That's just flat-out disrespectful. I've just done an art project on roadkill as something I've overlooked in my everyday life, and it's not hard to become attached to something you visit every day, even if it's dead.

The website matches people who are compatible for making the healthiest children possible, not falling in love.

Oh please. There's nothing wrong with safe, responsible sex. To oppress our own bodies and desires is unfair to ourselves and to our future partners.

Ah yes, more arguments from the mouths of the selfish. I fervently hope that you one day end up in a position where you need welfare. And then people like yourself will have eliminated and/or lessened it.

I have a cell phone, but the times that I forget it or it's not working is so liberating. I love not being plugged in! If it's good for the environment, I'd surely give up my phone.

It sounds good to me!

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Meh, I skimmed. But I do know that the UN's advice to most effectively reduce global warming is to cut out meat.

Bangs ftw! I just trimmed mine last night. :)

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

True Life:

Eating a salad and driving a Hummer is more environmentally friendly overall than eating a hamburger and driving a Prius.

I'm being a cat! An oldie, but a goodie. A leopard-print coat, black fishnets... it's going to be a fun night in the Village. :)

Of course abstinence is 100% effective. That completely doesn't make it the right choice for everybody.

There are certain things that are unacceptable. But, for the most part, if a person isn't hurting others or him/herself, they should be let alone.

It makes sense, you know, to keep things constitutional, but the site looks a little bit extremist. Like, people who are obsessed with the Constitution and dress up as Revolutionary War reenacters and have fake battles. Y'know?

The issue here isn't killing the foetus, it's the man's assault on the woman. Generally speaking, women don't even know they're pregnant one week after conception occurred.

Yeah, these all seem like very valid reasons to pass legislation or to take action. And if there are people who can afford to pay for the action that's needed, well, that's even better!

Our government's purpose (ideally) is to serve its people, particularly those in need. Farm subsidies assist in-need farmers, and farmers play an extremely important role in preserving our well-being and lifestyle. Thus, by helping farmers, the government helps us all. The same theory can be applied to bailing out businesses.

After all, it's perfectly acceptable to give veterans certain benefits.

God, I agree. "It's for the children!" Yeah, sure it is. Get a better ploy, please.

Absolutely. It's like saying to a brunette child, "Here, you can still have birthday cake, but you can have less birthday cake than the blonde kid."

We have learned, or, rather, been further convinced that humans are perfectly capable of committing horrible, needless, cruel atrocities without a second thought.

The race card--or the gender card--is utter bullshit. It's not an excuse for anything, and playing it is just pathetic and not taking responsibility for yourself.

In most cases.

The Internet needs some real sarcasm help. Like, now. How many misunderstandings could be avoided....

I don't know why the government couldn't promote behaviours. Nobody's being forced to do anything, only encouraged. It's perfectly alright with me when the government promotes recycling or eating healthfully or reporting crime.

But it's a search for morality that dictates the law, which is in turn dictating how moral we are. So I'm not sure which side I'm on.

Good debates lately, Joe. :)

To always look out for the "Greater Good" is a slippery slope, and one that I'm not experienced or wise enough to even really comment on. But I'll try.

Theoretically and statistically, it would make sense to deny treatment to those who are closer to death in favour of providing treatment for those who can be saved. It's commonly seen in military hospitals, the rationing of supplies for the ones who can actually use them. But can this be justified morally? I don't know.

The problem with nationalized health care may be that countries are just too big now for taxpayers to be able to support each other. Consequently, this brings up the question of overpopulation, which brings us in a full circle back to health care. Perhaps by denying health care to some, we can lower the population (brutally) and thus lessen the burden on the taxpayers. But... ouch. That's harsh.

So, there's what can be done and what should be done. Who can judge? I'm definitely not the right person to be in that position.

This is probably true, actually, although I had to sit here for a few moments chewing it over. The best example I can think of to back this up is people who said they would vote for Obama back in the fall out of fear that they would be considered racist if they admitted to supporting McCain.

The determination to give equal rights and always be politically correct may be harmful in that it leads to the acceptance of things that otherwise would not have been accepted. Is this actually harmful? I'm not sure. This is a bit too big for my head, and I'll need to think on it some more.

Is that what you're trying to say?

I would absolutely commit crimes to get that money. Absolutely. 100% yes. I can't imagine anyone who wouldn't.

The bigger they are, the harder they fall!

That's actually true when it comes to nations. I mean, look at Rome.

Well, actually, you have to admit that she needs all the help she can get... and maybe what you consider bad choices she considers good choices! /shrug

People actually need those spots. Will it really kill you to walk the extra couple of yards?

Without face-to-face contact, online debaters can be particularly vicious without feeling any sort of human compassion. I also enjoy classroom debating much more. It's more personal and enjoyable and I love getting fired up and arguing with my peers. :)

Yes, I suppose that's true. It just doesn't feel right, somehow, but for each person it'd be different. I can't judge.

I may be bigoted since I myself am, in fact, female, but I can't imagine wanting to deceive someone about my endowment. Not that I need to. ;)

I love to read. I'm currently reading the fourth "Sookie Stackhouse" novel, "Wuthering Heights," "The Chocolate War," and... I think that's all. On my list of books to read next are "Oliver Twist," "Of Mice and Men," "Fallen Angels," and "Pride and Prejudice."

Don't give up beer! Give up food!

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

This would work if Kukla's argument didn't hold water and if the governmental programs worked the way they were supposed to. Ho hum.

The real question: how did you get your font in blue and red?

CD was such a lonely, sad place without him.

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

It's an interesting idea, but... I don't know. Something seems off. Maybe it's my own personal thing, like, I don't think I could ever give my infant up for adoption or give someone else custody of him/her or donate my eggs, just because the idea of possibly meeting my child someday and not knowing it freaks me out. So maybe that's just me.

But maybe if there was a way to transfer the embryo from the mother's body to some other system in which it could safely grow... hmmmm.

Now that I think of it, most smart people are thin... well, now I have one more reason to attend class.

Oh. You're right. That's clever.

The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible.

Ah, but just because we can do these things, it doesn't mean it's our purpose!

I always resort to... the meaning of life is to search for the meaning of life.

Wouldn't that make us all conservationists trying to conserve different things?

Although I hope I'm not not conservative at all. The far left is just as bad as the far right.

Absolutely! The far left and the far right balance each other out; besides, ideas couldn't be formed without a juxtaposition.

Holy hell, he does!

555500000cccccchhhaaarrrrraaaaccccccttttteeeeeerrrrrssssss

A man attracted to women (a.k.a. a Lesbian after a sex change) is a straight man. A man attracted to men (a.k.a. a Lesbian after a sex change who then becomes attracted to men) is a gay man.

Easy.

I agree with all of that. Regular bras are much prettier, much more comfortable, and give a much better shape.

I most definitely have Young Timer's Disease, mind and body. I'll walk into one room to get something and forget why I went in there. Not to mention that my joints seem to be deteriorating for absolutely no reason and I'm seeing my third orthopedist on Tuesday. What a party!

Bah. What nonsense. If perhaps "happiness" was replaced with "contentment," I may buy it. But I don't measure happiness as contentment. I am not happy when I'm content. I need to be stimulated, excited, engaged, and being old and Republican doesn't really seem to suit that very well.

Besides that it's too late, I don't really know if I could do this. If it wasn't actually my first time, and I lied brilliantly that it was, I would most certainly have sex for money! But everyone always remembers their first--forever--and what kind of person would buy another's virginity? The skeeviness of it would turn me off entirely for my first time.