, as such a ship sailing from America to England in the war zone would be liable to destruction. As anticipated the Americans were angry and America joined the war. WW2, on December 7th, 1941 Japan attacked Pearl Harbour triggering Americas entry into that war. After 60 years of surfacing information it is clear that not only was the attack on Pearl Harbour known weeks in advance it was outright wanted and provoked. Roosevelt, whos family had been New York bankers since the 18th century, whos uncle Fredrick was on the original FED reserve board, was very sympathetic to the interests of the international bankers, and the interest was to enter the war. In a journal entry by Roosevelt's secretary of war Henry Stimson dated November 25th, 1941, he documented a conversation he had with Roosevelt, "The question was how should we maneuver them into firing the first shot... It was desirable to make sure the Japanese be the ones to do this so that there should remain no doubt as to who were the aggressors." In the months leading up to Pearl Harbour Roosevelt had done almost everything in his power to anger the Japanese, showing a posture of aggression. He halted all of Japan's imports of American petroleum. He froze all of Japanese assets in the US. He publicly loaned to nationalist China and supplied military aid to the British, both enemies of Japan in the war, which by the way is completely against international war rules. On December 4th, 3 days before the attack, Australian intelligence told Roosevelt about a Japanese task force moving towards Pearl Harbour, Roosevelt ignored it. Nazi Germany's war effort was largely supported by 2 organisations, one was I.G. Farben who produced 84% of Germany's explosives and even the zyklon b used in the concentration camps. One of the unspoken partners of I.G. Farben was J.D Rockefeller's (American international banker) standard oil company in America. The German air-force could not operate without a special additive patented by US standard oil. The nazi bombing of London was made possible by a $20 million sale of fuel to I.G. Farben by US standard oil. This is just one small point on the topic on how American business funded both sides of the war. Another treasonous organisation worth mentioning is the Union Banking Corp - New York City - which funded numerous aspects of Hitlers rise to power along with actual materials used during the war it was also a nazi money laundering bank which was eventually exposed after having millions of dollars of nazi money in its vaults. The director and president of the Union Banking Corp was Prescott Bush, the father of George H. W. Bush and grandfather of George W. Bush. The declaration of war against North Vietnam in 1964 came after an alleged incident involving 2 US destroyers being attacked by North Vietnamese PT boats off the coast of North Vietnam - The gulf of Tonkin incident. Only problem is the attack never actually happened. It was a completely staged event to have an excuse to enter the war. Secretary of Defence Robert McNamara stated that the incident was a "mistake", while many other insiders and officers have come forward relaying that it was a contrived farce. A complete lie. Currently in the US, unannounced to most brainwashed Americans, American homes can be searched without a warrant, without you being home, you can in-turn be arrested with no charges revealed to you, detained indefinitely with no access to a lawyer and legally tortured all under the suspicion that you might be a terrorist all thanks to the false-flag oppertion conducted by the US government, or if you will, 9/11. Want a painted picture of what America is being like? In February, 1933, Hitler staged a false-flag attack burning down his own German parliament building in the reichstag and blamed it on communist terrorists. Within the next few weeks he passed the enabling act which completely eradicated the German constitution destroying peoples liberties (much like the USA patriot act). He then led a list of pre-emptive wars (much like Iraq and Afghanistan) all justified to the German people as necessary to maintain homeland security. "An evil exists that threatens every man, woman and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." George W. Bush AND Hitler, when announcing the Gestapo to the people. Fine i'll hand it to you i don't know much about your media, but to be fair that isn't really the main crux of my point. So no, i am not jealous of America.
Wrong on your first point, the main reason for America fighting for independence is that Britain made it illegal for it to use its free currency that wasn't regulated and controlled and made by banks, and what do you guys do? You create your own currency that is regulated and controlled and made by banks, NOT government banks either. Also the only reason you joined in WW1 and 2 was because of profit same goes for the Vietnam war. The fact that the USA got rid of its gold standard is evidence of the fact that bankers control the USA, amongst more evidence to that point. 9/11 was a completely a false-flag operation contrived by corrupt officials in the US government to further an agenda that strips rights. Exactly how are we like the USA? With media like FOX news im surprised that America is even aware of anything that happens. And for the last point i made, i did so only to educate the Americans who somehow think they are the most powerful country in the world. The fact the USA is hated is not because of jealousy it is because you give us plenty of reasons to hate you.
Its wrong because sex is supposed to be between the same species. Dogs cannot possibly give consent either, they cannot speak to give it and cannot convey to through action. Its even likely that a dog doesn't even know what consent is. In a way its like paedophilia, how can a child consent or if it says it does its too young to know what consent even means (not in the definition sense), the same applies to a dog in a way but the fact its a different species makes it even worse. Im going to have to apply a utilitarian point in that if its ok for once person to do it then its ok for all people to do it, that certainly isnt the case for paedophilia or rape so then its not ok for sex with dogs either.
