Aside from the fact that I myself am atheist, no I am not. I'm calling this one numb-nut all of the prior things. It was made by An atheist supposedly for atheists, not by atheists for atheists. =P
Foolish people like this. Oh they slay me so.
Annoying, irrational, unneeded and all around foolish. Such a temple lacks need or want from those it is meant to be for.
Interesting enough of a question.
-Personally I do not believe terror is as tangible as the "war" would have people think. You cannot defeat something that arises subconsciously within humans. It is like trying to fight the ideas of good or evil.
-No a war is not the right solution, take out the possibility that the US went into different countries for resources or personal gain and you are left with a pointless war. To protect oneself, ones people and one's country are fine, but to bombard other countries because of one attack? If I recall I do not believe contact was even made to attempt to solve things peacefully.
- Perhaps work toward a more peaceful solution. Also I don't believe that the US or any country should try to push their ideas onto a struggling nation. (Democracy.) Freedom was fought for by countries in the past; now it would seem that those who fought for it are trying to simply hand it to other countries who do not have it. While "freedom" is great, what happens after they have it? Without having to struggle for freedom and without having to come together as a nation or obtain it what will they do? Would they know to band together and maintain peace and freedom or would they split into factions of people again.
-Would have, could have, should have.
-I'm not sure if there is a right solution to fight a thing such as terror.
-Personally I do not believe it is realistic to believe that you can fight terror or defeat it. By defeating one person's terror (one nations: the US) you cause another nation immense amounts of what you fought. Was it worth fighting to "end" terror for one country put cause it in several others? Who really benefits?
If you take into account that many people who discuss politics online also watch traditional media then no. Of course this isn't to say that everyone listens to it or watches it to begin with. The thing is that people who are already biased will remain biased even when using a different medium to share their beliefs.
Simply a myriad of overly general statements from a random blogger.
Well think about this, Jesus was not born on the twenty-fifth of December. The date known as "Christmas" was once the beginning of a Pagan holiday to celebrate a harvest that usually came around that time. To my knowledge his birth date was not actually recorded in any holy book.
Though I already knew it: http://www.essortment.com/
Well put it this way. Heracles (Hercules) may very well have been a real person who was well thought of by his peers and showed great promise/ performed great deeds. Give or take some years and legends began to arise of his supposed divinity as the son of Zeus. Then came his "miracles" most of which being less fantastical than those of Jesus (Most of which not all.)
When it comes to Jesus the same thing is present, he may have existed and performed commendable deeds. Perhaps he had a bit of knowledge of medicine that seemed foreign to those around him. Perhaps the "healing of a blind" was just treatment of said person who was only temporarily blind though they believed him to be permanently so.
Give or take a few years and many different renditions of the bible began to come about. Each "generation/rendition" of the bible that came out features Jesus having more and more fantastical powers.
If you think about it most Roman/ Greek heroes share quite a bit in common with Jesus. The more time passed, the more divine or gifted they became. (In text at least.)
I can't help but feel I've heard my argument elsewhere actually. Ah here we go: http://www.youtube.com/
Regardless if Noah and his children were the ONLY ones to serve him, he would have had to know this would happen. He has a divine plan, thus he mapped everything that would ever happen.
Yes marriage in the Christian sense is simply to be between men and women, however the act of being gay or lesbian is not a sin by the bible. However laying with another man should you be a man or another woman should you be a woman in the sexual sense, is a sin. I say sexual sense because Jesus laid next to a man to keep him warm if I can remember correctly.
While they as far as we know America's Founding Fathers were not Atheists, they were however not Christian. Most of them seemed to have critical problems with Christianity or rather what had come from it in their time. The country was formed for religious freedom, not Christianity. See the Constitution for your proof.
On top of what has been argued already to rebut this point I would like to add to it. Aside from the fact that you may encounter another religion's God at the end of your days, how can you be so sure of God's reply due to someone being Atheist? By saying that you know God WOULD damn said person for not believing in you, you would be calling yourself God. You cannot know another person's thoughts, nor can you know a deity's thoughts.
By the bible Atheist, Christian, and other are all God's children. Would he really damn his children simply because he provides no proof of his existence yet wishes for them to believe and worship him? Aside from that his divine plan would show that he knew they would not believe in him. Or does being given free will eliminate the fact that he still knows what decision's people will make? I do not think so.
If it is within reason then yes I will hold the door. Sometimes I do hold it for prolonged periods of time.
People who watch the television or play boardgames with their family spend time at home. You sit in front of a monitor when you are on this website, do you not? It has been proven many times that video games are often used as scapegoats for violent behaviour by their parents. Video games that are violent should be discerned from real life, as if you are chopping the head off of a zombie you would not be able to do that in real life. If you believe people to be zombies and you are the sole person left alive and must end them, you are already lunatic beyond belief. Quite the contrary, many games require you to think about new and interesting things often, take the game Frozen Synapse for instance. Frozen Synapse generated random levels each time you play a game, even if it is the same "level" within the story mode. No level is ever the same, thus you must think tactically and differently every time. Also there are many games that are created specially to work the mind, some for children and some for older age groups. Video games themselves do not lead to addiction, in this generation of video games social aspects are greatly implicated into the games. Through these social aspects people make friends whom they wish to spend time with as anyone else does by working a standard job. For single player games... I can assure you not many people are addicted to single player games. Often gamers develop a personal life related to that game if they are so addicted as you generalize them to be. If one is so addicted to a Massively Multiplayer Game then they often have a large group of friends within that game. Many gamers already have a proper education or are working to improve their education, also quite a few gamers especially those I know are already greatly intellectual in their own right. Other things that are forgotten about such as... remembering or wanting to eat are unnatural occurrences that those who do not delve into gaming generalize as the whole community. Gaming is this day's Rock N' Roll, and will remain as such until it is more widely accepted.
You take small insignificant sentiments overly serious quite often. You should be able to tell these from serious or strongly believed points. Thus you must either be truly ignorant to this fact or are simply throwing your opinion around for mere entertainment.
Regardless of all that, my point still stands that you are not Obama. You were insulting Church for calling Obama a moron if I can recall correctly, not because of the nonsensical argument she provided.
You are tired of arguing with people on mindless hatred, then take the initiative to not argue and save yourself the annoyance.
The fact still remains that you could not even look at the article, you are not forced to read it. If people just ignored the nonsensical idiocy that others spread then said person will eventually disappear.
I completely understand how you feel, but you can avoid it by not paying the person mind.
*Church is a female
I get the points of your argument full well, but you are not Obama as far as I can tell. My point is that you could have ignored the argument all together, or simply proved the evidence wrong instead of lashing back. It is going down to Churchmouse's level. However, I do understand your annoyance and agree, but you are still not the President of the United States of America, you are not the one being insulted.
Perhaps because you are not said person whom is accused of being a moron. What is the saying? "Be the bigger person." Or something along those lines, you could have ignored that and debated the "evidence."
While I did mention popularity, I did not mean to stress it as I felt it was a minor part of my argument. I also believe that my saying: "If such a party existed I doubt the public majority would side with another, killing the party system." Was quite the opposite to what you took from my argument.
The points I wished to stress more were:
The education of those involved with said party, would they be adequate? If they aren't they still have a say and can still vote up and have their also undereducated friends vote and imbalance a decision for the worse. As well if a group of people are extremely biased and rule off of that bias and not law, the party would not work.
If the party worked in the stricter sense I mentioned holding close to the website, those uneducated and biased can vote another person's vote into nonexistence. Thus those who banded together could rule the party and its decisions and not the vast majority.
I also based my argument on strictly "based off of the website," terms. So in my mind anything that can happen here, could happen within the party especially if it were to hold power.
If people can follow others around here and vote them down several times, basing a political party off of that would allow the same. If someone does not like a person, they can discredit them without even giving a reason. Because on here you do not need a reason to down vote someone, you would not need one in said political party.
With these taken into account I would say that a strictly Create Debate based political party would be the opposite of an improvement. However as I also said that if the party did not follow the ideals and guidelines of Create Debate so strictly, it could work.
Sense of Liberty: Developed by the British colonists, not the motivations of colonialism. As well many of the philosophies introduced in the American Sense of Liberty came from French philosophers. Voltaire, John Jacques Rousseau, etc.
Christianity: The British colonists sought to leave the form of Christianity that was practiced behind until it could be "mended." The type of Christianity they adopted was due to the fact that they wanted to get away from British styled Christianity at the time.
(Corrected by Axemeister.)
Language (English): As far as I know English has not been declared American. If you consider them adopting English because the colonists, at least the British ones, were British and considered themselves British then I have a feeling you should read up a bit more on that Era.
If we are on the subject we should also speak of how Great England was taken by the Romans and that its people were taught Latin and then developed at some point to English into account. By the English people accepting and adopting Latin you logic would also say that it was borrowed and then called English. Which it was not. Or perhaps Germanic touches to the language if you so please.
English itself took much from other languages and while it is considered "British," it is also considered "Australian," "American," etc.
Though yes, The United States is more borrowed than it is original due to the fact that it was not exactly set out to be original. However the examples you gave were not exactly the best, even for a strict British to United States sense.
I am not quite sure how to take this but, no The British Empire should not be tainted by the slave trade. As it has been for several hundred years. That is about all I can say on the matter, aside from the fact that no the United States has not kept the racism and what not longer. Some of the people of the United States and other Countries have kept the feelings. I would not pin something onto a country because a few people participate in it.
The induction of children to a site with a majority populous of "mature" users would require moderation. Based on a person's age they would be allowed to access either junior or regular debate. If one was to head into the other it would require they are approved for it, perhaps a test or such. Should one lie to gain access to either of the two moderation would weed them out. The problem with this however is that it would require more work on the side of Create Debate, scripting and heavier moderation/staff interaction. So with a junior forum and all other restrictions I suppose why not.
Also it depends upon the child, are they able to handle such a site? Some would need parental supervision, others no. For use in the classroom a debate could be created and moderated by the teacher for use when it has enough replies. Through banning and removing of vulgar people/ posts it could be used in a classroom. Though should it be used outside of a class, I am not entirely sure.
Yet without the existence of humans, a God could not be assumed thus his "creation" of good and evil would not exist. So to its end, the world without humans would be a world without the knowledge of God thus a world without the knowledge of good and evil. By this it would come to play that good and evil are man made concepts.
Taking things out of context to attempt to discredit someone is unsightly. If you are to respond, do so. Do not take what another says out of context in hopes to win over them.
How many do you actually feel would take the initiative to interact with said political party? If such a party existed and people became involved, would the need for said "party" exist. If such a party existed I doubt the public majority would side with another, killing the party system.
Some are not quite as educated or are very biased and with those uneducated or extremely biased opinions come unreasonable disagreements. Those arguments cannot be discredited, in a Democratic society at least. As well, if we were to do such and base it off of the website, people would be allowed to argue thus increasing one sides proportion to the other through disproving which would discount the vote. Which again in Democracy should not be done. As I said before, if we were to base it off the way the website runs then arguments would break out within the political party.
Note I am taking "based on this website," more strictly than just the idea of arranging ideas. However this does not have to be the case in such an occurrence, it gives something to debate about. If I were to take it less strictly... I would be supporting your answer right now. While I support the idea in a less strict sense, taking the idea strictly opens more room for debate.
If it be decreed, so shall it be carried out.
...If such an order is backed by law, which it is then it should be followed. An order is an order, it must be followed should it not be ludicrous and within moral reason.
Is this not a re-post? Regardless I will quote myself here as I did there.
"Evil... Good... Though you may strive for the same thing... You dub evil and good, yet you do not take into account, that they are manifestations of the same thing."
By my rationality the concepts of Good and Evil come from decisions made by individuals based on their moral compass. By this logic yes the concepts of Good and Evil are merely human concepts and no larger plan exists for them. Without the existence of Humans and their moral compasses then the concepts of Good and Evil could not exist.
While it is a form of hate speech by today's societies standards, I doubt they felt so sympathetic back then. The speeches used to empower Hitler were based on a common feeling among many at the time, anger. His speeches merely amplified this feeling and made it a physical thing and directed it toward certain groups of people. Regardless if your country supports Free Speech then it should legally be protected. Morally correct or not it would have to be protected.
Not a problem at all, I had got the impression it may be something along the lines of that.
Terribly sorry but I do not exactly understand what you are saying in either of your comments. I get the gist...I think. Though in responce to your disputed message. By change I did not mean what makes you, you. I meant it is possible to change things that harm you, such as a drug addiction.
I believe you took my asking on the idea to lessen feelings with Russia in the wrong way. I merely asked what you felt based on what I have read from people who credit Reagan, I wanted to hear your view on it. I believe that full credit does belong to Gorbachev, that much is obvious. Perhaps I should have worded the question differently.
While I agree with your arguments your comment at the end about my needing to educate myself if I thought the Reagan Administration deserved credit irked me. I will be honest I am also overreacting to the comment though I hate when people jump to conclusions.
Any fools who try this are merely asking to flipped onto their back. If people start randomly gathering and dancing, would that not be a clue to get out of there? Even if they were not there to attempt to rob people others should have the common sense to leave.
I would be lying if I said I felt sad though I do understand the sentiment.
Is the question not what they can provide The United States of America while in office and how they can provide it? Sure background information gives insights to the morals they have though are people really supposed to judge people based purely on morals? I am not against looking into their background yourself as the voter though when the media becomes involved much is misconstrued and thus invalid.
However, I am sorry I cannot provide you with any information on that subject as I do not have extensive knowledge on the matter.
Blue
You value knowledge, logic, and deceit. You love to pursue wisdom but also to manipulate and deceive. At your best, you are brilliant and progressive. At your worst, you are treacherous and cold. Your symbol is a water droplet. Your enemies are green and red.
It is her and the magazines choice, not mine. Would I want to see it? Not at all, it does not interest me and I have a particularly strong dislike of her after reading the story about her child.
You Would Win Best Director
You are a mastermind with a great plan. You can visualize what you want in life.
You are good at leading people and helping them do what you want. You are an excellent coach and teacher.
You are a hard worker, and you're willing to see a project to completion - no matter how difficult it gets.
You have the both capacity and drive to be an amazing director. Most importantly, you have the vision that's needed.
How tactless, the very fact that people support this while not indeed committing suicide prove against them. If they wish so much to come back as a killer virus I hope they would be able to feel the pain that they would cause. Any fool who is willing to promote a cause for lowering the Earth population in such a manner while not being able to do so themselves is a hypocrite. If people wish to lower the Earth's population then support less children as it is better than these methods.
However cold I may sound I cannot stand cowards and those who support this while not following through with the purpose are afraid and hope others die instead. In my mind this is cowardly and unforgivable.
Of course a few of my feelings are based on the image and other things I have read on the subject.
Regardless of my or others opinions evolution has not been proven. It is merely a theory for a reason. "The reason for this is that science does not deal in absolute proof, only in the balance of the evidence." However much some do not want to believe science does not in fact deal with absolute proof, a theory could be proven wrong or right by new discoveries therefore no theory can be irrefutable.
Source:
"You are the one's who can't accept the concept of God. there is proof of him everywhere."
You cannot accept the fact that he does not believe in the concept of your God or a God in general therefore you are being just as immature. If you think that irrefutable proof of the existence of said God exists then that is great for you and I admire such faith, though I foresee that fervor only attracting trolls.
"This is called ADAPTATION not EVOLUTION. God has a brain. he created his earth so that
as we mucked it up, we didn't make all animals extinct."
While I agree that this is adaption and not evolution in a sense adaption is a form of evolution. Just as roses grew thorns the elephants are losing their tusks it is a form of evolution for protection thus also adaption.
"Besides, Evolution hasn't actually been proved as correct, so they shouldn't teach it as correct."
The general census is that no it has not technically been proven though by the Scientific Community it is generally accepted as correct. Some nonbelievers and Christians alike believe in evolution some do not, at this time its correctness is a matter of opinion as neither side is irrefutable. "The reason for this is that science does not deal in absolute proof, only in the balance of the evidence." - Ebon Musings: Has Evolution Been Proven?
Sources:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/
http://www.answersingenesis.
Interesting to say the most. Tradition is that the wife cries when she leaves her family's house and he cried due to her crying. He has the right to cry simply because he is crying from hearing his wife crying at least that is the what I am seeing. He is not crying because he is leaving the house therefore I see no reason for people to find this funny.
There is nothing to be sorry about if it is your computer's fault.
Interesting articles though you did double post. I like the use of quotes, not all use them sadly.
Quantitative Easing huh? Sounds like rubbish to me.
I've got it, a clay cast. Fake the erection, or rather recreate it for such a purpose.
If the picture was real? Yes, though it is a rather amusing picture and to a degree it could be possible that such a thing would happen.
I would not say the website is full of God hating people, I believe those that are hateful are more prominent than the rest. I am not one for politics, or rather I am not one to take a stance I follow my own feelings. I am not partial to cars, it is a tool to be used cautiously; I do not like the idea of cars crashing at high speeds. I personally prefer the smaller community larger communities often bring larger amounts of trolls.
When I was younger I preferred blue though now I am more partial to red.
Teen Choice Awards? Eh, I am not a fan of Taylor Swift in any regard so I would say no. I also hear most of her songs are based on hatred from past relationships and I do not feel that is something for teens to look up to. Also I don't feel she has contributed to entertainment much, her songs are the same recycled rubbish.
It is an interesting idea...though I do not believe it could function properly. Even within our own community opinions differ greatly which they are meant to but with a political party opinions are meant to be somewhat in census with each other.
Still an interesting idea.
Was the use of Social Security not meant to be limited to a short time period? Has it not over stayed its use? It was not intended to last people a long period of time, it was meant for the last few years of their lives not the last few decades. That seems to be the census of several articles about Social Security, therefore I would say it should be replaced. However it does not apply to me so our opinions may differ if you are counting on it being around for you.
Regardless of misuse of words the sentence is easily understandable and you know that. If you need to ask what was said then you should rethink who is unintelligent. In the case of what was asked, he asked if you were taught Christianity (any form) when you were a child. Yes this is old, but I hate to see people insult others simply because they feel it will discredit them.
Brilliant rebuttal my friend. I would have to agree that informing them on religion and allowing them to chose for themselves when they are able is a better thing than forcing them to conform to a belief. Well played.
Feed the troll all you like but make sure the food is poisoned. Such great folly, it is unsightly.
Yes, basically nothing unless you hold pride in the working people of the world to dictate how currency should price. Of course it isn't really that bad, though currency worth can fluctuate annoyingly sometimes. However it often turns out well if you use the Euro (for example), wait for the US dollar to cost low and convert then convert again when it is high. If I am correct 8 pounds is worth about 15 USD at the moment.
Hey the printing currency bit isn't as bad as Germany in the past, at one point you had to have several hundred dollars to buy bread. (Probably over dramatized though that is what I remember reading.) Unconstitutional acts huh? Rather amusing.
A nice argument, though what are your opinions of him in regards to foreign policy. Was the idea to lessen feelings with Russia at the time also something proposed for him? Also in the way he did not just the fact that he did as it seemed to be the trend of Presidents at the time. From my knowledge of US Presidents at least.
People argue that the Romans were less fit for battle due to entering the military later in life than a Spartan. However the Spartans killing each other at young ages does not equal proper training it merely means you know how to kill.
The Romans applied stronger defence as well as better organization. Weaponry and protection of the Romans was also superior. Their strategies were also superior and more versatile than the Spartans.
If all you can do is make unsightly attacks on people I think you should rethink that statement. I understand the distaste with his argument but does it merit simply stating that he is mentally challenged? Perhaps correct him rather than insulting him.
I meant to refer to individual campaigns which he did win. No, in the end his dream did not come to fruition though that does not make him unfit to lead as you stated he was in your prior post.
How is it unpopular and foolish to believe some cannot change? If you are desperately dependent upon lets say a drug and you have no means of seeking help how are you to change? Just pull the money out of a hat? Also provide evidence as to how everyone can always change regardless of anything.
Do I like the song...yes I do enjoy it. Terrible story that really shouldn't have had to be told though the song is well played and sang. I will be honest, I actually teared up a tad bit while listening and reading the story of what happened.
Though Rascal Flatts only helped co-write it Shane Hines sang and wrote most of it.
I personally am not a fan of either, I only use Facebook to play a game or two if I am bored. However out of the two I would say Facebook has more uses thus it is superior to Twitter.
The parents who accused him of molesting their child manipulated their son, the child even came out with it. It makes no sense that people still believe he did, they are simply ignorant and misguided.
On its own it is a religion, nothing more nothing less. However like most religions people misconstrue its teachings giving me opinions on the people but not the religion itself.
Quality over quantity, regardless of how long you study for something if you are uninterested or unable to learn it the results will turnout to be the same.
I've got to go with Zelda, I mean come on. I prefer in the older games at least the gameplay of Zelda to jumping around like a fool in Mario. I enjoyed Mario when I was younger though now I couldn't enjoy the same jumping through multiple levels. Also I feel that Zelda has a richer story than Mario.
Believing Autism is an excuse is like saying that Turrets is an excuse. Such a claim holds no validity.
I take what I said on the battle of whatever back, this was rather amusing.
The US dollar is backed by what others are willing to pay for it. Every dollar not just the US dollar is based upon people accepting said money as currency to pay with.
http://www.ehow.com/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/
http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/
Etc, etc.
Absolutely not, if you are able to change yourself then change.
If you are unable to change, become comfortable with yourself.
It is irrational to harass the family of a fallen soldier, they did nothing. What if the soldier was a conscripted youth? Was it their choice to go to war? No. Those who protest at a military funeral are inconsiderate fools. If people were to backlash and protest their intentions at one of their family or friends funerals they would more likely than not become rather angered.
Do not do onto others what you would not have done onto you.
On the contrary, Napoleon did in fact win wars. It is later in life that his endeavors failed him. If this was not true he could not have become as powerful as he did.
In a non biased way, yes the Government is abusing its power. Based upon all other arguments for this side of the discussion the Government is acting for its own purposes under the veil of another. It would seem the people of America actually want to help though when the Government helps they change the intentions to fit their own.
Out of the two? I would pick the USA, I am not one for heat I hear The Bahamas has an excessive amount of it. While I understand some places in the USA are also hot you can live anywhere in the USA just take a place that is less heat influenced.
I would not want that happening over here, I am not fond of such a thing. Illegal Immigrants should receive nothing but a one way trip back to where they came from.
I am also expecting a public outcry against it, assuming the people feel as I hear they do.
Elaborate on your views of Reagan if you will, what exactly was he told to say. Can we be sure he said exactly what they wanted him to or did he ignore them? Provide quotes if applicable.
While I understand your points I do not believe a personal attack is required or merited. People can annoy others I know but does it truly merit calling them a moron in your tag and stating that they cannot muster up an original argument?
Quite frankly it has been. Whether it is the true and only way that humans have evolved I am not completely sure. In fact I am a tad skeptical though that is a subject for another day should it arise.
A degree is absolutely useless if you cannot prove your knowledge first hand then I will consider you unworthy of the degree you hold so high.
Truly though if you cannot provide the knowledge that you were supposed to have learned that tells me that you simply sat through the class and tried a minimal amount.
If they can prove their knowledge then good for them. A degree does not provide authority over others.
At first I initially believed that it was and in most cases it is. Though I read your argument and I would have to agree with you more so than the opposing arguments.
As such a thing is not occurring where I live, no I am not. Though applying it to anywhere my answer is still no. You can easily put up signs stating that they may not "flash mob." Also include the consequence of the local police being called to break it up and arrest any who are caught with stolen material.
I believe in a more Eye for an eye type of justice, yes it is retribution though is it unjustified? If someone were to cut your leg off and leave you to bleed but you lived and were brought to health and given the chance to harm them in any way would you not take the chance? Most would take the chance, sure some are able to completely forgive the person though they are few.
Not at all, I do not plan for children at least not how I see it now. My opinion may or may not change, more than likely it won't change though having children should always be a choice not a necessity. The human race does need inheritors to continue on, though they will be from those who have chosen to have children. In the end, still a choice.
I would wish for immortality for all, of great importance those I hold dear. Immortality alone is not a wondrous thing, it would be more of a curse than a gift. Sure you could find new people and enjoy them for the time you are able to spend with them they would eventually die.
By immortality I mean inability to die and inability to age past the age you wish if you so chose you may revert your age or increase it. However my wish for immortality would be a lot kinder than actual immortality could be.
It depends completely upon the offence. If it is indeed something major, then no they should not assuming they have not changed (If they even could.) If it is however something much lighter like accidentally having sex with someone underage when you were told they were not so young then yes it should be allowed. While with the minor causes to be labeled a sex offender they should have checked into things a tad more it should not prohibit them from taking custody of children.
In the U.S and everywhere else it is not exactly what I think should be mandatory. During a waring state in America at least, children at the age of eighteen can go to war and are trusted with a weapon while they cannot even have a cigarette or alcohol. While I do not like either, it doesn't make sense to allow something more drastic than the other two.
Yes I have, I have for both of my dogs. If my older dog when he was alive were to by some chance get my younger dog pregnant then I would have puppies that I am not prepared to take care of. In most regards I could take care of them, financially? No I do not have the money for multiple dogs. I would hate to have to sell them thus separating the litter and my dogs. It is easier to eliminate that possibility than deal with it for me and for my dogs.
Not at all, often if someone tries to speak with me on something they think of me I refute it and tare down their opinion.
While I am not a supporter of some of the things that plague 4Chan (Pornography,) 4Chan does provide much quicker than FunnyJunk does. FunnyJunk's content is often used up jokes that came about on 4Chan much earlier. Of course original content also comes about on FunnyJunk, the community of 4Chan is just larger.
I've had this conversation before and when it comes up I reference what I first said. (Thank you chat logs.) "Evil... Good... Though you may strive for the same thing... You dub evil and good, yet you do not take into account, that they are manifestations of the same thing."
Personally I believe they are moral opinions, what I consider good you may consider evil. So in a way they do exist, morally. They however do not exist in such black and white terms as people believe they do. Though I still believe my saying explains my point better than I have below it.
With the irreverence of your posts, I may have to agree with you.
But do you believe it is a greater event than the Fall of Rome or The Atomic Bomb? Is the creation of America as it is today greater than a unified nation that could have effectively stopped many nations that have sprung up today from existing.
I am only asking as I would like to hear a bit more of your reasoning than the short sentence you posted.
End of the Roman Empire
Had the Roman Empire succeeded in fending back the tribes then a great deal would have changed. literature we have present day would not exist due to what was needed for its inspiration not existing. Architectural achievements may or may not have come about. Hear of the man made island in Dubai? More likely than not architecture would not have advanced and such things would not have been made at least not in that way. Technology...anyone who so desperately holds onto their tech would not have said items. Anything American made technology wise would probably not exist. I say this because I do not believe America would exist if the Roman Empire never fell, you should be able to discern why yourself.
From what I have read it was due to the way his father treated him physically. Tormenting him based upon the way he looked, so Michael wanted to change this. It is also from what I have heard the reason one of his sisters also had much plastic surgery. (I have forgotten which.)
Dependent on the type of slavery my opinion differs.
If by slavery you were to imply the kind existent around oh I don't know 27BC, I would not prefer death as you could work toward freedom. Regardless of working to freedom, the jobs of a slave at that time were many in number and not always physically involved or demanding.
If by slavery you mean the slavery that existed more recently, the slavery of the Africans. Then no I would not wish to live, as more often than not you would die either way. Why not die earlier than later? Why suffer when it could end earlier on. You would not know how it turned out, some lived obviously and some well enough... though the vast majority did not.
Sure why not, it is up to the individual. Those in question would already have the ability to think for themselves and have an opinion on the matter and formulate their own resolve. Those who say they are not old enough to know are stating that they are unable to think for themselves at that age, which is quite the opposite.
From documentaries, text, and the internet I would deduce that Ronald Reagan is the better of the two. On top of the works of prior Presidents he lessened the tension between the United States of America an then Soviet Russia. He visited Russia and had Mikhail Gorbachev visit the USA. Going off of foreign policy as well as things I haven't mentioned I would hold Ronald Reagan above Jimmy Carter.
I've done some research into it and I agree with you on the actual debate. Though really? "This has to be the dumbest question ever put on here." You've got to be kidding me, just because you feel so strongly on one side does not mean the actual question is idiotic. While I am most likely taking it more seriously than you meant it. Also according to books, Carter is not the worst President of the United States for the most part the census is that Andrew Jackson was the worst president. Per books, he did absolutely nothing in fact he destroyed the national bank which took quite a while to repair itself.
Aside from the debate at hand, I must agree. I've noticed a lot of complaining about people insulting your country when you do the exact same. It is irrational and without merit.
