Zygimantas

But your success was failure, so you failed and succeeded

Both. Next question.

Students at my school are starting to talk about grindfest ( AKA Homecoming).

Infinite regress, a cause has to be caused by something, right?

Thats a lot of hope. People can break ties with all their family and friends if it means they can still enjoy their drug.

It is impossible to tell. Next question please.

She didn't have to tell him at all, but yet she did. But she is still talking with that guy, that changes things....

Why was it unnecessary, though? If he ran away the pedohpile would just find him and punish him in some way. Going to the cops would just take too long and too inefficient. The boy had his own evidence, there was no need to bring it to bureaucratic court to be solved. +1 to Joe's post. :thumbup: Because we can't just let people going around doing their own vigilante justice. There is no way to tell if the guy actually wanted to rape him or not and without any evidence you are just relying on the word of some guy. Yea well, if you feel that you are in danger you have the right to use self-defense. Whether the justice system feels what you did is right or wrong is another story. Self-survival is more important than the survival of someone trying to hurt you. But I see what you mean, we don't know if what the defendant said is true. yeah that's my entire point. Self defense, in reason, is perfectly acceptable. If you are afraid for your own life and the only way out is to kill them, do it. However There is nothing (at least that the article states) that made me think this man could have killed the kid. If it was a 12 year old, sure, but a 17 year old? I think he could handle himself without having to kill someone. Maybe, but its hard to think rationally when you feel like you are in danger.

Why was it unnecessary, though? If he ran away the pedohpile would just find him and punish him in some way. Going to the cops would just take too long and too inefficient. The boy had his own evidence, there was no need to bring it to bureaucratic court to be solved. +1 to Joe's post. :thumbup: Because we can't just let people going around doing their own vigilante justice. There is no way to tell if the guy actually wanted to rape him or not and without any evidence you are just relying on the word of some guy. Yea well, if you feel that you are in danger you have the right to use self-defense. Whether the justice system feels what you do is right or wrong is another story. Self-survival is more important than the survival of someone trying to hurt you. But I see what you mean, we don't know if what the defendant said is true.

I agree with you, it was a long time ago and nothing became of it. If he was fine until she told him the truth, he should be fine with it afterward. Its a little awkward to hear that, yes. But nothings really changed, so nothing should change between them. Agreed, at least she came out with it, maybe if he would have found out indirectly it would have been different. If she kept a secret like that from him so easily for an entire year, with no guilty conscience? I'd break up, personally. She obviously had a guilty conscience if she told him.

I agree with you, it was a long time ago and nothing became of it. If he was fine until she told him the truth, he should be fine with it afterward. Its a little awkward to hear that, yes. But nothings really changed, so nothing should change between them. Agreed, at least she came out with it, maybe if he would have found out indirectly it would have been different.

And then people still think he is serious :wall:

This.

I spit out my water. And Liked it. And shared it. And put it on my wall. Good job posting on the wall Bows, or should I call you Mr.Zach Diaz?

So, if someone has major depressive disorder and lives a miserable life then they should not commit suicide, because doing so would be considered selfish (by your terms). We should live for other people, because what we want is less important then what others want. Correct?

So basically, you don't care if someone commits suicide as long as they are "stupid and selfish enough."

I don't think a person would actually commit suicide for that. They might if something puts them over the edge and they do it because of a split decision, with no actual planning or if they had some major depression disorder already.

And how about the invisible asteroid? Also the asteroid can only collide with Earth objects. And the asteroid is undetectable by any other means. Therefore, according to your 50-50 logic, there is a 50-50 chance of an asteroid coming to hit your town tomorrow...oh wait, I made the theory up yesterday. That means theres a 50% chance of it coming today! Run away! Just because something is unprovable does not give it a 50% chance of being correct. Also, what the hell? What about all of the other theories for why the universe exists? What if "universes" are the brains of an enormous lifeform. The stars are the brain cells. What if the universe as we see it is actually a computer simulation? Now we are up to 4 theories and since each theory is equally probable (according to your logic) that means that now there is only a 25% chance that God believers are correct. If I came up with 6 more theories, they would all have to be equiprobable (by your logic, not mine), and then each of us only has a 10% chance of being right. There are an infinite number of theories possible for what the universe is, which would mean that there is now a 1 in ininifty chance that either of us is correct, which means then that we both have a 0% chance of being right. (again this is only using your logic that each theory for the origin of the universe is equiprobable) Its 50-50 when your arguing between two different theories that we don't have proof for or against. The strength and weakness of science is that in science, in order for something to be true, proof needs to be provided. The concept of an all knowing and all controlling (directly or indirectly) being can not be proven( unless one decided to show himself as proof). Does that mean it does not exists? From a scientific point of view, yes. But science is not compatible with religion. Religion is faith, science is about facts that can be observed or theorized about. You can not logically use science to argue about religion.

^ Congratulations on being the 3rd one to post that video here =D>

So then I suppose you also think that theres no point in discussing how deep the ocean is? Or how fast light moves? Or how fast sound moves? Or whether the sky is blue? Or why we see the phases of the moon? Every single thing in the world is uncertain. However, this does not mean that each person is equally right in choosing any theory. Just because god COULD exist does not mean there is a 50% chance that he does exist, just like there is not a 50% chance of a unicorn running past your window right now. You COULD be right if you believe that he will run past right now, but that doesn't make it 50% likely. You would be an idiot to live your life on the assumption that you should prepare for a unicorn attack. You can certainly theorize about things. The thing is, a god has never been observed in science. Usually if we can't prove something we assume its not correct. But how would you prove something that controls every bit of matter and antimatter? Everything we know could be proven 99.999...% correct but we would never be able to prove a god exists on the assumption that it has control over all of existence. No one has ever seen a unicorn, we can say that it does not exist because our definition of a unicorn is of an animal, not of an all knowing being that controls everything. Someone could argue you that god caused the big bang and they have a 50% chance of being right. Then you have a 50% vs 50% debate with no substance and all personal opinion.

I seriously doubt colleges would give that much concern with the foreign language of your choice. And if they do, then you're not ready for them. There's tons of junior colleges that would offer you placement without the crazy requirements of "good college". Then you can work from there to enter the "good colleges". Small steps. Yea, well after doing some research it seems like some schools don't care too much about foreign language. Montana State for example.

And what evidence leads you to know this? Also: what if I say "I know in my heart that god does not exist"? Surely one of us must be correct. Neither argument has even the slightest integrity. PS I'm going to sleep cause I gotta be up in 6 hours. Seeya tomorrow But see, that is the flaw. As long as we are not 100% sure about something we can not know who is right or wrong. The debate is pointless other then for entertainment purposes.

I will play the role of a christian. I know in my heart that god is real.

Theres nothing wrong in acknowledging the fact that other people would rather believe in something that seems illogical to you. If someone says that they believe in god because he "talked" to them and guides them, then fine. If it makes them happy to believe in a god then I'm not going to bother.

I am beginning to understand what your view is. So do you think that Muslims (especially in the middle-east, where the foundations of extremists groups are) as a group of people with similar religious views, should make war against extremists Muslim groups? I don't think they should make war, I think they should make it clear extremist beliefs are unacceptable. (as should any organization where small sects hold extremist beleifs) I understand, but I think Muslims are fearful of doing this, especially if there are extremists living among their cities. I think if they made it clear that the extremists views are unacceptable then the extremists might resort to violence against them. It could very well turn into war.