DrawFour's Waterfall
Maslow's triangle rates shelter and protection as the second most important need, after sustenance. I'd say guns are a variation of a need that we have in a world now that they exist. What that falls under though is protection, or more specifically weapons. We need weapons to protect ourselves from those who are normally stronger than us, in nature it's the animal kingdom, in society, ir's criminals, and internationally it's every other country.
I don't now if it was because of the chords, or just because of their delivery, but this was not that great it did not make it sound as upbeat as I recall the song to be, it sounded more ominous and dramatic.
It sounded a lot like "mad world" by Gary Jules, in the beginning.
Kind of the defeats the purpose of it being a road wouldn't you say? Maybe just make it 'SolaSidewalk".
Also roads are destroyed by a number of things, vehicles being only the major issue. Weather, and temperature changes also being a pretty significant part.
So they ditched the idea of them being octagonal, or is this another group, separate from the "solar freakin' roadways" people?
Either way, that's pretty cool. I remember while proposing this idea, one of the arguments against it, was the fact that roads often get wrecked, and need to be retouched every few years or so. So one of the biggest problems with these roads, that our current roads didn't so much of, was being a pretty expensive fix. That said, I hope they worked he kinks out of the cost and fix issue, and I want to see how this turns out. Maybe the rest of the world will get on board pretty soon.
Your hypothetical relies heavily on an A.I., something that we have yet to create, making it only slightly less valid, but I ask this since you seen content on A.I. not being alive.
When we get to that point, with A.I. and robots, and a robot can look you in the face and say something from their own collection of chemical influxes that they were not programmed to say but just felt like saying, something that was beautiful and or poetic, maybe tragic and or deeply philosophical, when and if this happens you wouldn't consider that being to have a life of it's own. Even if not a life-form in physical sense, the term alive has a vast amount of meaning, more so than just a beating heart, and the ability to reproduce.
This video makes me sick. Do they not have anything better to do than to find some false message, validated only by their crazy heads, then campaign around getting it known?
And for what I ask? Specifically of this video, isn't Satan a metaphor, or is he suddenly real now that it suits your purpose? This is part of the reason why Christianity is dying, along with most religions. They are getting more and more outlandish, and people are starting to see it, the desperation to stay relevant.
A girl gamer/designer, Zoe Quinn, made a game about depression, and she wanted to get it known, so she talked to some gaming journalists to make it more known.
She at the time, was dating, or sleeping with a gaming journalist, who she either cheated on, or broke up with, it's not important.
He, as a pissed off ex, outed pics of her nude, and alleged scandals within the gaming journalism industry, and how she was apparently sleeping with journalists to get herself more popular or something.
People are always going to talk, and they will always have something negative to say.
If that book existed, it'd have more chapters and or verses than the bible, and more sequels than Harry Potter.
Reading it would most likely do nothing constructive, lead to my own self worth and self esteem being degraded some, and if I did decide to make a change based one what was said in the book, I would no longer be myself, I'd just be conforming to others' opinions of me. Which of course would elicit book two, as people vent their disgust for how I've changed.
You can please all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can never please all of the people all of the time... So why bother.
A person's head is hardly a perfect circle. It has edges, it has corners, and it has faces. Specifically speaking of the front face, when washing one's face, their is a moment when you feel that you are n longer on the semi flat surface that is your 'face' and are now creeping into an area that feels like a different semi flat surface that is your head.
To answer this question, as far as going up is concerned, you stop washing your face, when you feel that you have reached the curve that leads to your head.
As for the rest of the face, well their is your chin as a marker going down, and your ears as a marker going left and right.
This is typically the no side, so. I'll go with no.
A racist person would probably prefer chocolate closest to their race, thus black racists would prefer regular chocolate.
Non blacks, non whites don't think I forgot you. I bet your racists just don't like chocolate.
Well yes, so I could both kill it and retrieve it, but for my initial assumption, and a valid assumption at that, a corpse being a creature is not necessary, since like I've said I believe four times now, if I kill the creature, and remove it from the tree in the process, I have achieved the only task that was asked of me, which was to "get the cat out of the tree"
Remember when i explained how "get...out" or "get X out" simply means to remove, nothing more nothing less.
That's a generalization. You don't know everyone so you don't know if that is everyone's desire. As far as we know that could be a prized tree, and the owners of said tree just wanted the cat infestation out of it.
However, I take you back to my valid question that asked if it had to be alive. Even if they did want the cat back, retrieved, more so than removed from the tree solely, that doesn't specify if they want it alive.
In old western movies, wanted posters ask for criminals to be brought to the jail, except they specify if they want the criminal dead or alive.
Yes, but the word retrieve isn't used here, I could say to you I don't see that as being the only meaning for get.
Let me give you an example. You call an exterminator, and frantically you say, get these bugs out of my house. When you say that does that mean you want him to capture them, safely, and give them to you? It absolutely does not, it means you want them removed. The phrase "get...out" does not mean retrieve, it means remove.
So I take you back to my initial question, does it has to be a live? This is both a valid question, and assuming they just want the cat out of the tree, and nothing more, it's a valid answer, since I would effectively be able to remove the cat from the tree if it were dead, but ultimately in asking I was ensuring that they wanted it removed, instead of retrieved.
To retrieve would be to get it for someone, to simply get it out of the tree is at the bottom line meaning remove it from the tree. So I take you back, if we aren't calling a dead cat a cat, it's no longer a cat in the tree, I got it out. If we are calling it a cat, then after killing said cat, I can go and get it out of the tree, if they wanted me to retrieve it, then I'd get it out for them.
It should also be noted I asked if it had to be alive, which is a valid question since the question asks how to get a cat out of a tree, not how to retrieve a cat.
True, then semantically I am also correct to say that if I kill the cat and get it out of the tree, I'd be getting the cat out of the tree, since it could be called a dead cat.
In fact, I'm correct even if it'd only be correct to call it a corpse, because once the cat is dead, and is now a corpse, there would no longer be a cat in a tree.
How does one know if they are in fact a dumb motherfucker? If the standard is that a dumb motherfucker will think a smart motherfucker is crazy, then does that make any motherfucker who sounds crazy a smart motherfucker? If that is the case, then how do we know the motherfuckers locked up in insanity wards aren't actually geniuses and we're all just dumb motherfuckers? To take it one step further, what of the actual crazy motherfuckers? How do we actually identify them, assuming we have the smart motherfuckers, and the dumb motherfuckers figured out based on this standard, of smart motherfuckers sounding crazy to dumb motherfuckers.
Well if you're choosing a leader whom we know is corrupt and in it for luxury, then you'll be seeing this debate very one sided. As the question asks," is the leader of every terrorist/freedom fighter yadda yadda" with the option I proposed the answer is, not really.
They are living better lives than those who do the fighting, but those who do the fighting are either dying, or living in trenches and barracks, not a great upgrade needs to be made to live a better life than that.
As for why they are not living an equally horrible life (out their on the field) is because they are the leaders. They are valued higher, and must be kept safer, and less stressed to make the battle decisions for those with the physical ability to carry out.
False dichotomy, I did not use the term 'high' I used the term 'strung out'.
Also, the video proves that at least at one point he was high. Higher off the ground even that the officer if I'm remembering correctly, when he climbed the pole.
Check and mate.
Most people don't want to admit they are wrong, so arguing with anyone really would prove to be a nit picking battle of whoever feels like saying how they feel the longest.
Another reason I feel is true, is that most people on here don't actually read other's arguments.
Probably scoping it out to see if leaving is the best option. If he is still here, I say don't leave. Getting into a huffy over some ignorant, annoying users is silly, since nothing they say actually matters anyway.
If he's not, then Whoo party hard, I never liked that guy ;)
That's bigoted towards the the nutcracker.
I, as a dancer born in a humans body, am appalled to see that people still exist like this in the world. I have a fiery soul, sending burning passion through my veins, and I need to let it out. If you can't accept that, then get of the stage because it's my time to shine.
Feminism. What is it really? It's the promotion of women's rights, with little consideration given to men's rights, to make women and men equal. This was the case when it was first thought up as an idea, when men actually had more rights than women.
Feminism was needed back before the several amendments making us equal were put into place, and laws were made to prevent unequal treatment.
This is weak. I understand logical to a fault, and trying to discourage troll posts, by using logic to a fault, but the idea that hard can only relate to a texture, is literally myopic.
I really hate to say, I agree with Joe. Replace hard, with difficult and try again please.
That last joke is hilarious, but I wanted to say he didn't ruin his parent's marriage, he was a kid when his father ruined it with lies and cheating, the kid was just a sorta clever but mostly dumb kid who took advantage of an opportunity.
