-Your cloning answer made little, if any, sense. Why is cloning humans or animals immoral? If you lose a loved one that's it. They're dead. Hasta la vista. Why?! That's so frickin' arbitrary! There's nothing that irks me more (or suggests intellect less) than clinging to arbitrary constructs of morality and permissability.
-You're a practicing Catholic, you mentioned. Wasn't there some commandment regarding killing, whether accurate in its intended victim, or not?
[ journalism and other newscasting stations..?]
---I'm so tired of this discussion, to be quite frank. Not to mention involvement in politics has about as much to do as true intelligence than dog food has to do with knitted socks. Bush is bad, because he's stupid. Kerry scared me, though. I've never seen a man who looked more like a human reptile.
...ARGH, that was a paragraph of painfully stupid statements.
If your god(s) is/are telling you to go blow up a major department store, or an airport, in his name Don't forget abortion clinic.
The moral repercussions of cloning human beings alone is mind-boggling.
You shouldn't make statements like this without an explanation and/or some examples. It's easy to call something immoral; it's the justification of the statement that demonstrates thought. Also, watch your subject/verb agreement.
...but I'm not about to tell someone they can't be married because that person is the same sex
Your English is really awful.
Again, the lack of candor on Bush's part really angered me. Instead of just admitting he thought it was evil based on his own background, he went on and on, making it seem like his emphasis was on the monetary problems that could arise -- as in, they won't be producing children, so how will they give back to the money-sucking hole that is the US?! Oh noes! Okay, well you know what. There are more straight people -- HAVING CHILDREN -- that don't give back. Because they're on welfare, having six kids they cannot feed, etc etc etc.
Agreed.
Re: the death penalty.Your argument is essentially that modern science
( ... )
Oh, and "I think if a little less emotion would be better." .. This happens a lot when I'm writing quickly. I'm thinking of one sentence and typing at the same time, then most likely switch it and don't bother to look for the slight overlap.
And I wasn't writing an essay or anything, just writing with personality, since I figured that's what people here were looking for -- intellect and personality. I know a lot of it isn't 'correct,' because I usually write with stuff inferred, leaving out stuff the reader already understands. I get your point though.
And as far as the death penalty goes, I'm not sure how I could write what *I* personally think about it without emotion.
Comments 10
I liked the app. Yes.
Reply
Reply
and i'm from jersey too woohoo!
AND i like your drawings
Reply
sorry...it just so happened at the exact time I was typing this, some man working on my house was asking me a question. >_
Reply
-You're a practicing Catholic, you mentioned. Wasn't there some commandment regarding killing, whether accurate in its intended victim, or not?
[ journalism and other newscasting stations..?]
---I'm so tired of this discussion, to be quite frank. Not to mention involvement in politics has about as much to do as true intelligence than dog food has to do with knitted socks. Bush is bad, because he's stupid. Kerry scared me, though. I've never seen a man who looked more like a human reptile.
...ARGH, that was a paragraph of painfully stupid statements.
If your god(s) is/are telling you to go blow up a major department store, or an airport, in his name
Don't forget abortion clinic.
My life is very real, in ( ... )
Reply
You shouldn't make statements like this without an explanation and/or some examples. It's easy to call something immoral; it's the justification of the statement that demonstrates thought. Also, watch your subject/verb agreement.
...but I'm not about to tell someone they can't be married because that person is the same sex
Your English is really awful.
Again, the lack of candor on Bush's part really angered me. Instead of just admitting he thought it was evil based on his own background, he went on and on, making it seem like his emphasis was on the monetary problems that could arise -- as in, they won't be producing children, so how will they give back to the money-sucking hole that is the US?! Oh noes! Okay, well you know what. There are more straight people -- HAVING CHILDREN -- that don't give back. Because they're on welfare, having six kids they cannot feed, etc etc etc.
Agreed.
Re: the death penalty.Your argument is essentially that modern science ( ... )
Reply
Oh, and "I think if a little less emotion would be better." .. This happens a lot when I'm writing quickly. I'm thinking of one sentence and typing at the same time, then most likely switch it and don't bother to look for the slight overlap.
And I wasn't writing an essay or anything, just writing with personality, since I figured that's what people here were looking for -- intellect and personality. I know a lot of it isn't 'correct,' because I usually write with stuff inferred, leaving out stuff the reader already understands. I get your point though.
And as far as the death penalty goes, I'm not sure how I could write what *I* personally think about it without emotion.
Reply
Leave a comment