Peekaboo's Waterfall
I highly doubt the conservative faction would do this - it would feel to them like they're backing down. The fact is that they don't want to just define what they personally consider to be marriage. If that was their goal, there'd be no need for them to lobby for official regulation over marriage. They want everyone to recognise that their definition of marriage is the only correct one. To allow the government to define marriage how it likes, and allow the rest of the world to use that definition, while they pick a different word and use it only amongst themselves, would basically be admitting defeat.
I do it already. I can work twice as many hours as I currently do so I get more money to spend on overpriced crap... but why? I'd rather have more free time so I can do stuff I like than work my ass off and be so exhausted I can't enjoy my money.
People who have desirable qualities tend to be more favoured by society because of these qualities, whether it's education, wealth, social grace, moral rectitude, or good looks. It's no surprise that hot girls do better than their plainer counterparts, in the same way that it's no surprise to see university graduates leading more comfortable lives than school dropouts.
Bwahahaha. Tip dipping, an original way to express penile length - I can already see it in an adults novel 8)
"Fernando was a man of powerful build, standing tall and proud at six foot four, muscles ripping across his chest. His tousled hair was the deepest black, his eyes the most piercing blue. His manhood was strong and dark, its length so majestic that it brushes the water when he sits down to take a shit."
I sort of see what Scott Adams was trying to get at there, but he couldn't have explained his ideas in a worse way. He really needs to stick to drawing comics that poke harmless fun, and leave long politically-charged arguments to a ghost writer.
"That's the reason the original blog was pulled down... This piece was designed for regular readers of The Scott Adams blog. That group has an unusually high reading comprehension level."
My goodness - this paragraph alone shows how badly he needs to take The Internets 101. Lecture 14: Never try to boost your status with impressively high, entirely unverified, and evidentially unlikely credentials; it makes you look all the more idiotic.
I think that unconditional love for a partner is possible, it's just nowhere near as common as we'd like to think. Most couples do not love each other unconditionally, and that includes many couples who have been happily married for decades.
What I think is not love at all - not unconditional, not even conditional - is when people split up and then take revenge on their ex. If you love a person, or even have loved a person in the past, you shouldn't be capable of deliberately doing something just for the sake of hurting them. Argue/fight with them when you lose your temper maybe, or split up if you think you're not a good match anymore, but not rationally decide to hurt them just because you can. If you're willing to do that, I'm of the opinion that you never loved them to begin with. Maybe you liked them, you enjoyed their companionship, or you thought they were great in bed. But you never loved them, in the altruistic sense of caring about them and wanting the best for them.
Future generations type on full-size keyboards with one finger hunt-and-peck?
Also, I'm not sure I want every flat surface in the world to be a touchscreen. Carelessly fling an arm across the counter and you've set the oven to high. Lean a little too close to the mirror when you're shaving and you're in video chat with your boss. Huh.
Meh, the whole "was Hitler a leftist or rightist" debate is frivolous. Serious historians would not be likely to slap such wide, vague labels on the subjects of their study, and especially would not force historical evidence to fit such labels in order to use them in political mud-slinging.
Identifying Hitler's policies is an important historical and political topic, but simply calling him a leftist or rightist and bringing up a few examples to support that claim isn't identifying his policies. It's just another case of reductio ad Hitlerum - comparing your opponent's arguments to Hitler's policies in order to make them look bad.
Joe was saying Hitler was a liberal just to rile people up, as usual...
I wish whoever made those videos just posted the transcripts instead of running them through some stupid text-to-speech program. I quit watching around 1 minute into the 12 minute video, bored by the unanimated animations and slow monotonous speaking >.<
Though I doubt I'd be interested in reading them anyway... the conversation is so artificial that even conservatives will find it a ridiculous misrepresentation of liberal arguments if they think about it.
