I agree that you shouldn't be berated for it. I think it was more just because it sounded like you like older cars just for that reason. Because that reason is a dangerous reason is the point. I prefer the older style over newer ones as well. And I'm an EMT so I usually point out the key fact about the physics behind the plastic over metal because it really does save lives. That's all. Just trying to inform

just because you take dangerous activities and try to make them safer doesn't mean you live boring at all. I mean you can ride motorcycles and not wear helmet but why not just wear the helmet and be a little safer. Especially when your talking about a difference of living to ride bike another day and not

Just saying your argument is not very convincing when you say "I'm pretty sure". Especially when you lead with asking someone if they have ever done anything because then it appears as though you have not either. Just saying lol

No. We weren't bred and sold. We were just forced to work for little to no wahe. And weren't given food or shelter. Some say that in most places Irish people had it worse because they weren't given a place to live and had to live in the streets and starve. There's also the whole segregation fact, when Irishmen were denied shelter and food in restraunts and inns in many places as well. According to some sources the slaves really didn't have it all that bad in most scenarios and that the beating and splitting of families were just outliers. Just stating some of what I've read. Not condoning or minimizing what happened at all.

I think he's trying to point out the inconsistencies in your argument. He's saying that since you said there's no confirmed correct information and mostly misinformation, how can your information be taken as true or correct? He's not arguing semantics, he's arguing the legitimacy of your information. And arguing semantics is completely civilized and important because of we understand words to mean something completely different then how are we to come to an understanding of each other's viewpoint.

Oh so you are not necessarily saying that it isn’t true, your point was that if it was true, something drastic would’ve hadn’t to happen to cause this. That I cannot add any insight into as I don’t have the resources to find that info haha

Seconded

@Brethorien, according to “My People The Souix” a book written by a Native American, a person’s wealth and status in their tribe correlated to the number of horses they had. The more horses you had the more you could carry and this the higher the status they had in the tribe. Thus according to a Native American, horses were part of their culture and traditions. This is also besides the point that each tribe, while part of larger nations, could adapt their own traditions as they wanted so maybe this singular tribe that he was part of liked horses and adapted that to their tribe.

Also, it is my own rule to bow out of arguments when people start to get heated, emotional, and personal. So I’ll end with those are my thoughts and believes based on teachings from around me. You have yours and I respect your right to do so. You’re still a beautiful person and have a wonderful day.

@halfdeadhammerhead no need to get emotional and tell people to shut the fuck up. I’m simply putting that accord to science, they are alive. And according to science, they have the atomic makeup of a human so they are thus a human. Just because someone doesn’t have a personality doesn’t mean they aren’t human. A person in a coma is still a person regardless of if they will regain consciousness. The debate between ending the life there is because they won’t regain. You’re talking about a “fetus” or a “baby” that one day will gain consciousness. So by your own definition, the fact that they will one day gain it, means they are a person.

Yea. That video does a really good job of explaining the inflation behind it. The problem is that you can’t blame the universities for wanting money and trying to run a business. People should be smart enough to say you know what, I’m not going there because of the costs instead of saying oh well I’ll just do loans for it. That’s the basis of the free market but everyone is to stick into going to certain schools or don’t want to put in the time to go elsewhere

This explains it better than I can through comments

https://youtu.be/yTjnpJvZrwM

But personality is not an a requirement for human life. Someone who is in a coma has no personality but they are still a human. And can you explain why it is confusing? I thought it was rather clear and would like to reexplain in a way that makes sense if possible.

@halfdeadhammerhead actually biologically speaking, as soon as the sperm and the egg combine, it has 23 chromosomes that make up a human dna and the cells begin to divide in a way that creates a human. It, at that point, meets the requirements to be considered life by biology definitions and is then considered to be a person. Just because it cannot survive without the mother doesn’t mean it isn’t a living thing. If you take the idea that many pro choice arguments do which is that it is more of a parasite, a parasite cannot live without its host and it is still considered to be alive. Thus so is the baby. And since it has the correct genetic and atomic makeup to be a human, is a living person. Just because a soda can is shaped the way it is doesn’t mean it isn’t aluminum just like an aluminum sheet is aluminum. Scientifically, this is what I was taught in my college biology courses.

I see your comments ... and I have to say I like your thoughts

And Cap

Which I think I just figured it out...I think the issue is that you are comparing two different scenarios because of one is a child and one is not. There are certain laws in place for children not for adults. Example, there is no law requiring us to feed our offspring after they are 18 years old. However you are required to feed your offspring under that age. There are laws protecting them from neglect, malnutrition, etc. so in the aspect of a parent and a child there are certain aspects that are required. In my opinion, once the baby is conceived, it is considered under that aspect because biologically speaking it meets all criteria of life, so it must be kept alive the same as any child who is outside of the womb.

I didn’t bethorein...I’m just trying to formulate my rebuttal with good parallels lol

But, if you call a fetus a baby and living thing, which biologically speaking it meets the criteria for life, then it is indeed murder. It is indeed ending the life of something else. You can’t parallel something that is actually idiotic to something that people believe to be true just because you don’t like it. Especially when there is some real debate about it. That just makes you an ass hole

Breaking and entering is illegal but if it’s it locked and there’s no “no trespassing” signs then in some states it isn’t illegal because there’s no postage forbidding it. Stalking is only illegal if the person files a suit saying they want it to stop. Punching in the face is assault and a sexual assault warrants no consent was given. These are all completely Different situations. In the situation of all of these, the is no exchange between things. In these situations they are encroaching in touch. In the situation of a nude, you are giving them something. You are supplying them with something. Not supplying them information to be used for the use of a purchase in which it is still yours but giving them something. It is the same as if I write you a poem and then you give that poem to someone else. I gave it to you. It is not under your control. Not my own. That’s the difference between your situations and the nudes. One is willingly given for the purpose of the other person having it

I had to hold back laughter in class for “doesn’t mean he isn’t on the all star team” for murder hahaha

Well put and valid examples. I understand what your saying. I’m not saying that’s you are wrong. I just see things as being taken or stolen as a crime because you are physically losing something where as in this instance, they are just breaking a trust/bond. Again I’m not saying that it isn’t wrong, I just don’t think it should be a crime to do so because there is a certain degree of wrong that constitutes a crime where as someone forwarding a picture is a break of trust yes but not a crime. Legality should lot be involved in socialialty. I shouldn’t be able to sue you for telling someone else a secret I told you in private. That’s a social issue. That’s all I’m saying. But very good argument and well put!

I guess my point is that even though it is fucked up, it shouldn’t be something that is a legal issue. You took a risk and you have to deal with any and all consequences. If I send nudes, I run the risk of them being spread. If I smoke a cigarette I run the risk of health issues. if I have sex, I run the risk of getting pregnant. If I blow off studying for an test in school or a project at work, I risk of a poor grade or being fired. There are too many things now that people fall on legality to take the risk off thenselves instead of being a responsible person is all I’m saying.