I'm actually working on my LD arguments for a big over night meet. Here's what I have thus far:
Resolved: Public health concerns justify compulsory immunization.
Definition: I define this resolution as the following; I define public health concerns as serious health issues affecting the general population; I define justify as to show to be the best course of action; I define compulsory as mandatory, and immunization as vaccinating in order to prevent certain illness.
Aff:
V: utilitarianism, or to do the greatest good for the greatest number
VC: mandatory vaccination for those at highest risk for various diseases
Vaccination is highly effective in preventing diseases
Potential negative effects are negligible
It is in our best interest to vaccinate those at greatest risk in the face of serious health concerns
Neg:
V: Personal Liberty
VC: Allowing persons to freely choose vaccination
The costs of compulsory vaccination are prohibitive
Adverse effects of vaccine can be worse than the diseases they prevent
Immunization can be counter productive to trying to eliminate a disease

Sources:
http://nejm.highwire.org/cgi/content/ext ract/355/23/2389 mandatory HPV vaccination
http://www.springerlink.com/content/btxl yt75lhrv95ct/ cancer vaccination
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/ap /au/2000/00000014/00000001/art00346 vaccines causing disease
http://www.jstor.org/pss/30108332 small pox vaccination
http://www.jstor.org/pss/30129986 lower death rates amongst elderly
http://www.jimmunol.org/cgi/content/abst ract/155/3/1151 auto immune disease
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoimmune_
disease auto immune disease
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v35 6/n6365/abs/356152a0.html genetic immunization

At 12/7/09 05:07 AM, WolvenBear wrote:

At 11/29/09 02:46 PM, Patton3 wrote:

The government of Afghanistan was one of the supporters of al Quida. Working with them would be like working with David Duke to combat the KKK. But we DID work with tribal leaders. So I suppose that fits your lackluster point?

Couldn't it have been negotiated in a way other than full scale invasion and overthrow of the government? That's what I was eluding too. And yes, do support working with tribal leaders, because it works. I didn't nor do I support dismantling a government to route out a terrorist group.

- Invading Iraq. According to GWB, we invaded based on 3 major things. They had weapons of mass destruction; they were tied to Al Qaeda; and they were the world's most dangerous regime. We then invaded and overtook the worlds most dangerous regime, overtaking it in 3 weeks. Then... we find no weapons of mass destruction, and find out the only ties between Saddam and Osama were phonetics and religious leaning. Then, a little bit down the road, our president tells us that even if crap intel hadn't told him about the WMD's and the tie to Al Qaeda... "We would've invaded anyway.". Anyone else smell a rat?

We had one person claim that Saddam had WMD's. One. Yet, when we overtook the country, we searched military installations and any other likely suspects for hiding such weapons and found none. And did Blix have the WMD's in question? Not claiming to have had them, actually having them in his country, having them in storage, documentation of destroying them, that sort of thing.

"Fill in the bubble sheets" are a standard in testing. Used in the ACT, SAT, and other tests, the bubbles are simply a method. There is nothing wrong with them.

And I'm saying the standard isn't a good one. You could take a "fill in the bubble test" right now on a subject you don't understand in the least, let's just say college level physics, and get a 25% on it. It's not showing students' true knowledge. Actually having to write out answers shows you have knowledge of it. Choosing A, B, C, or D does not.

Tax receipts JUMPEd after the tax cuts. We made so much more money that no liberal theory of economics covered it. Cutting taxes makes the government more money. There is simply no question about it.

A source if you don't mind. Which would answer questions I have such as "Was this jump in in tax receipts sustained?", "Is it proven that these tax cuts were the one and only cause?".

The Geneva convention doesn't cover anyone who we used EIT against.

The Geneva convention rather clearly outlines against the use of torture by or against it's members. Are we not bound by that? By my understanding we ought not justify these thinly veiled torture techniques because of a convention that took place 60 years ago. If you'll recall this line: "Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs.". How does this not pertain?

You're big on invective and small on fact. I recommend you read up on what you're talking about before commenting on such complex matters.

And I recommend to you that one should try to topple another persons points through the strength of your own arguments, rather than taking the low road and talking down to them.

A club to discuss Forensics, or for those not in with the lingo, speech and debate. We will talk about current discuss Lincoln-Douglas, Public Forum, Congress, and Policy debate, as well as any and all speech events, from Humorous Interpretation to Poetry. So if you compete at high school or college forensics, here's an "official" place to bounce ideas, tweak arguments, etc. Anyone interested in looking at what is up for debate in... debate is also welcome, and opinions on arguments or speech presentations are always welcome with open arms.
So if you'd like an online forum to research, write arguments etc., here's what I hope becomes you're new go to place!
And of course, if you need to look at regulations for different events, or find the current topics, go here.

This tie between god and country has deep roots in the era of Manifest Destiny. This idea promoted that we were preordained by gos to spread this country "from sea to shining sea"... and it stuck. Not to say this sentiment didn't already exist, we considered ourselves a Christian nation, but this era exacerbated it.

Well, due to scheduling (his and my own) I will not be talking with our Theology professor in question. However, I might be continuing my talks with him via e-mail. If I remove the names and such, would anyone be interested in seeing them posted here?

I've resisted the urge to bash Bush for long enough. Here's some major issues I had (have)
- Invading Afghanistan, the graveyard of empires, in order to route out a terrorist group. This could have been done, in my opinion, by working with the Afghanistan government. Then when he did invade, troop levels were abysmally low. Afghanistan is a nightmare of difficult geography, and our enemies are at home in it to boot... Essentially, we needed to combat terrorism, but this a motley of poor planning and lack of forethought.
- Invading Iraq. According to GWB, we invaded based on 3 major things. They had weapons of mass destruction; they were tied to Al Qaeda; and they were the world's most dangerous regime. We then invaded and overtook the worlds most dangerous regime, overtaking it in 3 weeks. Then... we find no weapons of mass destruction, and find out the only ties between Saddam and Osama were phonetics and religious leaning. Then, a little bit down the road, our president tells us that even if crap intel hadn't told him about the WMD's and the tie to Al Qaeda... "We would've invaded anyway.". Anyone else smell a rat?
- NCLB. Good and bad to say on this one. The good is that he made a move toward measuring all students on unified standards. The bad is that it was based on crap like fill-in-the-bubble sheets, and not anything that measures actual competence.
- Tax cuts. I understand that tax cuts can stimulate consumer spending, and can also foster growth in business. But don't do it while we're in war, and 1.35 trillion in cuts is excessive... And if you do this, don't stand there like Forest fucking Gump trying to figure out why the deficit became so atrocious.
- "Enhanced interrogation techniques". Between Gitmo and Abu Grabass, yes we did get intelligence, but at what cost? Bullshitting our way around the Geneva convention, violating human rights, getting questionable intelligence, inciting more attacks, garnering hate from our allies and everyone else... do you need more?

Well... considering it was posted here, I thought that it was obvious the topic. Anyway, thanks for the points. It's been an e-mail back and forth for a while. and yes, Griffin, you're right in the regard that he likes to take an emotional point of view.
However, a point that the only logical explanation for the universe's existence is god... Any points anyone here would like to make on this.

If all goes according to plan, I may be talking face to face with a theism professor at a local University. Any tips?

I should have made this a part of the above post, but I recently read in an article, from the Wall Street Journal I think, that Thanksgiving is the one true American, Christian holiday, and that the "war" on it is more pressing than the "war" on Christmas. The author in question makes this statement primarily on the following points:
1. There are 3 major holidays that are often grouped as Christian: Christmas, Easter, and Thanksgiving.
2. But since Christmas and Easter were originally pagan, Thanksgiving is the only "real" Christian holiday, since it's roots are with the protestant immigrants and Indians who first celebrated it.
3. According to our writer "The war over Thanksgiving as a holiday began when a generation was taught that the holiday's first setting was Pilgrims being saved from starvation by Native Americans. This war continues with a President that defines it as a time to thank each other."
It's worth noting that what prompted this was Obama referring to the holiday as "a time for us to renew our bonds with one another".
My 2 cents is that he's not okay with historical fact since it was to celebrate a good harvest with a feast. That good harvest due in most part to the help of the highly agricultural group of Indians under Massasoit... and I frankly see no problem with celebrating it as a day of thanks. Heaven forbid we should celebrate a national holiday in a secular manner. But hey, I'm a liberal atheist, so I'm obviously biased.
Thoughts anyone?

Yeah, Vago, it's alright to invite us as guests on the above mentioned radio show, but we can do without the logo that takes up half a page. In the future, just send pm's or make a small announcement if you'd like one of us as guests on VE day or something.

Here goes... whatever the hell this is:
Education:
Public education will be better funded, and will incorporate less interference from the federal government, allowing teachers, professors, etc. to have a larger say in what to teach kids and how to teach it to them, and will be given the resources to do so, within reasonable parameters of course. As well, parents will be more limited in being able to withdraw their children from classes. Like it or not, Johnny needs to find out about sex and foreign ideas at some point.
As well, all citizens will be given the funding to attend at the very least a city college, through already existing programs such as FAFSA, as well as programs yet to be determined. If one does not take this oppurtunity, it will be held against them if they later have to apply for welfare. They will not be excluded, but the amount and duration for which they can receive it will be diminished.
Health care:
All citizens of the United States will be able to receive basic care (physicals, immunizations, etc.) through clinics established by a new branch of the FDA. To be applicable to receive care at these institutions, a typical family must make less than 20k per year. For families with multiple children, single parent families, etc., the line will be determined on a case by case basis.
As well, private health care institutions cannot deny coverage to customers for health problems, and to keep premiums in these companies reasonable, citizens have the option of buying in Medicare early.
Environment/Energy:
No plants running on coal, oil, or peat will be allowed to be built, with a grandfather clause for existing plants of this variety. Solar and wind energy facilities will be encouraged, hydroelectric plants must receive special permission to be built to avoid damaging important ecosystems. Nuclear plants are allowed, as they will be naturally phased out since uranium is estimated to last for 30-60 years.
By 2025, no gas powered vehicle will be allowed to be produced in, imported to, or exported from the United States. Any still existing vehicles of this sort are allowed. The United States will also begin investing a yet to be determined amount into developing the infrastructure necessary for hydrogen powered vehicles.
Transportation:
Public transportation will undergo a serious revitalization. Cities and private companies will be encouraged to develop modes of transportation (such as bullet trains) that are both clean and efficient. Cities with a population of 200,000 or more will be required to establish committees (if not already present) to create public transportation systems that can help commute at least 30% of the cities population on a daily basis. This goal must be achieved within 30 years. These cities will also have the opportunity to do this by allowing private transportation companies to review their public transportation systems and essentially audit them. Going through them line by line, and eliminating friction and inefficiencies.
Infrastructure:
At it's current state it is a disgrace to one of the most economically powerful nations. After an initial investment of 150 billion dollars to at least begin to fix the problem, the amount currently allocated to maintain/expand infrastructure will be doubled on the federal level.
As stated in the transportation and energy sub points, funds will be generally allotted in these areas to develop the infrastructure for a clean energy America.
The Military:
By 2012, all U.S troops will be pulled out of Iraq, with NATO taking over operations there, primarily as a small security keeping force. These will remain for as long as is necessary, being rotated of course, to help maintain security and to train Iraqi units. The Iraqi military will be licensed, if they so choose, U.S. and NATO weapons. These weapons must be purchased, not simply given away.
The Afghanistan force will be doubled, in men and equipment, and Karzai will be removed from presidential office. A more competent leader from amongst the Afghans will be put in his place. Free elections for president will be held 2-4 years after this. Infrastructure and education programs will be developed entirely by the native government, with the U.S. and NATO forces acting as the countries military and police force until the infrastructure and education can be developed to at least the level of the developing world. Every effort will be made to reconcile Taliban fighting for money, and a no tolerance policy for all other members of the group found within Iraq or Afghanistan will be carried out. If a person is found to be a member of this group beyond reasonable doubt, the death penalty will be prescribed immediately.
Bases outside of the U.S., Iraq, and Afghanistan will be limited to 20 each of Army, Air force, and Navy. Military strength will be temporarily bolstered, but cut to 20% below current levels after Iraq and Afghanistan can be left to govern themselves. NATO will also be pressured to take a much larger role in the affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Trade:
Absolute free trade with all nations, save North Korea and any other Nations deemed dangerous. Excluding of course, the previously mentioned gas powered vehicle clause.
Crime:
Victimless crimes, ie: prostitution, drugs, gambling, etc., will be fully legalized, requiring though, licenses and/or permits. States are permitted to choose whether or not to accept this, and can keep current regulations if they so choose.
The usage of the death penalty will be allowed to be used more frequently, and death row inmates will be limited in the number of appeals, 4, and can sit on death row for no more than 5 years.
Gay marriage:
Perfectly legal federally, but it is ultimately up to the states.
Abortion:
Purely a state issue; no federal interference what so ever.
Gun Rights:
Current laws and regulations. Any changes will be on the state level.
Taxation:
The estate tax will be re instituted, and the newly legalized drugs, gambling, and prostitution will be considerably taxed. Active military personnel and veterans will see their tax rates cut in half. All other policies regarding taxation are yet to be determined, and will be left as they are for the time being.
Other:
All government officials receiving a salary of 200k or more will have their salaries cut in half.
The federal budget will be scrutinized line by line by a newly established committee of 5 economic experts, 3 domestic policy experts, and 2 foreign policy experts, in order to outline spending to be eliminated, and to draw attention to areas where more funding is needed. This same committee will look at positions on the federal government payroll, in order to perform the same function.

I will not run as a democrat or republican. I will be a candidate for a party that is economically conservative and capitalistic, and very socially liberal. This party is yet to be named.

Wow, reading this was fun... 10 or so people who got it and continued the joke, 5 or so were clueless and ranted and raved, and one dipshit actually actually agreed with you. I needed that today.

Well, this got hateful real quick didn't it? (I'm talking about the comment, not the post). Anyway, I think you would be better off going with something like "Inconsistent Democrats", or something along those lines. While the Republicans are composed largely of conservatives, the Democrats are a bit more of a catch all group. Just a friendly thought from a liberal in residence.

Pretty much I'd say, MultiC. Humanism, as I mentioned earlier, is the idea that you don't need religion as a guide to live a moral life. But, you know, it's just such a fascist idea of course.

At 11/11/09 11:34 AM, Zoraxe7 wrote:

At 11/10/09 10:14 AM, Ericho wrote: Other people like Bill Maher.

Anyone that thinks Bill Maher is funny should get shot.

Calm the fuck down. Look me in the eye (figuratively) and tell me "Master P's theatre" isn't funny?

Woot! Woot! All aboard the stereotyping to make ourselves feel better and ignore societal problems train!

At 11/8/09 03:27 PM, ph0ne wrote: To everyone in this thread:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9IdL37PJ 2k&feature=related

For fuck's sake, not this bull shit again.

I think I shared mine once, but it was at least 10 pages back, so...
I was raised catholic, even attending catholic school (k-8), for a number of years. i used to be a rather avid believer, one who would often pray, attend church with a fervor, etc. But as I grew older, 12 if I had to put a year on it, I began to doubt it... and on this, I think all theists do at some point. just not all make such a turn about as I did. Anyway...
At first it was just a gentle questioning: "Why does the Pope, a man, get to change and adapt God's law?". I rationalized this as something along the lines of "Well, this is just a man made law, something not condoned by God.". Yet, as I'm sure you see, this begs another question: "If this is god's church, which he established and St. Peter is it's rock, why does this all powerful God condone this pollution of his message?". Which was still on the whole a questioning of man's interpretation, but still slowly approaching a questioning of the concept of God.
As I grew older I began to question evermore. This particularly accelerated when I moved to public school, as a catholic school is very much a sheltered environment. Such as "Why does this loving god let utterly horrible things happen to what he has created, and what he loves?", or, "Jesus once said: 'He that does not abide in me is like a branch cut from the vine, and withers. And the branches are gathered and cast into the fire.'. Now, if this is the son of god, and the son of a loving all forgiving god, wouldn't he be forgiving of his creations, whom are in rebellion to their creator according to the bible?". Perhaps this is man's pollution of god's word, or some other rationalization like "He works in mysterious ways." which always struck me as a cop out. Another way I've heard it rationalized is "It's like trying to explain to an ant how a tv works.". However this implies that the ant (man) is worshiping something it doesn't understand (god). Is it because the ant fears it, or that it can't explain it, so places some sort of contrived explanation around it. And we as bystanders can see this, and know full and well the television isn't a god, and can be explained very easily. I have yet to come across a good explanation for this.
Then, there are contradictions within the bible itself. Take Genesis, the story of Cain and Able to be specific. The short version is that god created Adam and Eve, Cain, Seth, and able, and seven women. And by this, these are the only people in the world. Then of course, Cain kills Able, and for this, he is banished. But hang on a moment.... He is banished, to live with the people in the Land of Nod.
Or let's look at Soddom and Gommora. When two angels came to talk to Lot, the one godly man, a mob appears and tries to rape the angels. To prevent this, Lot, the godly man, offers to the mob his own daughters to rape.
Then, there are some general ones, such as "Thus says the Lord, God of Israel: Put everyman a sword by his side, and slay everyman his brother.".
Now, let's get to the elephant in the room... The gospels, ie: the story of Jesus. There are inconsistencies within them. Such as, the virgin birth is only in two of the gospels. When he is crucified, in one before he dies he yells: "God! Why have you forsaken me!". In another, he yells: "Lord, into your hands I commend my spirit.". Not to mention the fact that these were written 150 or so years after Jesus died.
And then, there is the fact that this story, Jesus', was seen throughout the Mediterranean area for millenia prior to the gospels. Particularly in the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Which it may interest you all to know predates the Bible by 14 or so centuries. Here's the short version of the story:
Written in 1280 b.c., it describes the Egyptian god Horus. Horus was the son of the god Osiris, born unto men of a virgin mother. He was baptized in a river by Anup the Baptizer, Anup later being beheaded. Horus, before preaching and performing miracles, was tempted in the desert while alone, by the Egyptian god of the dead. He then gathered twelve disciples to him, and preached, and performed miracles across the land. He healed the sick, the blind, and cast out demons in the name of god (Osiris), and also walking on water was a noteworthy miracle. He also raised Asar from the dead. Asar, translated from Egyptian into Hebrew, means Lazarus. He was crucified on a hill, with two other men; 3 days after he died and was buried, two maidens announced that Horus, savior of humanity, had been resurrected.
This, in a nut shell, is why I unashamedly define myself as atheist. Doubt me as you will, hate me if you just. But if you've ever wanted to know why/how some people can be atheist... Here you are.

No, this isn't an opportunity to point and sneer at people who doubted/doubt Obama. Merely I pose a question: What do you think caused the economy to grow?
And to be perfectly clear about what I'm getting at, do you think it recovered naturally, or do you think it was due to some action(s) by the current or previous administration... or something else entirely? Perhaps you think this is just a brief spurt of growth, and that it will go down next quarter, or something along those lines.
Discuss.

Actually, this is already in place to some extent. A friend of mine got a drunk in public charge, and instead of throwing him in a drunk bin, the police took him to the local station, and ordered him 15 hours of community service. This might be a local thing, but still.
As well, would you say that light drug usage, light as in drugs like marijuana, is a menial crime? Or that it should be legalized? It's pretty obvious to me that this would cut down on prison pop., but you proposed reducing the number of prisoners, so I want to know what you think.

Large Hadron Collider - creates a black hole
Rick Roll - Rick Astley appears, and begins dancing
Cthulu - Cthulu is one of the most powerful characters in the game

That's a couple of my favorites, but I love summoning satan, death, god, and an angel. Then while they're duking it out, summon a trex, then tranquilize it and ride it. then get a shrink ray and shrink it, and ride it into the battle with the lightsaber. and then once they're all defeated, summon ctulu and godzilla for the final battle.

At 10/21/09 04:18 PM, ph0ne wrote: Triple post, don't kill me.

I also wanted to add that the bigotry and prejudice in this thread is off the charts.

Beep! Beep! Beep! Beep! Sir, I believe I've found the source of it!

What's really disappointed me about Beck is that since moving over to Fox, he's mucking out the same crap that American news networks are famous for, with that special taste that Fox's brand proclaims. Take for example, in his new book, he has a list of, what are in his opinion, "The 10 Biggest Bastards of All Time": 10. Pol Pot, 9. Robert Mugabe, 8. Teddy Roosevelt, 7. Bernie Madoff, 6. Adolf Hitler, 5. Keith Olbermann, 4. Pontius Pilate, 3. FDR, 2. Tiger Woods, and 1. Woodrow Wilson.
Pol Pot, Hitler, and maybe Bernie Madoff and... hell, I might give you Teddy (manifest Destiny, colonization... ech) I'm not going to say shouldn't be on there. I would contest their positions, but anyway...
Tiger Woods? Pardon my French, but what the fuck? And what sort of partisan pretzel do you have to twist yourself into to put FDR, Olbermann, and Wilson on there? And I don't think to mention he has a bit of religious bias in this as well.
I do still have respect for him. I don't know anyone who could not have at least a grudging respect for a man who coped with losing his mother at 13, and beat alcoholism. It just seems like he's letting the base he built as a moderate voice slip in an unsavory direction.

I was raised in a catholic family (and still live in said catholic household... ech) and even attended catholic school for 8 years. Simply over the years, I grew more and more skeptical of religion until I became comfortable with calling myself atheist.
Sure, there are atheists that fit your description, but most, that i know, just don't see any proof for there being a god, and therefor don't believe in one... and how that is brainwashed you don't make exactly clear.
And in your own religion, I'm sure you've seen these puppets, *cough* Kirk Cameron *cough*... and I'm sure you realize they're not the norm.
And in closing, a couple of douche bags you meet in a little known forum, isn't a good sampling upon which to judge a group of people.

At 10/17/09 09:53 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: What up faith-cripples!

This is important for you to see.

This is important for you to see.
See, you're not the only one who can do that. Besides, I watched your link, and Kirk Cameron made the mistake in not investigating religion before becoming atheist. But that doesn't give him quarter to shit on other atheists.
Also, in my link, watch when Kirk says you have to "circumnavigate the persons intellect" to convince them of religion.

Well, actually I would tend to agree that there still is discrimination and such toward women to a large degree, but doing the same thing to men is like trying to put out a fire in one half of a building by setting the other half on fire. How about we just judge people by their character, and not how much Melanin is in their skin, or how much Estrogen or Testosterone is in their body?
Hell, some of the things that women go through is a disgrace to our society. In a 2002 VA study, 30% of female veterans said they had been raped. And it is often found that in crime cases, such as rape, only about 2% are found to be lying about it. It's disgusting.

At 10/16/09 08:29 PM, Tancrisism wrote: Well, not to change the subject, but I was invited to come to this here crew with its fine people by a certain Mr. Patton. So I'd like to join by gauging your reaction to this:

Yeah... we're not as active as we used to be, so I invite people from time to time. I hate to be the only one who ever posts on here.

Machiavelli was not actually sympathetic to principalities (little dictatorships), and despite writing The Prince he was actually one of the earliest modern Republicans and believed in the separation of powers a couple hundred years before Montesquieu.

I never learned much about Machiavelli admittedly, although I plan to read THe Prince. However, if he wasn't at least somewhat sympathetic to the principalities, why did he write The Prince? As some grand piece of satire, or perhaps to just understand them, sort of show how they worked? and I must ask, in what writings did he convey this? I have no doubt he wrote other treatises, papers and such, but they're probably just so overshadowed by "The Prince".

Everyone in the palace but you and the girl have been turned into what are essentially zombies. Even your own father, who loved you more than all the riches of India. and now... you must kill him! Surprise sur-fucking-prise!
Jokes aside, I keep defeating all the minions until all that's left is his dad. I'll get, oh, 5-10 strikes with the dagger of time, but he ends up killing me. Do I just keep stabbing him, or is there more to it?

The favoring of women seems to be recent. Feminists could promote equality, or they could be complete bitches and try to make men less than women. Guess which road was taken?
Ponder this if you will. If a comedian said that women were smarter than men, it would be cheering, with some "good for you, you know your place!" sentiments. If a comedian walked on stage and said men were smarter than women... fucking run.

ok, so, SITREP: she broke up with me yesterday after 6 weeks... or really I should say that she had a friend break up with me. The whole "she likes you as a friend, but not a boy friend" bit. And apparently she was afraid to talk to me about it. To put it bluntly, if she's not dating this one other guy, let's call him Andy, by Tuesday, I'll be shocked.
As well, as my friends are telling me about the stuff going around school, apparently she's a perpetual liar (and I had been figuring that out), and apparently everyone seems to think I'm above her.
...I'm fine with her breaking up with me, I would have in the next several days, but... really.