Do you see how that's a better argument in favor of computers and by way of them, the internet, with it's vast collection of articles, sites, quotes, pictures, etc that you could also look to while in search of the information you originally desired.
and wasn't all the information on the internet initiially taken from a set of books and manuscripts?
I know I've personally gotten side tracked while searching one thing and learned tons more than I expected to just googling something as simple as some song lyrics.
agreeably. but you will also realise you've not learnt a tonne of other things which you could have while reading a book.
besides this, the internet can be misleading. there's so much information on it that may or may not do you good.
a book, whereas, will only speak on a specific topic and articles related to it.
i don't think people are born bad or good. its their choices which define them at a certain time. but i don't agree that a person can be understood in his/her choice at one time or another. everybody makes mistakes and one mistake shouldn't be used to define their whole life.
i think children are born unbiased. their choices depend on what they like or dislike. this may not necessarily be similar to your own likes or dislikes and here one may call them evil or good.
however, in both cases it's the thought that counts. so what one may think is good could be evil to somebody else and vice versa.
it gives you a peace of mind. why do you think people invite others to party when they can. its happier when you share your happiness. similarly when you invite people to funerals and such, the pain does reduce considerably.
although i'm sure people will say its bad when its a piece of chocolate cake et cetera. but that's just a small part of it. ;)
that way one doesn't stay in conflict with oneself whether his possessions may get stolen or lost or taken. sharing helps us lose that pressure.
and finding pleasure in materials isn't exactly helpful in the longer run.
sharing sadness halves it, and sharing happiness doubles it.
i'm sure you'll do well... gut feelings. ;)
in india, we are expected to join colleges or universities at about 18. sometimes 19(if we prefer that).
how's baby noir? still living with you in college? she must have grown. they grow like crazy the first few months. ;)
this is a well known concept in the Hindu scripture(because i'm slightly more aware of that than others. it could be available in other scripts as well).
2 ears and 1 mouth signify more listening and less talking. this makes man more wise and helps him observe and understand people and his environment better.
i agree some emotions might be linked genetically and run in the family but the fact the environment and surroundings in which a child is brought up does alter and affect a lot of his/her emotions.
therefore it would be wrong to say that we are born evil (or born good).
but good here may be considered as innocent and impartial.
There is also research indicating that attributes commonly conceived of as "evil" or "bad" (e.g. jealousy, anger, lust) fulfill just as much of a necessary function as do those conceived of as "good"
agreeably here. what may seem good to one can look bad to another.
but speaking in general here, wouldn't being born good seem more valid?
i was just going make a debate about this. i understand when i get downvotes sometimes, but i've never really had downvoted argument all through my new argument activities.
i never really cared about the points, but its annoying me now.
do you have any idea as to who they could be?
although i don't think most normal mothers would have the energy to do it, i think if she can, its okay. as long as her kid isn't affected or influenced.
and young mother or old, isn't that going to about the same thing. maybe the only difference would be that older mothers would seriously be exhausted throughout and have lesser fun.
but otherwise i don't think there should be much of a difference.
it is usually because people who believe in god have been rude to them. this is of course one of the reasons. another reason is that they want to inflict their beliefs on other religious people too.
they see in atheism what we see in religion. it does go far at times but i don't see why people you know should stop talking to you just because you prefer to believe in god in general.
thats like not liking another person because their colour choices don't match. :/
Sure I may not have (consciously) chosen to be left handed, but if I WANT TO CHOOSE to use my right hand then I CAN LEARN
i think people did that before. when homosexuality was a supposedly wrong. i think people did not accept and wanted to learn to be straight. and learnt it
but now that greater numbers have started to come forward, they are accepting themselves the way they actually are and are not ashamed of who they love.
which is not wrong.
i've said this before. and i'll probably just have to keep repeating it. people fall in love with the person as an individual, disregarding his/her gender.
one does not fall in love with the person's gender. one should not fall in love with the person's gender. that is what defines love right? you love them despite the flaws and imperfections!
i think people who're retarded face a lot of problems as they grow up. more than other normal people. and even though i'd hate to do something like it, it'd probably be the right thing to do.
the world is harsh enough. i don't think anybody so young should have to face the additional mental difficulty besides what the outer world has in store.
So what if I wanted to join a terrorist group?
terrorists usually fight for a specfic reason. and if we're all given freedom, why'd anybody have to fight for what they need. unless they're saidsts.
agreeably, that is too far fatched and idealistic. :P but oh well.
i thought the red Americans were the original inhabitants of America. and agreed that most of the American population today really of british origin.
but nayway, according to the debate, americans, in comparison to british, do not have better english.
i don't know about micmacmoc, but JC and quo were fake accounts, who left the site by themselves. nobody pushed them out. though JC was sometimes pushed overboard, i think that happens usually on such sites.
prodigee on the other hand, only spammed. so it annoyed people. which is why he was thrown out.
hellno is mean only when you start to take offence. otherwise you just walk on straight ahead and he keeps up with silly jokes.
do you have a secret account that is so secret that you didn't know about it and you asked me if i knew anything or not.
and yes. it's really really old.
i was clearing my arguments and there are quite a few, considering i log on after days together. :P
oh yeah. that fast part. and good tasting. there's stuff which can be healthier and taste good. and waiting for a bit never killed anyone. it doesn't take hours to prepare.
also, fast food makes you fat. fast. and being fat(in an unhealthy way) is bad.
He supports arguments that he is disputing.
He puts a wink at the end of everything.
He never once engages in friendly debate; it's either sarcastic or plain stupid.
joe never debates. you should have had that figured by now. he trolls. and he admits this.
5/6 debates he posts are useless photos/gifs that no one wants to debate (I acutally have looked through 100s of his debates just for the sake of the statistics).
5/6 debates never have a point. i think that one last debate of his is by chance a thoughtful one.
he's always sarcastic. he brings out the joke in any debate. which is appreciated.
you looked through 100s of his debates and didn't realise he was a total troll and he never once was serious. HOW?
He is arrogant in his views and completely ignorant of others' views simply pissing on them and mocking them to the core.
i guess people like him, because he doesn't spam, or pick up fights. and doesn't offend anybody. unless they take it to heart.
and when they do, he doesn't bother. which is funny. in its own way.
and i think he's going to spam now and do everything else, just because i said he didn't.
all in all, he's probably over rated. but we-ll. ;)
Black people are better at running, Asians are better t ping-pong and white people are better at swimming, whilst brown people are better at cricket.We jsut 'ignore' these 'differences' right? ;)
i see you've put such instances in the other arguments.
it isn't necessarily true. there are exceptional cases where what you've said is true. but in general, all men usually are good at these sports equally.
as are all females.
what i'm trying to say won't come right in words, so i don't know whow to put this just now, but, asians are better at ping pong because its a more admired sport in their specific country. same for cricket, indians are more into cricket, which is why they tend to overlook other sports.
basically people focus on sports in which their country performs well more often, thereby ignoring other achievements.
i don't think god would send somebody to hell. god loves one and all equally. so there's that. you're probably safe. ;)
also, there are, if you read greek mythology, or just percy jackson, instances that you ocme across, when gods have half human half god children.
and there are gods who do not like the idea of, well, bearing children for 9 months. i mean female gods probably don't.
so they just create a child, mixing their DNA and the other parent's DNA and all that normal stuff, and just create a kid, in probably less than 9 seconds. and there you go! no rape commited.
people probably just want to step into other people's shoes and feel whatever it feels like to be hated or loved. probably
or they want to figure out stuff about someone specific.
there can be loads of reasons why someone makes dual or in more recent cases, multiple accounts.
that is debatable. indians are black when compared with white. and they're not very strong when it comes to most sports.
there are many cases of the black people being more agressive, but i don't think that case works everywhere.
it probably depends on how a person trains, how much effort he/she themself put in the sport etc.
hat's an example of a non-rhotic Southern accent. You can thank the British for that.
the british usually complete their words to an exaggerated extent. not all the time. mostly.
I think foreign accents just sound nasally to people.
that is probably true. foreign accents always sound weird to anybody else. but americans these days seem to fake it. american celebs, american girls on youtube. it's obvious they're faking it.
When they say "hahd" instead of "hard", it makes it seem like they have a stuffy nose.
but the r is geneally silent. O_O right?
and american sounds the same to me. there isn't much distinction between southern and nortern american accents. except maybe, south is a little softer than up north.
p.s. i've never ben to america, i just have friends who've lived there. so my facts can be wrong.
they do cause a distraction, but since they're pretty important, they can be allowed in schools. although i do think they should be allowed to be brought to school only after a certain age. i don't see why 8 year olds need cell phones at all.
not trying to deflate females, but women are less strong, in general, as compared to men.
while colour of the skin of a person doesn't decide whether they're stronger physically than a person of another colour.
i think that makes sense. o.o