"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors"
In other word,s according to your article, we're both right.
1: http://www.queerbychoice.com/ a website for people 'queer' by choice.
2: http://web.archive.org/web/
3) "Much of the evidence for inheritance of sexual orientation comes from studies of concordance rates in identical (monozygotic) twins raised apart. "Concordance" means sameness with regard to a particular characteristic. Thus, if all the homosexual identical twins in a study have a twin who is also homosexual, the concordance rate is 100%." (http://web.archive.org/web/
Please, tell me more how about you have give evidence and logic, proving you case.
It's ironic, because it comes down to either A: you trying to be smart and failing, or B: completely missing the point.
I have yet to see you back up any argument, even after being prompted from myself and having this confirmed by Soviet Spy,with any evidence. Not a page. Not a document. You just state your thoughts, without trying to prove it. Then, comes along people such as myself, who does this. If this was your own debate you'd have banned me. That shows a complete lack of both a: a complete lack of maturity, and b: a lack of the will to actually debate. This site, here, is a debate site, and as such, should be used as a debate site, not somewhere for people, such as yourself to state things without backing them up.
To end this, I'm going to do what the internet has taught me to do, "Someday, somewhere, I hope someone knocks some sense into your skull, you're once dense mother fucker."
....There's so much stupid in this one argument. A: I'm leftwing, far left wing. I don't deal with right-wing shit. B: I do think, otherwise I'd be a braindead slug, and last time I checked I'm sitting here, talking, no? C: Explain as to why people change their sexuality.
"(D) Largely because of changes he made in Roman government, Rome had the stability and strength it needed to endure longer"
However, it stil fell. Could you argue that it also caused it's collapse?
Also: (A) He came first.
So Nero was better than Washington? Or really any president?
Pretty obvious since my user name is Julius, and my profile picture is of the SPQR, an era of Rome.
Julius Caesar himself did so much for Rome, he was intelligent, and he was ruthless. He seized power from the corrupt Augustus, destroyed the old German tribes, and even invaded Egypt, bring it under Rome's wing.
Beside, define 'better'?
As stated below, no sciences this term, last term I had my science course.
As for waht you said about getting rid of some of the courses, I disagree and agree. The statement about PE being gone will never happen, we have a too high of a level of obesity, as such, we need it the class.
We have our 5 mandatory, each at an hour each, one elective(grade10), another hour, and after grade 10, you have all but one course as an elective for an hour. Keep in mind though that we also swap classes mid-term. Last term I went with PE and Science, this term I have French and History.
Because no one else will, I will.
In the current Education system, for Canada, we have a five class schedule, again, at least in the School I know. These five courses generally are as follow: Economics, History, French, Math, and English. Please, tell me as to what we're suppose to get rid of to fit in two new courses.
I want to reply to this, but if I reply in a way of sarcasm, I'll not be helping the situation. If I reply in a way in which I'm taking it seriously, it'll make me seem like the sarcasm is going over my head, making me look like an idiot.
Well played, Mad One. Well played indeed.
...Why the Hell will you report someone to the authorities for SLANDER? Maybe if it was major HARASSMENT I'd agree with you, maybe if it was a DEATH THREAD I'd agree with you, but SLANDER? Y'know, the FBI has nothing better to do then deal with some random civilian's problems and hunt out this person's IP, then either A: Make him pay cash, or B: Bring him to jail...OH WAIT! I'm pretty sure Slander isn't even against the law. Please, use some logic in your OT, or, at least stop making debates like this. What's the point?
sighs Humanities intelligence seems to be dropping by the day.
I ask you two things from this entire post: What is the point? And do you know anything about Communism?
Communism on the political compass is refereed to as, 'left' or, 'east'. Capitalism is refereed to as 'right' or, 'west.' Yet, North and South? North is Authoritarian, and South is liberal. You can be very left, to the point of Communism, yet you do not have to be Authoritarian.
Please, don't use propaganda to judge Communism.
Amazing guy, fairly smart. We butt heads(more than most realize). He's a trollish person once you get to know him, and he's a little too... capitalist (if any of you think I'm serious with that, find out more about Kozlov.) for my liking, other than that, smart and cool guy, glad to know him.
No, it shouldn't be the publics choice. If the public find said person funny, yet said person is going around spewing nonesense and utter spam, should the people be allowed to keep this, 'friend' of theirs?
It should not be the peoples choice, but the choice of the leaders of our community, the Mod(s?).
Also, for you sakes,
am your college professor that you requested, with a doctorate in Mathematics. I will break this down as simply as possible and end this debate as approx. 10 students have already asked me this today.
The problem as it is written is 6÷2(1+2) , the ÷ cannot be substituted with a fraction bar because they have different ranks on the order of operations. It is an illegal math move to do this. The bar ranks with parentheses, ÷ is interchangeable with . therefore the problem must be solved as 6÷2(1+2) NOT 6 (over) 2(1+2) we do the parentheses first, so 6÷2(3), the parentheses are now no longer relevant, because the number inside is in it's simplest form. Every single number has implied parentheses around it.
6÷2(3)
(6) ÷(2)(3)
6÷23,
or even converting the division to multiplication by a reciprocal (a legal math move)
(6)(1 (over) 2)(3)
are all correct ways to write this problem and mean exactly the same thing. Using pemdas, where md and as are interchangeable, we work from left to right, so (3)(3) or
33= 9
Just because something is implied rather than written does not give it any special rank in the order of operations.
The problem in it's simplest form, with nothing implied would look like this:
(1+1+1+1+1+1 (over) 1) ÷ (1+1 (over) 1) ((1(over) 1) + (1+1 (over) 1))
From here, nothing is implied, This again, works out to 9.
If the symbol '/' was used this whole debate would be ambiguous since that symbol can mean "to divide by" or it could mean a fraction bar.
HOWEVER, because the ÷ symbol is used, it can not be changed to mean a fraction bar because that would change the order of operations and thus the whole problem, you can't change a symbol to mean something because you want to, in doing so you are changing the problem.
Once and for all, the answer is 9.
Hopefully some of my students see this so I can stop answering this question.
End of debate... hopefully.
Source(s):
Doctorate, 9 years teaching experience.
Yes, because what we're learning now is good for nothing. I highly doubt I'm ever going to need to calculate the velocity of a boat.
If it's more along the lines of hunting, cooking, etc. then yes, the later should be taught. They help in life, politics is just brain food.
Not really. Their theory was either let a nation flourish and watch as it grows, or watch as it falls and dies. Hitler was more of a "make the ultimate race!" Kinda guy.
Also, why is this debate even here? Aren't you someone who complains about, 'drama' on CD? If so...
(He, waiting for someone to get the irony in my post.)
"Hence the reason people who believe in any god are a theists and those who don't are atheists."
...You literally just agreed with me...? My argument is that if you don't believe in God(Noun), then you're Atheist. If you believe in Zeus, then you're Theist.
Belief in the existence of a god or gods, esp. belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal...
Again, word for word, theism.
NOW,"god"
god
/gäd/
Noun
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) The creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the Supreme...
Exclamation
Used to express a range of emotions such as surprise, anger, and distress: "my God! Why didn't you tell us?".
Synonyms
lord - deity - divinity - godhead - idol
NOW, "Deity"
de·i·ty
/ˈdē-itē/
Noun
A god or goddess (in a polytheistic religion): "a deity of ancient Greece".
Divine status, quality, or nature: "a ruler driven by delusions of deity".
HENCE, Satan is a Deity, making him a god.
Look at the words carefully. It doesn't say, for Atheism, that they don't believe in any other super human body, it says they don't believe in God.(IE: Christianity's deity.)
You can be an Atheist and still believe in the Olympic gods, for example.
Because you know, Wikipedia is a legit citing source.
sa·tan·ism
/ˈsātnˌizəm/
Noun
The worship of Satan, typically involving a travesty of Christian symbols and practices.
Looking up in google, "Define; Satanism."
Don't like that one?
Sa·tan·ism [seyt-n-iz-uhm] Show IPA
noun
1.
the worship of Satan or the powers of evil.
2.
a travesty of Christian rites in which Satan is worshiped.
3.
diabolical or satanic disposition, behavior, or activity.
And, before you can say it, "LaVeyan Satanism, often referred to simply as Satanism among most adherents, was founded in 1966 by Anton LaVey." Taken right from the words of Wikipedia.
ALSO, because you did it, -rolls eyes-