fakeitormakeit2

To the various statements being made, law does not make "right", or rather is not necessarily the ideal moral choice. Law is constantly being edited because of this. Law is suppose to be derived from morality. Slavery was legal because it was socially and morally acceptable and when it was acknowledged as no longer morally acceptable it was eliminated. Just because it is the law doesn't make it morally acceptable. Now everyone keeps saying a fetus is not a "person". What is a person? To be a person, must one have consciousness, self-awareness and intelligence? If so, then doesn't that disqualify someone in a vegetative state from being a person? Someone who has vascular dementia? To take it to an extreme, someone who is asleep. People keep saying fetuses aren't people, well then define a person and if your categorization is applicable to a being you would classify as a person then think again. Beliefs should be consistent and the defining of a person isn't really something that can have exceptions. Oh and @Giordano, why are you telling Y_Guy to let it go? Because he doesn't agree with your opinion and therefore is wrong?

Finally someone figured me out. I hate women. They shouldn't have any rights. My first order of business is that we retract their right to vote. Then we can slowly start to force them to cover their heads and stay in the kitchen, where they belong of course. Unless of course they're needed to reproduce, than to the bedroom. They should also be required to have 5 children each. Oh and did I mention, hail Satan? On a more serious note, murder is intentional, miscarriage is not.

Wow. "Got raped? Deal with it, life sucks." People like this make me speechless. And so the baby should be punished for this? I mean Wemen say it is their body so it is their choice, but last I checked the baby is a whole new body and life and the women has no right to choose to kill or let it live! I hate how EVERYONE brings up all these stupid arguments and forget about the baby’s life and the fact it is MURDER!!! Once the sperm goes in the egg it is life and HUMAN! People say, but they are not human and just a bundle of nerves, well a dog has the same IQ as a new born baby, does that mean we can kill 1 year old babies like we do dogs? And people do know that when they abort a baby it is not in the egg form, it is when the baby already has arms, legs, toes and finger and even finger nails... They stick a basically tongs in there and squish the baby up and then suck it out and throw it away. Look at an apple and about 3/4 that size is how big the baby is when it's killed. Well lets just say the baby is as big as mouse when they kill it. You all talk about only cells and such but that is not true. A rapists baby should not exist. Just because he shot his seed off in her (against her will) doesnt mean hes entitled to spread his genes to the next generation. More importantly a women shouldnt have to bear this burden either. I notice its mostly males who support women being forced to give birth to rapists babies, is your perception of a women that she is a baby making machine? Because it sure reeks of that Call me stupid, evil, a baby killer but I think that in the case of rape if nothing else abortion should be allowed - if not morally obligated. (then theres always the muslim point of view that if I women got raped she had it coming, is this what you support?) "hes not entitled to spread his genes"? That's a rather out of place comment in this century. How is it "morally obligated?" That sounds like inflicting pain on someone who doesn't deserve it to take revenge on someone else. And since when has inconvenience ever been a validation of getting ride of people? I would have to say if as a society we can justify abortion because a woman is entitled to ride herself of a person by killing them because she merely has the position is which she can do it, then Hitler had warrant to exterminate the Jews because they were in his dominion, same with the Turks and Armenians and Assyrians. Edit: Actually the Ottoman Empire is a perfect example. Several minorities were political and social bothers to the Empire so they decided to deport and forcibly march them. Now the majority of them were not directly killed by the Turks, just prevented of normal life because they were inconveniences, in the process massive percentages of these minorities ceased to develop.

I'm not creeped out by much, but I am disgusted of other people's saliva, like this one kid threw a spitball at me in Chem today and it was so saturated it left a puddle of saliva, I was so disgusted I shuddered and moved my seat.

When I was memorizing prayers in Aramaic [because that's how my religion rolls] I was being lazy and not actually learning Aramaic so I memorized the individual prayers instead like a parrot, which is like a poem. All I did to memorize them was I'd write the whole thing down, then I'd keep saying the first line and after I memorized the first line I would keep saying the first line plus the second line and so on forth adding a line every-time and repeating the whole thing that way I wouldn't forget the previous lines. I found it helps to write it as well while you say it.

Has anyone else noticed how some accents of English pronounce blatantly contrary to the actual written letters? I've noticed people in NJ rarely enunciate s, t or d at the end of a word, turn 'th' and v's into f's and distort vowels (i.e. cawffee instead of coffee, dawg instead of dog, layg instead of leg) and my all time most hated mispronunciation is "crayeens".

I actually did consider that. It was actually because after I came back after I had collected it seemed as though I got less in a week than I would normally.

I haven't been playing for a couple months. Has the resource yield in Manage Thy Kingdom been nerfed?

You sound like you have a clothespin on your nose. Do you have a clothespin on your nose? I can't say I do although I may be wrong. I do know I'm plagued by annoying allergies in fall and spring, hence why I hate these two times of year.

Oh and don't care if people mock your surname. I personally am extremely proud of mine [shami] and yet people commonly make puns on it, i.e. I'm a sham, shamsham, shamwow, shamalamadingdong, shami like a rag, etc. The vast majority of people are intrinsically stupid so don't let their mockery have any bearing on you.

I have such a weird voice. I have no clue what my accent is and I've been told I do not sound like I am from New Jersey. http://vocaroo.com/?media=vE0t07UwtULua78Sk Kudos to the soul who can tell me what I sound like.

From a Middle Eastern view, it doesn't matter what your surname is or no matter how bad it might sound, that is the name of your patriarch and it is a name to take pride in so it should not be altered. As for a first name, I don't think it has much bearing, it is just to distinguish which person you are in the lineage of *blank*. So in my opinion, a first name is rather insignificant so it shouldn't bear much weight and if it would benefit you then you should change it, but a surname is what you are. Personally I would never change my first and surname names because they are the same as several generations of Ottoman judges/pasha and my middle names are religious exultations. It's a rather big decision, so whatever you do I hope its the right choice and it makes you happy.

Only in America. I'm not a fan of private possession of guns, but I feel the driver had all right to shoot the kid.

While I am 100% ok with pirating, limewire was pretty gay. So I'm glad it shut down for the moment. A computer program with the ability to have sexuality...remarkable. On a more serious note I'm glad Limewire got shut down, and if the American legal system was practical it would have a crack down on all pirating sites. But alas, this won't happen. Also it would be remarkably difficult to hit all pirating sites, especially one's that just pop up, not to mention international sites, etc.

An argument that places a fetus as not a person based upon scientific backing is acceptable to me, but a past makes a person? What manner of determining a person is that? Every second past conception is the past. And since when is death inconsequential? Just because you can kill someone without anyone challenging it or finding out doesn't mean it isn't wrong. Being a moral person is doing the right thing regardless of convenience.

I'm pro-choice. If I have a child, it's my child to kill, it is my property. Especially if I know it's going to have a disability, it's only fair for me to kill it so it doesn't live life disabled. Why should I have to suffer the inconvenience of caring for a responsibility that I brought about when I can just get ride out of it? It's like a get-out-of-jail monopoly card, no strings attached. I also think that one should be able to euthanize their child(ren) until they're old enough to be reason, because what if you realize after they're born you don't want them anymore? And it's cruel to put them up for an adoption, so we might as well kill them. [/sarcasm]

An eye for an eye is a rather poor system. As the overly cliche' Khalil Gibran quote says "An eye for an eye, and the whole world would be blind. " It is very true as it only perpetuates hatred. That is why responses must be unproportional to the crime. There can only be two options: (1) we live in a world where we attempt to rehabilitate all criminals which I personally don't think would ever work or (2) examples are made out of them which utterly devastate them so they cannot do the action against, as well as deter others. If one acts in a limbo between the two like the American justice system the government ends up spending lots of money pampering criminals compared to how they should be treated, i.e. TV is not an necessity of life, and also most of us must pay for what we use. As soon as criminals get out of jail, they return to old habits, having made connections in jail (that is, if they haven't been sentenced to life in which they will take up space and $22,650 per year [according to FBP]).

Phone, Ipod and handkerchief in my right, Coach wallet in my left.

I'm just going to start quoting myself... This is an example of religious ignorance. Do you realize the vast majority (Roman Catholics + Eastern & Oriental Orthodox) perceive the Old Testament as completed by Jesus. Hence why we don't follow kosher laws. I'd go into more detail but you've probably already seen my more detailed explanation in another thread. I don't think homophobes are as big a problem as much as the all-knowing left. I have noticed many leftists in this forum always resort to irrelevant name calling, associate people that disagree with them with previous atrocities and then demonize them, ironically when it comes matters where tolerance supposedly isn't being shown [but the left is allowed to because they're just being correct, not intolerant]. Is it not apparent to yourself that you're one of those self-righteous anti-Christians? I am Christian and I'm on the right, I seem to control my rage of killing homosexuals, especially seeing as how one of my best friends is gay.

My political coordinate: Economic Left/Right: 0.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.69 I'm closer to the Y-axis than I thought [i thought I was going to be more right] and I thought I'd fall under libertarian. I like how there's 3 people on the right but 12 on the left. It speaks to the political demographics of the forum and why certain threads tend to lead down a certain path.

Do people choose to die from the flu when it could be prevented relatively cheaply? No? SO EHT MOOST BE JEANOCEED!!!!1!!one!!

Hahaha that was hilarious!

You know what I've noticed from the last several pages of this thread? People like to use the word genocide very liberally. Some people also seem to forget that genocide is a deliberate and systematic elimination. So no, the theorized meteor that hit the earth which led to the events that caused the dinosaurs to disappear did not commit genocide, unless the supposed meteor was conscious of what it was doing.

They don't change laws, they interpret the laws. In this case, DADT has absolutely no legal standing in the face of the Constitution. Same goes for DOMA. Same goes for gay marriage in general. However, what strikes me as hilarious about this sort of thing is that the people yelling about "activist judges" are also the ones who support repealing the 17th amendment. The 17th amendment took away the state legislatures' ability to appoint Senators and instead gave that power to the people. This was done because it took less money to buy a state legislature than it did to buy the Senator herself/himself. So for most of the country's history, Senators have never been elected, yet they wrote laws. Whenever "judicial activism" is ever brought up, it's always with regard to civil rights/liberties; segregation, privacy rights, etc. Voting on peoples' civil rights isn't something I've ever been a fan of ;) Senators were originally appointed for the same reason why there's an electoral college. Another case of the inconsistency of American law. Activist judges are a big problem. They're suppose to uphold the law, not interpret it to their own beliefs. A judge should be impartial and independent from politics, not projecting their political views on their rulings. Proposition 8 was repealed by a judge out of activism. Now I don't know if you have plebiscites in your state, but they're based upon a popular vote. That is a ruling directly against a popular vote. I quite frankly don't care if the vote can be considered socially acceptable or not but it was cast and a definitive decision was made. America is suppose to be about democracy. Edit: And some may claim there is no such thing as an activist judge. Or really? What if one were to purposely target and hit as many abortion-permitting laws as possible, than the left would be all over said judge. If I'm a judge, even though I am against abortion and I believe it is morally wrong, it is not my job to impress my view on others so I must rule according to the popular support/pre-established law that has not been determined unconstitutional.

Speaking of that, I don't get what the purpose of that was. I for one enjoy the challenge of getting shunned by popular opinion. Yet another case where suicide is one of the most absurd of options. Maybe they just weren't proud enough. I don't think that gays who commit suicide should have a month dedicated to them, nor should their be a day in which we wear purple to commemorate the gays who killed themselves because they were gay. I would understand if there was a day in memory of those who were killed due to their sexual orientation, or even those who have prevailed against a hate crime, but it is their own surrender if they suicide.