ChadOnSunday's Waterfall
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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?
Well yeah, that's the goal, right? The real question is if only 1 in 5 supports/disputes show up in your activity feed, how can you be expected to keep up with all the people responding to your shit without going through (in your case) thousands of your old posts? I only bring this up because I remember an instance in which you didn't ever get back to me (although by this point, maybe you've replied and it's my turn to post, but I'll never know if it doesn't show up in my activity feed because that debate is long gone.)
Absolutely not offended, just pointing out that you based liberals and thus by extension bashed my beliefs, something you denied which led us to having this discussion.
I think if liberals had to go a day without bitching
So there.
That's not true. I'm a liberal Republican and I would rather do something about it over bitch about it, though ideally I would rather do neither.
I saw a meme that said that because women are not allowed to sweat, fart, burp, and the like, they pretty much have to bitch otherwise they will quite literally explode pent up shit.
Not really. It wasn't very hard for liberals to fight the uphill battle against the religious right and the government to get the practice of marriage to include heterosexual couples of mixed race. In terms of civil rights issues, the conservative side has been on the retreat from day one. They really dig their heels in sometimes, too, but they inevitably loose to greater personal freedom, as they always have.
Not that I think the conservative platform should be silenced. It's important to have this metaphorical ball-and-chain dragging us down and preventing us from achieving progress and civilization too quickly. This gives all the delicate Republicans who are afraid of change time to adjust to new ideas without their hearts exploding and their brains hemorrhaging.
Gays can call their union a marriage. Trust me, they won't go to jail. Name one gay couple who has ended up in jail for calling their union a marriage. Just one.
Well yes, and you can call your marriage a "Fonfon Ru" if you'd like, and probably not go to jail for that, either.
As far as the government defining the word "marriage" .... Think of it this way.
I'm not against the government defining something that the government regulates; I'm against Christians using their religion as an excuse for bigotry and unequal treatment.
In any case, your example with gas stations would work better like this: Chevron has a massive chip on it's shoulder and thinks all other gas stations should not be allowed to sell gallons of gas because they sell gallons of gas.
So..., if you don't want the government to regulate your marriage, then all you have to do is NOT register for a marriage license and tell people you are married. Trust me, you won't go to jail.
So all you have to do is not get legally married? This sounds like it defeats the point.
I don't think "persecution" is too strong, I think it's perfectly applicable in this context; they're denied equal treatment and are the subject of a substantial portion of the hate crime in my country.
And no, someone who is zealously religious would have a problem with gay marriage and with civil unions and with homosexuality in general because it is an "abomination." In any case, it's not like the US, or Republicans, or Christians have claim on inventing marriage as a term or as a concept. Who are they to define and regulate marriage for everyone just because their religion, like many, includes marital practices? Marriage as an idea isn't theirs to police and control; if gays want to call their "union" a "marriage" (perhaps they are religious themselves?) who are born-again Republicans to say they aren't allowed to? They are free to feel as offended as they like, but their opinions regarding other peoples marriage shouldn't be considered any more valid than other people's opinion of Christian marriage, and they shouldn't be allowed to regulate and enforce the marriages of others any more than others should regulate Christian marriages.
No, I'm implying that zealously religious, right-wing nutjobs are the main source of homophobia in the US, and without their influence the gays wouldn't need to do something like start their own country to escape this persecution.
And I'm a liberal, and I like women waaaaayyyy too much to be gay. So I would never imply something like that.
I don't know about genetic disorder, but it's defiantly a mental illness. Like all phobias it is characterized by an unconditional fear or hatred of something without any logical reason for feeling that way.
You probably wouldn't have disputed me if that's really what you thought I meant, especially if you found it true and funny.
What I meant is that born-again Republicans are, from what I've seen, the greatest and most frequent source of homophobia in my own country, and without them around homosexuals wouldn't even need to start their own country, flag or no fag.
They wouldn't need to if born-again Republicans broke off and started their own country. They could call it... Alabama.
This is the longest, most troll-free post I've ever seen from you, joe. I'm flattered to receive it.
I didn't know about their "don't ask" policy. I based my opinion on the issue on you frequently calling it a "heterosexual organization" in the debate description, but if what you said is true it alleviates much of my concern. If an emphasis of sexuality of any sort is absent from the Scouts, it is not a gay or straight organization, it just is, and I have no problem with it.
I would like to point out, however, that if they do have a "don't ask" policy, the Scouts and the masters are already dealing with homosexuals in the organization - they just don't know it.
but I'm sure I must be homophobic for entertaining such notions ;)
Not at all. Not any more than having a negative opinion about Israel's politics makes anti-Semitic, or resisting radical Islam makes me a racist Islamophobe.
The wouldn't the implication be that they couldn't possibly turn/train a gay boy into a gay man? Or that to be gay is not to be a boy or a man?
I guess I always assumed that the requirement to join Boy Scouts was that you must be a boy. So it makes sense girls were not allowed to join and so they made their own organization. But it's not called Heterosexual Boy Scouts (and I doubt they would change their name if Homosexual Boy Scouts became a thing), and the implication here seems to be that to be a boy is to be heterosexual, and to be a gay boy makes you unwelcome in a group made for boys. If it was in their charter from day one that you must be a heterosexual male that's one thing, and I think it warrants a name that implies that (Straight Boy Scouts, or what have you). Like if the NAACP only ever supported and argued in favor of colored males, and refused to serve females in this regard, it would be their right to do so but the the "Colored People" aspect of their name would be misleading and giving a false implication, as they don't fight for colored people, they fight for colored males. To the best of my knowledge you can be male and also be gay. So if the requirement for Boy Scouts if to be a boy, they should let in gays; if the requirement is to be a heterosexual boy, they ought to call it Heterosexual Boy Scouts.
So there's this thing called a bike lane. You often see it along the side of roads. It is designed very similar to a road a car might ride on in that it has painted lines designating where the car/bike in the lane should be. Motorists for the most part seem to get how this works. Bicyclists, particularly those with road bikes with dinky little tires, seem to be compelled to ride on the line close to the real road of these lanes instead of riding in the middle. Imagine if a car centered itself on the double yellow line when driving - imagine the problems that would create, and that's the way most people with bikes ride. While I understand the reason for doing this (any small pebble is liable to destroy the tires of these wimpy bikes) I think all things considered getting a flat tire is more desirable than riding halfway on the real road and getting run over for it. I don't need to look for or attempt to run over any bicyclists; they seem to have that death wish all on their own.
Then I'd really hate having to hold a picture frame up to every girl I'm considering petitioning for sex.
What is it you always say, joe? Oh, I remember...
;)
If this is a question, yes. Your ";)" kind of seems to serve as an all-purpose punctuator.
No, you can ask me anything. Just don't expect a straight answer.
No. Not Chet. But that's usually what ends up written on my cup should I ever happen to order something from Starbucks or Jamba Juice.
True.
I've been curious to see what happens when we get around to electing a full black president; Obama's admin has already made claim on being the first black president, so will this new, hypothetical president be campaigning as the first real black president? Or will Obama be remembered as the first half-black president?
Aaaaaaand no longer. Thanks for reminding me, I've been meaning to swap it out for a while now.
This isn't it, but perhaps I'm a particular way on Sunday and that's where the name comes from? "I am Chad on Sunday" is not the only possible interpretation of "ChadOnSunday." Perhaps I discuss Sunday, as in "Dr. Chad On Health?"
I could never have
Standing here with you
One regret
One mistake
Nothing we could do
After this is done
You can go your way
Don't forget
This is how
Everything should be
Don't you ever go
True.
I actually like facebook because it reminds me why I don't deign to interact with most human beings.
I could never have//Standing here with you//One regret, one mistake//Nothing we could do//After this is done//You can go your way//Don't forget//This is how//Everything should be//...Don't you ever go
In all seriousness, though, to an extent you have a point. A lot of really trite debate topics already have a slew of talked-out debates on this site. However, when it comes down to deciding if you want to resurrect a dead debate or start a new one with the same topic there are a lot of factors to consider. Often times these dead debates are hundreds of days old - sometimes over a thousand days old - and most the people who participated in them are no longer active members of this site. Starting to post, support, and dispute on these long dead debates almost never yields further participation from anyone else, so in that sense if you want a lively, active discourse with fresh ideas from current members it's better to start a new debate. Personally I avoid debates when the last chunk of activity they received was over a year ago; provided there wasn't any newer, similar debates and I wanted to discuss the topic, that would be the point I create a new one.
"Helpful tip/some advice" videos, for example... they've been done. ;)
And some want it to go faster, indeed... namely women and homosexuals.
Some of them, probably, yes. Which makes sense. If there is some aspect of your physique that you are proud of, why shouldn't you enjoy showing it off? This is similar to guys who work out a lot going sleeveless or wearing tank tops.
By the same token, men who cant stop ogling or harassing women who flaunt it are just as infantile, shallow, and perverted as girls who swoon and flirt over some buff bro who always feels the need to take his shirt off everywhere he goes.
Care to share? If everything posted on youtube is suddenly considered indisputable video evidence... well... I need to rethink reality, because there's a lot of bullshit people have captured on film.
Of course. Why else would the Catholic Church spend boatloads of other peoples money training a squad of exorcists?
I think the conservatives be having a pretty bad time in their liberal-free "heaven." Who would they blame all their problems on, what with all the homosexuals in the closet and all the atheists in denial?
Congrats, Joe, you are a heterosexual male.
There are lot's of people I look at and wonder why anyone would tap that under any circumstance - but people do. I've concluded this is simply a matter of personal preference, one I can accept because if all males and females based their sexual preference on the values of heterosexual males I think I would find myself striking out, forever.
The pyramids were the result of oppressive slave labor. Hardly a pleasing monument to their contractor's stay on Earth. And, eventually, even the pyramids will turn to dust, or else be consumed by the sun, fall into a black hole, or be obliterated by a planetary collision.
I'm one person of billions on one planet of billions on one solar system of billions in one galaxy or billions in one universe out of of a lot of universes. I might relish the challenge of making an impact on all that that actually matters, but it's an impossible challenge nonetheless.
