12 Forum Posts by "charly13243"
I recently heard that the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution because the universe is breaking down slowly and evolution claims the opposite. It seems to make sense, but it also seems to be too easy an excuse to dismiss the theory of evolution.
What is the argument against this common argument?
lets not forget the wounded soldiers. Many more than 3000 have been badly injured. Some, about 500, have lost limbs. Others have had permanent brain damage. Those guys have to live with that the rest of their lives. That's not a pretty situation, but I'm proud of our soldiers. Every day they live with all those risks and side-effects "penis plant" mentioned so that my four month old nephew might be able to grow up free. They deserve every honor for that. The risks they take are not rash or stupid, but honorable.
When an employer files for his yearly tax return, employee expenses are a big part of his claim. I say the IRS should step in. If the employer can't submit valid proof of the employees' legality, he will not only not receive his employee expense tax return, but maybe receive a fine. This would force all employers to make sure their employees are legal workers. Illegals don't get hired, illegals don't cross the border. That seems pretty fair to me.
I do realize the system is pretty hard when immigrants actually do want to receive legal citizenship and therefore the RIGHT to work in the US, but that's no reason to just quit arresting and deporting illegal immigrants who have absolutely no right to be here. I have no doubt that the system probably needs to be revised, but it shouldn't be five to twenty years before someone becomes a citizes just because they've been here that long.
At 4/4/07 11:34 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote: Well most scientists are saying that Global Warming is real, it's not as controversial as political hacks would like you to think. When given the choice between believing thousands of scientists who have worked and studied global warming for years, or believing some blowhard druggie who flunked out of college, I'm going to have to go with the scientists.
Most scientists do believe global warming is happening, but that doesn't mean they all think florida and new yourk will be covered in water in a hundred years. That's a bit extreme, don't you think? Most scientists who bielieve in global warming call it a natural cycle of relatively inconsequential temperature changes. None of what we've seen in the past few decades is off the charts when you compare it to what we've seen in the past five hundred to a thousand years.
I'm an 18 year old college senior with an azvab of 93. I recently met with a recruiter and he said that score alows me to have any job in the marines I want. Several of these interest me. The marines sounds like an incredible experience, something I can be proud of, something that will shape me into the person I was meant to be.
Yes I've thought about the fact that id pretty much for sure be going to iraq, but the truth is id be proud to fight for my country. I know it will hurt, i know it will be hard, thats why I want to know if it's the right decision, because I don't want it all to be for nothing. I don't want to regret my decision. Plus it sounds like hella fun.
I'd like to know, do I have the right attitude? am I marine material? or is it all bullshit? Am I a naive bastard that 's gonna get himself killed? Is boot camp the hell that it sounds like? What's the key to getting through boot camp?
these days it's considered arrogant to present one's viewpoints or religious beliefs as truth. In other words, you'd be saying if someone doesn't believe what you believe, he's WRONG. Man that suks. My question that I hope will be answered is this. How can anyone say he's Catholic, or Muslim, and not be presenting his beliefs as truth? How could anyone say
"I'm Catholic, but I'm not saying it's true. I'm just saying I kind of like Catholicism, so if you believe in achieving spiritual oneness with whatever, that's totally fine. I'm not going to try to convince you you're wrong or anything."
If you're going to believe in something, isn't it worth standing up for? isn't it worth trying to show others the light? Isn't holding it up as the one true belief part of having a belief?
At 2/20/07 10:44 AM, Jizzlebang wrote: Theres a difference between sexuality and political preferences. Being gay isn't something that has come from making a mistake.
Seriously, you've got to be fucking kidding me... Discriminating is a totally different thing than disagreeing with the president.
I should have made this clear. Pro-gay and anti-Bush are two politcal stances. Politicians live and die by their political stances. The FACT that the liberal media, who are supposed to "support all views and religious convictions," praise anti-Bush and criticize anti-gay is unbelievable. How can they call themselves tollerant ? Intollerant is a viewpoint just like tollerant is. To be against intollerance is to be intollerant.
You're right. There is a difference between sexuality and political preferences, but not in terms of their legitimacy as political viewpoints, which is what I was talking about.
By the way, I really wish you wouldn't use profanity in your comments. It's offensive to some people. Thankyou.
Recently the Dixie Chicks got in "trouble" for saying they were ashamed of president Bush, among other things. This produced tons of sympathy from fans that ultimately resulted in the group winning an emmy. Think what would have happenned if they had proclaimed how ashamed they werer of gays. Think what would have happenned if they had said they'd be ashamed if Barak Obama became presient in 08. The bottom line is this: say you hate bush, and you win an emmy; say you hate gays, and you lose you job. What an openminded country we live in. You lefties play the free speech card when somebody gets criticized for bashing president Bush, but then when somebody bashes gays you call them intolerant and closeminded. your thoughts
At 1/30/07 06:32 PM, Bolo wrote:At 1/30/07 06:17 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: There are people that think people are born gay, others say that you become gay as your life progresses, so i was thinking...Being gay is a gene located in the DNA. Some genes do not manifest themselves until later during the course of someone's lifespan. Technically, we all have "gay genes" and are all born with them, but the right conditions may not exist in order to trigger the outward manifestation of these characteristics.
I dont think they are born gay, i say they develope to be gay through there life, i mean who the hell is gay or not when your a child (remember thinking girls had coodies?).
If people are born gay it can also be said that black people are made to love chicken, i like chicken, im not black, im not gay, was that all written in the stars and ment to happen or do i have some say in what i become (except the black thing) . what do you all think.. agree or not.That's quite rascist, and your logic is nonsensical. First of all, your association of black people loving chicken obviously stems from the notion that black people buy food at KFC. That assumption, in itself, is completely and totally rascist. Plus, that association and the idea of being "born gay" are completely unrelated and incompatible ideas.
it's like saying 1+1=56
Being gay may come from a gene, but these right conditions you talk about confuse me. Please tell me what the right conditions are for someone to develop homosexual tendencies.
Also please explain to me how the notion that black people buy food at KFC is a racist one, and not a stereotypical one. There are countless stereotypes toward white people from other ethnicities. Would you call this racism that needs to be dealt with as well?
At 1/31/07 10:37 AM, BlueFlameSkulls wrote: So my friend got his windows bricked by two guys.
"I got got my windows broken by two black guys."
I was debating whether it was racist to refer these two men as "Black guys" when normally you wouldn't refer two white men who bricked a window as "two white guys".
You would refer them as "two guys", so why do people say black people when it's a black person and people when it's a white person.
Perhaps it's the fact that the majority of britain is white
Your thoughts
If you're white, you refer to black people as "black people."
If you're black, you refer to white people as "white people."
plain and simple logic. you're not a racist. you're just distinguishing the fact that they were black and not white. Especially in Britain where, as you said yourself, most people are white, it would be only natural to point out that two "black guys" broke your windows.
You're right about one thing. Immigrants should be allowed to enter into our country and have jobs and a house and rights and everything else US citizens have. However, most of them do it illegally and that's where the problem starts. It doesn't matter if English is not the most widely spoken language. That's what we speak in the USA. If you're going to live here, learn the language and don't force others to deal with it. The US has a system of keeping track of people which allows the government to enforce many laws, among other things. We can't have our country full of unaccounted-for people. If they aren't legal citizens and don't, for example, pay taxes, why should they have any of the benefits that americans receive as a result of taxes, such as healthcare, police protection and national security. It wouldn't be fair to america and its inhabitants to just allow them to stay here because if we throw them out they'll come back in. That's a ridiculous excuse.
there are some cities in the United States where if an English speaking citizen does not speak spanish he will have considerable trouble anywhere he goes. There are so many illegal employees who don't speak a word of english that he won't even be able to order a subway sandwich without having trouble. This is an outrage. Last time I checked, the official language of the U.S. was English, and no citizen should be forced to learn another language because of illegal aliens.
