Yeah, because everyone who immigrates to the US illegally is a triggerhappy thug. I guess we shouldn't give anyone who immigrates illegally any benefit of the doubt before they actually commit a crime--clearly, the only people worth that are born here!
What else should happen to said illegal? They should be put in front of the firing squad for trying to survive or even if they work hard to support their family?
You realize that if they are hiring, for say, a management position in California, that the person chosen to be hired for that job can't just work at another office or telecommunicate, right?
At its core the question is if fags are like blacks (inherent trait) or if they are like screaming preachers/morons/drunks (obnoxious choices, legal but disdained). I definitely chose to be gay. There are so many exciting parts about being gay--the discrimination I face on an almost daily basis, the scarring childhood and the emotional issues that continue to this day because of it, and the lack of civil rights I have. It makes TOTAL SENSE that I'd make a conscious choice to experience those horrible things instead of just being another straight guy, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary.
I don't think most gays even want to get married. They just want what they can't have ('Reg can't have a baby, not having a womb which is nobodies fault, no even the Romans. But he can have the right to have babies...'). Um, gross generalization. I for one do want to get married to a man who I will love for the rest of my life, whether the law recognizes that or not. Do you know any, you know, gay people?
I say as they have legal 'domestic partnerships' then we must ether take away their 'shacked up gay couple benefits' or extend the same to co-habitating straight couples. Business will certainly go with the no-benes answer in most cases. You mean the government should give straight couples common law marriages and the right to be married in the first place? Yeah clearly gay people have so many more 'shacked up couple benefits' than straight people. Like not being able to get married.
"It's ok because the government is doing it" is not my argument. My argument is that the majority of people support policies that protect the earth from people like you who would allow others to forget about personal responsibility and destroy the environment. You were talking about opinions and pushing them on others--and if you're comparing policies on environmental safety to slavery, you're missing the point--but I simply pointed out that YOU were the one pushing your irresponsible opinion on the majority of people.
Because, apparently if such programs exist, a majority of voters support officials who support those programs. Why do you get to force YOUR opinion on everybody?
That's because the RIAA is leveraging them. Before the two of them, the RIAA was very afraid that Apple's powerful grip on the music download market could cause problems for them; so they gave Amazon and Play.com better contracts to be more competitive with iTunes.
I was responding to the fact that anonymous incorrectly singled out America as not caring about humanitarian crises. I think that it is just sad that Europe's response to most of these issues has has been, "Hey, we don't even get involved in these issues when oil is involved! We consistently ignore these problems!"
I think, "I wish the world would begin to help police the world" is compatible with "I wish America and the EU would have done more about the African genocide."
I think the implication is that net censorship would allow another Nazi Germany style world power to come into existence, which is particularly relevant with the recent situations in Australia and Great Britain.
And it seems like most European countries have acted the same way, so it's hardly an issue with solely America. You're right about the oil, but at least something got the US to move at all.
Remember how much the EU did about the genocide in Rwanda?
Is she engaged in a sexual action? Is there anything sexual depicted in the picture?
I don't see how any rational human being could consider that child porn. She is nude, yes, but nudity does not implicate sexual abuse. She was even interviewed long after the picture was taken, and she still held that she did not see it as inappropriate or sexual.
I think you need to take a step back, look at your post, and think about what you are saying. You are saying that because the RIAA sued her, she is probably guilty. In this legal system, the way it works is the opposite: She is innocent of the crime until a court of law has proved her guilty, and we should treat her as such.
Has the RIAA's marketing made you think otherwise?
The problem is, for some religions in N, believing in other gods is a worse offense than not believing in any god at all. So, to present a theist as having a quantifiably better opportunity at fate is just baloney. For another, there an an infinite number of possible religions. The number of possible gods that would be angry at you for picking the wrong one is infinite, and the number of possible gods who will smite you for liking vanilla ice cream.
Actually, in your worldview there is no such thing as objectivity.
It's a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to believe that an objective, consistent reality exists outside of one's own consciousness. One who believes this would say that things like '3' and 'gravity' are simply terms which are used to investigate the outside objective reality, and are not necessarily 100% correct fascimiles of the actual reality.
Has it dawned on you that saying the universe can have absolutely no absolute values is contradictory? The more accurate thing for you to say would be, "In my world view, there probably are not absolute right and wrong or true values"
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, because everyone who immigrates to the US illegally is a triggerhappy thug. I guess we shouldn't give anyone who immigrates illegally any benefit of the doubt before they actually commit a crime--clearly, the only people worth that are born here!
So, in other words, any use of an example from history or a logical metaphor is automatically incorrect because you say so.
I like your debate style.
What else should happen to said illegal? They should be put in front of the firing squad for trying to survive or even if they work hard to support their family?
You realize that if they are hiring, for say, a management position in California, that the person chosen to be hired for that job can't just work at another office or telecommunicate, right?
At its core the question is if fags are like blacks (inherent trait) or if they are like screaming preachers/morons/drunks (obnoxious choices, legal but disdained).
I definitely chose to be gay. There are so many exciting parts about being gay--the discrimination I face on an almost daily basis, the scarring childhood and the emotional issues that continue to this day because of it, and the lack of civil rights I have. It makes TOTAL SENSE that I'd make a conscious choice to experience those horrible things instead of just being another straight guy, despite the scientific evidence to the contrary.
I don't think most gays even want to get married. They just want what they can't have ('Reg can't have a baby, not having a womb which is nobodies fault, no even the Romans. But he can have the right to have babies...').
Um, gross generalization. I for one do want to get married to a man who I will love for the rest of my life, whether the law recognizes that or not. Do you know any, you know, gay people?
I say as they have legal 'domestic partnerships' then we must ether take away their 'shacked up gay couple benefits' or extend the same to co-habitating straight couples. Business will certainly go with the no-benes answer in most cases.
You mean the government should give straight couples common law marriages and the right to be married in the first place? Yeah clearly gay people have so many more 'shacked up couple benefits' than straight people. Like not being able to get married.
um, I bought tons of R rated movies before I was 18 at many stores.
You don't have the freedom to punch me, steal my possessions, or rape my spouse. Why do you get the freedom to put your shit in my air?
"It's ok because the government is doing it" is not my argument. My argument is that the majority of people support policies that protect the earth from people like you who would allow others to forget about personal responsibility and destroy the environment. You were talking about opinions and pushing them on others--and if you're comparing policies on environmental safety to slavery, you're missing the point--but I simply pointed out that YOU were the one pushing your irresponsible opinion on the majority of people.
Because, apparently if such programs exist, a majority of voters support officials who support those programs.
Why do you get to force YOUR opinion on everybody?
......And he's the fanboy?
The german plural of "die Box" is "die Box".
'Barely work on the wii at all'? I've got 4 N64 games from the Wii Shop Channel and I've had no errors.
And I thought APPLE fanboys were bad. The 'XBOX' ones are worse.
Oh jeeze.
Really?
Did you really need to use three layers of parentheticals in your post?
um
Marijuana, what we were talking about, isn't addictive. Marijuana is not acid, it doesn't make you see crazy things and do crazy things.
That's because the RIAA is leveraging them. Before the two of them, the RIAA was very afraid that Apple's powerful grip on the music download market could cause problems for them; so they gave Amazon and Play.com better contracts to be more competitive with iTunes.
I agree! His platform did contain a well-outlined and comprehensively defined 'change' in many aspects of US Government.
I was responding to the fact that anonymous incorrectly singled out America as not caring about humanitarian crises. I think that it is just sad that Europe's response to most of these issues has has been, "Hey, we don't even get involved in these issues when oil is involved! We consistently ignore these problems!"
I think, "I wish the world would begin to help police the world" is compatible with "I wish America and the EU would have done more about the African genocide."
I think the implication is that net censorship would allow another Nazi Germany style world power to come into existence, which is particularly relevant with the recent situations in Australia and Great Britain.
And it seems like most European countries have acted the same way, so it's hardly an issue with solely America. You're right about the oil, but at least something got the US to move at all.
Remember how much the EU did about the genocide in Rwanda?
Neither do you.
Is she engaged in a sexual action? Is there anything sexual depicted in the picture?
I don't see how any rational human being could consider that child porn. She is nude, yes, but nudity does not implicate sexual abuse. She was even interviewed long after the picture was taken, and she still held that she did not see it as inappropriate or sexual.
I think you need to take a step back, look at your post, and think about what you are saying. You are saying that because the RIAA sued her, she is probably guilty. In this legal system, the way it works is the opposite: She is innocent of the crime until a court of law has proved her guilty, and we should treat her as such.
Has the RIAA's marketing made you think otherwise?
The problem is, for some religions in N, believing in other gods is a worse offense than not believing in any god at all. So, to present a theist as having a quantifiably better opportunity at fate is just baloney. For another, there an an infinite number of possible religions. The number of possible gods that would be angry at you for picking the wrong one is infinite, and the number of possible gods who will smite you for liking vanilla ice cream.
Actually, in your worldview there is no such thing as objectivity.
It's a perfectly reasonable viewpoint to believe that an objective, consistent reality exists outside of one's own consciousness. One who believes this would say that things like '3' and 'gravity' are simply terms which are used to investigate the outside objective reality, and are not necessarily 100% correct fascimiles of the actual reality.
Has it dawned on you that saying the universe can have absolutely no absolute values is contradictory? The more accurate thing for you to say would be, "In my world view, there probably are not absolute right and wrong or true values"