"Not as bad as someone else" is entirely different from "Not that bad".

THis makes no sense, so you want all 'single' women to become sluts, showing most of their body to the world?

1) A woman's choice of clothing does not determine whether or not she is a slut.

2) 40% is not "most"; by the article's standards it's shorts and a t-shirt.

No woman needs to show 40% of her body to attract a man.

The article isn't claiming that a woman needs to do anything to attract a man, it's stating that a woman who bares 40% of her skill will attract the most men, which is a perfectly believable proposition.

What happens when girls who are married wanna wear shorts.. Thats almost 40% of her body right there.

And she will probably attract a large number of men, particularly if she is in a club (which is the area in which the study was performed). Of course, the study also used assumptions of 15% per leg, so showing off both legs but nothing else would only be 30%. Shorts + T-shirt would be about 40%, and I have no problem believing that such a clothing combination is considered attractive by a large number of men.

I didn't address that—specifically, I neither said it was fair, nor that it should be considered acceptable—because it has nothing whatsoever to do with the debate at hand.

That some children beat up another and claimed it was based on their faith is completely irrelevant to the question of whether there should be a ban on attendance of church, mosque, temple, et cetera. In fact, forcing religion to be a private matter could easily result in an increase in such behavior as individuals find themselves no longer subject to the opinions of their co-religionists.

The State should not be provided the authority to dictate the manner of religious expression, which includes not being able to ban faith-based gatherings or the construction of buildings for the purpose of such gatherings, save only when such expression actively threatens the well-being of citizens.

While one might be able to make an argument to the effect that eliminating religious practice is something toward which society should aspire, the suggestion that such practices should be banned is unacceptable. So long as there are people who wish to gather peacefully in faith, they should be allowed to do so.

Separating students by ability is neither putting students down nor considering them less than others; it provides a mechanism by which every student can move at his or her own pace. Those who have more difficulty get an opportunity to receive the help they require while those who have less difficulty get an opportunity to move forward.

While the separation may result in stigmatization amongst students, this is not an inherent flaw to the system; rather it is a typical flaw of implementation, which could be corrected by setting up the system so as to actually focus on helping those who have difficulty achieving higher tracks rather than focusing on rewarding those who don't.

See this is were we get into trouble, when we try to define the nature of something. Because the nature of the object is defined by itself, not the subject.

This is true, but while the nature of an object may be objective, the definition of a word is very much a matter for the subject.

For example lets say I wanted to define you and I said; ostdrauka99 is a long haired cat of about 20lbs and you would reply; no I'm not, I'm a.... See I would do better in describing you as you actually are. So it is with marriage, we need to describe it as it actually is, not what we think it is.

You're conflating defining and describing. An object is described, while a word is defined. For an object, it is possible to ascertain by inspection whether or not a given description matches the object. For a word, however, it is necessary to establish the word's definition as an axiom—there is no manner in which is can be deduced.

What you're doing here is describing a specific marriage (or collection of marriages; possibly even every marriage you've ever encountered) as "a joining of male and female for procreation" and then turning around and declaring that this must be the definition of marriage. But that is no more a valid conclusion than describing a specific animal (or collection of animals; possibly even every animal you've ever encountered) as "a large, greyish thing with a trunk" and then trying to use that as the definition of animal. In fact the most we can say is that if the description is accurate (ie, if the collection of animals are in fact large, greyish things with trunks), then the description establishes a subset of things which are animals. Similarly, given that there are marriages which can be described as "a joining of male and female for procreation", then the most we can say is that this description establishes a subset of things which are marriages. In and of itself this does not rule out the possibility of other things which are marriages.

Now, one is perfectly free to subjectively restrict their definitions to the subset under consideration, as an axiom, but there is nothing intrinsic to the subset which requires this, and nothing which forces others to agree with what amounts to an entirely arbitrary decision on your part. All that you've done in choosing that particular subset is declare that anything else isn't a marriage by your definition, which reveals the debate for what it (like so many others) really is—an argument over whether your arbitrary definition is somehow less arbitrary than anyone else's definition.

If you find true satisfaction, and you are alive, then you have found true satisfaction in life. This is clearly the meaning presented in the opening question, and to suggest otherwise--for instance, that it means the source of your satisfaction must be "in life"--is entirely disingeneous.

You claim "Believing in a supernatural entity is the only possible way to find true satisfaction." If you are alive while having achieved this, then you have found true satisfaction in life.

You disputed my 'argument', therefore you have to prove that there is true satisfaction in life, which you haven't.

No, I disputed your argument, so I have to prove that your argument is fallacious. I did so. I made no claim regarding my own position on the question outside of my choice of tags, which I have chosen not to defend.

Depends on your definition of life. I consider life as being something that is of this world, and most religions are faith based.

So your claim was that religion could bring you true satisfaction after you die, but that it wasn't possible for a religion or being religious to provide true satisfaction while you are still alive? You should really choose your words more carefully, then.

You took the position "no", and then supported that position with an example. This represents an argument.

Also, the question is not "Can material goods bring true satisfaction", it is "Is it possible to find true satisfaction in life?" The fact that you believe religion can bring true satisfication implies that your answer to the question that was /actually/ asked is "Yes".