mmmcannibalism

What was the best thing/most horrible thing you saw there; though that might be a little too demanding if this is an actual interview.

No, but they pay about 40% of the federal taxes http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/250.html Just saying, I hate when one of those numbers is cited without the other(regardless of which is first). Although, you are entirely right, our system does need some serious fixes. If we close all tax loopholes, reform benefits requirements, and make all necessary reforms to the system; then its safe to say we could probably either lower overal tax rates(due to money saved) or use the extra money to expand federal aide programs.

Talk to the guy who sells cannon parts, I think he will give you a new one.

It's actually Renaissance-time period. I can't remember what they were called, but I think it started with A. As said, papal indulgences, one of the reasons Martin Luther broke away from the catholic church.

Kids who talk crap in OT. Go back to General if you want to whine about Runescape. People who tell others what to do. Kids who post things in the wrong sections, then get mad at people for pointing it out. People who feed the trolls People who continue quote chains. Ironically enough, combo breakers and by deduction myself.

[hide=] UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them? Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them What? The United States KNOWS not to use them, but NK and Iran have horrible leaders who want more power and might actually want to use them. You want them to have them? Then enjoy living in fear pretty soon! Remind me, what is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons outside of testing? [/hide] The same nation that realized it could save lives in the long run; unfortunately, they killed more people then intended. Let's not have the whole 'was Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified' argument for the millionth time on tip.it - that wasn't my intention. My point is the the United States cannot lecture others on the issue of nuclear weapons while it is the only nation to have used them and still has a massive stockpile, it's hypocritical. Now don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of North Korea having nuclear weapons but the US isn't in a position to judge on this issue. [/hide] Agreed, lets avoid that debate. The only remaining thing that I will say is that the US has a right to talk about nuclear responsibility because we have clearly shown restraint(such as in Vietnam and Korea).

Why not, this has nothing on encouraging actual crimes. I mean if the world is going to end and demons are real whats the point of not doing it now?

http://www.doug-long.com/ga1.htm On the flip side, lets say that even if it was "used to break the back of Japanese resistance and prevent the need for a mainland invasion," what's the point of Nagasaki? Aren't we just trying to find excuses to justify the lives that were sacrificed as a part of the politics between the U.S. and the Soviet Union? To a small extent yes, and indeed the Nagasaki bombing is a lot less cut and dry the Hiroshima. I would have to really look into it for specifics, but the nuking of Nagasaki reaffirmed that the Americans could do as much damage as needed, and removed any hope of a succesful resistance.

UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them? Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them What? The United States KNOWS not to use them, but NK and Iran have horrible leaders who want more power and might actually want to use them. You want them to have them? Then enjoy living in fear pretty soon! Remind me, what is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons outside of testing? [/hide] The same nation that realized it could save lives in the long run; unfortunately, they killed more people then intended. Militarily, the atomic bomb played no part in the defeat of Japan... Furthermore, what was the point of Nagasaki? Both nuclear attacks were used to break the back of Japanese resistance and prevent the need for a mainland invasion. Although America had functionally defeated the Japanese, a mainland invasino would have cost countless lives on both sides along with decimating the Japanese people. While a little sickening and non sequitor, it also helped in that the Soviets and Americans realized such weapons could wipe out the human race.

[hide=] UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them? Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them What? The United States KNOWS not to use them, but NK and Iran have horrible leaders who want more power and might actually want to use them. You want them to have them? Then enjoy living in fear pretty soon! Remind me, what is the only nation to have ever used nuclear weapons outside of testing? [/hide] The same nation that realized it could save lives in the long run; unfortunately, they killed more people then intended.

Not sure, most likely but in the context of stabbings and such Id say its less of a pain thing and more of a fear thing; however, saying no pain is too far of a stretch.

evolution The natural pattern of becoming a more surviving species makes us miserable because the drive for more is imprinted. If the need to survive didnt exist, we wouldnt desire/envy and we would be in tranquil bliss.

Did you see my first post on this topic? Go read it again. Second, that's what people do when they write articles. They provide sources to back up their claims, and analyze the sources. I've already done the analyzing in the first post, and now I'm providing source after source to back it up. Here, I'll help you out. Here's a source that claims Jesus would have tortured: http://www.redstate.com/roetenks/2009/0 ... -response/ Before the It's likely even Jesus part that was a very well written commentary. Guess it depends on if we consider psychological harm torture, and if so how much psychological harm should we allow? Yeah, the Jesus thing is pretty bs, but it is important that we differentiate between waterboarding and cutting off fingers. We need to move on from waterboarding, but its hardly the worst way of doing things.

Well, I see child abuse as something that would happen a lot more if we allowed incest. At least, there would be a lot more parental abusers getting away with things by saying it was consentual. After we eliminate all medical problems incest definetely becomes murky, Id object to it on the same line we allow alcohol but not cocaine; at some level you have to cut it off.

UK has nukes and we have no problem with that. But do YOU want countries like Iran and NK to have them? Personally I don't care if they do. And if I did, I would be equally concerned about USA having them Not necessary, their is no way for the USA to use a nuclear weapon against anyone for their own gain. North Korea on the other hand could possibly go to war with SK or Japan and I dont see them as the reserve use of nuclear force type.

Then that means you should be opposed to couples with hereditary diseases conceiving children too. If it's a serious and debilitating disease, then depending on the circumstances I might very well be. Adoption can be as good as having your own kid Good to see you at least partly agree with a Nazi policy. Strawman, just because the Nazis were evil doesnt imbue everything they believed in with evil. Limited sterilization is a legitimate theoritical "cure" for a lot of diseases. Well, there are some other concerns involved in incest such as destruction of families and some child abuse problems. Its not that its necessarily wrong but the overwhelming amount of problems make it necessary to ban it.

Yes, thats what we need. We should become more evil then the terrorists because as long as we get results the means dont matter. Why bother with human rights or even considering the ethics of a situation when we can be assured of results. Why dont you wake up and realize were in a civilized society already, your totalitarian bs is way past the expiration date.

actually, quite a few countries do have nuclear weapons; the reason we dont want NK having nukes is they are a highly unstable militaristic country. Im thinking in terms of a non exploded warhead; although the blast may be efficient, if it doesnt detonate and falls into the ocean near a fishing ground there could be some severe radiation leak problems.

Not true. That technology was never proven to work and Obama put a stop to it because Russia didn't like us having it. I would also add that just because we have a weapon defense system doesnt mean there couldnt be other serious problems. Im not an expert in anything related to it, but wouldnt a nuclear missle being shot down cause serious health risks regardless of whether or not the warhead explodes?

I don't see that as a reason, I see that as a scapegoat. That would have to mean that infertile couples getting together would also be at least somewhat repulsive, because their intercourse isn't going to produce a baby. I'll be honest, homosexuality does bother me, although I would support them having marriage because it does not have a negative impact on me. Why does it bother me? The same reason I like the taste of pizza, like the sound of a song, etc. Being bothered by other strange orientations doesn't need a justification because it's just a personal opinion and nothing more. You don't need a justification for liking pizza. Of course, there is a large difference between discrimination and just having it bother you. If you are going to go to that level, then of course a justification is required (although it's impossible to think of one). I guess you could argue that she was being discriminatory, but I like to save that word for when things are actually serious. The girl said she thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman because that's how she was raised. Although I disagree with her, I think she was justified to say it. I think were talking about slightly different things; Im speaking to the biological roots of homophobia and such. One reason that infertility doesnt bother people in a biologic sense is that its not exactly a visible trait. If you see two guys kissing its easily recognizable, you dont see a man and woman kissing and go "ew, there infertile" because there is no empiric way of viewing it. Excuse the offensiveness of this, buts its like viewing a disease; you might be disgusted by seeing someone with lesions, but you wont be disgusted by someone having heart burn because you cant see it. Laws of course are an entirely different matter, any evolutionary bias against various sexualities should be ignored when determining equal rights. Its a scapegoat to justify a ban on gay marriage as it being disgusting, but being naturally disgusted by homosexuality is a rational reason to be bothered by it if you arent out hate mongering.

Then that means you should be opposed to couples with hereditary diseases conceiving children too. The main reason why people don't agree with others having strange sexual orientations is just because that's how they were brought up. There really is no good reason why it repulses us, other than "just because". Sex is a subject that lots of people get worked up about. To an extent, many odd sexual orientations appear repulive because they are anti procreation which means genetic wiring against it is "useful". While its not an excuse for discrimination; its an important reason why its quite rationale to be bothered at some level by non heterosexuality.

A large amount of them are islamic extremists(damn cliched term) who want to further their anti Israel goals by denying one of the reasons Israel was created. Then of course there will be some neo nazis and after that just plain idiots. The only group I can see being "legit" are people who think the death numbers are overrated; however, I fail to see the need to fight numerical semantics on something like genocide. I don't think that answered his question. He wanted to know how people are able to deny the Holocaust, not why or who does it. How do they justify their beliefs? I mean, to convince others, they must have ways to justify themselves, even if it is by flawed logic. A mix of delusion and power craving; ironically the same thing that justified the holocaust in the first place

That was a terrible joke That is odd, I find it equally amazing that the same people demanding abortion be legalized demand oppose torture because its an abuse of human rights to harm a person. I always love your tactic of dismissing everyone elses opinion as wrong just because you say so, its refreshing after the slew of interesting debate that stirs intellectual discussion.

Yes. Oooh good answer. Also, australia is good I guess. We should have a vote =D> the choices would be: 1: West Virginia 2: Scotland 3: Africa 4: Australia 5: in a submarine 6: in a yellow submarine

My school has been going that direction for a while; we finally got a big faculty push to start demanding work. The main thing people were mad over was a plan(never voted on or instated) to remove graded homework, but more importantly the fact students passed a class semester with an F, F, and C(and the fact some were trying to make F, F, D passing). Yes, my school considers two failing grades out of three for a semester good enough to get credit.