Raider5678

It's talking about a draft. Willing is not a factor. So, assuming the woman is not willing, should she still be assigned to an active combat role if she's suitable and trained against her will?

I was talking about the women's rights movement and some of the things it has accomplished, and the subject of women not being required to register for the draft came up. Should women be required to register for the draft? If so, should they get leniency in assigned roles, such as not being assigned to combat roles if they opt out of it?

I 100% realize nobody mentioned this, but I couldn't help but think of a girl who took a pill full of tapeworm eggs to try and lose weight. Not the type of microorganism you want to introduce.

My bad, I misread what he said. I thought he was saying he was upset about not knowing what we were going to do until after we've done it. Also, I don't trust him already. I don't trust any politicians at all at the moment for that matter.

I'm not sure if you're joking here or what. Are you being serious?

I fail to see what you're getting at. Nor why you seem to think I'm creating a problem. Nor what that problem is. Actually, I fail to see the point of this at all. Please elaborate. The Anti-Christ will be a lot more likable, I assure you.

Sounds pretty bad. IMO a balance is that we, as a society, are obligated to take care of the poor. Housing, education, food. That being said, due to the sheer number of people who need help, we can give fewer people better help, or all of them worse help. We cannot, however, help all of them with good help at the same time(or at least not while military spending is 660 billion). There are things we need to spend money on, however, at some point, we have to look at things and realize we have to turn down some programs because we can't afford them. Like, the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development Fund. Helpful, but seriously, we could live without it and spend the money on other things.

It seems like you did say it. However, I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, perhaps I'm confusing what you meant then. Could you elaborate?

Nope. I'm hardly wise.

You mean 100% left and 0% right isn't what the overwhelming majority have in mind when they call for a balance? Also, the evidence does not say 100% left is better. I like many of the things that the Left wants to offer, however, there is no possible way we can do it. Seriously. Ultimately, that is what has caused the downfall of every single democracy since recorded history: They ran out of money. Free food for the poor, lavish entertainment, education for all, etc. The term Bread and Circus was derived from when the Roman politicians started offering free food and entertainment for everyone. Why? Because then they voted for them. Also, the Right is just as bad. Except instead of free stuff, they offer lower taxes. Same concept. This is probably one of the smartest things I've heard, and I seriously agree with Koti on this one: And that includes your "correct" 100% left and 0% right.

What I believe Koti's opinion probably is, is that we have to have a balance politically. Some liberal & some conservative opinions on some things, and a mix of both on other things. This way, if the best solution is liberal, the balanced legislative is willing to lean liberal, and vice versa, and if the best solution is balanced in the middle, they're willing to do that as well. Good luck with that. Yes. And conservatives are saying the exact same thing, but replace Trump with Hillary, and conservative with liberal.

I must be a gangster. I use nicknames with pretty much everyone I know if I've known them longer then a year.

I was in kindergarten when this question was asked.

Is Genius the top title or is that a custom one?

Well, that's slightly disappointing. I was thinking it was 3k posts or something.

At which point do you get to change your subtitle? Like Imatfaal's is lazy do-nothing mudslinger.

Much like behavioral isolation, geological isolation, and temporal isolation work in evolution, cultural differences would seemingly work the same way, wouldn't it? Different languages would be for the most part behavioral isolation. If you never interact because you don't speak the same language, then your culture will differ. Geological isolation would be for the most part just that, geological isolation. Same concept. If you never interact because you live so far away, then your culture will differ. Temporal isolation would be for the most part different time zones. If you're not up and talking to people because of different time zones, etc, then your culture will differ.

It honestly just sounds like they're going mad to me.......

Ah, in which case perhaps I should start listing all the bad things Atheists have done, and then complain about how you trying to paint the crimes of "atheism" in lighter colors is beyond me.

I wasn't always a Christian. I don't have Sunday mass. And I can say that because they were. Edit: upvoted to counteract the negative rep.

The actions of the "Christian" Pharisees were condemned by Jesus. And I get the feeling he'd condemn the same "Christian" priests that are getting away with raping 11-year-olds in Poland. And why don't you tell me my attitude?

You seem to have it in your mind that the goals of us Christians are to go out and tell everyone how wrong they are. It's not. If your belief is that there is no God, because you KNOW it, then you have a belief system. Why? Because you can't disprove God using science. And since you can't, you have to use faith to believe that there is no God. Since you're using faith, you now have a belief system. If your position is that you simply don't know if there is/isn't a God because there's no evidence for you to either way, then you don't have a belief system.

Ah. Glad to see it was so simple all along. Clearly, the answer is black and white. Also, I found a documentary of an Athiest going on a quest to disprove the bible. And he goes along so brilliantly, using science, history, and common sense to single-handedly tackle the main questions surrounding the accuracy of Christianity and the bible. You'd probably enjoy it quite a bit, I suggest you watch it, it's called "The Case for Christ"

If this is your viewpoint, then you can start a topic in the speculation section. From there, you form a testable hypothesis, come up with a measurable experiment, perform the experiment, observe the results, and come out with a conclusion. Speaking of astrology, we have the same birthday.......