no, you're not the only one around here. there's a disgression on gay adoption going in the most dangerous people alive . I like debate dystopic if I see how it will be "better" I am willing to change my mind. But there doesn t seem to be considerations to the future generations in your arguments. If I am wrong I am willing to change. Is that really a disgression? I a
and if so, even if you've said already, can you explain for me again why? i'm not trying to be argumentative; i'm genuinely curious and want to understand. Most of my liberal friends who support your view tell me (I paraphrase here), "I would rather live in tolerant world and let us die out the live in a brutal one." I would rather live in a somewhat brutal world than one which could be dying out. The Industrialized world is alre
i don't think it's totally a myth. i don't think there's anything genetic about gays that makes us better with emotional stuff. and most gay men i know are horrible at deal with their own emotions. i think the myth really means that gays are "better" (more comfortable) at communicating emotionally. i think there are plenty of straight men who are too, but i think in general the cultural construction of masculinity discourages men from "getting all gushy." <br
I believe the current game I am playing is the second to last patch. I am sure I started it right before I patched last time. I do use the CPU at full for all opponents. The AI is really good it just will smash itself on well defended starbases and heavy fleets when it could move onto softer targets and hasn t tried invading en masse just attacks several worlds at once. If I still have a saved game that shows this should I send it in? sorry to not get back to you as s
point taken; but if a phenomenon violates a law of nature/physics, the same might hold true in this parallel metaphor: we'll only change our laws of nature if we actually notice the violations. it's still a simplification, but i think the point is clear enough. my point is that human law is not really diffrent than the so call laws of physics. Humans have a tendency to believe that they are above the natural order, we are not. Even most scientists sho
the only difference between poltical laws and natural/physical laws is in what happens is the law is broken - in the former, jail; in the latter, development of a new law. I don t think thats quite true. Human history is full of law breakers who become kings or maybe we should call them "a new law".
okay, first, biological kids. gay couples have biological children. only about 15% of gay men, uh, sire their own kids, but over 85% of lesbian couples have at least one parent with a genetic connection to their child. I didnt say take away kids or make laws that they can t sire kids. But I don t think they should get as you say EQUAL say in which kids they adopt. Right now they foster kids and thats great but there is a waiting list for certain kids,
I am not against gun ownership btw. You kind of assumed that, opps I was just making the point that it does not protect us from the government. But they would HAVE to attack the rebels. It is much easier to take away rights from an unarmed population since you don t have to worry about them fighting back. You are right but it is society who pays for the children in
While I see your point and even agree with it somewhat you don't really think we could effectively fight our government with guns do you? The National Guard can easily supress and entire state in one day if it decided to raise an armed rebellion. That is not even counting the other branches of military and I would say it would take less than a day if they decided carpet bombing was necessary. I think in light of all the child fire-arm deaths in the US people with guns
i don't think her article proves that there is a consensus, only that there aren't many scientists actively arguing against the view that global warming is being caused by humans. the concluding point, that perhaps researchers have "gone underground" for fear of job security, is a lot more valid. but that still means such researchers perceive themselves in the minority, and if they're that fearful they probably are in a the minority. o
i don't think her article proves that there is a consensus, only that there aren't many scientists actively arguing against the view that global warming is being caused by humans. the concluding point, that perhaps researchers have "gone underground" for fear of job security, is a lot more valid. but that still means such researchers perceive themselves in the minority, and if they're that fearful they probably are in a the minority. of course, without actuall
...because 6.5 billion isn't enough? if i'm understanding you correctly, it's in case the U.S. needs a bunch of people in a hurry, like if China invades or something? I don t know if this is to much or not enough really but you can t really say another "Dark" age will come and I am thinking more along the lines of the greek "Dark" age not the the so called dark age of Europe. Not that it will happen but I don t believe in taking anything off the ta
I drink old school. All these teeny-bopper training wheel drinks (Mikes Hard, Puckers, all the wacky flavors of schnapps) seem silly to me. If you want to drink Kool-Aid, drink Kool-Aid. The trick is to find a drink you like. There is an admirable quest! A-F'ING-MEN! i can't stand the new malt beverage "craze." guh. tastes like battery acid sweetened with aspertame. i mean, sure, there's always been some kind of teeny bopper boo
i'm not sure what your reasons for worrying about gay parents might be, and i'm not going to presume any one thing. since the issue has been raised, i'll instead dispel a common myth. Mostly it has to do with a possiblity to needing a bunch of people in a hurry. Yeah I know how you feel and thats cool. But I feel diffrently. I agree with or accept everything you posted but: -less than 15
that was meant as a joke. but your link was good. and no, i'm not interested in starting a new religion in the slightest. Yeah I know YOU were joking.
effective, is it? you know, making something taboo makes it more desirable, so outlawing gay sex should lead more men to desire it. maybe effective isnt a good word... how bout mass produce? also, who says gays don't promote reproduction? i've read an evolutionary anthopologist's point of view on the issue, and he thinks gay genes are beneficial to human procreation. he observed that 1) gays are not persecuted in
And I find it funny that a Christian has just argued that Christian ethics are obsolete for me. I am no Christian sir! The word most people would call me is PAGAN.
My take is this, it doesn't matter whether or not you believe global warming is happening, and it doesn't matter whether or not we are causing it. The initiatives, propelled by the theory of global warming, to lower emmissions and generally clean up the planet, is still a good thing. Aren't you tired of polluted air, water, and land? amen! Yes but do we have to make a new religion to fight it. I prefer this : <br
and on gay marriage, i've got a slightly different view than most (especially being a gay rights activist). i don't believe the government should be involved with marriage at all. it's a religious ceremony at its core. churches should have the right to refuse offering gay marriages just as much as gays should have the right to find churches that do offer them. government should administer civil unions to any couple (Or more?) of people, regardless of sex or anything el
this was in regards to Post #354 earthfaze. None of the above shows Bush to be a TRAITOR. You can call him a moron if you will but "traitor" should not be used lightly... on either side of the aisle Agreed. I am not sure exactly what enemy Bush supplied weapons to and was actually just replying to what I quoted. I would say however that many presidents and even leaders of foreign governments are notorious for supplying weapons to
I find it funny that atheist tend to not look at the way things were at one time. 1. Good, but reachable by nontheistic ethical systems (i.e., help the poor, forgive others). So it was good for the poor villagers of Chad to take in the poor starving refugees from Darfur? ALL those poor folk are now starving. It would have been better for the people of Chad to kick out the unfortunate folk from Darfur. Yet most would call that bad. Help
Try doing a search. 1, President bush is the greatest diplomatic genius that ever spread peace on this earth. 2, Bush is a total moron and nothing said about him is beyond belief I go with 2 Marcus PS anyone who even listens to Bush is a complete fool and should be sent to Iraq and made to walk around with a "I love Dubya" mortar board
Try doing a search. 1, President bush is the greatest diplomatic genius that ever spread peace on this earth. 2, Bush is a total moron and nothing said about him is beyond belief I go with 2 Marcus PS anyone who even listens to Bush is a complete fool and should be sent to Iraq and made to walk around with a "I love Dubya" mortar board. Just to prove, once and for all, that the republicans are correct and its all fine an
I promote bush to No 1., he's arming the Sunni insergants, the guys that are planting terrorist bombs , killing American and British troops. Where do you get this stuff from?
Just throwing a few things out there. I have noticed in my Tough Gigantic Abundant everything, very slow tech , no trade games that the AI is attacking my fleets and starbases that it stands no chance of winning. Especially the starbases once they are up graded a bit are nigh unkillable. I don t take out their upgraded starbases untill late in the game. Is there a way to make the AI avoid these death traps? Also I see the AI create enough vessels to capture worlds but becau
