Religion now just causes conflict. Maybe comfort for individuals but it's a bit of a smudge on the world itself. With medicine being prevented massively in the middle ages because of Christianity and whole wars being done on behalf of religion and now ISIS, it's getting a bit ridiculous now. People fighting because their supposed man in the sky is more valid than someone elses or their view on the world is the better one because it's in some old book.
Honestly, it just causes conflict and prevents progression in my opinion and should be irrelevant. It certainly shouldn't still hold the power it has today in politics.
I would believe only refutable sites by refutable people. Not ones like the one you just gave me which is aimed only to attack another political party. Looks like the sort of website you'd see those BS conspiracy theorists using.
Not enough people are stupid enough to start a pedophobe trend. Maybe extremists but not regular people. As I said this debate is purely an attack and makes you look foolish as does the video you sent. Oh wow, an account from one man, I am forever changed in my perception!
I wouldn't trust that site if it was the only thing keeping me from falling off a cliff. That's exactly the propaganda I talk about when you and that fool Fromwithin use when you argue. Get better sources and I may have a reasonable debate with you.
Ah once again. Rights and lefts are constantly against each other but I hope no one is that stupid. This debate just shows the intelligence coming out of the right though. No fact to claims just outward attack, wanting to keep the world closed minded and in the 1950s. Yeah that's a great movement 👍
Base your arguments on facts and figures and look past propaganda. You make yourselves look bad with these futile attacks.
Yet God's final plague in Egypt killed the first born child simply because he was angry at the Pharaoh or when he was going to wipe out an entire city if Jonah didn't make them Christian. Yeah, ok he definitely has a soft spot for innocent and viable children and never ordered death. But continue to live in your fantasy.
You always prove to be a total waste of time to debate, because your bigoted hatred blinds the truth.
That line right there. That is rich coming from you 😂
Gone - a 7 book series by Michael Grant
It's a teen fiction book that is really well written. The words just capture you and the characters are really well thought out. The plot is great as well.
A Monster calls - Patrick Ness
Beautifully sad and dark story. Well written and really gets you attached the the characters. I love the psychological side to it, can really show people that kids have more complex minds than meets the eye.
A Natural History of Dragons - Marie Brennan
Different style of story. Very interesting writing style and the story is good. Written in the style of Memoires in a world where dragons exist. It's a great fantasy book.
I like a lot more books as well but these are my top choices.
Oh no of course, I wouldn't say a child is a disease. I'm more just saying that they both affect your health (different ways of course). So I don't think it would be too different.
Abortions although I agree with the choice, can have negative effects on mental health and sometimes physical due to side effects. I would see them both as preventative treatments so would say it would be fine for it to be a requirement.
Making it a law that women have to have one of these is wrong. If they CHOOSE to that's one thing but making it so that they are forced to insert that in their body to be following the law is wrong.
As long as there are no negative effects it's really not that bad especially with what it can prevent. It's not that different from Australia's law that you have to get your kids injections.
Oh my God, do you literally get all your information from propaganda? You talk like you literally know nothing. Something goes wrong? Oh it's definitely those lefts messing up again. So are you saying America has never had a terrorist issue because you have guns? Because I think you're having a memory block. What with 9/11, multiple mass shootings (which hasn't been an issue in the UK) and rampant gun violence. Have guns stopped those? No. In a few cases they caused them. Proof in the link I attached if you even looked at it.
We're talking about gun violence not terrorists. But if we are talking about terrorists then we'll look at our latest terror attack that was done in a van by a British man on innocent Muslims. The one before that was an attack where a van ran through a group of people and then they used knifes to kill people. Police got to the scene very quickly and handled the situation. Then of course the very unfortunate Manchester attack but even if people had a gun what would it have done? It was a suicide bombing, the culprit was dead before anyone would have had time to react.
No I don't think the gun is the problem, stupid people being able to get a hold of them is the issue. With your laws being so lax on the issue you will always have the issue, and that's a political issue on your side, not the lefts. If you're going to openly support a pile of crap then at least stand by it and take responsibility for it.
I don't live in America so I don't really care that much but facts are facts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/34996604
I live in the UK and I feel safe even though I legally can't have a gun or knife on me in public. Because I know the law applies to everyone. No, not all police officers here hold a gun either. You know they're experienced if they have one though. Again, I wouldn't feel safe if guns were just given out willy nilly for any old bozo to get a hold of.
I know the main argument is "defence" but what do you have to defend against if guns aren't even accessible to the idiots that would use them against you?
Link doesn't want to work but I think I get the idea.
This would definitely be a good idea. Not only would it mean that rape victims won't conceive but people can essentially "turn it off" if and when they want children. The only thing it might not change is if someone who wants the child gets a medical issue that means they'd have to abort. However, these cases are fairly rare but as long as abortion is option for these cases then this would definitely mean that abortion wouldn't be an issue.
Completely moral? I will leave you with this video
This explains my argument on god very well.
You call saying "if you reject me you go to hell" a freedom? That's a religion based on blackmail. You only get redemption if you love me, it's like a clingy ex. If he really loved his subjects like a "father" then freedom would allow rejection without much consequence. You barely have a choice with what you've just spouted.
I digress though, it's a good thing he's not real. I don't believe the words of a brainwashed troll. Have a good day :)
We are all dying, that's life :) I am glad to not be associated with that glorified monster. It's a shame that when you die, you will eventually learn the truth but you will be dead so you'll never know if how you've used your life was worth it or not.
This is the calmest response I have had since returning to this site, so firstly I thank you for that.
National parks are definitely sufficient, I've been to India to look at the tiger reserves in Bandipur, Mudumalai and a couple of others. The tiger numbers there have seen a sufficient rise especially since they've been getting the locals involved as they didn't think conservation was needed. Of course this is a personal account so take it as you will.
I do think sanctuaries and national parks help. Especially with poaching and deforestation. Though some sanctuaries are a little ineffective, for examples ones like Black Jaguar White Tiger (Mexico), CARE rescue (Texas) and the Big Cat Sanctuary (UK). These mostly just save animals that were in circuses or were previous pets because people thought it would be a good idea to own them. These types mostly just rescue these poor things and give them better living space, mostly because they're too old to be rehabilitated and be put back into the wild. Although I do lean towards CARE as they do a lot of education about the animals and conservation efforts around the world.
One of the main issues in conservation is habitat loss and habitat fragmentation (often due to roads and other man made issues). Which is where the help of genes come in, because when a habitat is so fragmented that 2 individuals can't find each other to mate there's an issue. An issue in the areas around Mumbai, India are Leopards, they'll kill livestock and have killed children and people on multiple occasions and of course this angers people into poaching the leopard, at the moment their numbers in India are of least concern with an unknown population trend. However, that could change with more human expansion and human/animal conflict.
As for effective ways that could compensate a zoo, I am not entirely sure. I know in Slovakia they will often trek the mountains in search of things left from their 3 main carnivores (bears, wolf and lynx). They will study the DNA to look at diversity and gauge how many are around however I don't know much more past that. Though that's an interesting topic I will have to dive into.
My opinion is that both can work really well hand in hand. Nature reserves can provide a safe place to release rehabilitated animals while the animals that can't, can be given to zoos to educate and raise money for such conservation efforts, it also means their genes get put to good use. One day I would love for zoos to not be a thing, the best way to see an animal is in its natural habitat rather than in captivity. However, I do think there are zoos out there that have done things right. My local zoo has helped massively with invertebrate numbers and actively try to get the public to become more interested in them.
Definitely a good read :) to be honest it's funny how the creator is trying to demote your credibility as a debater yet he's made this unprofessional debate trying to attack you :P it's funny that it's back fired and you have more supporters!
I study animals and have looked at animals in captivity and honestly it's a sore subject. It really depends on the zoo. There are some really horrible zoos out there, one example I can give is Twycross zoo (UK), it has recently improved but you can see they invest more time and money into their primates and neglect the other animals. However, there are good zoos out there like Longleat (UK).
I don't know about American legislation on zoos but in the UK zoos must follow guidelines from BIAZA and EAZA, which means that the zoo must follow a code and they must have a breeding programme for conservation issues and they must also educate the public about endangered species. The main good thing about zoos is that they do create a lot of genetic diversity for endangered animals, so when an endangered animals reaches a genetic bottle neck in the wild the varied genes act like a safety net.
Zoos have helped a species of frog from dying out, cockroaches and bears in Slovakia. In Australia there are zoos and public sanctuaries that are helping Tasmanian devils wipe out the disease that plagues their wild counterparts.
I think zoos can do a lot of good, it is just hard to achieve. The welfare of the animal is the most important thing, some zoos don't realise this unfortunately. I wouldn't judge all zoos by a few bad ones. I believe they work well with in-situ conservation efforts (these are conservation methods that happen in the field, E.G. tracking and collaring a tiger).
One thing I will say though, there are some animals that shouldn't be in captivity, namely animals that migrate or have massive territories as it's very hard to get their enclosure big enough and/or engaging enough. I hate going to a zoo and seeing animals show stereotypies. For example, elephants, orca and polar bears, these often show stress induced behaviour while in captivity.
From what I've seen he's made some good arguments but he likes to mess with the overbearing Christians here, as do I. It's very entertaining. However that doesn't mean he isn't a good debater, when you get down to it he knows his stuff and he provokes thoughts.
Because I do not need to and that should not matter to you. You seem to care a lot about where I go after I die, I'll just tell you to stop because I don't care. If in the unlikely event heaven and hell do exist I'll happily take my place in hell. Even if god existed he's not a Good god and I would never follow him.
Ha. That's all I needed to hear. Definitely no Christian here, just some troll pretending to be. You've obviously not read the Bible and need to study the use of capital letters again.
You also just proved your bigotry again so nice going :)
He's on a debate site. If he's not prepared to defend his opinions and beliefs then he shouldn't be on here. I would rather trust something that has some proof of it existing (like evolution) than a fairy tale in a fiction book that people have taken seriously.
Have you even read a science book? Those responses are classic of someone denying evolution.
Also with that last sentence you can tell that to the other guy. He started it by spouting crap that had nothing to do with the debate at hand.
If you believe what I said was moronic, why write out that feeble paragraph? It only proves what I said and I'm not sure you know the definition of the word bigot. You're likely just using it to sound smarter.
But I'll explain anyway since you like to blow things out of the water like a petulant child. You're a hypocrite because you are completely intolerant to my opinion on abortion and rather than debating me like an adult. You tried to make it look like I supported Nazis and Slavery, rather then giving facts on your side and supporting your position. If that's not intolorence then I don't know what is.
All I know is you're definitely a troll that hasn't even read the Bible, because you definitely haven't read or even follow the Bible past what has been taught in schools.
Yeah ok. Hell is a made up fairy tale as is god.
Wow, have you even read the Bible? Treat others like you want to be treated. Guess you want to be called a fool and a jackass and for me to shove my beliefs down your throat as well.
It's funny you write this just to put a point on the Christian side yet don't actually put anything to disprove what's been said. Do you not know how to defend your religion?
By the way. Christianity is the same in all countries, you all follow the same book. However I have yet to believe you've actually read it with how you speak to people on here.
The middle ages (duh), I remember now. Their reason being they didn't like people dissecting dead human bodies, which is why the first advances in medicine were wrong due to them being based around a pigs anatomy. This was performed by Galen, a Roman.
Get your religious crap out of my face. I used to be Christian and I have never felt more free since I left the faith. How a debate about abortion turned to you saying how I am a fool for not believing in a make believe man in the sky, I don't know. Until you have solid proof you can show yourself the door on that subject.
If you have nothing else to prove your stance on abortion this debate is done.
If there's one thing I learned when I studied history it's that Christianity hindered medicinal development massively. This was because they were in power and they didn't like the necessary research methods. So we only got breakthroughs when people did it secretly. We could have had a cure for cancer by now. This was during the dark ages and then the time after that (cannot remember it's name at this time).
It is likely they will hinder evolution research until it eventually gets through to them that it's a thing. Of course they don't have the power they once had, which is good.
Nope. I used to, but I was raised that way and have been able to wise up to the drivel I was taught. There is no proof of God other than a man made book. There is more evidence in scientific research like evolution, so I choose to trust science rather than a fantasy.
Believing in God is exactly like believing in unicorns. Both were made up by humans and both have books about them, but of course people believe one over the other despite there being no evidence of either.
Right. I have no idea what you mean by any of those deluded rambles but your obviously not going to take this debate seriously.
Death is the end. You must be religious which is why you think we carry on. We are in reality when we are alive and death is the end. You can deny that all you want. Everything comes to an end and there is no point in denying that out of fear.
So do you actually have an argument to defend your position or are you just going to try and attack me?
Right. Let's call it what is it, abortion. Murder is the purposfully killing of another human. Not a fetus.
I would of course know if I got killed now that I'm at my age. But a fetus isn't even aware of itself or even pain. So whether it lives or dues it will never no the difference until it's brain actually starts getting self awareness. I don't remember anything before the age of 2.
Death is the end so yes, me dying would put me out of reality. Nothing else would matter because guess what... I am dead.
You know we have the same arguments because prochoice people believe this right? That statement proves nothing because every prolife supporter also gives me the same arguments. But you're never going to see reason or even try to. In this situation the mother's body is more important than that of the fetus. A fetus that does not think and does not feel, if will never know the difference.
I was simply using your logic against you. Ignoring what's been said and repeating myself.
Those examples are a completely different kettle of fish. Me thinking the right for a women to dictate what happens to her own body is a good thing, does not at all mean I support the Holocaust or Slavery. I have no idea where you drew those conclusions but they are ridiculous to say the least.
But you know, since your argument is purely emotional and all you want to do is make me out to have a bad conscience we'll use your logic.
So you don't care for a woman's right to her own body? You think it's completely fair for a rape victim to be forced to keep that child or for medical reasons then having the child would likely kill the mother or severely damage her body, then she still has to keep it? I'm sorry but I value the life of the already living rather than the unborn. You can call me evil all you want, but the choice should always be there. It is their body and so they should get the choice.
Politics have nothing to do with this please stop resorting your argument to this. Especially when I don't follow US politics past who your president is.
It is not "pro abortion" it is Pro Choice. Believing that abortion should be legal so women have the right to choose what happens to their own bodies.
You may not like abortion but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. It being legal doesn't force you to do it, it just means women have the option to do with THEIR bodies what they will.
Theres a lot of emotion in your argument and not much fact. But the fact of the matter is, YOUR opinion should not dictate whether women have the choice or not.
If the women does not want the child in the first place the mental strain of abortion would be less. It would also mean the women can heal better without having a constant rape reminder running around. This can also have bad effects on the child itself.
How is this preventative contraception any different from abortion to you? It is destroying a (in your option) human life before it has a chance to live. It might be named differently but it is still abortion.
With rape, it is told to every women. Don't go out alone, don't dress like this or that etc. But it doesn't always help, you can be trained in self defense but that doesn't always stop you from being overpowered. There is no one telling men (and women, I won't discriminate) to not rape someone though and then the victims get blamed because of this. And then what? They still have to go through the pain of having a child because of someone's opinion? No. That's just wrong.
I do have conscience, mine just lies with those who are actually living and not with that of the unborn.
They're not classes as children though, it is a fetus. No pain, feeling or consciousness especially when it's still an embryo. The mother's life should always be put before that of an unborn child. The physical pain and trauma of pregnancy is not worth it just to give up the child to adoption. It is also not fair to lump the unwanted child on family.
Though I am curious. What of reasons like rape, young mothers and medical reasons? Do you still think abortion is wrong?
Yes, I do not agree with rape abortions because that baby deserves life no matter who it's father.
This is where your argument becomes sick. The life quality of the mother should always come before an unborn baby with no feelings and no consciousness of what's happening. They don't know a thing. A rape victim should not be forced to keep the child they were wrongfully stuck with. Abortion should always be a choice. Rape is a serious act that causes severe mental trauma which can be triggered by said child.
There is also the issue that if the mother has been forced to keep the child because of ridiculous laws then the rapist can demand visiting and this keeps the rapist in the victims life which is an even worse outcome.
I don't have much to say over adoption. I don't think the physical trauma is worth it to only give the child up. Especially when the adoption process really isn't great.
There should always be the ability to choose. If a pregnant woman does not want that child for whatever reason, she should not be forced to keep it. There doesn't need to be a good reason for a pregnant women to abort a fetus, it could be medical, it could be because they were raped or it could be because they just don't want the child, it really doesn't matter. I see and hear about too many kids who haven't had good parenting because their parents didn't want them but they couldn't get an abortion. No one should be forced into having a child they don't want or aren't ready for.
Morals vary greatly from person to person. Some people can have the same morals and some can have completely different morals. It depends on the persons personality, opinions and sometimes where you're from or how you were raised.
Simply morality is a perceptive thing from one person to the other. Some people will think that something is moral where others will think that it's immoral (for example abortion). A moral can't really be defined unless you're going for the definition found in the dictionary because of how many peoples morals differentiate from one another.
are fooled by the small zoo unnatural environment?
They aren't walked around the enclosure. they're walked around a forest owned by the zoo near the enclosures. The public cannot get into the forest and the tigers who patrol it are visibly content and very active and not in a way that is stereotypic. Their minds are always stimulated.
never needing to hunt
Zoos can imitate hunting quite easily. For example in longleat the zoo I mentioned earlier their lion enclosure is big enough that they have a carcass attached to the back of Jeep and they will allow the lions to chase the Jeep in a way of imitating the hunt. It greatly helps to satisfy that instinct.
the reason orcas and elephants die early in zoos
Most certainly these are huge and intelligent animals the amount of space and mental stimulation they need is impossible for us to provide. Orcas lose about 2/3 of their lifespan in captivity (in seaworld anyway). Seaworld is horrible place for their aquatic animals and I refuse to support them, it is a place that truly is only in it for the money, they don't care about their animals or their employees. Watch a show called storyville: blackfish it will give you a horrific insight to seaworld. These are however big animals and like I said earlier we cannot provide for them however other animals we certainly can, for example if a zoo has an animal that digs around for food rather than hunts or forages they can bury food and allow the animal to sniff it out and dig to keep them stimulated a type of food enrichment. Food enrichment greatly helps with boredom and mental stimulation of the animals, the food enrichment is different for each animal. So a monkey might get food in a puzzle ball or tied up high so it works for it's food. For a tiger or lion they can stimulate breaking through the skin of meat by giving them either a carcass that has it's skin still on it or wrap meat in thick tough skin. This is rather important for a tiger as if a tiger doesn't get much mental stimulation from it's meal it has been known for them to regurgitate it and eat it again this is very good for them.
lack of natural environment, inability to mate, inability to act on its natural instincts, boredom, and inability to be discrete.
That right here is what I would class as a mistreatment. Many zoos I've been too have dine the best they can to make the environment look natural to the animal. Zoos have to be in breeding programs (in the UK anyway) mating isn't necessarily an issue plus it is known for some zoos to use contraception like the pill so mating can persist normally but there is no pregnancy (this stops an overpopulation in the zoo). Again acting on natural instincts is something that zoos can help with, for example tigers, they patrol their territory and move about their territory a zoo in Australia walk their tigers daily in order to recreate this and it works. A good zoo will have plenty of places to hide from the public eye.
The main goal is exploitation, during exploitation kids scream at the animal, throw things to get its attention
I have never seen this happen before, I know it does happen but zoos will crack down on it.
As for this visibility: the animals are sedated once onlookers become aware of its depressive state. That's why you normally see animals doing what appears to be relaxing.
Please give me a source of this happening as this is something I have only heard of happening once and that is in tiger palace in Thailand where they sedate the tigers so people can have a photo with them. What it sounds like you're telling me is that every content and active zoo animal I've seen has been sedated. This most certainly is not the case for all zoos. A good zoo is a member of either BIAZA, EAZA or WAZA (I trust you know how to use google and search these up) A zoo being apart of one or all of these organisations means that the zoo gets regular checks to see if their Code of Ethics is being followed as well as the animals are being well looked after as well as the enclosures. If they see a fault they have the ability to rid the zoo of it's membership and take that animal away to give to another zoo who will look after it.
The trunk swinging is a common sign of boredom for all elephants in all zoos. It's not because of the circus- and I never heard of that story.
Yes it often is but while in the circus the elephant was so confined the only movement it could do was sway and it has stuck as a habit to her. The circus is what gave her the unbreakable (stereotypic) behaviour.
You're opinion on this seems very biased to me you are saying that every zoo has done the things you have stated. I am very aware of the things some zoos have done and like you I do not agree with the captivity of elephants just like orcas we can never provide what they need.
I am very aware that there are some horrible zoos out there who treat their animals horribly but there are zoos where the animals are completely fine with no depression again you said it was a definite thing that a zoo animal would become depressed when that is not the case. Yes animals can become depressed in zoos if they aren't treated properly but many zoos are brilliant with their animals and provide everything they need. The breeding programs help with numbers. There are many zoos around the world that are good and the animals are visibly content on where they are.
A good zoo will provide a good amount of space and enrichment for an animal and there are plenty of zoos who do. If you go to places like longleat or Cotswold wildlife park you can see that they are content. The elephant that longleat has came from a circus which is why it is often found stood swaying that's because what happened in the circus starred it and it hasn't been able to break its habits. Longleat are doing all they can to help that animal it has good days and bad days.
Coming from someone who lives here :)
You'll want to get used to the slang (american and english slang is fairly different) and make sure to drive on the left side of the road. Remember that here chips are what you call French fries and what you call chips we call crisps :) stay well away from chavs, they're bad news and aren't nice to be around. England has some nice areas and people are generally very friendly.
Yes zoos do brilliant things for an endangered species zoos are so much more than simply showing an animal off for entertainment now. Breeding programs help to restore populations and are sort of insurance policy if the wild population did go extinct, since if that population went extinct in the wild we could rehabilitate and reintroduce those animals.
This is especially needed in Borneo with orangutans, if they go extinct an entire ecosystem collapses because they are so vitally important. A breeding program in a zoo can so much to help that.
What you say about lifespans is not necessarily true for some animals yes it is especially orcas and I am whole heartedly against having them in captivity as we can never provide what try need they're life spans in captivity are around 25 - 30 years but in the wild they can live up to 100 years old. Some animals however it's a different story for example wolves they're lifespan can improve by a couple of years while in captivity and this goes for other animals as well.
If the zoo is a good zoo and is well kept and the animals are well looked after then I am very happy to see endangered animals there.
I would die for someone I dearly love but I wouldn't die for an object because that would be stupid, I wouldn't get to use it but I wouldn't kill someone for my gain either because I wouldn't be able to handle the guilt of taking some ones life away. No sort of object could be so essential to me that I would kill someone to get it.
Kind of a yes and no question. The music of modern culture isn't great I mean just look at the charts they're terrible especially compared to what used to be in the charts and what was once popular but that doesn't mean that all of the music of today is absolutely terrible. I mean just look at the music artists like coldplay, muse, snow patrol, 30 seconds to mars, the narrative, motion city soundtrack, 12 stones (I could go on forever). Those artists have come out with songs fairly recently (some more recently than others) and I have not found fault with them and do prefer them to older music.
If this was only about what has become modern culture music for example one direction, pitbull, rihanna and so on, then I would definitely say no because the music that I hear in the charts or on the radio is just appalling (blurred lines being an example)
fight to the death just to past down there genes because I am sure that's not what there doing it for.
Not necessarily just to pass on genes. It can also be a thing of being "top Dog" wolves and dogs have very similar behaviour, so it might also be something with being alpha.
I don't like to question someone who studies dogs but don't males fight over sex rights for the only reason that they want their genes passed on?
No I don't study fish, I study domestic animals and animal biology but I have done some work on how dolphins can change the pressure in there body the deeper they go in the water.
I am using up to date language
It's not "up to date language" it's bad spelling and grammar. If you spell correctly and use the right grammar your arguments seem mature and people won't "flame" you for your grammar. It just makes you easier to understand and not to mention when people don't use real grammar it can be really annoying.
Dreams by themselves,don't cause pain & you have to be awake to hallucinate. So in other words,neither of happened.
Could of been a state of mind the brain put them in, we dont know exactly what was goig theough there head. Also just because they state it doesn't mean it's true for all we know they were lying to get more publicity for having a near death experience.
Creation is the better explanation then Evolution
Oh I hate to disagree but the belief that an unproven god created the world in 6 days is harder to get your head around than evolution/natural selection it is the adaption of an animal to its environment and makes sense. If a modern horse had the same four toes as the earliest recorded horse did it would be extinct natural selection adapted its hoove to suit it's new size and environment. Creation can be easy for say a child (not ment to sound hostile just an example anyone can get there head around it really) to get around because there really isn't much explaining to go along with it or evidence to back it up, evolution yes can be long winded with complicated explanations but once you start to understand it it becomes easier to get your head around. I think Christians are fully capable of believing evolution considering the early scripts didn't say specifically "day" it said "yom" which can mean any length of time so god could have done the creatures an plants through evolution upon millions and millions of years.
I grew up wearing uniform I never hated them but I didn't particularly like them. I'm in college now and I don't have to wear a uniform. I put in the same effort to my work as I would in uniform so it doesn't affect my learning or efforts and on a plus side its more comfortable.
No I don't think Christianity makes you a bad person, most Christians will abide by the law because the law is also very similar to the 10 commandments E.G. Thou shalt not kill, steal yadda yadda yadda. Most of their views have good intentions, I find that they're honest and kind people I have never spoken to a Christian that's rude or dishonest I think they're good people, I just don't agree with them on the religious choices.
someone can still live after being raped
Very true but the effects rape can have on the person for the time afterwards can be devastating. I can't say from experience but I imagine rape is a very traumatic experience and can cause mental problems E.G. paranoia as well as physical damage dependig on hiw violent the rapist was. Murder can be done and over with quickly but being raped stays with you your whole life.
I fully understand and respect why others will think this is a bad thing but I think it is a good form of punishment. Right now all teachers can do is give detentions, suspensions and expultions these aren't punishments that actually work on a child who's had no discipline at any point in tere lives due to bad parenting. I think that it should be there but used as a last resort for example not used if someone was caught talking but on a student who has been given multiple warnings. I see nothing wrong a bit of physical punishment, I was raised with it and I turned out ok. There are some kids this day and age that need a good hit with a ruler to get them in line. This is my opinion anyway. It's when it starts string out of hand and you can clearly its not just discipline but hitting for te sake of it.
Just because dogs can do more damage doesn't at all mean they are more aggressive. In my experience I have seen a lot more aggressive cats than I have dogs. They're naturally social and usually only attack if they haven't been trained properly or feel a threat which is rare depending on how well socialised they are.
Dogs can get trained to not be aggressive, there are no bad dogs just bad owners the only reason they're deemed as more aggressive is because they do more damage if they do attack. I've heard of more cats scratching/lashing out at people than I have heard of dogs.
I agree with your first four points but not the last one. Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I can't see my mum right now but I know she exists. I can't see any roads right now but again I still know they exist.
I only really like apples IPods I don't like their iPhones and I've heard lots of people complain about them. I don't like iPads or tablets but out of both from experience I prefer Samsung tablets. (Much prefer laptops) and I just can't get used to macs/mac books.
Depends on the person in a way. We aren't bound by all instincts as some people can fight against them EG. The reflex arc can count as an instinct but some people have managed to fight against it. We all have a survival instinct as well, which initially is the instinct to survive we eat, drink and breathe to survive again some people can fight against this and just let themselves die (which is why I say it depends on the person). Most women also have a mothering instinct which is to protect their children, so if a mother sees or feels that they're child is threatened they want to protect them from it EG. Bullies another example would be a personal example me and my mother where walking through a car park and a car beside me didn't see me and started reversing my mum instantly shoved me out the way to protect me from this car. I do not believe we are bound by all our instincts but we are by some and it can depend on the person.
