ToriAllen

Hmmmm... boob, titties, cat Edit: Now that's just sexist...

Oh ****! That is funny. Does that work with ass too? Assistant. Associate. Nope. So ass is allowed but c-ck isn't? Does that seem strange to anyone else?

That is really sickening. Her punishment should have gone beyond that of her conscience. Some people have no conscience, so what is the punishment in that case? Another point: Pitbulls are hounds from hell. Honestly, is anyone surprised by the fact that it is a pitbull and not a ****er spanial or a labrador retriever? Why do people insist on having these dogs as pets?

I love the ocean. I've always thought the perfect house would be on the cliffs overlooking the ocean. If I actually found a house like that, it would probably be my favorite place, but since I haven't, I am currently without a favorite place.

tree fi'ty

2thejungle.com under the name Aery.

That is the point of the thread. The 'proofs' of God are not really about a known 'God' but rather a conceptual view of what one would consider to be God. No 'sky faeries' involved.

It might be hard to believe, but I really don't. Maybe it is because I have moved around so much, or that I just don't ever have time to recharge, or maybe it is growing up near the city where there is no such thing as a 'beautiful quite place'. I found it about a year or a year and a half ago. It is fantastically addictive. I love looking at real estate and I always look it up on Google earth to see where the property is located and what is around it.

Since it really only matters how fast he reads it, perhaps you should suggest that he read it slowly, like this: All right dipsh-t, now try and read this really slowly so you don't miss anything important... Just a suggestion.

Screw little Billy, we only care about little Pedro.

No religious fanatics yet...Not much of anyone yet... I could say: If you aren't going to add anything substantial, don't bother posting, but I would never say that to you.

I haven't found one yet, but I intend to travel extinsively until I do. I like to visit places rich in history. Charleston, St. Augustine, Savannah, and other historic towns are among my favorite. I also enjoy visiting places that are said to be haunted. Obviously, England is on my list of places to visit, so you have to tell me what to add to my itinerary for when I go.

Yea! I was wondering if you would find us. So good to see you.

Looks like a WPYO membership charge to me. Was that stuff set on automatic?

I got that too... I didn't know what it meant or was used for until you pointed it out. Don't really care either... Like Snafu says, it is all about what you say and how you present yourself.

No cooking or recipe forum? I'm sooo disappointed.

I beg to differ, my dear. A woman was 'in charge' for many years and things went just fine. Two women if you count Phreakwars... :D

I've noticed that change to. You can see it everywhere, and not just with smoking. I'm a big fan of classic movies. How many old movies had drinking on the job or the second the person got home as the norm. Isn't that the first thing they usually ask in the movies when there was an office meeting? You really don't see a whole lot of 'who wants whiskey' in the movies not. Maybe a 'who wants a beer', but not at work. Everyone in the classics smoked too. Men and women. Now it is not uncommon for one character to point out that smoking is unhealthy to the character that is smoking, if there is one. I am always interested in looking at the changing social norms. My parents had smoking sections in their schools as well. In my high school, you could get suspended for smoking on campus. I agree that there should be an acceptation for smoking in bars, but I think the legislature is afraid of opening the door to restaurants that have 'bars' in them, like Red Lobster, Ruby Tuesday, and Apple B's.

It did the same thing to me the other day because I had not clicked the 'remember me' box. Luckly, I'm a horrible speller, so I almost always cut and paste into word before I submit a thread or post.

That's why I'm not going into criminal law...

That is the general consensus, but... Why? Why should we treat everyone equal? Is it simply for the reason of 'treat everyone how you would want to be treated'? Does that mean that we only treat others a certain way because we want to be treated that way and not necessarily because they deserve to be treated that way? Isn't that sort of a self serving reason for treating others equal? What if there are obvious differences, should we be forced into equality by government statutes? Maybe it is important to first decide what is meant by 'everyone is created equal'. Equal how? One person's life is not worth more than another? Does that mean we should react the same when a wife and mother of four is murdered as when a repeat sex offender is murdered? I think in a lot of cases it is easier said than done. I found it really interesting at orientation when we had lunch that individuals automatically split up into groups based on gender and race. No body forced us to do that, but people will attach themselves to the groups they can associate with and are most comfortable with. I think personal feelings and views play a large part in our perceptions of equality. Does that mean we are created equal, but our experiences and unique perceptions separate us, or is the separation already there and we are just better able to perceive it as our experience increases?

Yes, this is a repost, too. Let?s try to keep in mind that this is a philosophical concept, based on ideas/logic and thinking outside the box, rather than an empirical concept, based on fact or scientific laws. The following was written by St. Thomas Aquinas, born in 1225. He is one of my favorite philosophers. This translation is by Manuel Velasquez and comes out of Aquinas? work Summa Theologica. I like it because it is encompassing and does not just apply to one religions view of God. Enjoy. That God exists can be proved in five ways. The first and clearest way is the argument from motion. It is certain and evident to our senses that some things in the world are in motion. Now if something is moved, it must be moved by something else? For nothing can change from being potentially in motion to being in a state of actual movement unless something else that is in actual movement acts on it? So whatever is moving must be moved by something else. Now if that by which it is moved is itself moving, then it, too, must be moved by something else, and that by something else again. But this cannot go on to infinity because then there would be no first mover. And if there were no first mover, then nothing would move since each subsequent mover will move only to the extent that it is moved by the motion imparted by the first mover. The [other] parts of the staff, for example, will move only to the extent that the [top of the] staff is moved by the hand. Therefore, there must be a first mover that is not moved. And this first unmoved mover is what we mean by God. The second way is based on the nature of efficient causes. In the world we see around us, there are ordered lines of efficient causes [in which each member of the line produces the next member]. But nothing can be its own efficient cause, since then it would have to exist prior to itself and this is impossible. Now it is not possible for a line of efficient causes to extend to infinity. For in any line of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the intermediate ones, and the intermediate ones cause the last one. Now if we remove any of the causes, we remove all of the remaining effects. So if there were no first cause then there would be no last cause nor any intermediate ones. But if a line of efficient causes extended back to infinity, then we would find no first cause. Consequently, if the line of causes extended back to infinity, there would be no intermediate causes nor any last causes in existence in the universe. But we know this to be false. So it is necessary to admit that there is a first efficient cause. And this we call God. The third way is based on contingency and necessity. It proceeds as follows. We find in nature things that are contingent. These are things that are generated and that can corrupt, and which therefore can exist or can cease to exist. Now it is impossible for such contingent things to exist forever. For if it is possible for something to cease existing, then eventually a moment will come when it will cease to exist. Therefore, if everything were contingent, then eventually everything would have ceased existing. If this happened, then even now nothing would exist, because something can start to exist only through the action of something that already exists. It follows that not everything is contingent, that is, some things must exist necessarily, that is, forever. Now every necessary thing is caused to exist forever either by something else or not by anything else. But as we proved above, it is impossible for a line of causes to be infinite. So there must exist something which derives its necessary existence from itself and not from something else, and which causes the existence of all other necessary beings. This is what we all mean by God. The fourth way is based on the degrees of perfection that we find in things. Among the objects in our world some are more and some are less good, true, noble, and the like. But to say that a thing has more or less of a certain perfection is to say that it resembles to a greater or lesser degree something which perfectly exemplifies that perfection? So there must be something which is most perfectly true, most perfectly good, most perfectly noble, and, consequently, which most perfectly exists (since, as Aristotle shows, those things that are perfectly true also exist perfectly). Now that which most perfectly exemplifies some quality, also causes other things to have that quality to a greater or lesser degree. Fire, for example, which most perfectly exemplifies the quality of heat, is the cause of the heat in hot things. Therefore, there must be something which is the cause of the being, goodness, and every other perfection in things. And this we call God. The fifth way of proving Gods existence is based on the order in the universe. We see that things which lack knowledge, such as natural objects, act for an end. That is, their activity is always or nearly always aimed at achieving the best result. It is clear, therefore, that their activity is not produced by chance but by design. Now things that lack knowledge cannot move unerringly toward an end unless they are directed toward that end by some being that has knowledge and intelligence much like an arrow is directed toward its target by an archer. Therefore there must exist an intelligent Being Who directs all natural things toward their respective ends. This Being we call God.

I know it is lazy to repost old topics from WPYO, but the board is looking bare and this is one of the ones I have saved on my computer. Over the past few years there has been a push to ban smoking in public places. Obviously, this is not a popular notion to everyone out there. This is what I wrote. Feel free to comment and argue, or agree: I find it ridiculous to see establishments aimed at children, such as McDonalds or other fast food restaurants, which allow smoking. No, this isn?t my only complaint. Smoking in any restaurant is ridiculous. I don?t know of anyone who smokes while they eat; most of the time they light one up before or after the meal. If it is after the meal they hold up the table so that others can not be seated. There is no reason to have smoking sections in restaurants, or any public place. Smoke before you come in to eat and after you leave. That is maybe twenty to thirty minutes. Is it really that difficult to go twenty to thirty minutes without a cigarette? I don?t think this argument has to do with inconvenience at all. I don?t think it would make one bit of difference to anyone. Smokers are just fighting a pointless fight for some perceived right they see being ?infringed? on. Smoking is one of the most selfish addictions. As an adult, you have the right to choose to smoke, but if you have children I implore you not to expose them to the second hand smoke. This can not only increase their risk of cancer when they are older, but also increase their chances of having asthma while they are young. Children who are exposed to smoke are more likely to develop allergies, as well as asthma and asthmatic bronchitis. If the child is under two, he/she is more likely to develop life threatening respiratory infections. Children raised by smokers are more likely to become smokers themselves. So if you smoke around your children, then yes, I think you are selfish. Adults who inhale second hand smoke are more likely to die from lung cancer. Pregnant women who are around second hand smoke are more likely to give birth to premature, underweight babies. To expose others to the risk of cancer without any guilt is selfish, and to choose to expose yourself to second hand smoke when it can be avoided is foolish. If you smoke you are inhaling carbon monoxide, tar, and nicotine along with approximately 397 other toxic substances. You increase your risk of getting cardiovascular diseases such as hypertension (high blood pressure) or coronary thrombosis, leading to heart attack. Cerebral thrombosis, or blockage of vessels in the brain, can lead to a stroke causing paralysis. Smoking also causes kidney failure. Cancer is the big one. 90% of lung cancer cases are related to smoking, but smoking increases the risk of all kinds of cancer, including kidney (which my dad died of), pancreatic, cervical, and bladder cancers. One disease that every long term smoker develops is COPD, or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, which encompasses all conditions that make breathing more difficult. This most often takes the form of emphysema or chronic bronchitis. Most of the time ?smokers cough? is actually chronic bronchitis. Smoking has been known to cause fertility problems and erectile dysfunction as men age. Loss of eyesight and cataracts are also common. Many times smoking leads to periodontal disease, which causes bad breath, swollen gums, and rotting teeth that fall out. Smoking can also lead to acid reflux and ulcers. And finally, it causes more prominent wrinkles at a younger age. A smoker who loves his/her family and wants to be around to see their grandkids should quit. If you love a smoker then you should be encouraging that person to quit smoking not fighting for their right to kill themselves (and others). Trust me; none of the preceding effects are dignifying or glamorous. http://core.ecu.edu/psyc/evansr/EVANS21.HTM http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309035880/html/249.html

I'm starving. Now I'm in the mood for Mexican food, but what to fix....?

I tend to think equality, or inequality, is mainly due to the choices we make in life. Obviously, there are circumstances that we can not avoid. For instance, we can not choose our parents or their backgrounds. However, we can choose our own attitudes and efforts. I agree with you that the idea of equality is an illusion. So, if equality does not truly exist, then why should everyone be treated as equal?