Sly_Wizard

What is the reason for parental consent regarding abortion? It's nothing but a guise so that parents can make their children have the child if the parents don't agree with abortion. I 100% support the Freedom of Choice Act, and if it's ever passed, it will be signed by its Sponsor, Barack Obama :) Wait. So minors can't get married without parental consent because they're deemed to not be able to make informed decisions, nor can they enter in contracts for the same reason, but they can somehow make informed decisions when it comes to having an abortion? Haha lol Okay. The whole thing about 5,000 deaths per year is a bold-faced lie. Firstly, here's the actual graph concerning the number of deaths due to illegal abortions per year in the United States: Second, the 5,000 deaths per year thing is and was a hyperinflated number. Bernard Nathanson, one of the co-founders of NARAL and a once staunch pro-choice advocator, even admitted as much. [1][2] Furthermore, the debate is no longer over whether a fetus is alive or whatnot. As Ronald Reagan once said, "The real question today is not when human life begins, but, 'What is the value of human life?'" Unfortunately, today, far too many people have relegated the value of a human life to a choice (Except for when it doesn't suit them). Oh, and reading this thread makes me sad. Whenever I see statements like "It's not alive", I really have to wonder what people are being taught in biology, if anything at all. Hiding behind the choice moniker doesn't make abortion a choice, either. Just because I'd love to bash a couple of people over the head with a bat and label it as a choice doesn't make it a choice. Choices are only such when they effect you and only you. Otherwise, I'm off to go on a repercussion-less killing spree because, you know, it's my choice :lol:

Didn't he say the aborigines view it as "Invasion Day"? Haha lol. I actually like that term. And it probably has some amount of truth to it, too.

I don't care which picture you get rid of, but use this one instead. [hide=][/hide]

*Le sigh* Nice to see how close minded your are on other peoples cultures. In western beliefs, this is pure stupidity but do remember Nigeria is a 3rd world country with huge poverty and very little development, obviously somethings like "witchcraft" will still exist to be believed. Are you saying that you don't find ANYONE else's beliefs funny? You're being a bit hypocritical here. The vast majority of people who find instances like this "funny" is because how absurd it sounds within western culture, many of who are extremely close minded to the fact that not every culture is the same. There's a difference between one person beliefs and the majority of a nations beliefs, thus making it a belief of their culture so no, I don't really find it hypocritical. There's a line between being ethnocentric and pointing out pure ignorance. Hiding behind the fact that it's in their culture doesn't do anything. Human sacrifice and child prostitution were elements of a culture but that doesn't mean they're not stupid. What does this have to do with human sacrifice and child prostitution?

He ignored you lol Anywho... Not quite. The wager is that he'd rather believe in one and have a chance of being wrong than believing in none and having no chance of being right. Nothing to do with fear or a "ticket to heaven" or whatever. Henceforth why it's called a wager (A wager, mind you, people take every day in different forms). So much anger.

If that's true, you should have absolutely no problem completing fully Dan Barker's Easter Challenge. http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/stone.php "The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened. Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?" um, yeah..these aren't actual "contradictions" as i was meaning. The thing about this is that each one of these are just accounts from different people. They are bound to be a little different each, mostly just in the wording, and yet still there is really no contradiction as they all not only deliver the same message in the end, but are not inspired by the holy spirit, but rather MEN(aka HUMANS not being influenced by god on what to write(one of the very few times in the bible where they can put it in there own words)) I mean really? the point is it was in the morning as they knew it(they didn't use the 12 hour clock we do now, rather just sunset to sunset), and it could have still been dark when the women left and john saw them, and Luke may have only known that it was early in the morning(maybe he was just waking up, or wasn't up at the time), and mark said they arrived at the sepulchre at the rising of the sun, which would completely validate John's writing as they could have left when it was yet dark, and arrived at the tomb at the rising of the sun. simple. Much is also lost in different translations for they say different things and word things differently for different readers. Most of the cases posed are just plain word choice differences. Those that weren't can't be used as an example because again, these are what men themselves thought they saw. One can see something the other didn't, or see two sides of the same thing and disagree(the farmer and the two color hat story, don't remember what its called. Between the lions ftw). So it's not the word of god, there are contradictions, it's written by men who can be wrong. Thanks. You ignored what (s)he wrote out.

No. It really isn't. A country's government is only responsible to the people it represents. That's it. If Hamas wasn't to fire rockets into Israel and the people of Gaza won't stop them, then the government is fully entitled to protect its citizens by removing the threat to their national security. What country do you live in, per chance? Ummm... No, but thanks for playing. And, just so you know, Israel is WARNING people before they bomb them. So this whole "They're targeting civilians" garbage is just that-- Garbage.

Israel is a sovereign territory. So is Gaza. One sovereign territory firing rockets into another sovereign territory is an outright declaration of war. The Israeli government is only indebted to one group of people: It's citizens. It works for them and is supposed to protect them from harm. It's not the governments officials to worry about injuring citizens in another country when they're willfully allowing a terrorist regime to operate within their borders and attack a sovereign nation. If you own a house and refuse to remove the guy staying in it who continues to shoot at me through a window upstairs, then I'm going to remove him for you. It's not that hard to understand, really. I find topics like this funny: Notice the public outcry when Israel suffered suicide bomber after suicide bomber? Mortar after mortar? Rocket after rocket? No...? Me neither. :roll: No one cared. Well, to you people complaining now that Israel does something, I'd like to say tough [cabbage]. If the world refuses to do anything about Hamas, Hezbollah and any of the other starkly anti-Israel regimes, then Israel will do something about them. Maybe you should have complained when Israel was the one making concession after concession whilst being attacked? Oh, and no country on the face of the earth would react any differently than Israel given the circumstances.

I'd really like to know how and why it's "irrelevant". You do realize the reason Israel "stopped following the terms of the deal" is because Gaza did not hold it's end of the deal, right? A cease fire is only a cease fire when both parties, you know, stop firing bullets/rockets/mortars at each other and sending suicide bombers into the other country to blow themselves up in crowded areas etc.. Explain to me why Israel should keep it's borders open and provide aid to Gaza while Gaza is doing everything they can to antagonize Israel? The answer: They shouldn't. Because Egpt has had it's borders closed to Gaza for a few years now (Though it's only recently begun to open them). 1.) See above. 2.) It's not "Palestinian" land. It's British land given to Israel. Just so you know. Ummm... This is half-truth. That blockade exists to prevent militants in Gaza from smuggling weapons into Egypt, which I'm sure you're well aware of.

I've always found the concept behind slayer to be a bit flawed. I don't get how killing weak monsters somehow gives you the knowledge of how to stronger ones. Therefore, I hope Jagex doesn't add any new slayer monsters with unique drops.

You haven't provided proof that you're "right". That's the problem. You... Still didn't get the point :| That's not what I'm saying, either. Your argument seems to be that gay people are born gay because someone who is gay said he or she was born gay. Such an argument means nothing, as it basically relies on the person's personal testimony about themselves to determine whether or not something is true or false. If someone who is gay is allowed to use the argument that they are born gay and it to be taken as true, then why can't a thief argue that he was born to steal and it be taken as true, as well. Maybe so, but it was done to make a point. And now you're grasping the point. If love is hard to define and measure, then you can't use the "They should be allowed to marry because they're in love!" argument, as it is essentially meaningless. Wow... Way to overanalyze. See my response to Zierro above :

Could it be that it really wouldn't matter where they put their bases if they'd stop stupidly firing rockets into Israel? Outgoing rockets attract incoming military attention. ...and the blockade of aid, food and medical supplies causes rockets. If you sign an agreement and then don't abide by it as Israel has by not ending the blockade then why should Hamas abide by their side of the agreement? It is hypocritical. Well, see, every time Israel open it's borders to allow said things, someone thinks it'd be fun to blow themselves up while on a bus or in a mall. ...And Egypt also has a blockade against Gaza, but has only recently started allowing limited passage to and fro the country. But you don't see Hamas firing rockets at them, do you? ^Edit: Crap. Someone mentioned that before me :'(

No, it's a tactic. They do it because it puts Israel in the proverbial pickle. Israel can either do nothing and let Hamas continue to attack them or Israel can retaliate against Hamas, thus allowing Hamas to play the "Israel is bombing innocent civilians!" card. Quite honestly, it's not Israel's job to worry about whether or not the terrorists are hiding among civilians. If the citizens of Gaza won't police themselves and kick Hamas out, then why should Israel do nothing and let Hamas continue to shell Israeli cities? They shouldn't. ...And, seriously, Gaza isn't as "small" as you're making it out to be. I'd be willing to bet you've never been to Gaza or Israel or anywhere near the Middle East. I have and can effectively say you have no idea what the hell you're talking about. Who cares about what the U.N. thinks? No one, outside of the U.S. and Japan, really does anything when it comes to keeping the peace. Most of the members-- ESPECIALLY the European member nations-- Are, as far as I'm concerned, hypocritical pansies. They do NOTHING to try to prevent Hamas from constantly launching rockets and mortars onto Israeli cities or stopping the influx of suicide bombers who blow themselves up on buses and in malls in Israel, yet are the first to complain when Israel closes down their borders or launches a counterstrike. Of course, God forbid if some terrorist regime in another country were to do half the things to them they do in Israel. They wouldn't act any differently than Israel. *See above* Gaza is it's own territory. Why should Israel concern themselves with the safety of the populace of Gaza when the populace refuses to police themselves? What do you mean they're useless? I guess that's why the terrorists are using them, huh? Because they're useless. So we're comparing numbers? Okay then. In those 3,000+ rocket attacks, how many people do you think have died? I'll assure you it's more than "320". Of course, that wasn't the point at all, but rather to show the complete hypocrisy in the numerous world governments denouncing Israel's actions. What, exactly, has Israel done? The answer: Nothing. Unjust? What the hell...? So, in that case, I guess Australia will be giving the land back to the aborigines; the South Africans will be giving the land back to the Zulus; the Americans will be giving the land back to the native Americans (Texas will go to Mexico); etc. Right? Right??? ???

What cease fire? Check out this graph. It's an estimate of the number of rockets fired into Israel since 2002. Keep in mind that Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Look at that. The number of rocket attacks have actually INCREASED since Israel withdrew. Care to estimate how many casualties those caused (We won't even factor in suicide bombings, which caused about 480 civilian deaths between 1995 and 2005). Furthermore, it's not Israel's fault that Hamas only has access to primitive rocket and mortar technology. If Hamas had better, they'd sure as hell use it. And if they used them, there'd be far more civilian casualities. And I see you ignored me other point, so I'll try it again: The U.S. and Europe have suffered much less in the way of terrorist attacks than Israel, but have used force much, much, much greater than that of Israel. Of course, you don't hear anything in the way of a public outcry regarding a violation of human rights. Yet Israel, who is constantly subjected to suicide bombers and rockets being fired on their cities week after week, month after month is expected to NOT defend itself? That's BS. I can guarantee that if Hamas were to fire a rocket at, say, London or New York nearly every day for a month there'd be a quick retaliation. No country would stand for what Israel goes through. Those countries which criticize Israel are hypocrites to the nth degree. There can be no peace when the other side has specifically stated that their only goal is to see you dead. Seriously. Do you not realize just how many concessions Israel has made in order to broker in peace only to have the deals be shot down by either Arafat, Hamas or any of the other Arab nations? Obviously not. Just what I said.

Genocide. Right. It's not like Israel hasn't had to deal with well over 3,000 (Yes, that a 3 followed by a comma and three zeros) rockets being fired onto Israeli cities-- The most of those coming AFTER Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip-- Or suicide bomber after suicide bomber blowing up civilians. Nope. Israel is guilty of genocide. ...And on a totally related note, I actually find the hypocrisy of some European nations to be supremely out of this world-- Especially in the UK. One little terrorist attack (Which, in actuality, totally pales in comparison to those which Israel constantly has to deal with), and everyone is ready to go kill them some terrorists for attacking innocent people without mention of "human rights". But when Israel goes on the war path to defend themselves from CONSTANT attacks by a regime whose stated goal is to wipe Israel off the face of the earth (See: Hamas Charter), everyone wants to scream foul? I don't think so. Israel can do what it wishes for as long as Hamas and every other Arab state refuses to acknowledge it exists and refuses to make a true peace with them. It's not rocket science. Oh, and the British gave the land to Israel as per the Mandate of Palestine in 1946 (I believe it was), which was created at the end of WWI.

That's not what I said and there really is no game to be played. The fact that the onus is on you to prove the assertion that people are born gay is, to be totally honest, non-debatable. Otherwise, I'll just play the "Prove God doesn't exist" game with you from now on, and I'm sure you'd love that. And, like I said, "love is not the end all as you will simplify qualify the love two people feel if you find their actions detestable", which is no different than the group you lambaste. You really aren't doing anything but validating what I wrote out, you know. But, you see, if we're going purely on the testimony of the person involved, then what they say about themselves has to always be true and they really can't help their nature as they are, quite literally, slaves to their nature. It's really not that hard to understand. If a thief says he steals because he was born with the innate desire to steal, then how you do you discount his testimony as being false? The answer: You can't. This is generally why people claiming something about themselves to be true is not counted as evidence as to whether or not something is, indeed, true.

A.) It's not a strawman, since it specifically relates to the "You can't help who you fall in love with" argument. B.) Thanks for doing EXACTLY what I said you would do (Qualify the "love" someone else feels for another person). So why is it okay for you to do as you see fit based on age but NOT okay for another person to do it as they see fit based on the genders of the people in question? It's called hypocrisy. Love is not the end all to end all, as it's not treated equally for all persons. People typically forget all about the "You can't help who you fall in love with!" argument when faced with a situation they find to be detestable. That was the point being made. ...Okay. So you obviously didn't understand what was getting at. A person claiming they didn't choose to be a certain way doesn't make it so, otherwise the "I can't help it!" argument would become a valid defense to, well, everything.

The onus is one you to prove that people are born gay, not for someone to prove that they aren't. Srsly. I hate the disenginuity of the "Well, prove that they aren't!" response, because 1.) it doesn't even attempt to answer the question initially posed and 2.) it doesn't even attempt to conform to the scientific method which I thought people were so big on. I guess that's only when it suits them. If, say, a forty year-old male "falls in love" with a fifteen year-old female and vice versa, you'll discredit their feelings of love and any semblence of the "You can't help who you fall in love with!" argument. It's funny, yet ironic at the same time. Either you apply the same standards of love to everyone or you discredit it all together. And since you don't, and won't, apply the same standards of love to all people, then you're only other option is to discredit all issues of love. Unless, of course, you want to be a hypocrite. ...Okay. So, just for giggles and whatnot, let's say a thief says "I can't help being a thief. I was born with an inclination to take things!". Would that constitute proof of him not being a thief by choice but because it's in his nature to steal?

#-o If you're talking about the act of doing something homosexual, then you'd be right - a gay guy participating in homosexual sex is making a choice. But if you're talking about the orientation in general being a choice, then I don't understand how you think we can choose what turns us on and what does not. Good thing I said none of that 8-) Neither. You did restate it (See above) and I didn't exclude the last part of your sentence (See below). Some animals, maybe. Humans? Not so much. It takes a while for them to learn how to walk and are only able to do so after considerable trial and error attempts. ...So sayeth the emo/goth chick :lol:

Even if you write it out once more it still won't be true. Bad example. Walking doesn't come naturally. You have to learn to do it.

Really now... What kind of argument is this? You're more or less stating that being gay isn't a choice because no one would choose to be hated by society, which is patently false on so many levels. #-o The word homophobe is the stupidest pejorative to ever grace the English language. It, literally, means "the fear of like objects" and has basically become the choice was of saying "I think you're a bigot so you're wrong" without actually stating as much.

I wish. Then I could get my friend to give me back my p-hat -.-

There should be a rule stating people can't ask dumb questions. Even reworded, this is still the whole "Can God create a rock so big He can't move it" argument, which is nonsensical, to put it mildly. It's like asking if you can be taller than yourself or if a circle can be a square.

^Me hopes thou dost jest. (And, for the record, Muslim isn't a religion. It's the name for those people who follow the teachings of Islam.)