Just curious if you participated in a selfish destruction of life on a routine basis or not. Now that I know that you do, are you a hypocrite (i.e. do you call it "dinner") or do you, say, invite your wife out to "a selfish destruction of life" at Chilis on a Friday night? Like, do you call it that? "I'm going to go pick up some selfish destruction of life from the meat section, I'll be right back." Is that how you talk?

No, I mean like lungs and personality and a brain and consciousness and bones and a face and thought and stuff like that.

Are you a vegan, joe ?

We don't have to create the "illusion" that a zygote is a clump of cells; that's just what it is. It lacks any defining features other than a mass of tissue and blood.

The problem, however, becomes more manageable once you realize that all you need is a computer with a database that shows where all the food/water hoarders live.

No such database exists, to the best of my knowledge; certainly not one we could gain access to. And in any event, post-apocalypse technology will be limited to things that operate without electricity, for the most part, so maintaining and powering a computer after the End of the World would be pretty much impossible.

I think you need to take your plan back to the drawing board, as it all hinges on this one ill conceived idea.

Also, even if your computer idea worked and was a reality, you just told a whole bunch of people about it, so now you have unwanted competition.

^^^^Sarcasm . . . .

I was actually the one who downvoted you in the first place so upvoting you now would be contradictory and a waste of time.

That doesn't actually apply to global history. Same sex and multiple partner unions have been prevalent throughout antiquity, just not so much in prudish old America.

I'm not sure if it totally fits the subject, but there's something to be said for white people abolishing slavery and then going on to institutionalize "internships," a kind of right-of-passage for whites where they labor under someone else for free.

Not only does Americas future concern me but the past and present do, as well.

I hope she got the job !!

Don't hate

111

More of a royal blue, but I still think that puts me on this side.

Okay, okay, I understand, but shouldn't the debate be called, "joe comes here from over the fence?"

If you make less than $75,000 a year,

it means that you are not smart enough

to make more than $75,000 a year

And you thus need the government

to steal from the rich and give it to you.

Or maybe they're not half-wits at all; they're just a hell of a lot smarter than you in that they've managed to figure out how to work less and make more.

There isn't any pee going on the floor, seat or anywhere else except in the toilet

Bullshit. I've lived with numerous women, and their pee just ends up on different parts of the toilet, like right under the front of the seat. You know, where you have to grab it to lift the seat up to take a piss, if you're a guy. So no, your whole point doesn't work.

Also, unless something is seriously wrong with him, a guy never gets blood on the toilet. Girls do this all the time. And between the two, I'd rather have a toilet covered in piss than blood. Piss is a lot cleaner.

And why is it such a huge deal for women to exert less energy moving the toilet seat every time they want to go to the bathroom than men do?

My opinion? They're jealous they can't pee standing up.

Cauroc is right. I was talking about a different post .

I'm not saying Star Trek doesn't have characters like that, just that from what I've seen of both they're more abundant in the Star Wars universe. This is a big point for me, because I think if we ever did get to the point of interacting with aliens on a daily basis, most of them would not look like oddly colored humans with some random trait (tentacles, bug eyes, etc.), but, well, alien in form.

I'm not familiar with that character .

Bigger, more powerful, cooler looking guns.

Lightsabers and the concept of Jedi in general.

Faster, more powerful, cooler looking ships. (I don't give two fucks that a cube ship can move just as fast in space as an aerodynamic one; it looks stupid)

A greater abundance and more sophisticated array of trinkets and gadgets.

More alien-looking races (i.e. not a human with a fucked up brow)

More chicks.

... Darth Vader.

It's a wrap.

Interesting topic.

Conservatives disagree with killing the unborn due to the sanctity of life. Conservatives agree with killing the born because they don't like what the born did. This doesn't compute. Life either has sanctity, or it doesn't.

I've been saying this for years. Hell, they have gravity working with them, while we have to fight against it every time.

Unlike Joe and his retarded logic though, I'm aware that I don't work any harder than the guy flipping burgers.

I'm also aware that we need people to flip burgers.

And I accept that someone making $7.50 an hour deserves, because we need them to do that job, to have some breaks since capitalism alone is not sufficient to take care of them, or their children.

I don't completely disagree with you, but I see where the opposition is coming from.

Would society be more likely to crumble without burger-flippers, or doctors? Doctors, right? So by the same logic of value to society having some influence in deserving a break, doctors might feel even more entitled to a break than burger-flippers. Then factor in that the doctors break comes at the expense of no one, while the burger-flippers break comes and must come from other people, the doctor included, and you can see why people get touchy about the subject. Or at least I can.

I also feel that stepping in to provide for people is, in a sense, not allowing capitalism to do its job, or to function as it would without intervention. If we do indeed need burger-flippers in order for society to function, then the wage of the job will be enough for the person working it to live off of. If it isn't, nobody would be able to fill the position because they would presumably be dead in a ditch somewhere, and society will crumble. If companies and employers all know that employees can count on a source apart from their income in order to live, there is no strain (in a capitalistic sense) on the employers or companies to raise the wage or institute the benefits that the welfare system compensates for.

Yes . . . . .

No . . . . .

Last I checked there wasn't a monumental, national booze flood when Prohibition ended.

If we didn't end up drowning when they legalized alcohol I don't see why we would end up in a cloud bank when they legalize pot.

I don't generally date girls who cannot get me off.

It's not about how attractive the girl is, it's about how good she is in bed. I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm not so easily satisfied that every girl I've been with has been able to keep up and get me off. This is a common trait amongst females, and I don't really understand why it isn't more common among males. Lower standards, expectations, and pleasure thresholds, I would assume.

Condominiums .

Basically . . . .

Their food is organic.

What food?

Seriously.

I live in an incredibly diverse area. Within a ten min walking distance I have Mexican cuisine, Japanese cuisine, Indian cuisine, and Chinese, Korean, Arab, Persian, Italian, Russian, French, English, fucking Australian - you name it, we've got it - restaurants galore. But never in my life have I seen an African restaurant. Nobody wants to eat bread made of one part flour one part mud. When the focus of a culture is more on getting food period, as it often is in Africa, than working with an abundance of food you do have, as it often is elsewhere, that culture doesn't develop a very rich cuisine.

The "relationship" part of a relationship is more important to me than the sex, so no.

Also, come on, you're telling me you've never faked an orgasm? Why is it guys are all so easily satisfied?

I think it's controlled by male and female hetero and homosexuals. Which might also explain why the media doesn't just unrealistically depict women, it also unrealistically depicts men, heterosexuals, and homosexuals.

I think women are more likely to burden themselves with guilt for not looking like the girl in the shampoo commercial, whereas most guys are more likely to realize that looking like the guy in the bowflex commercial requires working out 18 hours a day on a diet of egg yolks and steroids. So some women are more likely to bitch about unrealistic depictions of women in the media because they actually feel this is a standard they are expected to meet and that they are failing to meet.

I wish we could still fight wars like we used to. Y'know, back when at the end of the war someone actually won, as opposed to someone eventually pulling out of a sustained and failed invasion. I think treating wars as wars instead of pussyfooting around the idea of someone getting hurt (as many liberals concern themselves with [joe, you should be proud; I'm bashing liberals]) would be a good first step.

Atheists vs theists on Sunday would be pretty slow, as most of the theists on this site are Christians and Christians are supposed to spend Sundays relaxing and worshiping, not debating heathens.

This happened less than a year ago. But I'd be down. Got any girls you can send my way?

Check out dandeluxe for an example of this:

http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Which_is_better_xbox_or_PS3

To look at, maybe. Personally I prefer boobies that feel like boobies and not wet sandbags covered in skin.

I only know one penguin, and he seems a decent enough sort, though his arrogant nationalism irks me so.

I seem to recall seeing repeated debates all made by joecavalry in which he repetitiously complains about the multitude of repetitious debates on the site.

Seems counter-productive.

The wording (you're style of writing) and the topics, generally. And the time at which the debate was made. This one, for example, after a flurry of activity on an abortion debate we are presented with this debate that is essentially your take on the issue. You also oftentimes try to find middle ground, or compromise, or mediate, so words like "that we can all live by" in your debates give it away. Also debates that have some element of sarcasm, humor, or trolling in the title, (i.e. Gravity Sucks. It keeps bringing me down) are usually yours.

"Libertarians and Republicans" unite would have been a better title for this debate.

Libertarians aren't likely to unite with conservatives because libertarians are all about personal freedom while conservatives are all about stifling civil liberties. They're on completely opposite sides of the spectrum in that regard.

Republicans and libertarians obviously have similar opinions about how to run the government and the economy (which is why I occasionally refer to myself as a "Liberal Republican," in part because of the disgusting number of people here who don't know what a "libertarian" is), but they are juxtaposed on social issues.

So sure, Republicans and Libertarians can agree, as they always have, that small government is the way to go. But good luck getting conservatives and Libertarians to agree on anything.

I'm getting really good at figuring out which debates on the homepage are yours without actually looking at them.

Donno. Let me drink some more and get back to you when I think of something witty to post.

Tonight's drink of choice is Smithwicks.

While I'm not for higher taxes for large incomes, you can hardly refer to this as "enslavement."

I could see how conservatives might interpret fighting in an imperialistic war as "defending freedom," and in that regard conservatives sure do a lot of "defending." But in the more traditional sense of freedom, personal liberties and the like, conservatives actually fight against freedom tooth and nail. Liberal values are typically, well, liberal regarding personal freedom; conservatives, accordingly, are the opposite.

I didn't accuse you of a personal attack ;)

Deny anything you want, but you denial seems pointless if you were never accused of the thing you are denying in the first place.

I don't think it was a debate we were having, more just something of yours I posted on. I think. I'll dig around and see if I can't find it, but I am pretty sure it happened.

That's an interesting position for you to hold, given that you posted, Of course it is, I don't understand why this is up for debate? in the "True" column for a debate titled "Britain is the Best Country in the World."

So in your opinion is it possible or impossible for a blind, zealous nationalist to "win" a ridiculous debate about how awesome they think their country is?