mmmcannibalism

[hide=] Yes it does, just in the same way that genocide denial of historically accepted genocides almost undoubtedly means that you're a racist. You have no reason to deny a certain genocide when the facts are plainly obvious...except that you have an underlying dislike for the race that was victimized. See: David Irving. No, marriage ceremonies are "done" in a church in front of a priest, if the couple so chooses. The actual marriage happens in a courthouse, like when my friend Hali was married. There was no ceremony, they were married by a judge. Not legally. The church doesn't have to accept their marriage, the state does. Is religious doctrine law? And? No it's not. The churches aren't forced to perform marriage ceremonies. Separate but equal has already been thrown down, champ. So you just don't like gay people because....? At least the religious folk have a ridiculous dogma to try and justify their bigotry. What? Uh...you clearly don't have any understanding of the issue at hand. Separate but equal. Do you have an issue with black people having the same water fountains, but lawfully they can't be used by white people? No, they're civil rights advocates, arguing against injustices about bigots like yourself. [/hide] You just crossed the line, bucko. they neglected to point this out, but what if they adopt a kid and teach it to be gay? would u want a gay kid running around yours? no, for obvious reasons. There are no words to describe how [developmentally delayed] you sound. 1. You can't just TEACH someone to be gay. 2. If you could, what is wrong with a gay child? 3. Running around yours what? Your child? What's wrong with children learning that diversity isn't bad? 4. What obvious reasons? They might get infected with gayness? :ohnoes: 1: you can, actually. 2:...if it's your only child, bye bye last name. plus, it's just wrong. 3: lol... some diversity IS bad... 4: no, the gay kid could tell your kid about this. they would explain what could be possible (see #5) and they might...like it...ugh. 5: being gay is really just an excuse to "have fun" (you know what i mean) all night without the disadvantages of doing it with a girl. (i.e. teen pregnancy) [/hide] 1. your an idiot, at worst brainswashing=/= teaching 2. OMFG you could lose your last name nvrmind lets kill all the gay people because they threaten peoples last names 3. hardly, diversity is good as long as all the diverse parties arent well... people like you 4. again, your an idiot; and I fail to see how that is more of a problem with a gay child as opposed to a member of the opposite sex 5. once again, your an idiot On topic has savage said anything that was genuinly hate speech such as seriously calling for the killing of innocent persons?

desire for justification/the icon status of the cross

I wish you were president, we would be so much better off /bull

[hide=] Yes it does, just in the same way that genocide denial of historically accepted genocides almost undoubtedly means that you're a racist. You have no reason to deny a certain genocide when the facts are plainly obvious...except that you have an underlying dislike for the race that was victimized. See: David Irving. No, marriage ceremonies are "done" in a church in front of a priest, if the couple so chooses. The actual marriage happens in a courthouse, like when my friend Hali was married. There was no ceremony, they were married by a judge. Not legally. The church doesn't have to accept their marriage, the state does. Is religious doctrine law? And? No it's not. The churches aren't forced to perform marriage ceremonies. Separate but equal has already been thrown down, champ. So you just don't like gay people because....? At least the religious folk have a ridiculous dogma to try and justify their bigotry. What? Uh...you clearly don't have any understanding of the issue at hand. Separate but equal. Do you have an issue with black people having the same water fountains, but lawfully they can't be used by white people? No, they're civil rights advocates, arguing against injustices about bigots like yourself. [/hide] Because the best way to get progress is to accuse everyone of homophobia and bigotry we have magekillr

I interpreted that two different ways: 1. You are either saying that we shouldn't believe things that are impossible for us to see until we see them, which is a contradiction. 2. Or you are saying it is the "less logical" choice because logic (in our terms) can only be defined as what we can possibly know. So yes, by the definition of logic, you would be correct. It is "less logical" to believe something outside the bounds of logic, but this isn't to say it cannot exist. Heh, this is interesting. :P yeah I was addressing the second one; in some sense of irony it would be completely illogical to dismiss the possibility for something to exist outside of what is observably logical.

Ill be worried when its actually a severe threat, outbreak in a crowded and honestly unclean city doesnt convince me its dangerous. Besides, getting everyone hyped up just makes the pandemic worse when we freak out and cant respond properly.

Unless they can think of a sound reason that isn't something along the lines of "cause it's nasty", I'd have to agree with Mage. If we're restricted only to talking about Mr. Savage then it's going to be a very boring thread. I'd say intolerance is very relevant to this thread. depends, as much as I disagree with them there are plenty of people who would support civil unions but oppose gay marriage under various rationales.

however, our logic system is being constantly adapted to suit what has been observed; until we have empirical reason to believe that things can exist outside observed universal laws it is less logical to believe in such things then to not believe in them.

:shock: I have the same test, and more annoyingly an english one tomorrow going to start studying for the english right around never; history will get some review tomorrow after I inspire myself to try.

I found this funnier then it probably is

I promise that within 1000 years the swine flueor old agewill kill us all

In fairness the term feminism has lost a lot of its meaning; even with my support of legalized gay marriage I wouldnt jump to calling homophobe on anyone that opposes it On topic Rather foolish move, from what I can see here he seems to be rather extreme but its not beyond reasonable free speech.

God's nature transcends that of space, time, cause and effect, etc. unlike the (observable) universe. He doesn't exist in the same plane we exist in - he is outside of the universe and outside what we know. So it's not necessary for god to be "caused" like the universe since he was the one who created the principle of space, time, cause and effect, etc. making these terms completely irrelevant to him. If he created them then surely he can exist without them. We can't say the same about the universe unless we give it the same characteristics of god which still only serves to equalize the two dissenting beliefs. Plus it's not very scientific. Which clearly creates a flaw with occam's razor Accepting an infinitely regressing universe only requires excepting conservation of mass/energy and believing there is now(the big bang) or can be a model on how everything got here. Citing god as a more logical reason for the universe to be here requires violating the laws of conservation of mass/energy(which can be tested in a million ways); and saying there are alternate planes of existence with no supporting evidence. Belief in god is always going to be purely on faith because it is requires a leap of faith and acceptance of that which defies logic; thats not to say logic is the proper source for everything but if we are speaking solely on logic science wins over faith.

nightmares about failing calculus and chem tests take up all my time :oops: :lol: I do remember weird falling things from younger though.

edit--I would say the fact the US has stopped quite a few terror plots and hasnt been attacked since 9/11 is fairly good supporting evidence, admittedly this is a bit cliched but that hardly denies the reality of it. That's not evidence. In certain cases, of course torture is going to work when you've tried nothing else. Care to tell me what attacks and plots they've prevented though and what methods they tried before torture? A lot of that is going to be classified, and to be honest I dont have the time to research every plot that has been released as somethign we stopped.

What if you run out of bullets and have 20 zombies waiting below? you chill until a friend comes and helps you out, safety in numbers

no just no, the only situation where "torture" is possibly reasonable is if there is a severe threat to a large number of people. Torture of people who have no useful information to be gained in any way would be a severe civil rights violation and just plain wrong. edit--I would say the fact the US has stopped quite a few terror plots and hasnt been attacked since 9/11 is fairly good supporting evidence, admittedly this is a bit cliched but that hardly denies the reality of it.

[hide=] well the Us wont release the documents that show evidence gained from torture, were too busy [hide=]apologizing for waterboarding.(hate to bring something this political but its accurate) More related, if non torture related methods are proven as more effective then of course we should abandon methods that are more objectionable if they arent better. If torture was effective it would be universally effective and there would already be lots of evidence and studies proving it to be effective, which there are none. But hey, USA USA USA! Git dem terrists good if torture was effective it would be effective were it was being administrated properly; I never said the US was doing so since im not in the CIA nor privy to such matters. The attempt at humor was quite entertaining, you should try stand up. Humor? Wait, were you making a joke? I'm confused now [/hide] I was commenting on that brilliant critique of american citizens, no need to be confused.

well the Us wont release the documents that show evidence gained from torture, were too busy apologizing for waterboarding.(hate to bring something this political but its accurate) More related, if non torture related methods are proven as more effective then of course we should abandon methods that are more objectionable if they arent better. If torture was effective it would be universally effective and there would already be lots of evidence and studies proving it to be effective, which there are none. But hey, USA USA USA! Git dem terrists good if torture was effective it would be effective were it was being administrated properly; I never said the US was doing so since im not in the CIA nor privy to such matters. The attempt at humor was quite entertaining, you should try stand up.

This article explains it nicely: http://christopherbutler.wordpress.com/2005/11/02/infinite-cause-finite-effect/ I would love to summarize it for you but I would be leaving out many vital points. He is greatly flawed, I fail to see how the universe must have had a starting point if he says god could have existed forever. If we assume everything has a cause then I propose this universe was formed by the past universe collapsing and so on back to infinity.

well the Us wont release the documents that show evidence gained from torture, were too busy apologizing for waterboarding.(hate to bring something this political but its accurate) More related, if non torture related methods are proven as more effective then of course we should abandon methods that are more objectionable if they arent better.

I forget to address this in the initial post The reason the law was changed would be of signifigant importance. If the law was changed due to a shift in public opinion(like prohibition) then a review is all thats in order; if the law was thrown out as unconstitutional then most if not all of the prisoners should be released.

The main problem I see is that we throw a giant umbrella over everything and call it torture any medieval stuff should of course be entirely illegal, things like waterboarding are a giant debate but lets be clear waterboarding what annoys me is the idea that we shouldnt do anything besides asking polite questions, I see nothing wrong for instance with playing heavy metal to induce some sleep deprivation if there is valuble information that could be gained without causing permenant harm.

Yea you are. Typical ignorant westerner, yea we have vaccines and [cabbage] but look what happened in Mexico, because there health system isn't as well developed as ours something like 180 people died in a matter of days, imagine what could happen in places like Africa... I think you're the one that's ignorant, T_Millard. In mexico, they don't have that natural immunisation against normal flu, so it's normal for it to be more lethal for them then us, but I maintain my position on the fact that we don't need to worry about the swine flu virus as long as it doesn't kill more people than the normal flu. huh? people get the normal flu in every country, why would they not have "that natural immunisation" as you call it? probably a genetic thing, I would also note that since this is already calming down in mexico its clearly not a big concern. Its a shame that people died but its not like this is more then the regular flu.

some but not all prisoners should be released and a reiew of most sentences would be in order specifically for marijuana, people in jail simply for possession should be released, people in jail for dealing and or growing should have to serve some of the remaining sentence. edit--thats just referencing directly related, someone driving under the influence of marijuana would still be under full term