You can love something that is evil and you can hate something is good.

What you "feel" doesn't determine whether something is good or evil. It's the other way around irregardless of your "feelings".

Human nature is a fallen nature. This means that human nature is sinful. A sinful nature in the end will only end in destruction because of the nature of sin itself. Humanity, one way or another, will destroy itself (there are many ways I can tell you how) despite their well-meaning and good intentions. Human nature has something other lifeforms do not have. It's called "free will". This means that humans can act outside of its nature. Humans can use free will to do something opposite or counter to that of our nature.

Yes, Jesus was the only perfect human. That's why he was the only one to be able to pay for sins of the world.

Trump is the best president ever! He's the only honest guy who calls it as it is. Everyone who opposes Trump is just trying to screw him over and dig up whatever dirt they can find to incriminate him. It's not hard to incriminate anyone if you really wanted to.

And yet you live everyday of your life with FAITH.

You are both disclaiming the truth of God and yet living with

the very evidence of it. Faith.

once again the whole argument, "I see no reason to worship one who accepts the cruelty and injustice we see every day"....

that statement tells everything you need to know: you do not understand the doctrine of Human Depravity and the doctrine of Sin. Stop blaming God.

The biggest reason why these questions continue to get asked is because they are based from ignorance and lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject.

I'm sorry but all the above arguments and statements prove exactly what I said. Listen to all the squabbling. It will never end because everyone thinks they know the truth and everyone thinks the way they perceive the world is the real world. FALSE. Everyone is false and true at the same time (true in thats how they perceive the world and false in that how they perceive things doesn't mean it's true or reality), therefore this entire argument is nullified and can hold no water. It's just going to be a million people squabbling like we have done since the dawn of civilization who is right and wrong, true and untrue, the best and not the best, yada yada yada, and in 100 years from now, people will still squabble in the exact same way.

You are forgetting one major flaw in your argument: you nor any human on this planet even knows what is TRUE. All your beliefs and truths are simply subjective. It may be true to you but it is not true for another. If you are God himself, then your perception is perfect and without flaw, but you are not. Therefore whatever you say is not accurate. It's only accurate to how you perceive the world and truth.

It really depends on the woman. Each individual case is different based on what that woman has gone through in her life, how she was raised, what her personal beliefs are, her experiences (good and bad), etc.

If you are looking for generalizations, then I'd say the most common traits a woman is looking for in a man are:

1) confidence: even if the confidence is fake or misguided, women are naturally drawn and attracted to someone who exudes confidence. In the same token, they are not drawn to men who are indecisive, unsure of themselves, and always uncertain of everything.

2) intelligence: intelligence today is what braun/strength was in the cave days. If you have intelligence, you have strength and power.

3) humor: women are emotional creatures, therefore a stale male who has no emotional diversity (ie. no sense of humor) is a draw off for women. They are drawn to a man who is able to make them feel emotions, especially humor

Odd. Why wouldn't it make you feel a little better knowing that you weren't the only one? If you view life as shit, that is only a reflection on yourself. You see what you are.

Sorry Auntie, I think you are off-based. It is true that blacks were oppressed and enslaved but it's not true that they are unable to make better their own lives today. Sure there is some covert racism around and within the system, but it is largely gone now. There are millions of successful black people in this world and America who are living lives like Kings and Queens better than most whites, too. So if those blacks could make it, why can't the others who are just perpetuating their role as victims, turning to a life of crime, drugs, gangs, and choosing to perpetuate the cycles of the ghettos and the hoods.

Another good example is Asians. Asians were also oppressed. Chinese and other east asians were heavily oppressed and faced racism. An argument can easily be made today that racism towards east asians is bigger than blacks now. Blacks are praised in the media, tv, movies, even elected as President of the US. Asians are still under the radar, under-represented in the media and if you look at what happen in history, East Asia was dirt poor as hell just like Africa. The difference? In the same time span, East Asians ascended to the top of the global ranks in almost every socio-economic category out there. Why haven't blacks done the same? Nobody is holding blacks down anymore, except black people themselves.

thanks for sharing your experiences! It's always nice to get a little perspective from a real person in the job.

thanks for sharing your experiences! It's always refreshing to hear from real people in the actual fields than just learning about them fro tv shows or movies.

Can't disagree with you there. BB was definitely a captivating show. I was so hooked the moment I saw it and I couldn't stop watching it. I hadn't seen the show while it was on air. I only saw the show AFTER it was completed and off the air. I was binge watching the entire show over a 1-2 week span and I couldn't stop lol. Better Call Saul has the benefit of starting on the shoulders of BB so it was quite easy for me to continue watching it and get hooked as well. I think for someone hadn't seen BB and started watching Saul first, would not be as interested or maybe get bored because they wouldn't really know or understand the timeline.

Gilligan also said how the timing and pace of Saul was much different. He intentionally used long takes, slower moving scenes and pace to capture a different feeling. It's actually quite refreshing. But more than anything, I love the character of Saul...odenkirk also is captivating.

Good responses, fair points. But I still don't see it. Logically doesn't make sense. For example, let's say you are working a job that requires 5 people you have to split $1250 five ways when the job is complete. 4 of the 5 people do the work and work very hard to earn their portion of the pay. The other one did absolutely nothing, just played video games on his smartphone. So when the job is completed and the group receives their $1250 pay, why should everyone equally receive $250 including that 1 guy who did no work for it?

That's how I see it. Doesn't make sense that muslims who did nothing for Christianity and oppose all of it's holidays can still benefit from the days off and relax, have fun, enjoy life on the backs of a Christian holiday.

Same goes the opposite way. I would not feel right if I was benefiting a free paid holiday based on someone else's history that I oppose and am against.

Here's another example. Let's say you are all opposed to Nazi Hitler Day. It's a national holiday and everyone gets the day off, paid vacation. Would you think it's fine for anti-Nazi folks to have that day off, get paid on Nazi Day? It seems that if you truly are anti-Nazi, you would not take the day off and benefit from it for something you truly are against and oppose.

Would you call this common sense: a tiny island of people once nearly ruled the entire world, but instead they have now allowed the entire world (at least the muslim parts) to rule them willingly.

Common sense. Yeah.

Of course it is...as long as they rule. Nazi society was a peaceful society. The only reason why they had all that violence was because of the people who didn't surrender. Any organization is a peaceful one once they have it completely their way. Very simple logic.

Actually, every "race" is disappearing. Slowly the world is becoming more "mixed" and therefore blacks, whites, asians, hispanics, you name it, are all disappearing and the only group that is going to grow and outnumber everyone else are "mixed race" people.

So we are all on the same boat. I think it's good to have some mixing and good to have some "same race" people....best of both worlds. But with cloning pretty much here, we could always create any race we wanted if we felt there was a shortage of it and needed more lol.

The US has to stop building military bases around the world. They already have over 800 around the world with 250,000 troops deployed/stationed.

China has built 1 island in the South China sea, and America is all up in arms about it? Talk about taking the plank out of your own eye before judging the speck in someone else's.

LOL winston. Sorry, I had a chuckle at that one. No, China is not building islands to help with their population control. In fact, China's population will be shrinking very soon because they are already have low fertility rates not enough to maintain it's population so in a couple decades, it will top off and then after that will decline dramatically every decade after.

There are other countries that you need to be more concerned about with overpopulation. By 2100, Nigeria will have 1 billion people, Pakistan will have 1 billion and Indonesia will have 1 billion, and those countries are small compared to the land size of China.

We are already at war.....the war for souls. That's really the only war that matters in the end.

What is happening in Singapore? Can you tell us? All I see are youtube videos of singaporeans and foreigners fighting on public transportation. Oh the joys of multiculturalism.

man left to himself will always go insane.

Human nature is deprived. There is nothing man can do to fix himself.

So if left to our own devices, we'll always succumb to our very nature. Man's own quest for perfection will ultimately lead him to become the very thing he was trying to eradicate. You see the full circle?

I would love the idea of creating "tiered cities".

So all the people who have never been convicted of a crime could live in a society at a high tier (quality of life).

Those that have a record would fall in a lower tier and would have to work hard or live well for a certain period of time in order to elevate to a top tier society.

And the very low would live amongst fellow like-minded folks to get a taste of their own medicine and hopefully teach them a lesson. If you wanna live in a city where everyone robs and assaults each other, fine, go ahead and let's see how you like it. Those who want to be civilized and contributors to society will live in a society with like-minded people.

Awesome question. I've often thought of this a lot and I would so love to. I would love to be a big brother to myself etc. Even more so, I thought about this for my parents. I wish I could see my dad when he was a little kid and be a big brother to him, teach him, protect him and same goes with my mom. It'd be awesome to see her when she's a little girl and play with her, treat her like a princess and help her as best as I could.

Reminds me of the movie Back to the Future....going back in time and being a buddy to your loser dad lol and helping him to hook up with your mom.

Just like Woody Allen?

I can't say if it's right or wrong, but it would seem rather unusual or inappropriate. But again, doesn't mean it's wrong. The bigger question is what the local laws of your land says. Is that considered incest or only incest if it's blood related?

Reminds me of the movie The Ballad of Jack and Rose. There's both something understandable if a father loves his daughter in more ways than one, because I think most of us would be lying to ourselves that at some point a father does develop some of these feelings. Most just learn to obviously not act on them and carry it on beyond their thoughts. But I can understand that as a man, you can develop feelings/attraction/whatever you want to call it to almost anyone! It just doesn't mean we're going to actually act on it. For a brief a moment, men can be attracted to their daughters, their sons, their sisters, brothers, male friends etc.... it's not really unusual. Certain familiar aspects of that someone may remind you of something that you love and become attracted to. I've often thought that if I were meet my myself in the female version, I'd be attracted to myself.....doesn't mean I'd want to marry myself or myself...but I can understand how one could develop an attachment or an attraction for even your own daughter.

race and racism is a made up word. It was coined in 1902. Racism is used as a political weapon more so than anything else. People can use it, too, to get whatever they want.

racism in fact is such a shallow look on the bigger issue which is simply, "differences/unfamiliarity/foreign/prejudice".

For example, do you think say in the 12th century when a barbaric tribe was invading and attacking your village, people could simply shout, "YOU ARE A RACIST!" and then barbarians would stop in their tracks, turn around with their tails between their legs in shame and walk away? That would never happen. Racism is nothing. Yet today, we can use that word and it could stop an entire country and bring them to global shame and embarrassment. Everyone needs to think about that. How the heck did this become possible? A simple word that actually has no power, but we've created a system where that word has as much power as a nuclear bomb.

It's all fake, it's all an illusion. What is real is differences, prejudice, and simply ignorance/innocence. It's not like racism is some sort verifiable, concrete disease that can be captured in a bottle. There is no GENE that creates racists lol. It's all a lie. People don't understand ideological weaponry and words to convey meaning whether real or false, it's a tool/weapon.

small minds talk about people, simple minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas.

Islam by it's very nature is divisive. It's goal and aim is to rule the entire world or should we call it, "Islamize" the world. It's not that different from Christianity's goal which too, was to rule the world (evangelize to every nation). Coca Cola is the only entity that has actually conquered the world. They exist in more countries than either Christianity or Islam and McDonalds not far behind....I believe McDonalds has already bid for the moon. I don't actually think Islam fighting against western values is necessarily a bad thing. I think that if we didn't have another force trying to oppose the Western values from taking over the world, we'd have another threat or monster on our hands. It's almost as if having differing and competing beliefs keeps everyone in check from basically taking over the entire world and having a strangle hold on it. We need there to be opposition always. Without opposition, we would be living in another sort of totalitarian rule or system. Think about it like this: if one corporation monopolized the entire industry, it would be a bad thing because competition keeps prices competitive and low, and it allows for flexibility, diverse options etc. If everything was owned or run by one entity, think about how bad that would be and how easily it could turn into a one-sided affair.

Ok, even if you don't believe in Jesus Christ as Savior and God and Son of Man, etc. Take that part out, but how can one not see values like: love/honor your parents, don't murder, don't steal, don't judge, be loving, be giving, be humble, compassionate, forgiving, help the poor, give unconditional love, etc, be a bad thing?

In any case, there is always going to be a war of values, beliefs, cultures, etc. If it ain't Christianity, maybe it'll be Islam, or maybe it'll just be "americanism", or maybe it'll just be capitalism/consumerism/secularism etc.....whatever it may be, someone or something will always be the ruling power. So pick your poison? Choose the lesser of two evils kind of thing.

Thanks for all the responses. Good points.

In dire circumstances, I would definitely accept getting something (even if underpaid) than nothing. But if one has other options available to them, then I would not settle for being underpaid, at least until you have explored the other options that may get you more of what you are worth. I've often heard the saying, "you get what you are worth". If you believe you are only worth $10 bucks an hour, then that is your worth. If you believe you are worth more than that, with persistence and perseverance, your worth will definitely be more (no guarantees how high, but definitely more than what you are currently getting underpaid for).

thanks for that good insight. Yes, the spirit of entrepreneurship is a wonderful thing but it is a lot harder than people think (at least in the beginning). To build something that is your very own probably brings about more satisfaction and fulfillment in life than always working for someone else.

I would like to chime in. People need to keep their emotions in check because the problem with this topic is the moment they see the word "pedophile" or "pedophilia" they just get angry, disgusted and become filled with outrage and cannot even conceive the possibility of anything other than their own position.

People have to understand that pedophile and child molester are two different things. They are not the same thing. Yes, certainly SOME child molesters may be pedophiles but you cannot say that all pedophiles are child molesters. Some murderers are drunks but that doesn't mean that all drunks are murderers. You have to understand that separation. The act of drinking and driving is wrong. Simply being drunk is not what is wrong.

Am I making clear sense here? I just want to dumb it down because that's what I do best. I keep things very clear and logical. It's my gift.

So back to the topic. The problem is the word pedophile has become attached to child molesters and that is the problem here. Please know that most child molesters are not pedophiles. They are your dads, brothers, uncles, grandpas, drunkards, depressed people, lonely people, crimes of opportunity, or simply they wanted to sexually molest anyone it just happened to be someone who was "underage" and now considered "a child".

If there were an entire race of people who were pedophiles but they never committed a crime against a child, would you want to gas chamber all of them and wipe them out completely? Are you really sure about that?

Now of course, we also run into different levels of issues here. If the law made it that 18 years old is considered adult and 17 years old and 364 days is considered a "child", well then, as you can see there is going to be a big problem. There is this imaginary line that was been created to label someone an adult or a child. I realize there are pedophiles that have a very particular taste and some go very young like 3 - 6 years old. But I think that most pedophiles that are getting tangled up in the web are the majority of men out there who do find girls as young as 13 - 17 attractive. I've already conducted my own personal tests and have found that most men online find young girls attractive, both sexually/physically and some for their personality/character traits. Without even knowing the ages of the girls they were speaking to, there's no shortage of what you might call your "average" man who would make sexual advances on a 12 or 13 year old girl. It's plain fact, but of course you'll never really see them express that out in public in the real world around their friends or families etc. So this begs the question, are a great majority of human beings just mentally screwed up or is there a conflict between how the law defines things and what our natural biological instincts tell us?

I'm not one to tell the world what is right and what is wrong. But simply, for most human history, girls were married off or had children in their teens. That was not an uncommon or unusual thing. You have to remember that in most of human history, we did not have the luxury we have today. It was about survival and preservation and propagation. When the average person was dying of disease or war or other forces of nature in their 30s, 40s, 50s, one is not concerned about the age of your spouse etc. That becomes almost a non-issue. However, in today's world, we no longer worry about things like survival, propagation, etc. So it is no longer of anyone's utmost importance to find a mate at a young age and propagate. We can delay that as late as in our 30s 40s even 50s now. So it makes any sort of marriage/mating formation of young teens a very unusual, even ILLEGAL status now.

What I'm trying to say is that laws are often dictated based on the circumstances of the times you are living in. What was once illegal before is now legal today or what was once legal before is now illegal today...and they will continue to change over time as our circumstances change.

I don't have a definitive age or cut off line to say what is fair game or what isn't, but I just know that pedophilia is not something that is so outcast and rare or unusual limited to only a few sick minds. It's not that at all. It's what some people like. It's what some people find attractive and I don't think you can really hate anyone for having feelings. But of course, if anyone abuses a child in any form, it is not right. So I don't think crucifying and attacking pedophiles is the correct approach. It's more a matter of lack of understanding because most of us just have that word associated automatically with child molester/predator/dangerous/perv etc.

Then we should make everyone have a license to live. According to that logic, we should say then that not everyone deserves to live and should have to pass a test to see who deserves life and who doesn't. Now we are getting into pre-crime, pre-destination, and the whole purpose of life becomes a mute point.

We might as well throw in a license to "live". So why is it that everything would require a license to do but no license to be born/to live?

You see, the problem with too much control and too many rules is that you basically strip life down to nothing which isn't life anymore. I'd rather live with the inconveniences of too much liberty than the inconveniences of too little.

The scary future we are all fastly approaching is being able to manipulate and alter one's body (which means appearances, sex, abilities, features, etc...).

Soon there will be no distinction between races, colors, sexes, abilities, etc. Everyone and anyone can be whatever they want to be. That's the future you all want, then that's the future you'll all get. The box cannot be closed. Evolution of the human species is now determined. The less human we are/look, the more evolved we become. This is the inherit seed planted in the minds of progression.

You also have to remember that violence is a part of human nature. Meaning, even if you never saw or played a violent video game your entire life, you would still be a violent person and possibly do violent things or kill someone. It's fully automatic and included in us without the help of video games. When Cain murdered his brother Abel, did he do it because he watched violent video games? Obviously no.

monkey see, monkey do.....

Well violent video games does not MAKE someone do something they don't want to do. If they DO it, they did it because they wanted to. If anything, the violent games just encouraged them or inspired them, but they certainly cannot be held responsible for making someone do something. Everyone is in control of their own body and their own actions.

Well simply put, because in most countries it's against the law. Of course laws are man-made and they vary from place to place and are really as arbitrary as life itself (which constantly changes positions on itself one generation to the next). What was once legal before may now be illegal and what was once illegal before may now be legal. It's such a bunch of legalities but it is the law, therefore we must obey it or pay the consequences. We're also living in times where socially it would also not be acceptable. Even if the law doesn't dissuade you, your social circles and all the negative and disapproving people would almost be punishment enough. You'd most certainly be categorized or labelled as something very heinous and it would destroy your social standing, reputation, image, and there would almost be no return or redemption from it. There's a lot of things we can't do and not because it's actually wrong, but because of the way society/culture has been constructed that would make your life a living hell if you went against it. There is also the argument that 13 year olds are not mentally mature and their brains are not fully developed to be able to understand and comprehend whatever decisions they make at that age. Even if a 13 yr old consents, it would be argued that they need to be protected from themselves because they do not fully know or understand the possible unintended consequences of their actions. I do agree with them being too young to be responsible enough to be accountable for their actions, but you could still argue that at any age. It's not like once you hit 30 or 40, you are somehow all knowing and all wise to make decisions that would never be classified or deemed as "naive", stupid, or just outright inexperienced. So this opens up another can of worms debate of when is one old enough to (fill in the blank).

It's a very interesting discussion that most people are too scared to talk about because we live in a very politically correct world and system and if you differ from it, you could be seriously attacked and damaged. I can't say what is right and what is wrong per se, but there is an argument for both sides so I would like to chime in. Biologically, it is true. Every animal/species in life reproduces as soon as they are biologically able to. That being said, humans are a bit different so I suppose we can't just use that as explanation to justify it. It's interesting because most of human civilization's history, this was the norm (having sex/reproducing with 13 year olds or around that age...I don't mean it was prevalent but I mean that it was certainly much more common and permissable). If you look even in the 21st century, many countries in the world that are still poor or living in the dark ages, still do this. Life is more about survival, preservation and propagation, and that's where things like age isn't that important to the discussion. But now we live in a world where survival, propagation, preservation is not very important. Other things have become more important so rules/laws can now be imposed because we have the luxury to do that. It wasn't a luxury to do that when you are dying of disease, famine, wars, and all that was important was to survive/propagate.

Biologically speaking, a 13 year old is developing/developed enough to be physically/sexually attractive, and while I know that if you asked most men, they would tell you they aren't, but that's because it's almost not even allowed to suggest you'd find a 13 year old attractive. I don't need to conduct any experiments to provide evidence of this because it's all out there and you can find it yourself.

The answer is real simple. You are.

I'm not being sarcastic. I literally mean, "you" as in anyone and everyone who is reading this (including me). There is no ranking degrees of evil. You are either sinful or your are not. Yeah yeah yeah I know, I'm coming from a judeo-christian background, but that's a fact. If you are with sin, then you are a sinner, plain and simple and there is no redeeming ourselves unless our sins are removed from us (our nature). So the truthful answer is that we are all the most evil person in history. You can't be anything worse than a sinner, plain and simple.

I think you're all asking the wrong question. The future will not be about a country but about a region. Countries will no longer exist as we know it today. They will merge together to form regions and these "regions" will be the superpowers of tomorrow.

The USA nor China will single-handed dominate the future. It will be a regional power that will. The eventual goal is to create a one world government, nation, etc. Don't forget, that is the ULTIMATE goal for all entities whatever they may be (economic, political, religious, etc).

I think you're all asking the wrong question. The future will not be about a country but about a region. Countries will no longer exist as we know it today. They will merge together to form regions and these "regions" will be the superpowers of tomorrow.

The USA nor China will single-handed dominate the future. It will be a regional power that will. The eventual goal is to create a one world government, nation, etc. Don't forget, that is the ULTIMATE goal for all entities whatever they may be (economic, political, religious, etc).

Everything and anything CAN form naturally, yes it's possible. Likely? No.

There must always be a designer behind it. To think that all of this just formed out of spontaneous randomness is really stretching it and you're on the side of the 0.00000000000000001% that you are right, it all just happened naturally.

Let me put it this way, would you put all your money down if we took a bet that this pile of dirt will one day be able to code and build this website we are using now? Even if I gave you 100 Quadrillion years, the chances of that pile of dirt coding this website naturally without the aid of any designer or creator is practically nil. In 100 Quadrillion years, you'll still be sitting on your ass looking at a pile of dirt and I'll say, "I told you so." You won't win that bet, and you don't need to spend 100 quadrillion years to figure it out.

The power really comes from your mind. The quality of your masterbation equals the quality of your thoughts.

Religion is not some separate entity that you can isolate and cut out. Religion IS humanity. The problem is how we have interpreted it. We think religion is either just Jesus or Allah and from some book. What you don't realize is that religion is not even a word that exists. No religion in history ever called itself a "religion". Religion is just a word used to encapsulate and categorize a common sharing of beliefs, way of life, or people. If you really think about it, everything is a religion. Economics is a religion. Science is a religion. Hedonism and consumerism are all religions. What systems are in place is a religion. Whatever laws you have in your society, THAT IS A RELIGION. You all worship something. It doesn't have to be a god or the God. If you idolize, worship, or believe in anything, that is your religion. So to say let's get rid of religion, that's like saying, let's get rid of all life on this planet and then we'll finally have peace.

You don't need a high birth rate to sustain the labor force. You just increase immigration. Now the problem isn't about birth rates, it becomes how to handle the challenges of a rapidly changing demographic of people with a diverse range of languages, cultures, religions, backgrounds, etc.

This is a tough one. I like some porn but I also think it can get way out of hand in the public eye. I think it should be reserved somewhere behind one's privacy and fantasies are fun and healthy to have, as long as it ain't really hurting anyone. But I don't like to see it blatantly out there in the public eye, especially soft porn.