Drix D'Zanth

There will not be peace in the Mideast for a very long time? [quote name='Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f']Are you saying that the old man deserved to die? That is the injustice I'm talking about! How can anyone deny the fact that what the Israeli soldier did was wrong? Meanwhile, I, even being a palestinian agree that Israeli civilians shouldn't be targetted. It doesn't matter that more Israelis died and just one old man died. "Kill one person and it's as if you killed the whole world. Save one person, and it's as if you saved the whole world". The Israeli soldiers don't have to purposely try to make the amount of casualities on both sides equal! But like I said before, there are far more palestinians dying than Israelis, so the soldiers actually go overboard! [/COLOR][/quote] You agree that civilians should not be targeted? When?s the last time an Israeli ran into a Palestinian market with a bomb strapped to his chest? If Israeli citizens began throwing stones at HAMAS camp sites, do you think they would refrain from opeing fire upon the angered Jews, as IDF does so often restrain itself under murderous mobs? How can you be so idealistic and caring of a single life, when the only purpose is the war is to eradicate or subjugate an entire group of people? [QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f] Conclusion: The soldier had no right to kill the old man or even demolish the home. Does anyone disagree with this statement? [/COLOR][/QUOTE] When Palestinian terrorists stop firing from crowds and buildings, IDF will stop returning fire. [QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f] Well actually, people of all religions commit horrible crimes that even go against the teachings of their religion. When a christian person commits a crime, no one ever looks at his religion and blames it. This only happens to muslims. When a muslim person commits a crime, his religion is stated on the news and people think, "Oh, he's muslim, which means this is what his religion is about". [/COLOR][/QUOTE] You haven?t read many of the ?Christianity? threads on OB, have you? Every thread, the point that Hitler may have been Christian and the Crusades are brought up? every damn thread. [QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f] You seem to be treating this as though Arabs were massacreing Jews. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] The Israeli army does NOT TARGET innocent civilians, it returns fire to the people who are attacking them, because Palestinian ?refugees? have made NO EFFORT for diplomatic ceasefire. Civilians die unfortunately, but the Israelis do not indiscriminately murder those innocents. [QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f] This article depicts arabs as the most horrible people. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] Islamic terrorists are horrible people? Last time I checked, they were. [QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f] This was just a war fought to get the land back. What's wrong with the palestinians who can't fight to leave temporarily as not to get hurt? For instance, one of my paternal uncles fought in this war. Meanwhile, everyone on my mother's side lives in Jordan right now. Although the majority of the population in jordan is palestinian, these people do not have jordanian citizenship. There is a disctintion between jordanians and palestinians presently. As for all this weird stuff about Jordan and Israel being palestine, it was the brithish who divided the arabs into smaller states. The reason we fight so much for the present day Israel is because of the city of Jerusalem, which is important to muslims as it is to jews. Israel took this land because of that city. The land as a whole was originally called Kan'aan. This included Palestine, Jordan, Syria and Lebenon. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] Time for a history lesson . Your people are fighting to get the land ?Back?? How many Arabs were exiled after the 1948 establishment of Israel? NONE! Palestinian Jews and Arabs could easily co-exist in the land if the terrorism and violence that has been PROPOGATED BY ISLAMIC TERRORISTS were to cease. The Arab world HATES Jews, and they HATE the concept of a Jewish state, regardless of its ultimate validity. The war over the land has been waged by ALL of Israel?s neighboring states, and they all have attacked Israel in an effort to wipe it off the map. Israel has soundly defeated them time after time, in engagement after engagement. These people legally own the land, the UN recognizes it; Great Britian recognized it when it withdrew its sovereignty. It?s time that the Arab world respect and acknowledge Israel. If this is such an issue of land gain, why then did the Palestinians turn down the 1964 peace accord that granted them 95% of all their demands? Why did Jordan attack Israel when the West Bank was under it?s control. How about Egypt and the Gaza? History has proven that the Palestinians won?t settle for a piece of land here, or there, they will not settle until the entire Jewish population is destroyed, exiled, or subjugated under ?proper? Palestinian Arab rule. [QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f] These countries exist because the british in the first place divided it up into smaller nations, who eventually developed their own accents and slightly different culture. [B]All[/B] of Kan'aan belongs to the Arabs. We were living there before the British's intrusions. The jews left the land a long, long time ago. Why? Because they were banished from the land by their own lord! They were doomed to roam the earth without a nation because they defied God's law. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] The Kan?aan never existed under any sovereignty. The Jews lived in Israel, founded and populated Jerusalem, and the surrounding settlements, and lived there until the Dia Spora. The Romans, or their ?lords? as you have claimed even recognized the fact that the land was Jewish, and owned by the Jews! After the Dia Spora, the decline of the Roman empire, and the medieval period of history, the land was under both the Crusade and Jihad of such historical figures as King Richard Coeur de Leon, and Saladin. Instigated by both a political motivation, and manipulation of religious zeal, the Crusades attacked the current Mamaluke and Egyptian holdings of Palestine in an effort to reclaim Jerusalem. The recurring attacks by Saladin left the area under Islamic control until the formation of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire fell after WW1 and the area was occupied and sovereignty switched under the British Empire in 1917, who owned the land as legitimately as any previous government. After 1948, the state of Israel was recognized and constitutional zed? then it was immediately attacked by the armies of Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, and Iraq within 24 hours of its foundation! At this point the Arabs had nothing to ?lose? as we could understand in the current land battles, as the Arab populations controlled the West Bank, half of Jerusalem (including the Dome of the Rock), and the Gaza Strip. Follow that up with the 6-days war, the Sinai operations, Yom Kippur war.. and you have a war of Independence that has EARNED Israel?s place in this world. [QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f] After moses led the Israelites out of Egypt and took them to the "promised land", he left them for a few days and came back to find them worshipping an Idol of a cow made out of gold. This is why the Israelites/Jews were banished form Kan'aan. And personally, I wouldn't mind joining into one nation with the Jordan, Lebenon, and Syria, toe reform Kan'aan. As long as Jerusalem is returned to us. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] Don?t you read the Torah/Bible? Those that defied God?s law were punished and the faithful continued to create Israel? this is no divine retribution, as the same historical record you claim evidences their defiling God?s law, also AMELIORATES THEIR CLAIM OVER THE LAND! If you want TRUE reclaimation of lands? to the RIGHTFUL holders of the lands, you should respect the Jewish state. If you want Palestine, give it back to England, so far it?s the only surviving progenitor to the land, as the Mamluk sultan reign, Ottoman Empire, and Roman Empire are all done and over with. But Israel [i]is[/i] recognized as having existed just as any province of the Roman Empire had been beforehand. [QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f] But that's all religion right? Well the jews can't use their religion as an excuse to take home from arabs living in the land. It belongs to the Arabs now. [/COLOR][/QUOTE] Incorrect, this land is Israel. Founded in 1948 by the UN and Great Britian. This land is a sovereign nation under attack by Islamic terrorists. This land belongs to BOTH Jews and Arabs, but the Arabs can?t seem to respect that. They can?t seem to respect the fact that they can vote, live freely, and serve on the Israeli legislative house. Why? Because they hate Jews. That?s the cold, hard truth.

I mean, if we are talking about physics that are totally hypothetical... then they might as well be along the same line as Philosophy. And if philosophy has proven one thing, it has proven that I exist. Not "you" .. but the "I" exists.

I was about to reply to this topic... then it occured to me : this topic has never existed! I guess you would have to first agree with the hypothesis that there are an infinite number of planets.

I may implement my opinion on this matter later, however... I seem to be the only person here who doesn't really concieve communism and democracy to be related at all? Last I checked, communism was an economic system, and it was perfectly possible to have a Democratic Communism? Likewise, Rin is correct, we do not live in a democracy of the direct, athenian sense. I think Russia had more of an oligarical society after Stalin was eliminated, in the form of the Kremlin? The soviets did have a president with seemingly dictator-like powe. So is this an argument of capitalism vs communism, or democracy vs dictatorship?

Get some pure Cesium metal and drop it into about 500 mL of distilled water. Stand back when you do it though...

[QUOTE=wiccansamurai]Ok, yeah, we have intelligence too. Thanks for reminding me. But, how do you know that's how animals live? Do you really think they can't remember pain from the past just because they can't tell us they do? Still, one of the major things that set us apart from animals is morals. They're plenty of smart animals. Chickens aren't one of them, but that's like saying, though this is an extreme, we should have a prejudice for people with mental disabilities. Sure, they won't end up being food, but some of the basic concepts are there. They just shouldn't do that to animals, even if for the mere fact its going to start a controversy.[/QUOTE] The controversy isn?t a self evident property, but the result of inordinate emotional responses. It?s easy to personify chickens the same way we personify humans. The fact is, chickens may or may not even be aware that they exist. They are functioning along strict biological responses that ordinarily stimulate flight and flee responses? Banging the chicken across a table? I don?t want to sound too cruel, but if my throat were about to get slit, please, knock me HARD across the face before you do it. I?ve gotten nailed in the head by some pretty solid objects; the pain usually follows a strange, senseless shock. I don?t have much pity for animals, there?s no reason we shouldn?t eat as many as you want. I mean? evolutionarily we have the right to eat them, in most religions we have free reign over animal populations, and most philosophical arguments are proponent of survival based on meat-eating. Chickens don?t have much of a memory; it has been proven, just as they do not have much of a cognitive thought process. Why? What the hell would a Chicken, who?s only task in life is to reproduce and die, have any use for a memory? Sure, it may have a brief memory related to response to stimuli; however it is pathetically insignificant; even if they could tell us anything, they wouldn?t know what the hell to say. Probably something along the lines of ?Eat eat eat, eat eat eat, cluck cluck cluck cluck, scratch ground, eat?sleep, sleep, sleep, cluck cluck cluck, mate mate mate, eat eat, lay egg, lay egg, cluck cluck die.? And as for something I saw earlier about free-range chickens? what difference does that make? You honestly think they would perceive the change in surroundings? There?s no evidence that chickens actually feel the equivalent to ?happiness??. So why are we trying to make them so comfortable? The chickens aren?t the ones with the problems, PETA is.

I think NM and CO will go Bush. If this is true, the entire election rests on Ohio... Ohio is basically the Florida of this election. I'm thinking Bush has it, thank God. I'm so depressed that my state (MI) is so democratic... it's so sad. Damn you, Detroit.

[quote name='Baron Samedi][size=1']You don't need to blindly accept it. But surely, the removal of these weapons, the restriction of their distribution will lessen the amount available to potential murderers? Obviously, more than that needs to be done, but those steps in the beginning will help, won't they?[/size][/quote] I doubt it. The repeated murders, gang crime, et cetera, usually aren?t legally purchased guns. Basically, while truly dangerous people maintain weapons, stripping away people?s legally owned firearms may be a pretty BAD thing. Think about it, if you were a criminal, would you attack the home you knew would not have a gun, or the home you knew very well MAY have a gun? Guns require a responsibility and common sense that?s all but died in our nation (obesity is the leading cause of preventable death). Just because our civil liberties are abused doesn?t mean we should lose those liberties. I?m not a very avid gun user, myself. I don?t hunt; I?ve only shot a few times with a family friend. I probably won?t own a gun? I recognize the importance of regulating a gun, at the same time I?m pretty un-decided. I?ll agree with James that there are bigger issues. I don?t mean to deflect the issue, but sometimes anti-American propaganda like Michael Moore?s is just so antipodean of reality that I?ve got to say something. Heck, even Australia has its problems: [u][URL=http://www.vangcomp.com/confiles.html]What's your take?[/URL] [/u[

The united states has a population of about.. say 300 or so million. South Africa has a poplulation of about 41 million. The gun-related homocides in South Africa are nearly nine times that of the United States per year. Most gun-related information is unable to provide accurate detail relating gun-homocides and comparing them to the United States. Japan, usually the one of the lowest countries on the list of gun homocides per capita, has one of the highest rates of sexual assault of any developed nation. Russia is in such a state of information disrepair that they data they would provide, if they do, would be absolutely unreliable. Look at the african nations... Indonesia... Mexico.. etc. The crime rates all over europe when relating to theft are astronomical. The U.S. isn't perfect, but it's not on the bottom of the barn. More kids die from accidental drowning in un-lidded water buckets than gun-related incidents. Do we have "lidless water bucket" laws now? In some situations guns actually reduce the number of crime, sexual assault and robbery seem directly proportional to the strictness of gun laws. Sure, guns are dangerous, but anything can be dangerous if you have a mind willing to murder. There's violence everywhere... not just the United States.. I just hope we don't blindly accept regulation as the means to a solution.

I give it a week before Tolkein enterprises file a lawsuit. His sons have been dickheads when it comes to the copyrighted information, it's rediculous.

[quote name='Adahn']You partially understand. The never-ending cycle of life and death is the punishment. God came to take death away from us. Yes, I am saying that if you read, understand, and believe the bible (and have faith in it), you will not die. He offers us immortality as a way out of the cycle. There is no eternal damnation, though that may be better than what I'm saying. Your soul may exist, but if you die and are reborn, the person you were before (personality, body, etc.) will never exist again. True faith is believing in something that is contradicted all around you. Death rules this world, and I have faith in the fact that I will not die. God doesn't need us to die for him, and he won't accept the sacrifice of our lives. There never was a hell, only sheol/the grave/the womb. Nobody is born innocent, that one can only get from a spiritual rebirth. Until that spiritual rebirth is achieved, you will keep dying and being reborn. The Bible promises that one day all will be saved, whether they like it or not :D . I think I'll have my salvation now, though, but I guess that's just me.[/quote] I'm not sure about that, considering the actual interpretation by John after having seen the prophecy of the Final Judgment. I know I?ll be re-iterating what I said over AIM tonight? but this is for the sake of discussion. I?m conflicted upon whether hell is the end all incarnation of evil from which all of those who are evil (removed from god), or just non-existence. I know that hell would be a total lack of God, for God is NOT omnipresent. God cannot exist with sin, or in sin. We were created to be ? in a metaphorical sense, married to God. We were to never have sin between us. That?s why we have death.. it removes us from God. Hell would never be living with God.. it?s like having something about yourself.. something which provides eternal happiness never being taken. Even though it was free.. some never take it because they are misled? or misjudging in not choosing him. There will be a new heaven and a new Earth. God?s plans for earth died with Adam biting the apple. The sin ruined our possibility to have the life God planned for us. However, he has given us another chance, one that WILL succeed and be the heaven god planned for us. My perception of evil: I was challenged by a professor to answer the question ?if God created everything, did he create evil?? Well, I inquired, does cold exist? ?surely it does.? Does darkness exist? ?Of course it does!?. I replied that physics and chemistry have proven that neither darkness nor cold exists. Darkness is merely the [i]absence[/i] of light, just as cold is the absence of heat. They are only words assigned to a concept that doesn?t physically exist! Evil is the absence of God. Impossibilities are everywhere, they aren?t something to be frightened about. Even in the most stable mathematics or chemistry, there are impossibilities. It is impossible to find the square root of a negative number. Ne+ is chemically impossible. If anything, the only thing that is not impossible is God. I think we are living proof that there is a God. Nothing can explain the beauty that is a human being.

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]I only have one thing to say, and it relates to the so-called "traditional" meaning of marriage. I watched a documentary a while ago, which discussed the "history of the wife". It was very interesting and in particular, it discussed marriage. [i]Originally[/i] -- before it was hijacked by religion -- marriage was a purely contractual agreement. In fact, it involved the union of two familes more than just two partners; fundamentally, it involved the [i]sale[/i] of a woman to a man (and his family). Wives were at that time considered to be the man's property. [/color][/QUOTE] This, of course, depends at what kind of document you witness the Bible as, for instance. People including myself; believe that marriage (from Adam and Eve [Genesis]) was originally between the two ?original? people on Earth. Perhaps this means that the state effectively hijacked what was recognized as the process of marriage? As for the women being ?property?, you have to understand the culture at the time. Women weren?t considered fit to hold positions in military, farming, and because of their perceived lack of societal worth, governing. Women were, due to the politics of the region, unable to make a living for themselves. So they effectively sold themselves for a bride price. At the time, this wasn?t considered demeaning of a woman at all, and actually gave her some sort of value in a society that seemed to have so little value for women. Jesus actually encouraged ?spiritual worth? and individual dignity to ALL persons regardless of gender, endowments, or race (gentiles, jews etc). [QUOTE=James][color=#707875] So, the traditional argument is thrown right out the window. In my opinion, it is simply an attempt to stifle civil liberties (the word "traditional" has been used throughout history for that purpose, afterall). The thing is, I think people worry too much about it. It's honestly no big deal at all. If a gay couple get married tomorrow, [i]how[/i] will that affect you personally? Are they coming into your house and having the ceremony? No. If you want, you can have nothing to do with it. That's fine. [/color][/QUOTE] James, we grew up learning about the wonderful civil rights of the 60?s, of the impassioned speeches given by advocates, and sense of justice finally being served for this community of racial inequity. This feeling is so quickly and easily integrated into what is innately a personal social behavior. The civil rights movement was not about public recognition of a personal lifestyle. The issue about gay marriage isn?t just about benefits. It?s about how we as a STATE recognize marriage. I am the state, my parents are the state, and the homosexual couple down the street is the state. We are responsible to our own decisions concerning the state in how it will affect our lives. Look at the history of Supreme Court cases. Good ideas sometimes lead to bad ideas. Interracial marriage may lead to gay marriage on some of their principles, just as the civil rights act may lead to affirmative action. To say that gay marriage has no effect on myself personally is not only untrue, it has no historical bearing. [QUOTE=James][color=#707875] What I object to, however, is people using their [i]personal[/i] religious beliefs to actively stifle other people's civil freedoms. Afterall, if I were Muslim and I believed in wearing a head scarf (and I'm aware that Muslims practice this in different ways), it would be wrong of me to say "You MUST wear one because it's traditional and based on an article of faith". I mean, in a modern society, personal religious beliefs and articles of faith can't be used as part of government policy. It's as simple as that. [/color][/QUOTE] Firstly, if you want to ignore personal or public religious beliefs you can throw out almost all of the rhetoric that powered the 1960?s Civil Rights movement! James, your ethics are founded upon whatever moral strategy you decide! I decide not only my own moral and ethical outline, but I rely most of my decisions upon them. You CANNOT ignore religion. How do you justify any of your moral standings? How do you justify any of your ethical principles? I have a justification, his name is Jesus. Our gov?t is not respecting marriage as a religious institution, but a social institution. It?s asking the American public if they accept homosexual marriage as a social institution that we not only believe should be recognized, but benefit the same as heterosexual marriages. [QUOTE=James][color=#707875] In practice, I think it works better than most people think. The only real reason to be opposed to it is simply if you're intolerant, or you want to impose your personal views on others. [/color][/QUOTE] ? Try a bit of empathy here, James. I?m not telling gay people what they ?can?t? do. They just demand me to agree with what their [i]personal views[/i] understand they ?can? do. Mass. Supreme Court wasn?t going to stop with Civil Unions. The very definition of marriage is being forwarded for change, a change that I do NOT agree with. If marriage in this nation began heterosexually it should be understand that the original rights are being imposed upon by the views of OTHERS! Now you can argue that some of these rights were self-evident and justify them accordingly, but marriage has never been a self-evidenced right unless taken from religious context, or social context. Now, were black people imposing their views upon us with regards to interracial marriage? Yes, but I can not only agree with that imposition, but regard it as equal allowance. I disagree when it comes to homosexuality. [QUOTE=James][color=#707875] I don't view gay marriage as an imposition on anyone; like heterosexual marriage, it's an arrangement and a decision that involves two people and their families. If two people next door to me get married -- gay or straight -- that doesn't impact my personal life. I can disagree, I may not like it, but why should I have the ability to block their equal rights? What gives me that power? My own personal religious view? Rubbish. If that principle were applied evenly, we'd have a far more restricted and non-pluralistic society. [/color][/QUOTE] James, distinguish between the state and the personal recognition of marriage. Nothing?s stopping a homosexual couple from getting married. Before everyone starts typing the ?wtfwtfwtf!!?, observe what I mean. Anyone can live together with consent, and consider themselves ?married? without us telling them to. Churches can issue religious decrees that the homosexual couples have been married with their blessing. Nothing is stopping this. Even if I disagree, I won?t try to stop these, that is a matter of religious freedom and personal choice. Care to know what gives me the power to block what they consider ?equal rights?? My vote, and the conscious reasoning that I put into said vote. [QUOTE=Lalaith Ril][i][color=indigo] "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " What ever happened to what Thomas Jefferson said? Of course we had slaves back then, but do we now? Nope. Being with whom you love is that pursuit of Happiness. I mean think about this, gays arn't even hurting anyone by obtaining this happiness! We're not killing anyone, we're not forcing our believes on anyone, all we're asking is to allow us to live the same life that others can. Is it that hard to accept? [/color][/i][/QUOTE] Hey, be happy? just don?t make me pay for your sexual abhorrence.  Last I checked, love and marriage weren?t mutually exclusive? Nor was happiness? [QUOTE=Lalaith Ril][i][color=indigo] Another point with the marriage, and addressing the church. You know I'm really suprised Christians haven't gone against the whole practice of being married in a church, or atleast tried to get others not to do it. The church has no true meaning in a marriage anymore, its just a way to get money. Its total abuse when it comes to the true Christian faith. It totally defaces the whole entire concept of a union connected by God. I mean honestly (I can't tell you an exact number, but) around 40-50% of marriages are destined to divorce. Marriage is a mockery, period. Why worry about two people that are in love? What about the gays who want these tax cuts anyways? People are greedy they'll get around your system no matter what, thats a fact. They marry some women, break up with them when they have enough money and go on. Yes that makes marriage very sacred In America "married" means nothing. I can't stand how when it turns to the gay topic marriage is this "holy" or "divine" object. It may have been at one time, but guess what; in America it means nothing. [/color][/i][/QUOTE] That?s not a very nice thing to say to the 50-60% of the people who actually may regard their marriage as SACRED. You can be for marriage and against frivolous divorce/marriage at the same time. The problem is that no one can legislate anything concerning ?frivolous divorce?? it?s too complicated between the individual members of marriage. [QUOTE=Adahn]Marriage is not a Christian word. It exists in one form or another in almost every religious sect that has ever existed. Homosexuals aren't asking to be recognized by the Church as having a blessed union under God. Should we not recognize marriages between Jews or Muslims because they're not Christians? Or how about heterosexual atheists, buddhists, hinduists, shintoists, etc. America is a blend of religions, and some form of marriage exists within all of them. We do get alot of our morals from Christianity, but those same morals are in most other religions, too. Christians are nothing special, and the word "marriage" can't be attributed only to them. Also, the Bible does not mention female homosexual relationships. [I]Lev 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood [shall be] upon them.[/I] This is all it says. Nowhere does it state that women can't lie with other women. Just a point I wanted to make, since we're on the subject. Oh, another thing. If you're a Christian, and you get a legal divorce, you're not divorced. You can only divorce someone from adultery. If you get a legal divorce and go sleep with someone else, you're committing adultery. This is sort of funny, because I know tons and tons of Christians whose parents are divorced, and they all go off and commit adultery, thinking they're not doing anything wrong. This goes to show even more that marriage is no longer something Christian, since Christians themselves don't follow the rules. [I]Mat 5:32 But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.[/I] I hope this helps to show all of you that marriage is no longer a Christian institution, and since Christians themselves have failed to uphold the word of God, they have no right to enforce other parts of the Bible on anyone.[/QUOTE] In fairness, when marriage is recognized, it?s always understood as ?man and wife? this may because of biblical translation, or whatnot, but it?s difficult to mix the gender of such gender-specific words, no? As for the verse in Matthew.. amen. I agree with the verse. Let?s look at marriage from a social perspective. Why would we regard marriage with benefits?? Because of kids! Surprise, gay people can?t make babies. I thought Heaven?s Cloud made a good point in saying that the benefits should probably be for parents only. That?s the reason society recognizes marriage, because it is a predictable and pretty stable baby-making social institution. That?s why I say, fight for property transfer and hospital visits, don?t fight for a change in the rules ;). Think about this? why should gay couples be the only ones to get the benefits of marriage? Why not a pair of buddies living together, why shouldn?t they put each other on their health insurance? Why not a single parent and child? Why shouldn?t they get a ?legal civil union? to help with the tax break? Sounds like circular reasoning. [quote name='ssjSolarPrinces][COLOR=GREEN']Okay, I say, "YES", gay marrages should be allowed. First, I want to reinerate what Lalaith Ril said about seporation of church and state. We should never, under any circumstances let religious preferences get in the way of making disissions about our government and fellow citizens. The First Amendment guarentee's the American people the freedom of religion; and I also believe this includes the freedom of lifestyle choice. .[/COLOR][/quote] So just as governments don't respect institutions of religion, they shouldn't respect the establishment of institutions of lifestyle choice such as marriage? That puts a sty in the whole gay marriage advocacy, doesn't it? Now that I?ve made the rounds, I should be getting to Adahns questioning Christianity thread 

Oh boy... next thing you know, we'll have an abortion thread, an affirmative action thread (haven't seen that in a while, though), etc. I'm think this'll be closed within two days. Not that I doubt that it shall be closed. I'm just throwing in some standard deviation, maybe James won't notice this until a day or so.. *shrug* Hey, I'm not against gay marriage, if they can get a church to marry. Anyone can put a ring on their finger and be blessed by a "church". I'm not going to argue with two men who call themselves husband and husband. Nope, not gonna tell them it's wrong. In fact, more power to them to live together and marry, or whatever they wish to identify the process by. I just don't want to pay for it. Marriage isn't a "right"... it's a "privilage". I say this like I would say welfare is a "privilage". A lawyer making 200k annually cannot suddenly ask for a welfare check. Why not? He doesn't meet the requirements. Why should I be paying for gay marriage benefits, when i see they don't meet the requirements of marriage? You wan't to fight for equal health insurance? fine. hospital visits? whoopie. property transfer? go for it. A man who declares he is and always has been attracted to other men, yet admits he only dated women would commonly be referenced as "living a lie". By asking me, a member of the state, to recognize gay marriage within the same regards as heterosexual marriage when it opposes my ethical, rational, and moral values so explicitly... in voting for that, [b]I[/b] would be living a lie.

If you have sex without God's consent... you WILL get an STD. You will die from said STD. Sex can wait, masturbate.

Don't worry moi. Seems like ArtloverB's post quality will be netting him a short stay on OB. I love kissing, and I'm pretty sure anyone who has kissed for a good period of time will agree that it can easily pass hours; happily kissing away. As Lailath mentioned, a lot depends on the person you kiss. Kissing the same girl for a few months, and kissing a new girl can sometimes re-arrange the way you kiss, or your habits. There's no sure way to figure out what you like, it's mostly up to the two of you to decide. Hopefully you are comfortable enough to tell eachother when something isn't pleasent without hurt feelings. A few ways to knock off the surefire bad kisses: -Keep your breath fresh.. mints, gum (take it out before kissing), citrus fruit, mouthwash, maybe a quick swig of water could mean night and day... bad breath and nasty mouth is a real turn off. -If it's your first kiss.. keep it soft and lips only. I'd say this to be on the safe side. If the other person starts slipping toungue, great! -If the kiss involves toungue, don't jam it down his/her throat. I reccomend pressing it.. (i guess massaging kinda) his/her toungue, lips... -Breathe through your nose, and take little breaks every once and a while. -Swallow.. I know.. some of the spit is his/hers. If you're going this far, there's no going back. The worst possible scenario is you sending globs of spit into the other person's mouth. Slobber is probably the 2nd most devastating aspect to a bad kiss behind breath. -Open your eyes. Thank me later. Sure, the first kiss eyes-closed is nice.. but looking into someone elses eyes is far more intimate. -Kiss the body/neck/etc. Keep those hands moving somewhere... caress the neck, something. Move slowly, but vary what you do. This'll be hard early on, and keeping it to kissing only is perfectly fine; just.. spark it up a while. -Bad kissers can be turned into Good kissers!!! Just be honest, tell the person you'd like to see if they could kiss a certain way for you. I asked my last girlfriend if she'd ever been kissed (she hadn't), so I helped her learn how to kiss. Now she's a better kisser than I am! -Don't freak out about the first kiss. Concern yourself with the tenth kiss.. or the third time you make-out, or something of that nature. Kissing only gets better the more you do it.

Homosexuality *thinks*. Hey, live your lives the way you want to. March in your parades, live in your houses, have gay sex! I don?t give a damn. What they do behind closed doors is their business. I?m not going to indoctrinate a gay person on my ethical values if they leave my ethics alone. I love watching MTV?s the Real World for that purpose. They love to throw in a gay person, and a strangely unreceptive straight person in the same house JUST to see the conflict (Disclaimer: MTVs the real world does not, in most fashions reflect reality, please take what I say with a grain of salt). Most of the time it ends up with the gay person indoctrinating the straight person that gay people are really just like the rest of us and there?s no reason to hold any prejudice against them. Do I tolerate gay people? Well.. I don?t see why anyone shouldn?t tolerate gay people. Do I accept gay people? I guess, they live their lives on their own.. I?m not changing anything about their lifestyle. Do I agree with gay people? I don?t agree with their lifestyle, no. I don?t think homosexuality is [i]natural[/i] or [i]right[/i]. I don?t need anyone telling me that it [b]is[/b] right. Is homosexuality a choice? Yes and no. If you pardon the severity of my analogy; does anyone [i]choose[/i] to be schizophrenic? Doubt it? Is there any genetic connection related to schizophrenia? I don?t believe there is. That?s kind of how I look at homosexuality. One?s psychology really determines the sexual orientation. Does it have genetic or biological reasoning behind it? Nope. ?So what?? I say to myself. And I?m right. So what indeed. I?m going to regard homosexuality as a perversion, but I?ll regard [i]the[/i] homosexual as any other human being. Even Christians are capable of this; love the sinner not the sin. I may be wrong, but last I checked you really cant ?discriminate against? anything. You can discriminate between two things (the paper is white, the ink is black)? but holding preference of one over the other would be ?prejudice? or ?bigotry?. Our vernacular is warping a pretty indifferent word into something horribly political.. a shame really. I hope we don?t blow this ?oppression? issue out of proportion. Last I checked, it was legal to have a homosexual partner?.

[quote name='Adahn']Amen, I think exactly like you do. Sorry that this is short, but I just want you to know that that is EXACTLY what I think and how I feel, to the letter.[/quote] Double amen eternity. If nonexistence were the fate of all humanity, then there's no point in adhereing to ANYTHING society demands of us! There's no point in listening to a concience or obeying athourity! No reason to attain virtue!! Think about it, if we live in a society that have no ends to justify our means, then what dictates the means? If we all have nothing more we can lose, if we are all dissolving into nonexistence, why not rob a bank? Why not kill anyone who pisses you off? Why not rape that fine looking girl in the next apartment complex? After 60 or 70 more years at the most, its all meaningless anyway, right? I think the existence of morality and virtue alone are defiant of the entire possiblity of non-existence.

Please make this the last time I need to post on this: [quote name='Zeta']My attacks on his language are due to his post in saying that language isn't needed to be intelligent. My entire argument is based on that. He never said anything about any other languages. Read his post. He certainly wasn't talking about the language of mathematics. He was talking about the English/whatever language his friends speak due to his words of being able to express themselves, using periods, grammar, etc. [/quote] *sigh* You don?t get it? no one is any less intelligent based on his ability to use language. He?s just less able to USE his intelligence. You don?t become smarter upon talking, or reading a book.. your intelligence just permits a permeation of that knowledge! Get it now? [QUOTE=Zeta] Without a grasp of whatever language one speaks, you cannot do that. That is the point I was trying to make. Again, he said that language isn't needed to be intelligent. Going on that, you wouldn't be able to do anything. Where on Earth did you get that I was saying we get stupid in times of conflict? I was saying that intelligence is used in wartime. Without a grasp of the language to begin with, you won?t be able to read a map. You won?t be able to understand what geographical terms mean. Things like that. You dig? That doesn?t mean we are stupid. But it means that without those qualities of being able to understand your language you can?t do that. It was just an example. I could have said anything in its place, it was just the first thing that popped into my head. If you can't read, you can't do math problems. How will you know how 2 is spelled? Or pronounced? How will you know how to describe your findings to future generations? You have to have a grasp on your language to do anything. [/QUOTE] Sure, language is important to share ideas. But the ideas, as long as someone has a grasp on them, conceptually DO NOT REQUIRE A LANGUAGE! Granted, you can?t share them and the community will never learn of your genius. [QUOTE=Zeta] You put a physicist up to a factory worker, which is smarter? Throughout all the years of seeking knowledge through reading and practicing, they have become intelligent. Without the ability to understand the language, neither of them would be where they are. In a lot of cases, why does one become a factory work? Because they didn't do well i n school perhaps? Possibly because they didn't grasp their language to pass English/language class. Or possibly they failed to pass a mathematics class because of the word problems? The given number problems aren't what you see in real life. You see things you have to read and language is needed for that. [/QUOTE] That?s why college admissions and standardized tests can be ********. I?ve got a real life example: my dad. My dad worked in a factory for a couple years because he didn?t do so well in high school. He hated his high school. He was so ill prepared for college that he didn?t bother applying. Today my dad?s an Orthopedic Surgeon. He?s had over a decade of high-quality schooling. Why? Did he suddenly become intelligent within those two years? No, but he did grow up. He did realize his potential. That potential IS intelligence. No amount of doctorates is going to prove to me that you are so much more intelligent than any factory worker. It?s all about [i]application[/i] of one?s intelligence that matters. Now? I?m not saying that ANYONE can become a genius or surgeon. I?m just saying their possibilities aren?t limited to their current professions. Consider this.. you get the nuclear physicist and factory worker on a show of jeopardy and the three categories are ?Beer-induced slang, equipment euphemisms,? and ?specifics of the mill-press?; what does that tell anyone about their intelligence? [QUOTE=Zeta] I said it is useless if one doesn?t know have a grasp on their language. Why did I misunderstand his topic? Because he wasn't clear enough for me. He failed to lay out his views in a concise manner. [/QUOTE] ? Zeta the only failure was yours to observe his opinions objectively enough to comprehend them. [QUOTE=Zeta] Obviously if two people out of the whole (not including the poster) were able to grasp what he meant, means that it wasn't clear enough. He never even [i]mentions[/i] any other type of language. He was talking about the English/whatever language you speak type of language, clearly given by his talking about periods, grammatical things, etc. [/QUOTE] Maybe it means two people are just not quite intelligent enough to review his points? I said earlier? if 50 people don?t understand quanta mechanics and 1 does, does that make quantum mechanics any less intelligent or effective? Perhaps? but it doesn?t mean quantum mechanics should be dumbed-down so everyone could understand it. Thanks for continuing the discussion concerning genetics, though!Applauds to eternity, Siren, Sciros, Sara, and James for actually regarding this discussion with some sort of useful imput! I do belive genetics and intelligence are related when referring to raw capability, and nerve function. If you think about it, a single neuron has a dramatic impact on the entire way processes in the brain are handled. As for the mass of Einstein's brain; I would be concerned to see if his death has anything to do with a decreased brain mass. Was the solution his brain was preserved in (probably an ethanol fermeyldahide) decreasing the water-weight usually associated with brain tissue? I would adress that. I wonder on the note of photographic memories. My best friend has a photographic memory, and raw inteliigence I've never seen before in anyone I've ever known. Sure, I could bend my rhetroic and fluxuate my voice to appear more human in a debate, but he would pwn me on the points if I didn't know what I was talking about. He will always be smarter than me, and I have to work a lot harder if I want to "keep up " with him. Luckily I know I'm smart enough to achieve my wanted career, and he knows he is also intelligent enough to do practically anything. Are anomolies such as photographic memory, and unexplained genius hereditary or a matter of genetic manipulation during meiosis? Anyone have thoughts? How bout you, Erik?

[quote name='Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]When you die, your body decomposes and you rot into nothingness. [/FONT'][/COLOR][/quote] Not true.. every atom in your body will survive you (i mean in the material sense, not biological sense). Death? Meh, I see my existence as the combination between the physical, and spiritual. Death are those two realms separating, the biological accomondation are inconsiquential. Being religious, death means a release from the existence that evil shares... to an existence of perfection. edit: According to my drama teacher, a recent poll revealed more people afraid of speaking in front of a crowd more than death!

You guys turned an honest idea into a pretentious ego-fest. I wouldn't burninate so regularly, as Adahn is more than capable in my stead. But for the sake of a potentially rewarding discussion: [quote name='Zeta']Intelligence is completely different from what you are saying it is. Intelligence is how you use what you learn. How you manipulate your courses knowledge to suit your needs. It is how well you can understand others, create things to better man kind. Heck, intelligence is even in war time. You have to be intelligent to create a good plan, there is nothing deep about that, heh. Creativeness does come into play there yes, but it is ulimately knowing the geography of the place, weather, etc.. All those things is knowledge which you have come across in your life, which is in turn intelligence. Which you wouldn't understand any of it if you didn't have a grasp on your language. [/quote] How you manipulate your [i]courses[/i] knowledge to suit your needs? Intelligence is understanding? Creativity? I would argue that these are products of intelligence. What?s with the wartime comment? Are you inferring that people suddenly get stupid when it comes to conflict? [QUOTE=Zeta] Intelligence is the result of the knowledge that you seek out. Again I repeat, with a grasp on the language, you cannot be intelligent. It is a given fact. If someone can't understand you, how can what you are saying be deep? Without a grasp of the language to convey to the reader or whomever, they can't see if what you are saying is deep. [/QUOTE] You?re right, without language, utilizing your intelligence is impossible. Greeks delved deep into mathematics, Romans into architecture, and Phoenicians into mercantile. They were all utilizing different languages, but they all shared the attribute of intelligence. It?s not about how other?s perceive your message as deep so much as it is a matter of self-perception. Because Descarte?s philosophy flying over your comprehension make him any less effective, or any less ?deep?? [QUOTE=Zeta] I do not have that well of grammer. But I have a decent grasp on what I do know to convey my point clearly so that others can read and understand it. If I didn't have the grasp that I do have, everyone here would see me as unintelligent. Why? Because they can't understand me. How do you make them understand you? Get a grasp on the language. When you have that you are intelligent. The grasp of your language leads you to so many other possibilites where your "deeper" meaning has no significance. [/QUOTE] Any idiot can read a thesaurus. No idiot can understand the nature of truth. [QUOTE=Zeta] Let me ask you this. Is a nuclear physicist intelligent? They use "big fluffy" words.[/QUOTE] A nuclear physicist isn?t any more intelligent than a factory worker as far as I?m concerned. One isn?t born a PhD, but one is born smart. [quote name='Zeta']He didn't make that clear enough in his post then. Which in essence comes back to my point. He didn't explain himself well enough so that others and myself can fully understand what he was trying to say. But my replies stick by what I was able to grasp from what I could understand in his post. [/quote] I don?t think so Zeta. You spent a paragraph describing intelligence as being useless if no one can understand the ideas you present, and then you abase Adahn for your own misunderstandings? I didn?t have any trouble understanding what he was trying to say, I didn?t need to nitpick. [QUOTE=Zeta] But again, keep in mind, that that is just a theory. There may be supporting evidence, but until it is a proven fact it isn't 100% true. I am not saying that it isn't true, but I am also saying that we can't take it as being 100% true. [/QUOTE] ? So theorize, and allow the intellectuals their forum. Don?t oppose or support for the purposes of proving anything. Doesn?t sound like that was the intention in the first place. [QUOTE=Zeta] If he had been much clearer in his post, I would have been able to see more than what I was seeing. From what he said I was able to ascertain that he was saying that you don't have to have a grasp on a language to be intelligent. How hard is it to add a period or a comma? He then said that things people say may have a deeper meaning to what they say, but also have poor grammatical skills. But without an understanding of the language, one cannot write "deeply", which then means someone reading it cannot understand it.[/QUOTE] Language isn?t a means to measure one?s intelligence, but his means to communicate it. That?s what I gathered. His first post seemed clear enough to me.. gosh? maybe he should dumb it down a little next time. [QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]That would be curiosity. They're different things, though often related. And in one of my posts I basically said I didn't buy what THE BOARD told me, so your little insult at the end is kind of pointless. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] I wish you guys would have approached each other?s opinions objectively rather than trying to tear each other apart for an ego trip. I don?t think what Adahn describes is as simple as curiosity. I believe the acquisition of one?s discoveries constitutes to a portion of intelligence. [QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New] On a message board, you can't see some one's "body smarts" or "music smarts" or "art smarts" or other things of that nature. If you catch some one's "emotion" or "self smarts" it's through their grasp of the language. [/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] Like I said earlier, I?m more impressed with a well-thought simple-worded post than thesaurus-drenched piffle. It?s not the language that will win the day, it?s the wisdom. [QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New] For our purposes, some one who can't post coherently isn't intelligent if they are trying to convey a message in their native tongue.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE] This is a nice response to your earlier ?anyone who is illiterate should be shot, etc?. (I?m not taking this literally, please don?t misunderstand) Did you know Socrates was illiterate? Why do you think all of his dialogues were recorded by Plato? Does this make him any less intelligent than a literate Athenian? Nay, I?d say he was the WISEST man in Athens (and the world, if you count the Oracle at Delphi). His language was sufficient to convey his ideas, but his ideas were not born of his ability to communicate them. They were created from raw intelligence and wisdom. Socrates probably wouldn?t be able to post on this message board, but I would assert that he is far more intelligent than you or I are. [quote name='AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue]Yeah, that's a very good point to point out, haha. This place is a message board: you are currently limited to expressing yourself with words. Therefore, either it's not your friends' place to post here or they have to adapt to the "unimportance" of language. I don't get how you say you welcome arguments, but then tell someone to stop talking either... .[/COLOR][/SIZE'][/FONT][/quote] Since when did this become a discussion about message board intelligence? Last I checked, it was discussing the nature of intelligence (period). [QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue] Siren, he's referring to ambition or the drive to have intelligence (or [i]something[/i] *shrugs*). He never says there are other equally viable means to express one's intelligence (or be intelligent - or whatever he's trying to say). [/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] ?Sounds like you are the one confused about post content and contiguity, Azure. [QUOTE=AzureWolf][FONT=book antiqua][SIZE=2][COLOR=blue] I'll say it again, you weren't coherent, since you now see three different people with three different ideas of what you said. It doesn't matter if we are misunderstanding or you are being incoherent: there's a failure to communicate and statistics point more of the fault on your side.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT][/QUOTE] At fault of what, our own interpretations of his point? Don?t you get it? The interpretations we draw shouldn?t be placed upon a true/false basis, but should be examined and understood. There?s not much debating ideas if we oppose the interpretation we draw from Adahn?s initial point. Cede to your own limitations in this case and read before typing. Here?s how I see intelligence. I don?t see it as a simple IQ, or an ability to communicate. I don?t see intelligence as the ability to articulate, or to memorize. I see intelligence as a root. Intelligence is what drives curiosity in some aspect, it?s what materializes ideas from nonexistence. I think language is a gateway that allows intelligence to be shared and nothing more. The ?fluffy word? idea is nothing more than an accommodation of that communication. I say ?behemoth? instead of ?very very very very big? because it?s [i]easier[/i] and I happen to possess the knowledge. I don?t think intelligence is an attribute endowed equally. Here?s my question to the forum: do you think intelligence and genetics are directly linked? Related in any way?

[QUOTE=ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet]Okay, so the three debates have been held, finished and reviewed. I guess. According to most polls Kerry won all three debates. Except possibly in Florida because they have to do a recount. Heh heh heh. (well, you try to be alert and everything on three hours of sleep and taking care of a baby.) So, what do you think? Did Kerry win all three debates, or did Bush? Was it a tie? Or maybe a 2:1 ratio? Anyways, let me know what you think on that. I'll giv my reply later.[/color][/QUOTE] Yeah, Kerry was pretty well prepared for his debates. I have to feel bad for Bush, when it comes to public speaking, he is no Olympiad. I agree with bush's arguments and peiced most of what he was obviously "trying to say" together in my mind. When it came to the war and foreign policy. Bush just doesn't know how to put his ideas into words very... eloquently. IMO Kerry flopped the domestic issues debate. I have no idea where he stands after that... All he convinced me was that he won't vote for something he believes him as long as it threatens his political capital.

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]Just remember, Batman has it worse than anybody out there. The man was orphaned at 9, and has spent all of his life since then waging a neverending war, day-in, day-out. I'm not sure if he ever sleeps, eats, or takes a crap. Ever. He must hate himself plenty, all things considered. Not to mention that he's actually lost a Robin to the Joker in the 1980s. That was a huge bummer for him. My point is basically that never ever taking a crap would be hard on anyone, so I could totally understand Batman being super-grumpy. I'm not sure if that's what you needed to hear, but I'm glad I was there to say it anyhow.[/QUOTE] Don't forget the sexual tension of a house made up of about 3 virile males (you know Alfred is a closet Marvin Gaye). Last I checked, Batman doesn't really .... get any. Poor guy. Little site note to that, the '60's TV show actually created the Aunt Mary-something (I don't remember her name) because of the sexual message that was feared to be intepreted from an older male, middle aged male, and young male living in the same house. *shrug* I could've cared less as a kid watching this show, I just wanted to see the fighting and gadgets .. -_- Not only that, Adam West is the greatest epitomy of man since Gregory Peck. ;)

Eh.. the most pain I've ever experienced would not be of the physical sort. I've broken my fair share of bones.. but none have been so painful that I would lament them any more than a bad case of bronchitis. I prefer to share my experiences witnessing other people's pain (i work at a hospital and as an athletic trainer for my old highschool). Athletic trainer-wise.. I?ve seen compound fractures and broken necks. Breaking a neck usually sends a person straight into unconsciousness, and athletic fractures are so reacted by the adrenaline rush (this is a biological response to counter the intense, shock threatening, pain) that they don't even see that they broke their arm. The Achilles tendon... Yup, seeing a baseball player pivot just enough to snap the Achilles (the stress upon his ankle must have been astronomical) has got to have been the most painful experience I've seen in my athletic training career. The loud pop of the tendon tearing, followed by his immediate collapsing to the ground was more startling than I could have ever expected. My immediate response was to grip right above where the tendon would meet the muscle to prevent the entire tissue mass from rolling up (think of a yo-yo string, rolling back up into the leg) into his leg. The poor guy was absolutely beside himself in hysteria. I can justifiably say that the pain would be comparable to childbirth... yup. ER stories.. Ok, I should note the two most common pain-related cases that walk into the ER are Migraines and Menstrual Cramps respectively. Both, I?ve not really experienced, but seeing the intense pain burned onto each of the victim's faces surely compels me to thank God... I suppose the best example for menstrual cramps and putting it in perspective for guys would be this scenario: Kinda like getting kicked in the nuts hard... for about half an hour. Most women were brought in by wheelchair with sufficient menstrual pain. Migraines were pretty easy to treat, mostly a painkiller and drug that would relax the capillaries in the brain matter, reducing the pressure that would cause migraines. As for the most painful thing I've ever witnessed: It's a tie. this one's pretty intense... read at your own risk. [spoiler]1. The de-sheathed penis... Some guy came in explaining he had a fetish for vacuum cleaners and sticking Mr. Johnson directly into the pipe. Well, on this unfortunate instance, he couldn't find the long hose-attachment. So Mr. Smart decided to stick Smart-Junior into the nozzle-attachment hole... the beater caught his penis and tore the relatively thin layer of skin right off; effectively de-sheathing it. You know how much rug burns hurt? Just think if that were on your penis... *shivers* 2. A car accident came in with a guy suffering from 3rd degree burns around his entire body. The car exploded, literally burning his clothes off of his body. Layers of skin would slide off of him as they tried to move him from the ambulance to a bed. He died because of the severe exposure to his tissue, the sheer bleeding, and the burns themselves damaged some of his organ systems into failure. He was code blue before he reached the ER... That was a pretty sick thing to see...[/spoiler] Me? Well? I cut my hand on some glass once? *shrug* A few things... Liliath Ril, you went into shock after dislocating your hip? I'm guessing it's a endocrine shock rather than a typical thorasic shock... Just wondered if the dislocating hip clamped your femoral, sending you into shock And Anatema, I think your mom rubbed isopropyl, rubbing alchohol is a different type, if I remember. Just to clarify not scrutinize, as I hope no one starts putting rubbing alchohol on their wounds!!

[quote name='Garelock']Well, then so be it. Give the first question. Direct it to me or my opponent.[/quote] What the hell? How about adressing my 15 page rebuttal on about 3 cumulative post-sizes of your points? How bout you adress that first Garelock? Like I said, I'm not expecting you to defend yourself against any rebuttal but what I've given you, are you going to totally ignore that by starting "fresh"? Sounds like a wonderful cop out to me :). If we can be mature individuals, our debate, much like any other debate on OB requires no moderator...

[QUOTE=Garelock]I see my title of the "King of Debates" is in question. I haven't been doing as well as I normally do when I debate. Namely, I only debate for amusement. This thread is to make a debating contest which is centered about the presidential candidates. The reason why I made this thread was to exit out of the last thread with all the jumbled up stuff, which is to say, I had a lot to do with it. This thread is clean, composed and collective. No post is to be over a paragraph. That way, we don't bore people like I did in the last post. I'm more than willing to debate with anyone and argue with anyone as that's just my nature but I think it should be done one person at a time. Whereas the last thread, I had to take on like 4 to 5 people at once. Had I been given a fair fight, none of them would've made much of a challenge. So if thsoe people want to debate with me then do it here. A paragraph or two, nothing more and no less than a paragraph.[/QUOTE] Garelock... quit turning tail and get back to reply to my post. There's already a presidential debate thread, no need to create another. If i can educate you on anything at all in these next few debates we'll inevitably have, here's a quote: "I am the wisest man in the world for I knokw one thing, and that is that I know nothing"-Soctrates.