Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 6 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 93% |
Arguments: | 13 |
Debates: | 1 |
I once wrote a letter to my governor but never mailed it.
I'm not going to give the entire definition but in my 1927 Webster Dictionary, Marriage is defined pretty much as the ... of a MAN and a WOMAN.
Same thing for my 1953 copy, and the 2001 copy that we have at school.
Now, definitions can change, but why not just make a new word concerning same-sex "marriage"
Such as... Bimarriage, Homarriage, Homomarriage, that's what their labeled as otherwise , but that's also not the point that I'm getting at.
Why not have a marriage for a man and a woman, and then something else for man and man, woman and woman, shemale and maleshe, etc.
States can then be for it or against it rather then having to change their marriage laws, and Religious houses can do the same.
If a teacher tells a class about an assessment, then of course some of the students in the class are going to study for it. Those that do probably retain the information very well. They don't have to learn anything from class as long as they get 90s on all the tests. That's why I hate school. The grading system is complete BS.
Now if a teacher doesn't tell the students about the test, then those who know what's going on in class will do fairly well. And those that don't most likely will remember some stuff, but wont score very high. And I believe that the teacher should then work on what a lot of the students didn't do very well on, prior to moving on to the next chapter.
I posted something similar to this in the other section:
Scenario 1: A man kills a bear to feed his family. He must wait another year to get another hunting tag to kill another bear.
Scenario 2: A bear just impregnated his mate last spring, and they now have 3 cubs. The father sticks around for a while, and before winter his cubs are starving. The father goes out and kills a hunter (human) to feed his family. Now every human within 50 miles sets out to kill that bear.
Think of it from another point of view. It's not all about you. There are other beings out there that think the same in a different way.
I'm not sure I understand your point as far as humans intervening. Why does it have to be a human? Anything can intervene. All anyone cares about is society, nobody ever thinks about what life used to be like when humans first developed.
Scenario 1:Suppose a man kills a bear. Everyone thinks about him as a hero. He only killed it for food.
Scenario 2:Suppose a bear kills a man. Everyone goes out and tries to kill the bear, but nobody thinks about why the bear did it. Maybe he was trying to feed his family.
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |