Intersting, you've not actually made any counter points. How is it my assumption that you can't prove it? Please, by all means, if you can do so, I'd be very interested! And, I'm sorry, what do *you* know about death to speak of it with such conviction? Again, I'd be very interested. As far as seeing both positives and negatives, where do you make that distinction for yourself in your post? I fail to see why you're on that tangent, I was speaking of a specific example which is practically impossible to paint in black and white in any meaningful sense. I agree they are human judgments, we're all human here. It's all we got to go on. Also, I would contend that ones with actual knowledge know only one thing, that they know not a damn thing at all, and the ones without would insist that they know everything.
"Go an kill Mitt Romney, I'll give you 1 million dollars for it"
This would not be free speech, this is a deal between two individuals. Planning a murder is a crime and is precluded in what free speech alows for. Talk all you want, it's your intent that would count, not the fact that you spoke, at least in the ideal world.
As for firing up people's temperments, we do this here just as much, and it's generally of no consequence. I highly doubt that in of itself is the the issue.
The example you provided includes MORE than just speach. Actual *murders* took place as well, and that is the action I'm referring to in the first place. Seems like you agree after all.
Perhaps you missed the point entierly? It will still take a decision by another individual, not the speaker to take violent action. Not so blanket if you're just seeing the forest for the trees that they are.
Intersting idea, though something tells me that once we can project an image on to the moon the only thing it'll be is "Drink Coke" or some other inane shit. Also, that pic is pretty funny.
Not stepping on other people's toes is decidedly not the same as being religious. Paying attention to their fellow man just made them compassionate and human. You only see things in black and white, and that's unfortunate. You've missed all the other pretty shades and colours.
And you really think that's what was asked for? The date? Given the context, you are indeed being pedantic for no reason at all. You didn't win, you didn't offer an actual reference to God in the constitution. Let me make it crystal clear for you: he's not talking about the calendar date and how it was commonly expressed at the time. The question was, what aspect of the constitution is influenced by religious rhetoric of Christianity? Don't bother answering at all if you're just going to pick on the wording, only if you're actually going to give a real answer to the question being asked.
So fuck em? Flood their asses with more videos until a) they can't take it anymore, go on a rampage and are killed, or b) look around them, see that nothing much of anything had happened and go about another day of life.
That's your personal conviction. But, there is no consensus on it. Sorry. You can't prove life is important. You can think it all day long, but you cannot prove it to be so. I've left moral out of it on purpose. I'm not arguing about morals.
After you die you will realize the fallacy
. Have you ever died? How did that go? No? Then what the hell are you talking about??
You make a terrible assumption too, inconvenience is not the only possibility. There are real life barriers that prevent some individuals from being able to provide any sort of environment for the child. How moral is it to bring that same human being into a life of neglect and dysfunction? Funny how the irresponsible parenting cycle happens most often to children brought up that way to begin with. Generation upon generation of dysfunction and suffering (which can lead to crimes against people far worse than in your imagination).
It's not a black and white issue. It will never be a black and white issue. It doesn't matter how much you think it is a black and white issue, it's not. And that's why you never get anywhere with your argument. It's not just the forest, it's the trees too.
Dismissing the question? It took about 20 years. It helped to realize that the answer is unattainable. Any reason you are so smug about it? I certainly was not.
If you really think about it, it's simply in our nature. I mean we personify inanimate objects all the time, it is no different with the dead. To most, I would imagine, that person still "feels" like they're present, regardless of what physics would have to say.
Slashdot Mirror
Because, believe it or not, he's not the only benefactor if this FS survives. Your mind is on revenge, and it is a fruitless endeavour.
You may want to tone down your sensitivity for this one, it was not serious.
I think it's pretty obvious that he is not. Reads exactly like a paid for mouthpiece. A shill, if you will.
But it's not the sole factor. That's my only argument.
What for?
Intersting, you've not actually made any counter points. How is it my assumption that you can't prove it? Please, by all means, if you can do so, I'd be very interested! And, I'm sorry, what do *you* know about death to speak of it with such conviction? Again, I'd be very interested. As far as seeing both positives and negatives, where do you make that distinction for yourself in your post? I fail to see why you're on that tangent, I was speaking of a specific example which is practically impossible to paint in black and white in any meaningful sense. I agree they are human judgments, we're all human here. It's all we got to go on. Also, I would contend that ones with actual knowledge know only one thing, that they know not a damn thing at all, and the ones without would insist that they know everything.
Speech. Why do I do that...
This would not be free speech, this is a deal between two individuals. Planning a murder is a crime and is precluded in what free speech alows for. Talk all you want, it's your intent that would count, not the fact that you spoke, at least in the ideal world.
As for firing up people's temperments, we do this here just as much, and it's generally of no consequence. I highly doubt that in of itself is the the issue.
The example you provided includes MORE than just speach. Actual *murders* took place as well, and that is the action I'm referring to in the first place. Seems like you agree after all.
Perhaps you missed the point entierly? It will still take a decision by another individual, not the speaker to take violent action. Not so blanket if you're just seeing the forest for the trees that they are.
Intersting idea, though something tells me that once we can project an image on to the moon the only thing it'll be is "Drink Coke" or some other inane shit. Also, that pic is pretty funny.
You cannot cause damage or harm with words. you need another action to take place before there is damage/harm.
Your assumption. Not what was said.
Not stepping on other people's toes is decidedly not the same as being religious. Paying attention to their fellow man just made them compassionate and human. You only see things in black and white, and that's unfortunate. You've missed all the other pretty shades and colours.
And you really think that's what was asked for? The date? Given the context, you are indeed being pedantic for no reason at all. You didn't win, you didn't offer an actual reference to God in the constitution. Let me make it crystal clear for you: he's not talking about the calendar date and how it was commonly expressed at the time. The question was, what aspect of the constitution is influenced by religious rhetoric of Christianity? Don't bother answering at all if you're just going to pick on the wording, only if you're actually going to give a real answer to the question being asked.
So fuck em? Flood their asses with more videos until a) they can't take it anymore, go on a rampage and are killed, or b) look around them, see that nothing much of anything had happened and go about another day of life.
That's not final. Extinction.
. Have you ever died? How did that go? No? Then what the hell are you talking about??
You make a terrible assumption too, inconvenience is not the only possibility. There are real life barriers that prevent some individuals from being able to provide any sort of environment for the child. How moral is it to bring that same human being into a life of neglect and dysfunction? Funny how the irresponsible parenting cycle happens most often to children brought up that way to begin with. Generation upon generation of dysfunction and suffering (which can lead to crimes against people far worse than in your imagination).
It's not a black and white issue. It will never be a black and white issue. It doesn't matter how much you think it is a black and white issue, it's not. And that's why you never get anywhere with your argument. It's not just the forest, it's the trees too.
I didn't miss it. I ignored it. :)
Sounds like a variation on some Buddhist themes. Cool.
Dismissing the question? It took about 20 years. It helped to realize that the answer is unattainable. Any reason you are so smug about it? I certainly was not.
Wouldn't you already be doing the right thing? I mean you found God at that point.
I disagree. I have desmissed it, truly.
He was pissed at him self?
If you really think about it, it's simply in our nature. I mean we personify inanimate objects all the time, it is no different with the dead. To most, I would imagine, that person still "feels" like they're present, regardless of what physics would have to say.