This very much is not the case, and hasn't really been the case from a historical point of view either. There are of course those that do only, ahem perform the acts of being a gold-digger, but these people are hardly representative of the greater population, they just kick up the most fuss and thus gain more of the attention. No, dates happen for many reasons and are conducted in many ways, and as such there will always be those who have a criteria of their partner-to-be to a level that is unreasonable, but thankfully they do not command the majority as most people are more interested in the person and not the persons worth.

Let us consider what the virus does and then consider the biblical proportions of Revelations. Now, people are dying, that is a fact. The virus is spreading, that is a fact. However, the rate of this spread and the number of people sadly dying to this virus are not nearly enough to bring the world to its knees. We have endured far greater plagues and viral menaces and have survived, and we will survive this as well. One important point to note are those affected by the virus. It seems to avoid most children who seem immune. Those in good enough health seem to recover with relative ease. Seemingly the ones dying are either quite old, already ill or suffer from health problems, or both. Now, there is plenty of reason to have concern over this epidemic, but don't let that concern draw you away from your rationality. Stay safe, stay indoors, and weather the storm!

The ethics are that these animals are suitable to be live stock and are typically seen as more useful (in the case of dogs primarily), or 'superior'. I agree with your question that if it's good enough for pigs, cows and the like, then why not all that are reasonable for consumption, i say reasonable because not all animals are namely those that would harm the body after consumption.

Humanely as it is commonly understood in this regard is to say the 'killing' of the animal in such a way that is to avoid or reduce to as much as possible the amount of pain said animal would suffer or experience. It is one thing to slaughter animals for consumption and another thing to put them through a heft amount of pain, even if the end result is consumption.

Yes, gaming CAN improve concentration but this is simply a matter of looking at WHAT games your son is playing. For example, if you said 'Does Call of Duty improve my sons concentration?' i would flatly say no. However there are games that would not only do this but also improve many other aspects of your sons education.

One such example that comes to mind is 'Portal' and its sequel. This game focuses on how the player (in this case your son) can complete the game by solving puzzles in a 'experimental' environment. The player is given a device that creates portals and is placed in a position where they must figure out how to get out of their current level to an elevator that leads to the next level. This type of game stimulates and teaches creativity, concentration, improvisation, patience, and puzzle-solving skills. There are many games like this that come under the genre of 'Puzzle-solving' games bu there are other genres too that are good for your sons mental development. Look to the likes of Nintendo for inspiration, Mario games like 'Super Mario Galaxy' and 'Super Mario Bro's' are brilliant for young minds (and older ones too), and are fun to boot!

Just like any other form of entertainment, books, movies, T.V shows, it is important to look at to whom they are tailored for. ALL games have an age rating, if the game has '18' on the box then don't get it for your 8 year/old son. PlayerUnknown's Battlegrounds is rated as '18' and is thus unsuitable for your son. It shows violence and killing something that is not good for a young mind, if you wouldn't let him watch the likes of any '18' rated film or T.V show then don;t let him play '18' rated games it will really mess with his mind.

To conclude, games can be MASSIVELY helpful in stimulating a childs mind, or anyones mind for that matter, but you must choose wisely which games he is going to have access to.

The problem with that passage is that it was chosen by men with beliefs that homosexuality is wrong as they were around at a time it was seen as wrong. Anyone can write something and then say God told me to write it and you wouldn't be able to prove them wrong as you must take it on "faith" that God told them to write it. Men choose what was to be put in the bible, that women, homosexuals and all life other than men should be treat as lesser. Most of what "God" says in the bible is evidence that "God" is humanities creation. There many passages in most monotheistic scriptures that depict God as warmongering, selfish, blood thirsty, sadistic, misogynistic, homophobic, wrathful (isnt that a sin? Hmm...) unjust and quite frankly malevolent. Now im a atheist but im sure if there is a creator God, it is either not bothered by what what we humans do or with life in general (the deist God) or loves us and chooses not to interfere.

What exactly do you mean by gay acts? Sex? Kissing? Flirting? At any rate, there is in no way it is the same as "beastality", for one its in the same species, for two both people are fully giving informed consent measurable by what they convey in words or acts, you cant ask a animal if they are giving informed consent as they probably don't even know what that is. To any one who agrees with the above "question" id much rather like if you could give me a logical argument to why exactly homosexuality is like "beastality" because being gay myself i do not find it the same at all in the slightest.

I want you to give me exactly what makes a Christian good and why that would make that person a good leader. Would you consider anyone who is a pope to be a good Christian? Because if history proves anything its that popes are corrupt to. Christians are just as susceptible as Atheists to being corrupt and being a bad leader, heck look no further than George W. Bush for that.

Most certainty so. It teaches the basics of war strategy as it shows how each move is essential to winning. In both war and chess you must think about every outcome that can happen when you make a move. You must think about what could happen in the near future and the effects that can happen of each move in the late game. Chess is about predicting your opponents moves and thinking like they think, it teaches you to be patient, careful, the value of your pieces and the ability to understand the pros and cons of risk, all qualities that are required of commanders. Being in charge in war is about being able to weigh your options and make decisions in a timely manner that work to achieve victory and chess teaches this as well as it demands it.

Ive chosen clarify rather than dispute as i feel this isnt really contesting this. Perhaps the dog is associating pleasure with the sock and the outcome being sex, this would be textbook example of classical conditioning. My question is: Do you think the dog, or for that matter any animal that has interspecies sex, is aware that it is participating in interspecies sex? Or does that animal see what it is having sex with as a means to an end? The end here being primal pleasure. Food for thought. Im quite open minded and i am aware that i was quite aggressive towards you in a previous debate, but upon thinking more about it, i can see that if other animals are capable of consent then although i may not agree with it, if its legally and factually approved and backed (as i am a man of science), then i wouldn't openly dispute it. Though would you agree that there should be certain limits? Such as a degree of what comes under the heading of sex and what then comes under the heading of animal abuse and perhaps even which animals come under the category of the ability to give consent. The problem then here is to what point is consent legitimate and not misunderstood (if understood at all).

Ok i see your point and you are not entirely wrong when you say humans can understand animals, but it is to a degree. The problem is how do we decipher what consent would be and what a primal desire for pleasure would be. Ill use dogs for example, for dogs understanding humans, i believe though they can associate what is being said to a object or outcome and maybe even definition to some extent, but they wouldn't truly understand what the likes of consent is. As the maximum dog intelligence is that of a human toddler; you could tell a human toddler what the definition of consent is and even if they remember it they wouldn't know what it meant to give it, how it affects them and the consequences. This in a way applies to dogs aswell. Just because they can know a word doesn't mean they understand it. This applies to most domestic animals aswell. Ive seen you put that animals can convey consent through action, could you please elaborate?