Nekohime Posts
I wasn't around 30 years ago, but from speculation, it definitely seems that dating has changed. It seems to be increasingly focused on sex rather than the actual relationship. I think there are 2 key factors that caused this trend:
.
1. Dating at a young ages is becoming very common. They date and have sex or whatever while at this very irresponsible young age, and grow up thinking it's normal. By the time they're 20, all value and respect for dating is gone, and what's left is striving for sex.
2. The culture views sex as normal. Most people try to act in a way that the culture defines as "cool". Most movies and Reality TV-shows portray this "sex oriented" dating as normal. This indirectly causes people to accept this behavior as "normal" or "cool". Over time, these influences, along with peer pressure, causes the general culture to accept this as the "cool" or "normal" dating style.
There are probably other reasons too, but ^these 2 are the major cause. When I grew up, I avoided these 2 main causes; I was overprotected by my parents and never dated, and I really don't associate with the general culture. As a result, I'm very against these sex-driven relationships.
This trend is unstoppable, but it is avoidable
.
1. Dating at a young ages is becoming very common. They date and have sex or whatever while at this very irresponsible young age, and grow up thinking it's normal. By the time they're 20, all value and respect for dating is gone, and what's left is striving for sex.
2. The culture views sex as normal. Most people try to act in a way that the culture defines as "cool". Most movies and Reality TV-shows portray this "sex oriented" dating as normal. This indirectly causes people to accept this behavior as "normal" or "cool". Over time, these influences, along with peer pressure, causes the general culture to accept this as the "cool" or "normal" dating style.
There are probably other reasons too, but ^these 2 are the major cause. When I grew up, I avoided these 2 main causes; I was overprotected by my parents and never dated, and I really don't associate with the general culture. As a result, I'm very against these sex-driven relationships.
This trend is unstoppable, but it is avoidable
gizgal wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
darzu wrote...
Sperm cellsI don't think sperm are cells, though I'm not completely sure
...*facepalm.jpg*
If you don't know the basic way reproduction works, how can you even argue about abortion. Ugu internet.
I know the basics of reproduction, I just forgot that the 23 X-chromosomes that join with the egg were inside a cell. It's been a while since I took biology, So correct me when necessary
Besides, I'm trying to discuss the governments response to abortion, not the biological aspects of it
Darzu wrote...
So I don't have to skim so much and just provide an opinion:For the most part, every human being now and those to come have struggled against thousands of other sperm cells to be able to even exist.
Therefore, related to human life and abortion of a fetus unborn:
During intercourse, when attempting to impregnate a woman, the man, upon ejaculation just killed thousands of possible humans. Is that what you're saying?
--'
No, I'm not saying it's wrong because it kills potential life; I'm saying it's wrong because kills life.
darzu wrote...
Sperm cellsI don't think sperm are cells, though I'm not completely sure
Coelacanth
Homunculus
Kisaragi Gunma
I don't really keep track of the artists though.
btw, Distance was my favorite when I was beginning to read H-manga; nostalgia!
Homunculus
Kisaragi Gunma
I don't really keep track of the artists though.
btw, Distance was my favorite when I was beginning to read H-manga; nostalgia!
are y'all trying to say that science doesn't prove Christianity right? or that science proves Christianity wrong?
yes, there's a difference
yes, there's a difference
Megaptrck wrote...
catgirlfetish wrote...
Shit's annoying and gay. Change it back.Hey dude chill if u want the old logo back umm lets ask jacob. we can talk about this. chill !!!
This is the place to talk about it.
I kinda like the old one, but I really don't care
ryuuhagoku wrote...
I think it's fine if space travel "takes a break" for a couple of decades. Maybe I'm just biased towards my field (molecular biology), but I feel that Astronomy gets waaaaay too much attention given it's overall accomplishments. I lean more towards applied than basic science than most, thus I feel that research should primarily be geared towards tackling the problems of the day, such as procuring more renewable energy, combating diseases (especially HIV and cancer), increasing global food supply/maintaining global food supply given the upcoming fresh water shortages, reducing human environmental impact (especially preventing further ozone damage, in light of this article http://www.earthtimes.org/climate/nasa-discovers-alarming-anomaly-ozone-depletion/1449/).
Of course, some funding should always be set aside for research that is seemingly useless, because history has shown that the random goofing around of one decade provides the crucial background information for a later decade's breakthrough. But, when it comes down to it, there's only so much money to go around for research (unlike the seemingly limitless war-chest...), so tough choices are necessary.
this, there's alot of problems today, and space exploration won't solve any of them. We could consider it once there's nothing else to research, but until then, no more space stuff
BigLundi wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
I'm not entirely sure if I'm interpreting this correctly, but It is possible but rare for a double-murder charge to be enforced in cases of homicide in which a pregnant woman is murderedIf legally, abortion is not murder, then doesn't the law contradict itself as to where life begins?
I can explain this one rather simply. Currently the law states that the woman has a choice to birth her baby or not.
I have know nothing about law, but I question whether this exact wording is true. Most of your remaining argument is based off this fact, so I'd prefer some sort of credibility to this statement.
If one kills a pregnant mother, they have stripped him of that right
Is "him" a typo? or are you referring to the baby?
as well as taken it upon themselves to deny the baby life, the baby in which they do not have the option of making that decision for. Because of that, it could, if the family desired, be pressed as a double homocide, depending on where you are.
I'd like to remind you that the charge is double homicide, not "denying potential life". You say that it's homicide because life is denied, but this still contradicts abortion, because abortion also denies that same life.
What makes abortion not murder, but the murder of a pregnant women a double-murder?
this is the site I use, it works great
I'm not entirely sure if I'm interpreting this correctly, but It is possible but rare for a double-murder charge to be enforced in cases of homicide in which a pregnant woman is murdered
If legally, abortion is not murder, then doesn't the law contradict itself as to where life begins?
If legally, abortion is not murder, then doesn't the law contradict itself as to where life begins?
We can already look at hentai and have discussions here; why do we need to get involved with facebook? We would not be able to have any hentai or hentai discussions. And any discussions we had there would include less than half the community.
I wouldn't join, I'm friends with too many people that I don't want to reveal this to
I wouldn't join, I'm friends with too many people that I don't want to reveal this to
I don't think the kids are forgiven from the law because they were ignorant, but because they were kids. If adults are Ignorant of the law, they still get punished. For example, If I drove 53 mph in a 40 mph area, I would still get fined even if I didn't know it was 40 mph. The only way ignorance could prevent legal prosecution is if a jury decides to make a verdict contrary to the law, because of ignorance.
The statement "ignorance is bliss" is not a means of legal innocence. It basically means that if you're ignorant of something that would make you less happy, then you will be more happy. I'll give a few examples
If you score a touchdown, but there's a penalty, your ignorance of the penalty would result in bliss
If you think your popular, but everyone thinks your annoying, your ignorance of being annoying is bliss
this bliss will only remain as long as you are ignorant; when the ignorance is lost, so is the bliss
The statement "ignorance is bliss" is not a means of legal innocence. It basically means that if you're ignorant of something that would make you less happy, then you will be more happy. I'll give a few examples
If you score a touchdown, but there's a penalty, your ignorance of the penalty would result in bliss
If you think your popular, but everyone thinks your annoying, your ignorance of being annoying is bliss
this bliss will only remain as long as you are ignorant; when the ignorance is lost, so is the bliss
I am unable to understand the logic of Biglundi's arguments, while I understand the logic of everyone else. Either I'm not smart enough to understand, or he's being illogical. To determine which is true, I ask:
does anyone besides Biglundi think that Biglundi is being logical?
does anyone besides Biglundi think that Biglundi is being logical?
the unknown wrote...
Lelouch24 wrote...
Zero_Hour wrote...
Also, according to religion, isn't Earth only a few thousand years old?according to the genealogy of the Bible, Adam was created in 4004 B.C. This does not mean that the world is only 6000+ years old; it just means that the human race is 6000+ years old.
some people believe that there is a great time gap between verse 1 and 2, possibly millions of years.
Genesis 1:1-5 wrote...
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.just a fun fact: in John Milton's book "paradise lost", Milton describes a huge war between Satan's army and God's army, that took place in this time gap. The aftermath of the battle caused the earth to be formless and empty.
Don't tell me that that book is about that 2012 mobojumbo
No, not at all.This was a 17th century poem that creatively described all events leading up to the "fall of man". The author wrote Paradise lost right after he got married; he wrote another book titled Paradise regained right after his wife died :p
I'm a cowboys fan, I'm used to this D:
I don't want to be a bandwagon fan, but they're sure testing me
I don't want to be a bandwagon fan, but they're sure testing me
Zero_Hour wrote...
Also, according to religion, isn't Earth only a few thousand years old?according to the genealogy of the Bible, Adam was created in 4004 B.C. This does not mean that the world is only 6000+ years old; it just means that the human race is 6000+ years old.
some people believe that there is a great time gap between verse 1 and 2, possibly millions of years.
Genesis 1:1-5 wrote...
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. 3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.just a fun fact: in John Milton's book "paradise lost", Milton describes a huge war between Satan's army and God's army, that took place in this time gap. The aftermath of the battle caused the earth to be formless and empty.
The poll of the week should have important feedback related questions. Many users do not get on the forums, so a front-page is answered by a lot more users. It should ask questions like "do you want to subscribe to artists?" or "would you like a mark-as-read feature?"