Get people to talk more. Some people already talk enough, but some need to talk more. Get these people to talk more. Some way to get them to talk more would be to encourage them, like by telling them they made a good point. Or maybe by complimenting them, like by saying "Hey, you're wearing some really swanky shoes today, and I mean that in a good way." That might get them to spend more time here.
Here's an idea. Have specials every Tuesday, or whenever, like every Tuesday is clam chowder day, and make up some kind of debate or discussion on clam chowder, that way every Tuesday people can come in and just discuss clam chowder, and nothing else. Sound reasonable?
Add the ability to shamelessly point grab, so people don't have to go through so much trouble. Like a big button that says Shameless Point Grab on it, and when you click it, it just adds more points to your side, so you don't have to actually try to do anything, or even look like you did.
That sounds nice, but it is actually just a popularity vote, and unpopular people will be downvoted, and popular ones will upvote each other, resulting in popularity being the major factor instead of measuring the substance of the issue. But hey, whatever works right.
They went extinct. So what?
Here are three more animals that went extinct: the Dodo, Thylacine, and Steller's Sea Cow. If we can bring them back, we should try. It would be so amazing to see these creatures alive again. It would satisfy that curiosity.
Jurassic Park was science fiction, and a scare tactic film. Really there is nothing to be afraid of. Make way for progress.
I'll say it cuz I don't think anyone else will, but that's fucked up Yeah, I bet all you queers are gonna jump my ass for saying that, but that's the truth, if you can't deal with it, that's your problem. I have the balls to say what others won't and are only thinking. So if you're too delicate to hear what others have to say, then you shouldn't even be here.
Here are three: the Dodo, Thylacine, and Steller's Sea Cow. If we can bring them back, we should try. It would be so amazing to see these creatures alive again. It satisfies that curiosity.
Jurassic Park was science fiction, and a scare tactic film. Really there is nothing to be afraid of. Make way for progress.
that is truly despicable, i didn't think anyone would lower themselves to that level, even in jest. Even I don't change my arguments after people respond to it. I guess that just goes to show I have moral scruples and you do not. Or maybe you are just goading me on to respond to get more points because you are a shameless point grabber.
Yes, the end is the whole point. Without an end, the means don't matter. Look at the great winners of the world. Do they care what it took to get there? Did they let anything get in their way or slow them down? No. Arnold Schwarzenegger is a winner, and he did what it took to get there. It was very difficult, and he put in a lot of work, but in the end it all paid off. And he didn't have to kill anyone to get there either. He made personal sacrifices in order to get there. But in the end he was a winner because of it.
flesh out this argument, LOL. Pro.
You showed him, hahaha. I don't know if he understood it though. You have to show those bullies they can't push other people around and tell them what to do, and what to eat or not to eat, and to mind their own business. And they think what they say matters at all, hahahaha.
He's probably skulking away right now with his tail tucked, consoling himself over some chicken nuggets. But I won't call him on his hypocrisy. After all, who can say no to chicken nuggets? No one.
Then, for the sake of your own health, eat what diet you think best. Don't tell other people what to do.
But that is beside the point, as we both know. We both know very well, that meat is not murder. Murder is murder, and meat is meat, and murder is immoral and meat is a part of life.
So if you say it is then the blood is on your hands hypocrite. Don't tell me you never tasted chicken nuggets.
That's the way to show those bullies. They think they can boss other people around and bully them to follow their own way, instead of leaving everyone to their own personal choice. Ahahahah what a fool.
He's probably just sculking away with his tail between his legs, consoling himself over some chicken nuggets. But I won't blame him for hypocrisy. After all, who can say no to chicken nuggets? No one.
No no no. You should butt out of other peoples choice of diet, instead of telling them what they should be eating to satisfy your own personal sensibilities. Or do you just like to boss other people around? Bossy boss. Bully. I call you out. We all laugh at you for trying to boss other people around. Its sooo funny too. Look! Look! Now he is telling someone he should eat vegetables, that they should put vegetables in their mouths! Ahahahaha. He thinks he is the boss of what people should put in their mouths. Ahahahahaha. Fool.
The difference is they are stupid animals, while you are a stupid human. Or did I get that wrong? You are a stupid animal too then? Bwahahahaha.
And you actually believe you have a right to tell other people what to do and what to eat and not eat? You know what you are? You are a bully. That's right, you are a bully who tells other people what they should or shouldn't do. And you actually think anyone will respect you? HAHAHAHAAHHAHAHHAHa.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
LOL
You can't say no to chicken nuggets.
I already said this before in response to another argument, if you will call it that, really it was weak sauce, and weak sauce doesn't go well with anything really. But anyway I thought for the common good of the debate, I would include it separately so that if someone doesn't want to read all the debates, they can just scroll down and hit this one bam without having to click to see the argument. You know what I mean.
You can't say no to chicken nuggets.
Yes, they are loved the world over.
You ruined a perfectly good debate by bothering to respond to someone who as you claim is ruining the quality of the debate. So work on what you say before you say it or don't bother to say it at all. Do you get what I say? I don't think so, but I say it anyway.
It does for SOME ppl and you have to be considerate of those ppl too.
You don't think so? Then what about the Eskimos? The Eskimos or Inuit as they call themselves lived exclusively off animal diet like seals, walrus, and birds with zero vegetables. That is because they had no vegetables at their climate. They needed to live that way to survive. If they tried to be vegetarians, they would die of starvation. Of course, today they have access to white man's food, and don't have to eat just meat anymore. Now they die of diabetes and alcoholism.
Meat a convenient and natural way to get that protein and it tastes good, not like those vanilla flavored protein shakes where they have to add vanilla to it because without vanilla it would taste so bad that people would never consume the stuff, let alone get near it.
But we both know that is beside the point, and that meat is not murder, but that murder is murder and meat is meat. Murder is immoral, while meat is just part of life. Anyone who says otherwise is most likely just a hypocrite who goes to Micki-D's and orders a big mac supersized with a large coke and side of fries, and 6 piece chicken nuggets, or just orders off the dollar menu. You know what I'm talking about.
Yes, you speak the truth. Couldn't say it better myself. But that will not stop me. High protein, as is found in meat, is essential for good nutrition.
Of course some animal farms are treating the animals not so great, but most people who criticize this are just hypocrites who go to Micky-D's and order super sized double cheeseburger and chicken nuggets. Or just order off the dollar menu. You know what I'm talking about.
Three Trillion dollars better. Or is it more than that amount? I lost count.
But seriously ppl, ya. Think about it. He actually has real business experience. And also his brain is not drug addled. Have you noticed how halting Obamas speech is? Looong pause.
Well, some women are primarily valued for their appearance, at least for their day job. If an underwear model can make some easy money lounging around on cushions or on the sand in some tropical paradise, it would be stupid of her not to. Sure she could get a 9 to 5 job or a corporate job, or make her own business. But really, if shes hot and smart she can do both. Look at Heidi Klum, she is a business woman with her own line of items. She is smart and beautiful. Sometimes you can have it all.
Absolutely, because it serves a great purpose of ogling at a beautiful body. And there's nothing wrong with that. Pageants have come a long way in terms of including bathing suit competition. Its done less tastefully than it used to be, but that is mostly a problem with choice of musical score, and lighting.
This is the kind of stupid debate topic that is only used to garner more points on create debate.
But getting back to the question, it depends if you use milk. And if you use milk, what kind of milk; whole, 5%, 2%, skim milk? And what about chocolate milk? What kind of chocolate milk? Store brand, Hersheys? And I've even seen strawberry milk before. What about milk for the lactose intolerant. What about milk substitutes, like soy milk. What about powdered milk? What about baby formula milk? So I think I just milked that one for all its worth.
You are correct, Breaks do improve productivity. Here is one site that says so.
http://www.stopblocking.org/?p=35
I should add that legalizing marijuana would mean an end to destructive mandatory sentencing of long jail times, which has ruined so many young peoples lives. So it would be worth it to legalize just for this reason alone.
Yeah, I think the reason it's gone on so long is dealers and laundering banks make their money under the black market system. But it could change again. Look at prohibition.
The biggest effect would be an end to brutal mandatory sentencing of long jail times that has ruined so many young peoples lives.
Ya, legalizing will solve those problems. But I don't think there is a big black market in alcohol, so I would not be too fussy over how it was legalized exactly. But it would be better to have less hassles over it.
But the main benefit would be ending mandatory sentencing, which has ruined so many young peoples lives.
Ya i agree with the sentiment, legalize. I can understand why you would want to have some control over distribution, keep it away from kids. But i don't know what a public store is. Where would you buy it then, a private store? I don't know what that means.
But anyway, the greatest benefit would be an end to mandatory sentencing that has destroyed so many young peoples lives.
Its amazing we didn't learn our lesson after repealing prohibition, yet cannabis is far less harmful than alcohol, it even has medicinal properties.
But the greatest benefit would be an end to mandatory sentencing practices, which have ruined so many young peoples lives.
Hooraaah. But seriously, it don't harm no one but the smoker, and that is really debatable too. It even has medicinal benefit. Its way safer than alcohol, which we still have legal after repealing prohibition. And ending the ban would mean ending cruel mandatory sentencing that ruins so many young peoples lives. Be wise. Legalize.
Exactly, it costs so much, but accomplishes so little. Really all making it illegal does it raises the black market price. So the beneficiaries are drug dealers and money laundering bankers.
Its tragic because mandatory sentences are so excessive they ruin young peoples lives with long jail times. This is inexcusable. It should never have been made illegal in the first place.
Agree completely, the way the law is it has ruined so many peoples lives with jail time and criminal records with overly harsh and excessive mandatory sentences. Its just insane. It doesn't really hurt anyone, alcohol is far worse, yet when people tried to stop that with prohibition, it didn't work at all. It seems we haven't learned our lesson from our own recent history. So sad and tragic, because it was completely preventable. Be wise Legalize.
Amen brother, plus it could be used for medical purposes. And hemp could be used for so many things, even to make clothes. There is no need to import for hemp production. USA used to be a producer of it for ropes and stuff. It should never have been made illegal.
I generally support the legalization of marijuana, which is really just another plant so whats the big deal. But I probably wouldn't want to tax it. At least not much. Cuz then how are people gonna afford snacks for the munchies right? But seriously, taxation is good to convince govt to legalize it, although its actually onerous to add more taxes, so if it is done, it should be done as little as possible.
Well, technically the bombs were dropped not thrown. But anyway, the bombs did convince the Emperor of Japan to surrender. So the war was over quickly and decisively. Japan would have starved anyway, but than the possibility of facing invasion, would have been truly terrible. This way, getting it over quickly means less people probably died.
Remember though that the firebombing raids were far more destructive than the atom bombs were.
Maybe you are used to changing the subject or trying to put words in someone else' mouth and then giving them flack over it, and getting away with it. But not with me. I called you out for what you are. A shifting liar who is only interested in inflating their own sense of self importance and someone undeserving of respect. I disrespect you. Next time, just stick to the point and don't lie.
Collective rights stem from individual rights. Those individual inalienable rights are absolute. Logic, as in modus ponens, is limited by premises. This is true in moral issues too. Biology may or may not tell us directly or indirectly a set of moral principles.
Well a religious person once said- God is my rock.
But anyway, I was just contrasting science which judges the material, with ways of judging the immaterial.
And any use of LOGIC to try to form a moral code must invoke the intangible. That is what religion does.
see? I did refer to logic. I responded to your point.
That's all I was saying.
But I'll assume you already read that.
As for your example,
Can you say WHY it is wrong to cause someone pain?
No. You don't deserve respect because you lie about what I said, and then proceed to criticize me on that basis, and you failed to address the points in my original argument. You are just serving your own sense of self importance by defending equality of women, which does not address my original argument, but only feeds your own vanity.
If its simple it wouldn't need debating would it? I don't think anyone can determine a moral code using science, which is a method of learning about the physical world. And any use of logic to try to form a moral code must invoke the intangible. That is what religion does.
Science cannot give you a system of morality, either directly or indirectly, because it can only deal in tangibles, and morality is intangible.
Morality, ethics, religion or whatever you will call it all deal with the intangible world. If you get right down to it, you can try to justify the ten commandments using logic, but you will fail, because ultimately these rules are moral premises.
The rejection of religion, atheism, is the rejection of that theology, and not the embrace of an alternative morality.
Ideologies are used to justify atrocities, as exemplified by modern day Communism under Stalin or Mao, or of Fascism under Hitler or Mussolini; Both of which reject religion, and neither of which are moral, killing tens or perhaps hundreds of millions of people.
Modern day religion doesn't hurt anyone, it serves a social need for many people. It is a free choice, and religion and science peaceably coexist. There is no problem. There is no need for a solution to religion, because it is not a problem.
The Catholic Church is not a stand in for all the religions in the world. I'm sure many protestants appose the Popes actions in Africa. Each religion must be appreciated separately. For example, you can't lump together Lutheranism with Catholicism even though both are Christian religions.
Religion does provide answers that science cannot, because science only deals in the material world. Science is a method, a way of learning about the physical world. It cannot deal in ethics because ethical values are not tangible. Does that mean ethics are not real? Of course not. Can other ideologies exist without an overtly religious character, but still provide a system of ethics? Sure, why not. But a code of ethics cannot be formed using science, because morality is not tangible. This is the great strength and message of religion; ethics and moral virtue.
You are out of order. You are commenting on the people rather than the topic of the debate. No one needs or wants your help either explaining themselves or in understanding the question. Just stick to the question, hold the arrogance and hold condescension. Do you get me sweetheart?
Fuck the game.
I'd rather play monopoly or even hungry hungry hippos.
Religion gives people answers to things which science cannot: moral values, death and the afterlife, the meaning of life, and other spiritual issues. And while some choose not to follow any religious belief, others find great comfort, community and fulfillment in religion.
The benefits of science, logic, and objective attitudes are wonderful. But these are not discouraged by religion today.
At one time the Catholic Church did persecute people for their beliefs. Galileo is a prime example. They also burned books they considered heretical. But today, even the Catholic Church has acknowledged science, as in Darwin's theory of evolution.
I use the example of the Catholic Church because of its history of intolerance to objectivity and inquisitions. But the misdeeds of the Catholic Church cannot be blamed on another religion, Buddhism for example. A disagreement with one religion is not cause for attacking all religion in general. And the misdeeds of the Catholic Church are not unique to that institution. The Nazis burned books too, and this is a modern day non religious example. And modern non religious wars have caused much more death than any war that might be blamed upon religion.
But today religion and science can and do coexist peacefully. If people choose to follow religion, why try and stop them? Why try to get rid of something they find useful and fulfilling in their lives?
I end with a quote I included before as a counter point to your saying that religion has killed lots of people.
“…it becomes apparent that those who make the claim ‘religion has been the cause of more wars than any other factor in history’ may speak from ignorance or have ulterior motives for the assertion. Further, this type of assertion seems rooted in anti-religion posturing…Men and nations have a history of warfare and the root of conflict is power and gain…Occasionally war is fought over religion, as is perhaps the case during the reformation period in Europe. More often than not however, the cause of war can't be laid at the door of religion.”
-Maj. John P. Conway
Under War's Bloody Banner
By Carl Teichrib
Please get out while you still can. These people are just luring you in like sirens and succubuses. They just want to feed off of you to satisfy their false sense of self importance and vanity. Some of them even believe they are arguing for a worthy cause, but they are really just wasting your precious time. Go back to reality, and never haunt this venue with your avatar again. Free yourself from their tentacled clutches. Live dammit. Live.
