I skip two full meals and all snacks, or for the duration of approximately 24 hours, on the first Sunday of every month. Is that consistent enough for you?

Furthermore, my family had never had much money, we forwent a very large amount of luxuries, and bought secondhand, made ourselves, or picked up free stuff from acquaintances. We have never purchased a television since I was born, and the one we did use for most of my childhood was already old to begin with. We owned 1 working computer most of my childhood, and that computer was Black and white until we upgraded towards my teen years (I forget if it was a gift or if we bought it). Only very recently have we acquired enough computers for every family member, and most of those were acquired used, many of which were old when we got them. All monitors are still CRT except my personally purchased laptop. We never owned a game console either, and were subscribed to satellite TV for only about 1 year before finances dictated we cancel.

Were it not for assistance from our church's food pantry which is funded entirely from charitable donations, we would undoubtedly have gone hungry very often. As luck would have it, we have never been for the want of the basic necessities, for which I am thankful, but we have never lived a luxurious life either.

+

A free market however, one free from governmental intervention regulation, and exclusive taxes, WOULD solve most problems America faces today.

+

Unfortunately, as the case may be, government has created a system of catch-22 on our economy. Welfare is necessary because of the excessive tax and regulation on business, preventing people from setting up home businesses for themselves. And because welfare is necessary, it is thus required to further tax and regulate business for economic balance in favor of the welfare recipients.

You can't have one without the other, but both are unnecessary, however, the removal of one or both of them will cause such great economic turmoil and upheaval that further use of the same is absolutely necessary to prevent a meltdown.

Because we as society are obsessed with not falling down, we will continue to run headlong into the ocean and ultimately drown.

If we would but abolish it all, and start over, the grand economic reset would result in greater power and freedom and liberty and quality of life overall. We would have to nurse some broken limbs, and suffer a few growth pangs, but overall it would be the most ideal solution. Again as I said however, we as society are obsessed with avoiding this necessary pain, and as such will continue to suffer in increasing increments until we either destroy ourselves, or finally get it in our heads to change things for the better.

People spend all the money they make on frivolities, and non-essentials, and drive themselves deep into credit debt to live luxuriously, they don't prepare for hard times, and then when those hard times occur, they DON'T lower their standard of living any, but require everyone else who DID prepare themselves and retained a sustainable standard of living, to bail them out and let them keep paying their unnecessary bills while mooching food, medical care, and other benefits off the rest of us. I'm sorry, I do NOT agree with that.

The 1930s was actually getting better until the New Deal came and halted all economic growth. Charity didn't cut it? I think it could have, it just wasn't given the chance. Not to mention charity only provides for Essentials and at least necessary level for them, so obviously it's not going to be favored by people who like living a life of luxury and refuse to lower their standard of living even when faced with hard times.

Have you ever heard the phrase "give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him how to fish, feed him for a lifetime"? Handouts are giving people fish, leaving them perpetually dependent on the system to provide for their needs. And that's entirely the POINT of welfare. If everyone is dependent on the system giving them stuff, then the people will ONLY vote for the party that offers those handouts, NEVER for anyone who will cut them back. By doing this, a party can ensure they FOREVER retain the governing power.

The best thing that could be done for the poor, is to provide an economic environment where it is Simple, Easy, and Cheap, to provide for themselves. Like being able to start a personal business without needing a massive loan to acquire assets and pay all the licensing, and attorney fees, as well as pay off all the other government fees. Or being able to buy a basic house without having to pay a massively inflated price due to all the regulations requiring particular specifications and inspections during the building process.

Why can't the poor do this? Because Government has stuffed their grubby hands into the very act of living itself, thinking to protect us from ourselves, when in actuality all it does is make life harder to live, and more difficult to climb upwards.

I say again, welfare is not about helping the poor, it's about keeping the poor so dependent they can never lift themselves up out of their poverty. It is about creating an endless voting block that will always vote to retain their "privileges" of welfare, and EXPAND them, thereby ensuring the party that gives out the goodies remains perpetually in power. It is about Social Redistribution of Wealth to reform government into a socialist or fascist oligarchy where the political elite have complete control over the populous and retain them in poverty so uprising is nearly impossible. When all is said and done, welfare is about nothing more than ensuring perpetual power.

I know my language. Not much for engineering though. Took me a little while to figure it out though, this was one I hadn't encountered before. Amusing.

It doesn't matter how refined or efficient the tape structure is reformed into being, it will always be accomplishing LESS per dollar than a private charity.

Why not just donate to private charities, church charities, or, better yet, donate directly to the poor in your local area? Why does Government need to get involved? It's not it's place, it's not it's purpose, and all it does do HARM to it's recipients.

It creates a class of dependents (by design) to keep re-electing people who hand out benefits and goodies and permit them to perpetually retain power and wealth over the populous.

The red tape only ensures that LESS money actually makes it into the hands of those who actually need it. When you are taxed 1 dollar to pay for welfare, about 60 cents of that actually goes to the needy. The rest goes to bureaucratic and administrative functions. Adding more red tape only ensures that less of that 1 dollar actually makes it to the needy. Rather than 60 cents, with extra red tape, now 40 cents only reaches the poor, or even 30 cents. The remaining 70 cents pays for the salaries and government retirement and medical benefits of the administrative workers, as well as the excessive amount of paperclips and printer ink, and form papers necessary to "ensure the red tape is being enforced."

And yet people who don't need it get it anyway, and when the department has a budget surplus, they offer the remaining food stamp stuff out for free to anyone who wants it to ensure they meet their quota required to get another budget increase next year.

You'd do far better just to walk into a city and hand out that money to people who look like they're in need, but government won't let you do that, they'll tax you anyway, so even if you do choose to contribute charitably, you end up with less money for yourself overall, and poor remain poor, while government has a party with your cash.

No, the point of welfare is to create a class of perpetual dependents that will always vote for more benefits, ensuring the enduring perpetuity of the power of the political party that hands those benefits out.

It is also a method by which to steal the private property of the independent citizens and ensure they are perpetually forced to work to sustain themselves, never amounting to anything in their lives.

The point of CHARITY is to help the needy sustain themselves enough to work back into independence, if possible. Welfare doesn't do that, nor has it ever been intended to.

And if someone is NOT paying taxes, and yet still ends up on the receiving end of handouts, that is immoral and wrong.

I should neither have to pay for handouts from government, nor have to accept them. I'd rather live in destitution, working to feed myself out of nature and off my own labor, than accept handouts.

What's amusing is that people get all excited about getting their government hand-outs, when it's their own money that paid for it. If you hadn't had to pay those taxes, you would have been able to use that money you just got handed out to you, as well as all the money that was filtered through the numerous bureaucrats' salaries and waste, on yourself in a better manner than the government.

I'm gunna have to agree with this. Sex is the most efficient manner in which a male and a female bond together.

Granted, it should only be done within the bounds of marriage, where there's enough stability and commitment to assume that the relationship isn't just about sex.

Quite an amusing read, I must say. I wasn't sure where it was going but, then Hilarious punchline.

I agree. Talking about other people never gets anywhere. Ideas are the best thing to talk about, their proving and disproving, regardless of their origin.

And of course, the best thing that can be done is to act rather than just talk.

True, what you did was actually Libel. Slander only applies to spoken word.

And yes you have libeled me. You have called me a child rapist and said I support rape, and not once provided any evidence for the false claim.

The only person playing victim is you. I have no problem admitting I support the re-legalization of child marriage. But that does not make me a rapist, nor does it mean I support rape. Are you willing to oath in court to substantiate your claims, under penalty of perjury if they are found to be false? I am, because I have nothing to hide.

Obviously, if a definition for a word can be specified further than it currently is, it is not the "most" specific definition.

Which word are you trying to define? "Intercourse" or "Sexual Intercourse"?

The correct definition is the one that the speaker was intending to convey. But if the speaker uses vague language, the listeners have a harder time distinguishing which definition was actually intended. Thus the speaker should use precise language.

Words do change their meaning, that's because the speakers are not either not proficient enough in the language to speak precisely, are intentionally trying to mislead through their use of language, are being sarcastic, or no such word to define the concept being described yet exists. However it comes about, it's a bastardization of the language, and really serves only to harm meaningful communication.

If you say something, and I respond to it according to my understanding of it, and you mistake my actions to mean confusion...

Or my actions are not readily apparent because I don't consider what I thought I'd heard to need any immediate actions...

"the nature relating to the involvement of the male and female genitalia." That's how.

It's a specific definition for a broad subject rather than a broad definition covering several subjects. It is a label for a specific concept. Make a word out of it if you must, but such a word is a label, don't use it for anything else but what it is.

How can one know if there is confusion until the listener acts on what he or she thought she heard which may not have been what the speaker was intending to say?

Glad we can agree.

If one is intending to speak broadly, let him do it with broad breath. The existence of broad language gives rise to laziness and encourages against the use of clear and concise language.

Actually I thought the debate was to settle a side-argument related to the other debate, intended to provide a base starting point for further discussion of the previous topic. This debate however, is not the place to bring up the specifics of the other debate, IMO.

When the word has several different definitions. Each Definition means something, but using the word makes the meaning unclear, and easily twisted into meaning something that was not intended. I'm arguing in general here, not on any specific word or definition.

What really matters is not the word used but the intended definition the word describes. And if you change a word's definition to mean something it was not originally intended to describe, you corrupt the idea it was meant to embody.

If it wasn't intended to mean anything specific then fine, but if it Was intended to mean something specific, then using the more general term gives occasion for deliberate misinterpritation and corruption of the idea that is intended to be described.

But what in the world does this debate have to do with homosexuality? Why are you bringing that up?

The most specific definitions of words are the ones which ought to be used officially.

Because with specific definitions there is far less miscommunication, and no bastardization of the language, and no taking advantage of one's words. All in all, a far more efficient manner of communicating one's thoughts and ideas.

Obviously.

What benefit does a complex and jumbled mix of contradicting communication have on society?

What do you mean I'm bastardizing the English language? Connecticut is bastardizing their legal definitions.

Thankfully, I live in Texas, where proper language definitions prevail. :P

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/docs/pe/htm/pe.21.htm

"(3) "Sexual intercourse" means any penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ."

I'm more inclined to take a medical dictionary's word relating to anatomical matters than a general purpose use dictionary. It is a higher authority.

Sexual Intercourse

The act in which the external male reproductive organ—penis—enters the external/accessible female reproductive tract—vagina

Segen's Medical Dictionary. © 2012 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.

From the same link as yours.

Legal Dictionaries and Medical Dictionaries are the proper sources to consult when it comes to disputing word definitions. The layman's language gets bastardized far to quickly and far too often to be of any actual use in understanding others.

Banning him for slander? Now that's rich, you were engaging in the exact same action to me not even 24 hours ago. You have two witnesses against hypocrisy and lies, I think you stand convicted.

He may have washed his hands of you, but I'm not done with you yet. You must enjoy making enemies and pretending to be a victim.

"Sexual Intercourse" means specifically coitus, or vaginal penetration

"Oral intercourse" means specifically oral penetration

and

"Anal intercourse" means specifically anal penetration

"Intercourse" in general has a broad meaning, more akin to "penetration" than simply "genital contact," IMO (you can't really have hand penetration sex).

However, I personally would more readily refer to "sexual intercourse" than any other form when using the term "intercourse" alone.

Nah, more likely he would argue the scriptures at people to support his non-compliance with the certain Jewish laws. And then go into the synagogue to preach "blasphemies."

That would certainly piss off the adults. ;)

Very much so I am surprised. I'm usually a totally cynical realist.

Everyone else gets a good laugh out of it.

I'm surprising even myself with this stuff...

Hilarious picture though, I find it very descriptive of the issue at hand.

Also, what's the point of being God if you can't mess with people every now and then for fun? Surely living in a palace of precious gemstones surrounded by adoring servants and heavenly angels for all eternity gets boring every now and then.

As much as I've love to retroactively abort some people, I can't in good conscience support the practice.

That is a very good question, and I'd like to know the answer myself.

Hopefully the good he does is stir up Americans in towards reforming their current unconstitutional bureaucratic government back to the Constitutional Republic it was intended to be.

Otherwise, I'm not sure even my philosophies can excuse him...

Better to wait until they've already determined such a route. Up until that time, they still have the potential to change and do good, and to kill them before then is to deny them that chance.

Even evil actions, can result in much good. For instance, that one "hero" who comforted a lady injured in the blast, and assisted in medical actions. He would never have had that chance to do such good, if such evil had not been purpetrated in the first place. Many who suffered in the Holocaust were made stronger and better people because of their experiences, and able to do much good for others around the world afterwards.

Kill an evil man, not a man with potential to do evil, for we all have that potential.

Basicaly, the Butterfly Effect. Everyone's life touches another in some manner. To destroy such a life is to eliminate that potential beauty.

lol, true, but then the butterfly that grows out of them provides pollination and beauty, and the endurance of many other flowers in the future.

Human children eat and eat, and take and take without providing anything of substantive worth too, in a sense, yet when they are grown, they have the potential to effect much good in the world.

You're right, it isn't cyclical. It's fractal.

That one butterfly egg has the potential for MILLIONS more butterfly eggs, and by extension, millions of beautiful butterflies, which could have had a beautiful effect on the world in future generations, but because that one egg is destroyed, that beauty will never be seen.

Probably the most effective argument I've ever seen, wow. This could be the discovery of the century! If modern society still possessed normal and rational thought process, which unfortunately is highly questionable...

If you were to kill a butterfly egg, you would be destroying it's potential of becoming a beautiful butterfly and impacting the whole web of life on earth. That one butterfly you have destroyed could have pollinated hundreds of flowers, which would have been cause for hundreds more of flowers per each flower pollinated to grow, with would then present the opportunity for hundreds of flowers per those thousands further on and on down the life cycle forever.

Furthermore, because you destroyed that one butterfly, which otherwise could have lain another many butterfly eggs, which would have hatched and grown into many more butterflies, hundreds of thousands of flowers and future flowers will not be pollinated either.

And additionally, because you destroyed that one butterfly, that butterfly, or any of it's decendents might not flutter beautifully in front of a young child, who will look at it with wonder and awe, and grow up inspired by that butterfly to create great art, or perform acts of service, or become a wise leader, or simply share the joy he felt with his friends and family, uplifting their day and adding a little more joy in an ever increasingly joyless world.

Alternatively, that butterfly you destroyed might have been made into a meal by a bird or other predator, but such is the web of life. But because you have destroyed great potential, the world will never get to see it in it's full beauty and completion.

So too, if you kill a fetus, you have destroyed great potential for good and beauty in the world, as well as murdered all their potential decendents and whatever impact they might have had on the world.

What is bad about it, is that it's bastardizing the language, and the common law.

Marriage has always forever been strictly between male and female. If it has ever been anything else, that culture is long gone, erased from history, and not surprisingly either.

Even the Greeks and the Romans, widely accepting of homosexual and pedophilic relations, never granted a homosexual union sanction as a "marital" union (except in the case of a single mentally deranged king using governmental authority for privilege not granted to plebs)

Why? Because Marriage is not about love, or sex, or living together. Marriage is, and has always been, about procreation and the inheritance rights of offspring, and the ever continuance of human society. None of which apply to homosexuals. They can do what they want, but the legal benefits of marriage are for the Encouragement of procreative unions to keep society alive, and the other benefits are for the upbringing and inheritance rights of offspring that result from such procreative unions.

Technically, yes, they do.

And it is the idea of consummation that defines a marriage in the collective mind of humanity. That's not something you can just re-write on a whim, even if you have the law on your side redefining things as they aren't.

Actually, intercourse is more often defined as penetration by the penis, or simply a going in between things. Sexual intercourse defines a specific type of intercourse, that is, vaginal intercourse. it requires the modifier "Sexual" in order to narrow down the intended definition

A more appropriate word to use in this context would be Coitus or Vaginal Intercourse.

Cheeky, taking credit for my knowledge. :P

Actually, I'd like to refine my definition.

Consummation is sexual intercourse, but a more appropriate word to use which carries the same meaning, one which does not carry any social baggage or have a history of being definition warped:

Consummation is the first act of "coitus" between a man and a woman who have become married, and it is this act, which must be done in such a manner that procreation is possible, that validates the marriage contract.

Better this than redefining the meaning and definition of marriage by permitting same-sex "marital" unions. Unfortunately, I doubt American Homosexuals would even try it, social conformity is not what they're aiming for.

Consummation of a marriage is the first act of sexual intercourse between a married couple. Consummation traditionally, is what validates the marriage contract. Any marriage not consummated, can be broken off without a divorce.

Thus, in relation to a union of two homosexuals, because it is physically impossible to have Sexual Intercourse between members the same gender (sexual intercourse being defined as the penetration of the vagina by the penis), any "marriage" contract between the homosexual parties, is legally unenforceable, it is null and void because the contract can not be "signed" so to speak.

We already have a working written and legal definition of marriage. It is codified in law, and mutually understood in the common law as well.

Such definition is explicitly "male and female." The problem comes when you start bastardizing the word by putting oxymoronic and paradoxical descriptors in front of it, "gay marriage," "straight marriage," "child marriage," etc. It's like saying a "pear apple" What is a "pear apple"?

If marriage is an apple, it most certainly can not be a pear. And yet that is what proponents of self-proclaimed "gay marriage" are really after, the bastardization of the definition and purpose of marriage.

It's not even a case of "inequality" because marriage is a legal privilege for a particular purpose. It applies equally to every person, every male is permitted to marry a female, and every female is permitted to marry a male. Thus equal application of the law.