Wuzzums

This bit struck me as a little odd because for me verification reminds me of school stuff, like grading tests and whatnot. You submit a test, and that test is verified against a standard. Anything that deviates from the standard is wrong, everything that is common with the standard is correct. Is this the meaning for you too?

Deal with the situation in what sense exactly? The tantrums are not the issue, he's just expressing a desire. The problem is the parents and how they're not listening to their child. If they were listening, then why would the kid have to throw a tantrum in order for them to pay attention?

Spec Ops: The Line Where you could consider the Call of Duty games to be excellent recruitment tools, Spec Ops: The Line is the exact antithesis of that.

There are more Coke drinkers than Pepsi drinkers, should we ban Pepsi altogether? Again, wbc =/= pus. And if it's just a gross factor, why should we feed human milk to babies in the first place? I agree but in the clip they talk about this strange cancer causing hormone called IGF-1 found in the milk, which is misleading. If they knew what they were talking about, they would also had protested against Mars bars or corn production and the like. Calcium is not a buffer, and amino acids per se are not what increase acidosis. Amino acids are used to build up proteins -> the normal catabolism of these proteins creates byproducts that are acidic -> the kidney and the lungs buffer this acidity -> all is well. There is no direct link that I am aware of where Calcium lowers acidity. However, high blood acidity is linked with faulty buffer mechanisms, as in the kidneys and lungs don't work properly. Kidney disease itself can cause osteoporosis. The narrative does not go like: acidity => kidney disease => osteoporosis, it goes like: kidney disease => acidity + osteoporosis. Furthermore, it is a well known fact that calcium intake and calcium levels don't exactly have a proportional relationship. The body needs adequate amounts of Vitamin D in order to absorb the calcium from the diet. Vitamin D is created with the help of sunlight at the skin level and it is further metabolised in active compounds in the kidneys. So if you don't expose your skin to sunlight, like Eskimos don't, you'll have a deficit in Vit D production. Milk is a great source of calcium and Vit D, albeit Vit D is added as an extra ingredient.

Why is it harsh? Nothing is nothing, neither harsh nor better. You could say that when things die they go back to the place they were in before they were born.

This is my favorite:

Talk to her about her history and I'm sure you'll find the reason behind it. Some people from overbearing families are incapable of dealing with these menial tasks because of how they were raised. A thing that struck me from both examples you gave is that she asked for favors from men. Mind you, this may not apply to your girlfriend. I know a lot of women that are incapable of doing anything whenever there's a man around... but when no men are to be found, things get done seemingly through magic.

Nazis are safe to hate, even though at the time they were seen in a more positive light compared to the Russians.

If it were a debate, this is the part where you know you won. I usually ask for 3 examples, but all I get in return is an argument avoiding the challenge. Then I ask for 2 examples, and then just one example. If you've got an audience, you'll get some giggles. You know she doesn't have any examples to back her claim because she didn't give any examples in the first place. Yet somehow she can quote some guy called Ayer out of thin air. In between argument from authority of course.

I'm afraid I don't follow either. I don't see a contradiction in what you're saying or what Stef said. You assert that matter cannot own other matter because there's no distinction between them. Then you say that the body falls in the same category thus leading to the conclusion that the body cannot own anything. Then you say the body has a consciousness that makes it different from other kinds of matter. Thus the body can own property. No quarrel here. But Stef didn't say anything different than what you yourself said. He never said that the body has no consciousness, that would be a self-defeating statement.

During highschool I had many hobbies one of which was drawing. I'm in my early 20s now and that hobby slowly became a need. I got to a point where I can say I'm mediocre at it (as in I think I'm on par with mediocre artists that get published). I only have an online portfolio on DeviantArt and from time to time people commission me, I even had actual job offers some of which I had to turn down due to time constraints. I'm telling you all this because I have no formal education in the art field whatsoever. And nobody ever asked. Here's some advice I wish I had gotten a long time ago: If you're good enough at something, people will pay you to do it.

Ask them to go to a bank and extract twice as much money as there is in their bank account, because hey, if everything is subjective then numbers are too.

I like wordings like "too preachy", there's so much to it. "Preachy" is considered bad on its own but "too preachy" implies there's a right amount of "preachy" to be had. It's a contradiction. It's a weird language trick to soften the critique but backfires if you look at the logic. Kind of like saying that something is "too rapey". If you remove the right amount of rape you're gonna get the perfect amount of rape.

I think it's meant as a joke. We don't see the audience, just two voices shout back to the preacher. Then two men come into the shot and the supposed audience remains silent. And the use of that vertical aspect ratio is quite clever, hides the fact that there is no audience and gives it an amateur feel.

Natural selection eliminates out genes that are detrimental. If the homosexuality gene is gradually being removed then it means it's detrimental for human survival. Why should we go against our best interest and keep it? What possible good could come out of this scenario? Furthermore why would a gay couple purposely want their child to have a faulty gene? If I knew I had the gene for some horrible disease, me making children should be considered criminal negligence. Yes, surrogate mothers can be the best mothers they could be. It's just 9 months (of which you can subtract the first trimester). Women are fully capable of raising children while being pregnant. A surrogate pregnancy is just a pregnancy. The more I think of it the more I wonder why not more women apply for surrogacy. It's such a sweet deal, you're literally paid to do nothing. There are a ton of people out there that would give lots of money for it. Like actresses for example, the period they're pregnant is a period they cannot work meaning they're losing money. Or athletes, or women that cannot carry a pregnancy to term, or women that had hysterectomies, etc.

I would also take the other person's choices in account. For instance: if I bought a house knowing I would sell it and knowing the price will depend on my neighbor's house value then I am taking a risk, i.e. my neighbor is not responsible for the price drop on my house if i bought a house knowing I would sell it and NOT knowing the price will depend on my neighbor's house value then I still might not be entitled to compensation because I am still responsible for the ignorant choice I made. A street merchant is selling a 30 000$ Rolex for the price of 10 000$, I buy the watch without having any guarantee of authenticity and notice later it is worthless. Am I entitled to my money back? if I bought a house knowing I would sell it and knowing the price will NOT depend on my neighbor's house value then I am entitled to compensation (by my neighbor or by the person I bought the house from initially), it's a breech of contract

Why do you think women in a free society will not be willing to carry a baby for 9 months? Nobody is coercing them now, so surrogate pregnancies are by choice, thus in a free society nothing will change in this regard. The problems you refer to about surrogate mothers not wanting to give the baby away are rare. They're inevitable seeing how the baby in most if not all these pregnancies is actually the woman's baby, the surrogate mother being not only the donor of an uterus but an egg cell too. One could avoid such situations by having the egg donor be a different person from the surrogate mother. Same thing goes to donating sperm. Nobody is making anyone ejaculate in a cup. Humans aren't bisexual, gender evolved as an adaptive mechanism. In a nutshell because the environment is the way it is, a human cannot adapt to take care of infants and provide resources by themselves. It takes as we can see a minimum of 2 to make the species viable. If the environment were harsher still, more genders might have evolved. Bisexuality is a waste of resources in humans so I don't see how we can evolve to acquire such a trait. If a heterosexual mates with a dozen partners they will yield a dozen kids. If a bisexual mates with a dozen partners they will yield half a dozen kids, and invested as much resource as the heterosexual. That's one theory anyway, and if I extrapolate it to homosexuals then gay men/women shouldn't exist. So either the theory is wrong, or the theory is correct, this latter implying that homosexuality offers some sort of advantage I can't see. Or maybe homosexuality isn't entirely genetic. I don't know. Given an environment free of any danger, the species that will thrive is the species that has only one gender (again: if a hermaphrodite mates with a dozen partners then they will yield two dozen kids). So as we humans make the world we live in safer and safer, then two genders will become a vestigial trait and we'll slowly evolve towards hermaphroditism and not bisexuality. To some extent we can see this happening today, with metrosexuals and tomboys. On an unrelated note, this is why District 9 is such a great scifi. It makes so much sense that a species advanced enough to develop interstellar travel to also have only one gender.

None. "Genetically modified" is one of those terms that don't mean anything. We as humans have been genetically modifying plants to be more nutritious ever since we came into existence. Farmers have always and will always select to plant the best seeds from the best crop. No fruit or vegetable that we eat is in its original "natural" state. For instance, both are bananas, one is 100% natural, one is "genetically modified": I have never seen a natural banana sold in groceries and I have never heard anyone complain about it.

Visualization of contradictions in UPB: http://i.imgur.com/Op6lQpe.png

Your analysis reminded me of this: http://i.imgur.com/8Unxk.jpg I myself have zero experience at online dating, but I always wondered how true that guide is.

I have to put a disclosure in, I just extrapolated the data. I never met a good woman through a good female friend. However, I did meet the same kind of person over and over again through female acquaintances of questionable quality. I really hope the opposite is as true.

Well that's just disproving my whole point...

Don't mistake tv shows for reality. Cooperation offers an evolutionary advantage, those who do not shoot everybody on sight survive, those who do won't.

I have had a close friend like that, I considered her my best female friend. She was fun to be around with, I could be very blunt with her, felt I could talk about anything cause she was open minded about anything. This was in retrospect a red flag. Stopped talking with her after I realized there's nobody there, terrifying experience in of itself. Second girl I met like that was actually in a psych ward, during a rotation. Young, pretty and very colorful in language and mannerisms, she had the whole group of a dozen plus students eating out of her hand. You know how these kind of people are actually very apt at assessing other people's personalities, especially insecurities and the like? Well she singled me out in a fraction of a second. Creepy. You said you fall for these type of women, I do too, we all do. They can be whomever we want, they find out what ticks our fancy and they mirror that like some sort of chameleon from hell. A relationship is impossible with these types of people, they're always playing a role and they make you play a role too. And if you dare break the forth wall, they'll turn violent both verbally and physically. There's this great line in American Psycho that sums it up: "There is an idea of a Patrick Bateman; some kind of abstraction. But there is no real me: only an entity, something illusory. And though I can hide my cold gaze, and you can shake my hand and feel flesh gripping yours and maybe you can even sense our lifestyles are probably comparable... I simply am not there."

This is why we need to revert to the archaic method of testing for pregnancy. Where a woman caught a female frog, peed on it, and if the frog started laying eggs within the day it meant the test was positive. True story. And I particularly found it funny when the narrator said "morality aside" then got an "expert" to give us her expert opinions. What's the next report gonna be about? "Morality aside, is killing a person in cold blood a bad thing to do? Let's see what the experts have to say!"