Raider5678

I find this odd. Anyone agree? Either way, "And you can't suspect during all life who are." Explain this statement.

What's z?

What for warning? I missed it too. Also, good movie.

What about this: That's not glass.

Good point. I made a hyperbole. My bad. The idea is that the equation has always reached a n^2 eventually so far. I haven't proven anything, but it can be assumed. Assumed that if I needed to place a bet, I would bet that all numbers reach 4,2,1.

To which he hasn't replied. So I tried to answer it.

Different problem. So no. This is just how I attempted to do it. How far off was I?

So he takes medical pills. What's wrong?

Every number up to 2^60(Frickin large ass number) has been tested. Considering the numbers will eventually go lower then their original, and won't reach a point where they keep growing forever, they will eventually collapse down small enough to one of these numbers. Since collapsing down to any number below 2^60 is inevitable because all the mathematical patterns to there have been tested multiple times simply by the repeating 10,100,1000,10000,100000,1000000,10000000,100000000 etc, we know that it always eventually goes back down. There are only two types of numbers. Even and odd. There's only so many patterns that can be made with that.

Honestly, I'm still waiting around to see how bad he actually is. If he can successfully trick the American people he's doing great, then he's in line for the second term.

The idea is that when it multiplies the odd number by three, it returns it to a odd number of a higher power. By adding one, it turns it into an even number. Operating off of that, it's guaranteed to reach an even number that will eventually collapse into 4,2,1 fairly quickly. So since the multiply by three, add one, and divide by two when even can't work for any other numbers besides 4,2,1, it will always reach 4,2,1. Making this impossible to disprove.

Living.

Survival trumps emotion.

#93 In reply to post #90

Murder through inaction, and premeditated murder. Since you could have EASILY prevented manslaughter since it was your fault, I would say yes. You should be forced to. It wouldn't kill you. You would be fine. 1. Because that unconscious unfeeling collection of cells, would wake up and become a life. And if you were unconscious, you would be unfeeling. So what's the difference between it and an unconscious you? You're both an unconscious unfeeling collection of cells. What's the difference to you if you wake up or not? Also, that collection of cells has life. It's not a dead collection. 2. Because that choice is the choice to end a life. And we already established why I consider it a life, and honestly you can see it how ever you like. So to me, seeing as that I see it as a life, I'm against the choice of her to kill it. 3. Honestly an abortion would be just as traumatic as the rape, as many people who've had one have said, so I don't think I would have it. Imagine sitting on a table, someone forcing your legs apart because once you enter, you are not allowed to change your mind. Traumatic much for you? As well as the fact you're killing a life, that didn't do anything wrong. Most people feel extremely guilty about it naturally. Look it up. And no matter what I tell you I would choose to do, unless it's the choice you want me to say, you'll simply dismiss what I say because I'm a male and don't know what pregnancy is like. Which is true. So asking me to answer is like asking you to answer. You can't speak for them about the trauma of an abortion. But they have. Most pregnancies turn out fine. Most abortions are fricking reruns of being raped if you believe the people who've had them. So your choice.

Because the state can't return a functioning eye. Besides, losing a functioning eye won't ruin my ability to get a high school education, won't ruin me for the rest of my life as I work to pay it off. Getting raped and having a child is a different scenario too. The state is punishing me for something that happened. It's a result of what the state decided to do, and that was to force me to pay child support. So not only was I raped, but now I'm going to be forced to pay for it to. Pretend the gender of the person who carries the child was flipped and it was the guy. Say I raped a 13 year old girl and got pregnant. Would you feel perfectly okay with me suing her for child support because "It sucks to be a victim of crime"? There are differences. There are consequences to crime. But throwing the consequences back at the victim to handle seems like a way to simply get rid of the problem, not a good one.

Very true. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statutory-rape-victim-child-support/14953965/ https://nationalparentsorganization.org/blog/841-on-courts-ordering-b-841 http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1996-12-22/features/9612220045_1_pay-child-support-child-support-behalf

Why should I be forced to take on parental responsibility? I had no choice in the matter.

Well if a grown adult male had sex with an underage girl, I think you would still see it as rape as well as disgusting. I agree with you, he gave consent so he had a choice so in my opinion maybe he did have it coming. But regardless, the law still stands. The mother can sue the father for child support regardless if the child was conceived in a legal manner or not. Statutory rape and rape are both legally considered rape. Also, this brings up an interesting point for a different thread.

1.Could the state not pay for it? I mean, I'm only 14. There's very little I could do to pay child support. My parents can't afford it either as we're just barely getting by just like everyone else around us. So no help from my parents, no help from people around me, now I have legal consequences for not being able to pay child support. Which I don't think is fair. Additionally, dropping out of school isn't an option for me to get work, and even if I did my life is basically ruined there. So wouldn't it be better to make the state pay for it since "Why should the child be punished?"? 2. The idea behind donating sperm is that you shouldn't have any liability as you are simply trying to help a couple have children. If they break up, their partner, the previous legal guardian, should have to pay child support.

I would hope so. But since that kid got stuck with paying it I'm assuming his parents helped him out with it until he grew up and from there he probably had to skip college to continue paying it. If he didn't, he could get in serious trouble.

Because it isn't. What makes you think it is? The only reason we are against abortion is because it's taking a life. What about if a women is pro-life? Does that mean she's trying to control your sexuality? And her own? There's confusion there, because suddenly it's not longer "Old White Men"(Racist by the way) trying to control you, it's men and women trying to control women. Which doesn't make sense. What does make sense, is men and women against what they consider murder(Pro-life). And men and women supporting what they feel should be a choice(Pro-Choice).

So. If you were drugged and rape. You feel you should be responsible for the child? Glad you feel that way. I'm just gonna be a selfish bastard and say I don't want that responsibility unless I had a choice of taking the risk.

And did you look at what she said? My reply was completely and only in response to what she said. I know it's a false dilemma, but so is the one she proposed as a logical argument.

So, if a woman rapes an underage male and she becomes pregnant, she legally has the right to sue the kid for child support. Same as raping a male, but that's basically unheard of, more often it being a young boy. What is the reasoning for this? Do you guys agree with this? Maybe I'm a bigot but that seems stupid to me. So someone justify this to me. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermesmann_v._Seyer I know it's wikipedia, but the sources do match up and this basically sums it up. The court legally ruled that a woman can sue the father for child support regardless of whether it was due to illegal crime. Also, might I point out they can sue sperm donors, even if they STOLE the sperm from the sperm bank.