What am I to understand under complete lockdowns? As opposed to non-complete ones.
I revisited the Dueling Arena today. I've taken the #1 spot undeservingly last year and apparently I still occupy it. I should either relinquish...
It was a starting joke. When you called me out to it earlier, I even said "Spam Zone true" to make it blatantly obvious. I'll do you a favor and use clean, short words that can only be interpreted literally from now on. You don't even have to thank me for it. Not caring is not the same as not realizing. By which I mean I have always realized this, but didn't give a flying **** about it. Just saying. My consciousness argument is perfectly valid since the "potential for something" isn't an argument at all. I don't care what it will become. What matters is what it is. Wrong again. I didn't mean to say it wouldn't be effective. I meant it wouldn't be quite realizable in practice, which is reason enough to abandon the idea altogether. Your word twisting was good for laughs in the beginning, but you may stop now.
Sondaschule --- Alles Gute
I'm okay with people not getting abortions period. I'm also okay with people getting abortions. Being pro-choice doesn't necessarily mean that you're pro-abortion. It means believing that people should be allowed to decide what they do with their own life as long as they don't cause needless harm to conscious creatures. Which a fetus isn't. The Animal Welfare lecture I attended today summed it up pretty well. They spoke of a system used to define consciousness, using several criteria (ranked from low-leveled to high-leveled). Even the lowest-level criterium, attention, is absent in a fetus. Even a fly can focus its attention on a destination, and I have no qualms with swatting them if they annoy me either. Do you? And in case you were wondering what the other criteria were, two of the others were "potential of using abstract ideas and symbols" and "anticipation", neither of which a fetus can achieve in its state. Argument of authority. Endgame, Jet. Not an excuse. You could have at least used a valid silly analogy. Also, don't blame me for a lack of comprehension.
Spam zone true. But there you have it. It's a choice that all of us should be allowed to make. If you want to eat your own arm because you would die if you didn't, then I wouldn't stop you. Heck, I wouldn't even be too shocked if you killed and ate your own newborn. Give one half to mom and one half to dad for all I care. As long as no one else knows or cares about him, fine. Killing someone else's kid, however, makes other people's lives miserable. Forcefully taking a baby away to feed someone else brings grief to those whose child has been taken away. That's the fundamental difference. Killing your own kid does not. The parents consented to its death. The baby, you ask? I don't think he'd feel too miserable. Which brings us back to my very first point. If I had been aborted so many years ago, I wouldn't have minded. I had no sense of self; I didn't give a **** about "alive" or "dead". Nor would a fetus, I imagine. In fact, matters are even less complilcated if an unborn is involved. A fetus cannot live independently from its mother. It is her property (along with the father, who helped conceiving it). Even if someone would care (the woman's mother who is hoping for a grandchild, perhaps), they have absolutely no say in the matter. A fetus belongs to its parents. They may choose what they want to do with it, whether that includes cherishing it and the child it becomes, or pulling it out and nailing it to their wall. That must be the silliest analogy I've heard in months. Reread what I told you above, and find out for yourself just how far you're off the mark.
It kind of is. Too lazy; didn't open. I don't support every decision of suicide, though I'm glad we have a choice. Just as I don't support every decision of abortion, while I'm still pro-choice. See what I did there? Except a fetus is not a child, the idea of consuming human meat isn't easily digested by the public (pardon the pun), and this isn't 1729. Try again.
Placebo --- I Do
I must have rewritten that sentence 30 times before I was satisfied with it. XD
It depends. Suppose a guy claims that he was burgled, and that his house was stripped of all its valuables. Another guy, suspect of the crime is being put on trial. Then there are three possible outcomes: A) The suspect is indeed the burglar. In this case, the accuser is also a victim. B) Someone other than the suspect turns out to be the burglar. Then the accuser is still a victim. C) The man actually hid away his valuables and wanted to frame the suspect. In this case he is no longer a victim. Since every suspect is supposed to be innocent until proven otherwise, and seeing as situation B doesn't occur too often in the case of rape (unless combined with murder), then by definition the victim cannot be called a victim either, until proven otherwise. Note that all this is disregarding the humane aspect of the terms, which I am against. Calling supposed rape victims "accusers" isn't exactly a tactful way of describing them. I don't care whether these are the terms used in the legal system. These are the terms such as most people define them.
No child I conceive will ever see the light of day even if I have to hang my girlfriend upside-down and drag it out with a fishing rod. Seriously though, I'm all for abortion. In fact we need to abort a lot more fetuses than we're currently pulling out of the womb. The world's population is increasing at an alarming rate and there people against preventing it from skyrocketing even further? That's a case of dangerous idiocy.
When we simply look at the cold hard terminology, he is probably correct. Unfortunately for him terminology should not overshadow common sense, according to which he's just an idiot.
This is indeed not a house. In fact, my sources all agree that this is in fact a demonstrative pronoun.
Pandorum Not widely known, and unlikely to have won any awards, but a decent movie in its genre. I was entertained.
This. Been doing this for years now. It's a method that has proven its value.
How scandalous to use a drug to alter one's perception and state of mind! How terrible a crime! Wait...Doesn't caffeine do that too? Yeah, I guess it does. And I guess it makes your argument is pretty much null and void.
Underage drinking laws suck.
Brian Roebuck --- On The One Road
Yes but, as with alcohol, you shouldn't be allowed to drive under influence of weed, toke during working hours, sell it to kids etc. You know; regulate its usage a bit.
Anouk --- Too Long
