Messages

166

General Chat / Re: Your \

« on: July 29, 2008, 11:51:35 PM »

ONCE AGAIN

if someone has a terrible name, it is NOT THEIR FAULT. IT IS THEIR PARENTS' FAULT.

Caps lock is awesome!

167

General Chat / Re: Your \

« on: July 28, 2008, 09:19:32 PM »

Ugh, I hate "Uniking" names, too. I don't judge the person with the name, but I do have zero respect for anyone who names their daughter "Nevaeh".

168

General Chat / Re: Your \

« on: July 21, 2008, 04:51:23 PM »

PS: I am completely neutral about the very sticky I just threw up. Just saying.

169

Mario Chat / Re: The Hardest Mario Game

« on: July 20, 2008, 08:11:43 PM »

YIDS once you factor in the 100% goals, if you consider it a Mario game.

Oh wow, this. Seriously, I have a 100% file on YI and SMA3, but can't 100% most of the levels in YIDS for some really weird reason.

170

General Chat / Re: Where do you work/go to college/want to do/etc.

« on: July 18, 2008, 04:58:18 PM »

I: Hartford Life, as an actuarial intern. I hope to get a full time position there and get my FSA eventually.
II: see I. Hopefully. If I'm bad at interviewing and I don't get a full time position there I'll try elsewhere.
III: Purude. Actuarial Science.
IV: see III
V: 2004 Cavalier. 27k miles. I'm keeping it for probably the next 5-10 years.
VI: No. Expensive cars are a wasteful purchase to me. I mean, if you like them, awesome, but I'd rather buy an In the Groove 2 machine.

171

Site Discussion / Re: New staff members

« on: July 06, 2008, 02:46:21 PM »

Inflammable means flammable?

What a country!

Also congratulations. :D

172

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Abortion

« on: July 06, 2008, 02:39:46 PM »

Actually, I'd go up to her and say, "that's what you get for walking down that dark alley."

Because, you know, all women who get raped were ASKING FOR IT by walking down a dark alley at night alone in provacative clothing. And a pregnant 14 year old is going to reflect about what happened to her maturely and without any emotional scarring at all. Let's say that she can't face her parents because they're scary "wait until marriage" types and she kills herself instead of confronting them about the kid. Oops. But hey, at least the unborn child is ok, right? ... wait, never mind.

Google the "Just World Phenomenon". Your posts are a perfect example of it.

And if -YOU- claim to be a Christian, and think that acting all "haughtier than thou" make you favorable in God's eyes, maybe -YOU- need to re-read the apparent source of your moral code juuuuuuuuust a bit better.

173

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Abortion

« on: July 06, 2008, 08:41:00 AM »

If it means that a ten year old boy with many friends and is just starting to build a social famework, or a 30 year old mother for which 2 lives -directly- are effected and would deteriorate substantially if she dies wouldn't die, then yes.

That said, most preferable is not killing any of them. But then we'd have a non-question.

174

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: War

« on: July 06, 2008, 08:37:49 AM »

You mean there wasn't enough sarcasm oozing out of that post and people still took it seriously?

*headdesk*

(well, *headchair*, there's no desk in this apartment)

175

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Abortion

« on: July 06, 2008, 08:32:00 AM »

Look at it this way: if you were forced to kill one person out of a group of three, who would you kill? A newborn baby, a 10 year old boy who's just starting to understand the world around him, or a 30 year old mother supporting her two kids? If you have any sense of moral well being, you'd kill the baby. The baby is thoughtless, mindless, it can't understand it's being killed, and it isn't missing much.

I don't know how I missed this comment.

This is correct, and this question is trivially easy. Babies are in and of themselves useless, and the death of the baby has less of an impact on the society aroud it than the death of either of the other two.

I'll offer this proposition to anyone in this thread. If you can explain to a 14 year old girl who was raped and is now 1 month pregnant why she should be forced to have an unwanted baby, I'll explain to her unborn child why it'd be better that it be aborted then society have to front the costs (monetary and otherwise) of the child being born. Deal?

176

General Chat / Re: HAPPY FOURTH OF JULY!!!!!!!!!!

« on: July 04, 2008, 10:18:03 PM »

This is an awesome bump.

That is all.

177

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Abortion

« on: July 03, 2008, 03:35:48 PM »

Ok, here we go...
1) Yes it is. As soon as it's conceived, it's a living human being. This is not just a religious belief, either. It's been proven scientifically.

2) Dude, cows don't have souls.

3) Killing a human being is murder. An unborn baby is a human being. Thus, abortion is murder. And yes, euthanizing people is also murder.

4) There are already cures for cancer. The medical industry just doesn't want anyone to know about them, because if it was cured they'd no longer be making money from cancer patients.

5) So it's okay to kill people in comas too, huh?

1) Never mind the fact that something like 40% of conceptions are aborted naturally when they can't attach properly, etc.

2) Neither do humans.

3) Killing a person is murder. You have not proven, in the slightest, that an unborn baby is equivalent to a human being. Your argument is flawed. And you think it's more "moral" to force someone who wants to die to suffer for years instead of just letting them die and not have to deal with unbearable pain? Seriously?

4) At least you got one thing right.

5) If there's zero chance of them awakening, the person becomes a strain on resources. If the person in a coma explicitly said they'd rather be killed if put in this situation, then there's -nothing- wrong with letting them die.

Conclusion: My points look as ridiculous to you as your points are to me and nothing I say is going to have an impact on anyone at all

178

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: War

« on: July 02, 2008, 07:52:09 PM »

Well, see, the people that run gas stations sell gasoline exactly as it is drill from the earth, with no middlemen or refining processes to deal with at all. Even if there -were- other people handling the oil from rig to pump in some off the wall bizarro world, it's not like they'd ever be tempted to sell their refined product for anything more than the refining costs. And, certainly not at an excessive profit. Also, the oil barons who run gas stations are about as rich as pro athletes and wouldn't need to mark up gasoline any higher than it has to be because they all have money oozing out their wazoos.

Also, oil is really easy to extract from places with new refineries (owned by the gas stations, of course) and there's no lag whatsoever between building an oil rig and getting all the oil in America at once. And there's definitely plenty of oil in America, certainly enough to power all our cars for decades to come. And even if it weren't, I highly doubt oil exporting countries would ever artificially shorten supply to raise gas prices. I mean, with America's favorable world image, why would you want to do that?

In conclusion, I really have no clue what I'm talking about and drilling in ANWR will drop gas to $1.10 a gallon. iViva la revolucion!

179

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Abortion

« on: July 01, 2008, 04:55:21 PM »

Also, it seems that you're either:
A. Operating under the assumption that abortion is not murder, and therefore outlawing it would be oppressive
B. Okay with the idea of murder, and think the government shouldn't outlaw much of anything
C. Grouping in other religiopolitical issues irrelevant to the abortion debate

60% A, 40% C[/quote]

Anyway, I'm not making appeals to morality here. I could just use religion to say that abortion is immoral

Appeals to religion are invalid, except for defining your own PERSONAL(READ: not mine or anyone else's) moral code. Nice try, though.

secular government

...

the government is as secular as it is a democracy. I think there's a reference to religion on both our nation's pledge and our currency.

I'm saying that science and philosophy point toward the fetus being a human being, and therefore must be protected by the United States government according to its founding principles. Just because my argument comes to the same conclusion as the religious right doesn't mean I'm asking for a theocracy.

Explain how -science- exclaims that a faetus is exactly the same as a person. To me, a faetus is as much a human as, I don't know, a pine cone is an actual pine tree. I'll acknowledge the last point about the religious right, though. I'm just bitter.

180

Not at the Dinner Table / Re: Abortion

« on: June 30, 2008, 04:58:53 PM »

Hahahahaha @ humans being inherently equal. Something about eyewear tinted a certain shade of reddish-pink springs to mind.

Also I totally disagree with the whole making it against the law to disagree with the "moral" right. Wasn't America founded to OPPOSE an oppressive, overbearing government?

Also "the people" have ~0 say in what the government does. America is an oligarchy, not a democracy or a republic. Those in power do a really, really good job of hiding this.

In conclusion: Abortions for some, miniature American flags (made in China) for all.