Zierro

And I would agree except for one small thing. I think the potential victims should be on par with their attackers. If a criminal possesses a gun and the victim has pepper spray, I doubt the attempt of self-defense would be effective at all.

If someone thinks that there is no value attached to the human life, then there should be no value attached to theirs.

Last night I dreamed about Starcraft. This is definitely a sign that I don't play enough video games.

It's not that I don't want a cure, it's that I think not having one available to mankind has some benefits attached. I also think we spend too much time and energy trying to make sure everyone lives as long as possible - like say for instance, retirement centers. Yes, it's polite to treat elders with respect and care for them but after a certain age, many of them don't do much to contribute to society. (Note: I acknowledge there are some who have, but the majority really don't.) The reason we care for babies and give them all our attention is because they are our future. We need to do our best for them to ensure a brighter future for humanity. Now as for the elderly, they have lived a full life and keeping them around as long as possible when you could use your energy for say - technological and scientific advancements (excluding studies dealing with longevity) just seems kind of ironic. If you want to do good for humanity, you should at least do it where it's gonna count.

Yeah, this blog is pretty much dead now. Although I might come back someday, and I do plan on logging in occasionally to mine and stuff. But yeah, this calls for a big edit.

Don't you think if self-defense was widespread and prevalent, that criminals would have less of a reason to attack people in the first place since they know there is a good chance that attacking someone could actually lead to their own death?

Masturdebater If I could get away with it that is. :| Which is probably a no... but I won't win anyways so it doesn't apply to me.

The second someone on the internet tells me what's cool and what's not is the second I stop listening. Agility: 50 (I am fast but I get tired too easily) Attack: 45 Strength: 10 (I can't bend a straw lol) Defence: 70 Construction: 20 Cooking: 35 Crafting: 5 (I suck at art) Farming: 15 Firemaking: 25 Fishing: 20 Fletching: 5 Herblore: 5 Hunter: 10 Magic: 1 (I can't even do a magic trick) Mining: 1 Prayer: 70 (I don't follow religion but I'm interested in theology) Ranged: 10 Runecrafting: 1 Slayer: 1 Smithing: 1 Summoning: 1 Thieving: 25 Woodcutting: 1

You want them to be like, "dood dont make gay noob threads. can some1 say locked???? :thumbsup: "

Personal opinion - Reasonable logic = Dumb post

This site is hours and hours of fun. Thanks for showing me. This is my favorite so far: http://home.bitworks.co.nz/trivia/human.htm I love what the bottom says. George Washington grew marijuana, yet the government makes it illegal.

Been hearing lots of threats and rumors spread about me at school. Funny because I never have confrontations or anything. Everyone is always nice to me in person. Well, like Paris Hilton says, When people you don't even know hate you, that's when you know you're the best. ;)

First it was cockroaches and now babies? How can any living organism survive nuclear radiation?

cars arent 100% safe, we still allow people to drive them. The main point is noone(excluding maybe a true psychopath) has ever gone "dude I totally have a gun its telling me to kill you", any gun crime would have been commited with a knife or heavy rock or whatever if the guns were illegal. A car isn't a weapon. Weapons are designed to harm or kill. Cars are a method of transportation. A gun can be used as a method of self-defense or hunting. I'm sure the manufacturers of guns don't make them because they want to increase crime activity, just like I don't think car manufacturers make cars because they want more traffic accidents.

That's how the court system works though. In this context the opposite of "not being debunked" would mean that the prosecutors won the cases. If the prosecutors hypothetically did win, then Obama shouldn't hold office. I think the context you are thinking of is "not being debunked as of yet". PS: I'm happy that post didn't have any flames in it. See how much easier it is to talk now? :D

In other words, you don't have a relevant point. I know he's innocent until proven guilty! That's the point dude! Read my first post. It starts with the word "if". Then read my second post. It contains the word "hypothetical". It's not difficult. It's just you posting here for no reason as a means to make an idiot out of me, but if people were actually to waste their time reading this, they'd discover who the real idiot is. So do yourself a favor and stop digging a hole? I mean after all this pointless arguing you still don't understand what hypothetical means! Look. It means assuming the hypothesis - the hypothesis here being Obama not having the requirements. If we were to assume he didn't have the requirements, then he should not be the president. What is wrong with this statement? Please explain it to me and don't speak irrelevancies. I'm starting to think you're purposely trying to miss the point. If anyone is being sensitive here, it would be you for two reasons. 1. You felt the need to respond to me saying "if". 2. You felt the need to point out how I'm apparently being insensitive. I would agree with you if you said neither of us were sensitive, but since you were the one who brought it up out of the blue that just shows something about your personality. Just because I pointed out how I am talking about assuming hypotheses that doesn't mean I'm sensitive. Jeez man. You're just shooting blindly. The only thing I got offended by was how you assumed that I got offended and went to the extent of saying I need a dummy cause I cry too much. All I said was I didn't understand why you would respond to my post because your point didn't follow mine - and you say I'm the one crying? :lol:

Kind of reminds me of how people get all uptight when you follow them. :lol:

Yeah, it's quite ironic when people tell others what they should or should not do, when in the eyes of others, they've done something that they shouldn't have done just as well. What do we define wrong as here? Hurting feelings, or getting your feelings hurt? Personally, I think the blame should be equally divided.

So you felt the need to have to reiterate what Mage and I just went over? Yeah makes a lot of sense... And he has... They didn't kick him out of office did they? I have a feeling you don't understand how the court system works. Person A accuses Person B of said action. Then, Person A needs to prove it. Then, if proven, Person B is punished. What you are saying is that there should be no accusations until something is proven in the court - how is that possible? We wouldn't know what needed to be proven until the accusation was made. You're thinking out of order. Innocent until proven guilty only applies to being punished under the law. I'm the one taking offense? No, it looks like you're the one who felt the need to come here, quote me, and cry about how I shouldn't even mention the word hypothetical. After all, you're the one who initiated this whole thing. Stop being such a hypocrite and stop posting here, since you seem to be the one crying that "people need to get over things". Maybe make relevant replies in the future too to prevent these sort of things?

When you said something funny I assumed I would get a laugh out of it - not to see a hanged ghost. :(

36

Well, I just don't see why you had to respond to my post when it was only telling Mage that I was talking on a hypothetical level. I was expressing my opinion that requirements are requirements. You could have made the same point and that would be fine, but I don't see why you had to quote me. Obama does have the requirements, but I still feel that if he didn't, then he shouldn't be president.

Well that's all that matters. :P I didn't mean to sound like I was against Obama, just that hypothetically if it were not debunked, then he shouldn't be allowed in office. They should prove that he isn't a natural born citizen first then bar him from office - not the other way around. Innocent until proven guilty surely? Hypothetical - assumed by hypothesis

Well that's all that matters. :P I didn't mean to sound like I was against Obama, just that hypothetically if it were not debunked, then he shouldn't be allowed in office.

9926