Datasets:

0x-YuAN

/

NLP_explainable

like 0

"Max has outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation ."

"Ok , if Max is a hillbilly for his punctuation , then you , Ray , aspire to hillbilly-hood ! Max hitting some typos while talking about other 's intelligence was funny . You going after someone 's English is just plain ludicrous ! Do you really not know how awful your writing is ?"

DISAGREE

"Max has outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation ."

"Ok , if Max is a hillbilly for his punctuation , then you , Ray , aspire to hillbilly-hood ! Max hitting some typos while talking about other 's intelligence was funny . You going after someone 's English is just plain ludicrous ! Do you really not know how awful your writing is ?"

"Max has outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation ."

"Ok , if Max is a hillbilly for his punctuation , then you , Ray , aspire to hillbilly-hood ! Max hitting some typos while talking about other 's intelligence was funny . You going after someone 's English is just plain ludicrous ! Do you really not know how awful your writing is ?"

DISAGREE

"outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation"

"aspire to hillbilly-hood ! Max hitting some typos while talking about other 's intelligence was funny"

"Max has outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation ."

"Ok , if Max is a hillbilly for his punctuation , then you , Ray , aspire to hillbilly-hood ! Max hitting some typos while talking about other 's intelligence was funny . You going after someone 's English is just plain ludicrous ! Do you really not know how awful your writing is ?"

DISAGREE

"has outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation ."

"Max hitting some typos while talking about other 's intelligence was funny . You going after someone 's English is just plain ludicrous !"

"Max has outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation ."

"Ok , if Max is a hillbilly for his punctuation , then you , Ray , aspire to hillbilly-hood ! Max hitting some typos while talking about other 's intelligence was funny . You going after someone 's English is just plain ludicrous ! Do you really not know how awful your writing is ?"

DISAGREE

"Max has outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation ."

"Ok , if Max is a hillbilly for his punctuation , then you , Ray , aspire to hillbilly-hood !"

"Max has outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation ."

"Ok , if Max is a hillbilly for his punctuation , then you , Ray , aspire to hillbilly-hood ! Max hitting some typos while talking about other 's intelligence was funny . You going after someone 's English is just plain ludicrous ! Do you really not know how awful your writing is ?"

DISAGREE

"outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation"

"hillbilly for his punctuation , then you , Ray , aspire to hillbilly-hood ! Max hitting some typos"

"Max has outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation ."

"Ok , if Max is a hillbilly for his punctuation , then you , Ray , aspire to hillbilly-hood ! Max hitting some typos while talking about other 's intelligence was funny . You going after someone 's English is just plain ludicrous ! Do you really not know how awful your writing is ?"

DISAGREE

"Max has outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation ."

"if Max is a hillbilly for his punctuation , then you , Ray , aspire to hillbilly-hood !"

"Max has outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation ."

"Ok , if Max is a hillbilly for his punctuation , then you , Ray , aspire to hillbilly-hood ! Max hitting some typos while talking about other 's intelligence was funny . You going after someone 's English is just plain ludicrous ! Do you really not know how awful your writing is ?"

DISAGREE

"Max has outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation ."

"Ok , if Max is a hillbilly for his punctuation , then you , Ray , aspire to hillbilly-hood ! Max hitting some typos while talking about other 's intelligence was funny ."

"Max has outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation ."

"Ok , if Max is a hillbilly for his punctuation , then you , Ray , aspire to hillbilly-hood ! Max hitting some typos while talking about other 's intelligence was funny . You going after someone 's English is just plain ludicrous ! Do you really not know how awful your writing is ?"

DISAGREE

"Max has outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation ."

"Ok , if Max is a hillbilly for his punctuation , then you"

"Max has outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation ."

"Ok , if Max is a hillbilly for his punctuation , then you , Ray , aspire to hillbilly-hood ! Max hitting some typos while talking about other 's intelligence was funny . You going after someone 's English is just plain ludicrous ! Do you really not know how awful your writing is ?"

DISAGREE

"Max has outed himself as a hillbilly who can not spell or incorporate correct punctuation ."

"Do you really not know how awful your writing is ?"

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another : reason and force . If you want me to do something for you , you have a choice of either convincing me via argument , or force me to do your bidding under threat of force . Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories , without exception . Reason or force , that 's it . In a truly moral and civilized society , people exclusively interact through persuasion . Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction , and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm , as paradoxical as it may sound to some . When I carry a gun , you can not deal with me by force . You have to use reason and try to persuade me , because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force . The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger , a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger , and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats . The gun removes the disparity in physical strength , size , or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender . There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations . These are the people who think that we 'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society , because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job . That , of course , is only true if the mugger 's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat -- it has no validity when most of a mugger 's potential marks are armed . People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young , the strong , and the many , and that 's the exact opposite of a civilized society . A mugger , even an armed one , can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly . Then there 's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury . This argument is fallacious in several ways . Without guns involved , confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser . People who think that fists , bats , sticks , or stones do n't constitute lethal force watch too much TV , where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst . The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender , not the stronger attacker . If both are armed , the field is level . The gun is the only weapon that 's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter . It simply would n't work as well as a force equalizer if it was n't both lethal and easily employable . When I carry a gun , I do n't do so because I am looking for a fight , but because I 'm looking to be left alone . The gun at my side means that I can not be forced , only persuaded . I do n't carry it because I 'm afraid , but because it enables me to be unafraid . It does n't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason , only the actions of those who would do so by force . It removes force from the equation ... and that 's why carrying a gun is a civilized act ."

"Just in case you missed it :"

DISAGREE

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another : reason and force"

"Just in case you missed it"

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another : reason and force . If you want me to do something for you , you have a choice of either convincing me via argument , or force me to do your bidding under threat of force . Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories , without exception . Reason or force , that 's it . In a truly moral and civilized society , people exclusively interact through persuasion . Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction , and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm , as paradoxical as it may sound to some . When I carry a gun , you can not deal with me by force . You have to use reason and try to persuade me , because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force . The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger , a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger , and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats . The gun removes the disparity in physical strength , size , or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender . There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations . These are the people who think that we 'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society , because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job . That , of course , is only true if the mugger 's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat -- it has no validity when most of a mugger 's potential marks are armed . People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young , the strong , and the many , and that 's the exact opposite of a civilized society . A mugger , even an armed one , can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly . Then there 's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury . This argument is fallacious in several ways . Without guns involved , confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser . People who think that fists , bats , sticks , or stones do n't constitute lethal force watch too much TV , where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst . The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender , not the stronger attacker . If both are armed , the field is level . The gun is the only weapon that 's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter . It simply would n't work as well as a force equalizer if it was n't both lethal and easily employable . When I carry a gun , I do n't do so because I am looking for a fight , but because I 'm looking to be left alone . The gun at my side means that I can not be forced , only persuaded . I do n't carry it because I 'm afraid , but because it enables me to be unafraid . It does n't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason , only the actions of those who would do so by force . It removes force from the equation ... and that 's why carrying a gun is a civilized act ."

"Just in case you missed it :"

DISAGREE

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another : reason and force . If you want me to do something for you , you have a choice of either convincing me via argument , or force me to do your bidding under threat of force . Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories , without exception ."

"Just in case you missed it :"

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another : reason and force . If you want me to do something for you , you have a choice of either convincing me via argument , or force me to do your bidding under threat of force . Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories , without exception . Reason or force , that 's it . In a truly moral and civilized society , people exclusively interact through persuasion . Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction , and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm , as paradoxical as it may sound to some . When I carry a gun , you can not deal with me by force . You have to use reason and try to persuade me , because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force . The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger , a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger , and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats . The gun removes the disparity in physical strength , size , or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender . There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations . These are the people who think that we 'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society , because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job . That , of course , is only true if the mugger 's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat -- it has no validity when most of a mugger 's potential marks are armed . People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young , the strong , and the many , and that 's the exact opposite of a civilized society . A mugger , even an armed one , can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly . Then there 's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury . This argument is fallacious in several ways . Without guns involved , confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser . People who think that fists , bats , sticks , or stones do n't constitute lethal force watch too much TV , where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst . The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender , not the stronger attacker . If both are armed , the field is level . The gun is the only weapon that 's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter . It simply would n't work as well as a force equalizer if it was n't both lethal and easily employable . When I carry a gun , I do n't do so because I am looking for a fight , but because I 'm looking to be left alone . The gun at my side means that I can not be forced , only persuaded . I do n't carry it because I 'm afraid , but because it enables me to be unafraid . It does n't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason , only the actions of those who would do so by force . It removes force from the equation ... and that 's why carrying a gun is a civilized act ."

"Just in case you missed it :"

DISAGREE

"human interaction falls into one of those two categories , without exception gun removes the disparity in physical strength , size , or numbers"

"Just in case you missed it :"

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another : reason and force . If you want me to do something for you , you have a choice of either convincing me via argument , or force me to do your bidding under threat of force . Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories , without exception . Reason or force , that 's it . In a truly moral and civilized society , people exclusively interact through persuasion . Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction , and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm , as paradoxical as it may sound to some . When I carry a gun , you can not deal with me by force . You have to use reason and try to persuade me , because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force . The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger , a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger , and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats . The gun removes the disparity in physical strength , size , or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender . There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations . These are the people who think that we 'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society , because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job . That , of course , is only true if the mugger 's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat -- it has no validity when most of a mugger 's potential marks are armed . People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young , the strong , and the many , and that 's the exact opposite of a civilized society . A mugger , even an armed one , can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly . Then there 's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury . This argument is fallacious in several ways . Without guns involved , confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser . People who think that fists , bats , sticks , or stones do n't constitute lethal force watch too much TV , where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst . The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender , not the stronger attacker . If both are armed , the field is level . The gun is the only weapon that 's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter . It simply would n't work as well as a force equalizer if it was n't both lethal and easily employable . When I carry a gun , I do n't do so because I am looking for a fight , but because I 'm looking to be left alone . The gun at my side means that I can not be forced , only persuaded . I do n't carry it because I 'm afraid , but because it enables me to be unafraid . It does n't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason , only the actions of those who would do so by force . It removes force from the equation ... and that 's why carrying a gun is a civilized act ."

"Just in case you missed it :"

DISAGREE

"the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm ,"

"Just in case you missed it :"

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another : reason and force . If you want me to do something for you , you have a choice of either convincing me via argument , or force me to do your bidding under threat of force . Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories , without exception . Reason or force , that 's it . In a truly moral and civilized society , people exclusively interact through persuasion . Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction , and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm , as paradoxical as it may sound to some . When I carry a gun , you can not deal with me by force . You have to use reason and try to persuade me , because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force . The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger , a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger , and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats . The gun removes the disparity in physical strength , size , or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender . There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations . These are the people who think that we 'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society , because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job . That , of course , is only true if the mugger 's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat -- it has no validity when most of a mugger 's potential marks are armed . People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young , the strong , and the many , and that 's the exact opposite of a civilized society . A mugger , even an armed one , can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly . Then there 's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury . This argument is fallacious in several ways . Without guns involved , confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser . People who think that fists , bats , sticks , or stones do n't constitute lethal force watch too much TV , where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst . The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender , not the stronger attacker . If both are armed , the field is level . The gun is the only weapon that 's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter . It simply would n't work as well as a force equalizer if it was n't both lethal and easily employable . When I carry a gun , I do n't do so because I am looking for a fight , but because I 'm looking to be left alone . The gun at my side means that I can not be forced , only persuaded . I do n't carry it because I 'm afraid , but because it enables me to be unafraid . It does n't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason , only the actions of those who would do so by force . It removes force from the equation ... and that 's why carrying a gun is a civilized act ."

"Just in case you missed it :"

DISAGREE

"The gun at my side means that I can not be forced , only persuaded . I do n't carry it because I 'm afraid , but because it enables me to be unafraid ."

"in case you missed it :"

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another : reason and force . If you want me to do something for you , you have a choice of either convincing me via argument , or force me to do your bidding under threat of force . Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories , without exception . Reason or force , that 's it . In a truly moral and civilized society , people exclusively interact through persuasion . Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction , and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm , as paradoxical as it may sound to some . When I carry a gun , you can not deal with me by force . You have to use reason and try to persuade me , because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force . The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger , a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger , and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats . The gun removes the disparity in physical strength , size , or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender . There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations . These are the people who think that we 'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society , because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job . That , of course , is only true if the mugger 's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat -- it has no validity when most of a mugger 's potential marks are armed . People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young , the strong , and the many , and that 's the exact opposite of a civilized society . A mugger , even an armed one , can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly . Then there 's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury . This argument is fallacious in several ways . Without guns involved , confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser . People who think that fists , bats , sticks , or stones do n't constitute lethal force watch too much TV , where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst . The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender , not the stronger attacker . If both are armed , the field is level . The gun is the only weapon that 's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter . It simply would n't work as well as a force equalizer if it was n't both lethal and easily employable . When I carry a gun , I do n't do so because I am looking for a fight , but because I 'm looking to be left alone . The gun at my side means that I can not be forced , only persuaded . I do n't carry it because I 'm afraid , but because it enables me to be unafraid . It does n't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason , only the actions of those who would do so by force . It removes force from the equation ... and that 's why carrying a gun is a civilized act ."

"Just in case you missed it :"

DISAGREE

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another : reason and force . If you want me to do something for you ,"

"Just in case you missed it"

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another : reason and force . If you want me to do something for you , you have a choice of either convincing me via argument , or force me to do your bidding under threat of force . Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories , without exception . Reason or force , that 's it . In a truly moral and civilized society , people exclusively interact through persuasion . Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction , and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm , as paradoxical as it may sound to some . When I carry a gun , you can not deal with me by force . You have to use reason and try to persuade me , because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force . The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger , a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger , and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats . The gun removes the disparity in physical strength , size , or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender . There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations . These are the people who think that we 'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society , because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job . That , of course , is only true if the mugger 's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat -- it has no validity when most of a mugger 's potential marks are armed . People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young , the strong , and the many , and that 's the exact opposite of a civilized society . A mugger , even an armed one , can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly . Then there 's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury . This argument is fallacious in several ways . Without guns involved , confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser . People who think that fists , bats , sticks , or stones do n't constitute lethal force watch too much TV , where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst . The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender , not the stronger attacker . If both are armed , the field is level . The gun is the only weapon that 's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter . It simply would n't work as well as a force equalizer if it was n't both lethal and easily employable . When I carry a gun , I do n't do so because I am looking for a fight , but because I 'm looking to be left alone . The gun at my side means that I can not be forced , only persuaded . I do n't carry it because I 'm afraid , but because it enables me to be unafraid . It does n't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason , only the actions of those who would do so by force . It removes force from the equation ... and that 's why carrying a gun is a civilized act ."

"Just in case you missed it :"

DISAGREE

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another : reason and force ..."

"Just in case you missed it :"

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another : reason and force . If you want me to do something for you , you have a choice of either convincing me via argument , or force me to do your bidding under threat of force . Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories , without exception . Reason or force , that 's it . In a truly moral and civilized society , people exclusively interact through persuasion . Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction , and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm , as paradoxical as it may sound to some . When I carry a gun , you can not deal with me by force . You have to use reason and try to persuade me , because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force . The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger , a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger , and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats . The gun removes the disparity in physical strength , size , or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender . There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations . These are the people who think that we 'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society , because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job . That , of course , is only true if the mugger 's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat -- it has no validity when most of a mugger 's potential marks are armed . People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young , the strong , and the many , and that 's the exact opposite of a civilized society . A mugger , even an armed one , can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly . Then there 's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury . This argument is fallacious in several ways . Without guns involved , confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser . People who think that fists , bats , sticks , or stones do n't constitute lethal force watch too much TV , where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst . The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender , not the stronger attacker . If both are armed , the field is level . The gun is the only weapon that 's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter . It simply would n't work as well as a force equalizer if it was n't both lethal and easily employable . When I carry a gun , I do n't do so because I am looking for a fight , but because I 'm looking to be left alone . The gun at my side means that I can not be forced , only persuaded . I do n't carry it because I 'm afraid , but because it enables me to be unafraid . It does n't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason , only the actions of those who would do so by force . It removes force from the equation ... and that 's why carrying a gun is a civilized act ."

"Just in case you missed it :"

DISAGREE

"If you want me to do something for you , you have a choice of either convincing me via argument , or force me to do your bidding under threat of force"

"Just in case you missed it :"

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another : reason and force . If you want me to do something for you , you have a choice of either convincing me via argument , or force me to do your bidding under threat of force . Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories , without exception . Reason or force , that 's it . In a truly moral and civilized society , people exclusively interact through persuasion . Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction , and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm , as paradoxical as it may sound to some . When I carry a gun , you can not deal with me by force . You have to use reason and try to persuade me , because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force . The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger , a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger , and a single gay guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats . The gun removes the disparity in physical strength , size , or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender . There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations . These are the people who think that we 'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society , because a firearm makes it easier for a mugger to do his job . That , of course , is only true if the mugger 's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat -- it has no validity when most of a mugger 's potential marks are armed . People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young , the strong , and the many , and that 's the exact opposite of a civilized society . A mugger , even an armed one , can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly . Then there 's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury . This argument is fallacious in several ways . Without guns involved , confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser . People who think that fists , bats , sticks , or stones do n't constitute lethal force watch too much TV , where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst . The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender , not the stronger attacker . If both are armed , the field is level . The gun is the only weapon that 's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weightlifter . It simply would n't work as well as a force equalizer if it was n't both lethal and easily employable . When I carry a gun , I do n't do so because I am looking for a fight , but because I 'm looking to be left alone . The gun at my side means that I can not be forced , only persuaded . I do n't carry it because I 'm afraid , but because it enables me to be unafraid . It does n't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason , only the actions of those who would do so by force . It removes force from the equation ... and that 's why carrying a gun is a civilized act ."

"Just in case you missed it :"

DISAGREE

"Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another : reason and force ."

"Just in case you missed it :"

"That does not mean , however , that we should refrain out of politeness from making statements of established scientific fact just because a listener might have been exposed to contradictory religious beliefs . It is not the job of science to fix or accommodate the inaccuracies of religion . Within science classrooms , science is and should remain pre-eminent , so that people can make informed decisions ."

"But it should be the job of science to establish a clear line between just where established fact stops and philosophy starts . There 's no indication that they 're getting it done ."

DISAGREE

"not mean , however , that we should refrain out of politeness from making statements"

"job of science to establish a clear line between just where established fact"

"That does not mean , however , that we should refrain out of politeness from making statements of established scientific fact just because a listener might have been exposed to contradictory religious beliefs . It is not the job of science to fix or accommodate the inaccuracies of religion . Within science classrooms , science is and should remain pre-eminent , so that people can make informed decisions ."

"But it should be the job of science to establish a clear line between just where established fact stops and philosophy starts . There 's no indication that they 're getting it done ."

DISAGREE

"That does not mean , however , that we should refrain out of politeness from making statements of established scientific fact just because a listener might have been exposed to contradictory religious"

"There 's no indication that they 're getting it done ."

"That does not mean , however , that we should refrain out of politeness from making statements of established scientific fact just because a listener might have been exposed to contradictory religious beliefs . It is not the job of science to fix or accommodate the inaccuracies of religion . Within science classrooms , science is and should remain pre-eminent , so that people can make informed decisions ."

"But it should be the job of science to establish a clear line between just where established fact stops and philosophy starts . There 's no indication that they 're getting it done ."

DISAGREE

"we should refrain out of politeness from making statements job of science to fix or accommodate the inaccuracies of religion ."

"should be the job of science to establish a clear line between just where established fact stops and philosophy starts ."

"That does not mean , however , that we should refrain out of politeness from making statements of established scientific fact just because a listener might have been exposed to contradictory religious beliefs . It is not the job of science to fix or accommodate the inaccuracies of religion . Within science classrooms , science is and should remain pre-eminent , so that people can make informed decisions ."

"But it should be the job of science to establish a clear line between just where established fact stops and philosophy starts . There 's no indication that they 're getting it done ."

DISAGREE

"That does not mean , however , that we should refrain out of politeness from making statements"

"But it should be the job of science to establish a clear line between just where established fact stops and philosophy starts"

"That does not mean , however , that we should refrain out of politeness from making statements of established scientific fact just because a listener might have been exposed to contradictory religious beliefs . It is not the job of science to fix or accommodate the inaccuracies of religion . Within science classrooms , science is and should remain pre-eminent , so that people can make informed decisions ."

"But it should be the job of science to establish a clear line between just where established fact stops and philosophy starts . There 's no indication that they 're getting it done ."

DISAGREE

"refrain out of politeness from making statements of established scientific fact science is and should remain pre-eminent"

"job of science to establish a clear line between just where established fact stops and philosophy starts ."

"That does not mean , however , that we should refrain out of politeness from making statements of established scientific fact just because a listener might have been exposed to contradictory religious beliefs . It is not the job of science to fix or accommodate the inaccuracies of religion . Within science classrooms , science is and should remain pre-eminent , so that people can make informed decisions ."

"But it should be the job of science to establish a clear line between just where established fact stops and philosophy starts . There 's no indication that they 're getting it done ."

DISAGREE

"That does not mean , however , that we should refrain out of politeness from making statements of established scientific fact just because a listener might have been exposed to contradictory religious beliefs"

"There 's no indication that they 're getting it done ."

"That does not mean , however , that we should refrain out of politeness from making statements of established scientific fact just because a listener might have been exposed to contradictory religious beliefs . It is not the job of science to fix or accommodate the inaccuracies of religion . Within science classrooms , science is and should remain pre-eminent , so that people can make informed decisions ."

"But it should be the job of science to establish a clear line between just where established fact stops and philosophy starts . There 's no indication that they 're getting it done ."

DISAGREE

"It is not the job of science to fix or accommodate the inaccuracies of religion"

"it should be the job of science to establish a clear line between just where established fact stops and philosophy starts ."

"That does not mean , however , that we should refrain out of politeness from making statements of established scientific fact just because a listener might have been exposed to contradictory religious beliefs . It is not the job of science to fix or accommodate the inaccuracies of religion . Within science classrooms , science is and should remain pre-eminent , so that people can make informed decisions ."

"But it should be the job of science to establish a clear line between just where established fact stops and philosophy starts . There 's no indication that they 're getting it done ."

DISAGREE

"Within science classrooms , science is and should remain pre-eminent , so that people can make informed decisions ."

"There 's no indication that they 're getting it done ."

"When Rep. Carson gathered reporters around him to spread the myth of racial slurs being hurled & # 8220 ; fifteen times & # 8221 ; he painted the protesters not just as racists , but as a terrorist threat . We know this , because Kerry Picket of the Washington Times recorded Rep. Carson as he explained it all to eager reporters . KERRY PICKET ( Wash. Times ) : Do you think the people outside are generally dangerous or no ? REP. CARSON : Oh absolutely . I worked in homeland security . I & # 8217 ; m from intelligence , and I & # 8217 ; ll tell you , one of the largest threats to our internal security & # 8230 ; I mean terrorism has an Islamic face , but it really comes from racial supremacist groups . ( inaudible ) Its the kind of thing we keep a threat assessment on record [ for ] . PICKET : From groups like this ? REP. CARSON : Oh absolutely ."

"No need for further evidence why this law would be dangerous to those who do not think exactly like you do ! Instead of calling it a government terrorist watch list , we should just drop the pretension and call it what it would be come . The Democrat Political Enemies Terrorist Wish List ! : lol : Bloomberg : Deny Second Amendment to People on Terror Watch List"

AGREE

"When Rep. Carson gathered reporters around him to spread the myth of racial slurs being hurled fifteen times he painted the protesters not just as racists , but as a terrorist threat ."

"Instead of calling it a government terrorist watch list , we should just drop the pretension and call it what it would be come . The Democrat Political Enemies Terrorist Wish List !"

"When Rep. Carson gathered reporters around him to spread the myth of racial slurs being hurled & # 8220 ; fifteen times & # 8221 ; he painted the protesters not just as racists , but as a terrorist threat . We know this , because Kerry Picket of the Washington Times recorded Rep. Carson as he explained it all to eager reporters . KERRY PICKET ( Wash. Times ) : Do you think the people outside are generally dangerous or no ? REP. CARSON : Oh absolutely . I worked in homeland security . I & # 8217 ; m from intelligence , and I & # 8217 ; ll tell you , one of the largest threats to our internal security & # 8230 ; I mean terrorism has an Islamic face , but it really comes from racial supremacist groups . ( inaudible ) Its the kind of thing we keep a threat assessment on record [ for ] . PICKET : From groups like this ? REP. CARSON : Oh absolutely ."

"No need for further evidence why this law would be dangerous to those who do not think exactly like you do ! Instead of calling it a government terrorist watch list , we should just drop the pretension and call it what it would be come . The Democrat Political Enemies Terrorist Wish List ! : lol : Bloomberg : Deny Second Amendment to People on Terror Watch List"

AGREE

"it really comes from racial supremacist groups ."

"No need for further evidence"

"When Rep. Carson gathered reporters around him to spread the myth of racial slurs being hurled & # 8220 ; fifteen times & # 8221 ; he painted the protesters not just as racists , but as a terrorist threat . We know this , because Kerry Picket of the Washington Times recorded Rep. Carson as he explained it all to eager reporters . KERRY PICKET ( Wash. Times ) : Do you think the people outside are generally dangerous or no ? REP. CARSON : Oh absolutely . I worked in homeland security . I & # 8217 ; m from intelligence , and I & # 8217 ; ll tell you , one of the largest threats to our internal security & # 8230 ; I mean terrorism has an Islamic face , but it really comes from racial supremacist groups . ( inaudible ) Its the kind of thing we keep a threat assessment on record [ for ] . PICKET : From groups like this ? REP. CARSON : Oh absolutely ."

"No need for further evidence why this law would be dangerous to those who do not think exactly like you do ! Instead of calling it a government terrorist watch list , we should just drop the pretension and call it what it would be come . The Democrat Political Enemies Terrorist Wish List ! : lol : Bloomberg : Deny Second Amendment to People on Terror Watch List"

AGREE

"Carson gathered reporters around him to spread the myth of racial slurs being hurled fifteen times"

"No need for further evidence"

"When Rep. Carson gathered reporters around him to spread the myth of racial slurs being hurled & # 8220 ; fifteen times & # 8221 ; he painted the protesters not just as racists , but as a terrorist threat . We know this , because Kerry Picket of the Washington Times recorded Rep. Carson as he explained it all to eager reporters . KERRY PICKET ( Wash. Times ) : Do you think the people outside are generally dangerous or no ? REP. CARSON : Oh absolutely . I worked in homeland security . I & # 8217 ; m from intelligence , and I & # 8217 ; ll tell you , one of the largest threats to our internal security & # 8230 ; I mean terrorism has an Islamic face , but it really comes from racial supremacist groups . ( inaudible ) Its the kind of thing we keep a threat assessment on record [ for ] . PICKET : From groups like this ? REP. CARSON : Oh absolutely ."

"No need for further evidence why this law would be dangerous to those who do not think exactly like you do ! Instead of calling it a government terrorist watch list , we should just drop the pretension and call it what it would be come . The Democrat Political Enemies Terrorist Wish List ! : lol : Bloomberg : Deny Second Amendment to People on Terror Watch List"

AGREE

"When Rep. Carson gathered reporters around him to spread the myth of racial slurs being hurled fifteen times he painted the protesters not just as racists , but as a terrorist threat ."

"No need for further evidence why this law would be dangerous to those who do not think exactly like you do !"

"Typical little child , all he can offer is condescending insults while never daring to refute the arguments made . But you 're in good company as that is all your cohorts can do also . You must reject and denigrate that which is just as reasonable an explanation of the available evidence as your side offers . That 's why it 's a waste of time going around in circles with you guys . But I 've made my point . Again , What is shown very clearly from all of these scientific interpretation of the same evidence is that there are two ways to interpret it . But for you evos to claim victory based on your interpretation which is as biased as ours is , is the epitome of arrogance . We may have to agree to disagree peeling , but do n't you dare just assume you 're right and the debate is over because you have proven nothing absolutely ."

"How do you `` interpret `` all those extant historical records bracketing the `` flood `` date by several hundred years , as shown by sinjin , which record no such event ?"

DISAGREE

"Typical little child , all he can offer is condescending insults while never daring to refute the arguments made ."

"date by several hundred years , as shown by sinjin , which record no such"

"Typical little child , all he can offer is condescending insults while never daring to refute the arguments made . But you 're in good company as that is all your cohorts can do also . You must reject and denigrate that which is just as reasonable an explanation of the available evidence as your side offers . That 's why it 's a waste of time going around in circles with you guys . But I 've made my point . Again , What is shown very clearly from all of these scientific interpretation of the same evidence is that there are two ways to interpret it . But for you evos to claim victory based on your interpretation which is as biased as ours is , is the epitome of arrogance . We may have to agree to disagree peeling , but do n't you dare just assume you 're right and the debate is over because you have proven nothing absolutely ."

"How do you `` interpret `` all those extant historical records bracketing the `` flood `` date by several hundred years , as shown by sinjin , which record no such event ?"

DISAGREE

"Again , What is shown very clearly from all of these scientific interpretation of the same evidence is that there are two ways to interpret it ."

"How do you `` interpret `` all those extant historical records bracketing the `` flood `` date by several hundred years , as shown by sinjin , which record no such event ?"

"Typical little child , all he can offer is condescending insults while never daring to refute the arguments made . But you 're in good company as that is all your cohorts can do also . You must reject and denigrate that which is just as reasonable an explanation of the available evidence as your side offers . That 's why it 's a waste of time going around in circles with you guys . But I 've made my point . Again , What is shown very clearly from all of these scientific interpretation of the same evidence is that there are two ways to interpret it . But for you evos to claim victory based on your interpretation which is as biased as ours is , is the epitome of arrogance . We may have to agree to disagree peeling , but do n't you dare just assume you 're right and the debate is over because you have proven nothing absolutely ."

"How do you `` interpret `` all those extant historical records bracketing the `` flood `` date by several hundred years , as shown by sinjin , which record no such event ?"

DISAGREE

"Typical little child , all he can offer is condescending insults while never daring to refute the arguments made ."

"How do you `` interpret `` all those extant historical records bracketing the `` flood `` date by several hundred years , as shown by sinjin , which record no such event ?"

"I would be interested in know who was the first creationist to finally accept that natural selection is a real phenomenon , and when they accepted it . I do n't know his name , but I 'll research it for you and tell you in a week or so ."

"My bet is that it wo n't be natural selection ."

DISAGREE

"I would be interested in know who was the first creationist to finally accept that natural selection is a real phenomenon , and when they accepted it ."

"My bet is that it wo n't be natural selection ."

"I would be interested in know who was the first creationist to finally accept that natural selection is a real phenomenon , and when they accepted it . I do n't know his name , but I 'll research it for you and tell you in a week or so ."

"My bet is that it wo n't be natural selection ."

DISAGREE

"I would be interested in know who was the first creationist to finally accept that natural selection is a real phenomenon , and when they accepted"

"My bet is that it wo n't be natural selection ."

"I would be interested in know who was the first creationist to finally accept that natural selection is a real phenomenon , and when they accepted it . I do n't know his name , but I 'll research it for you and tell you in a week or so ."

"My bet is that it wo n't be natural selection ."

DISAGREE

"I would be interested in know who was the first creationist to finally accept that natural selection"

"My bet is that it wo n't be natural selection ."

"Try looking two inches below the surface ."

"Oh yes , the 'subtext ' ."

DISAGREE

"Try looking two inches below the surface ."

"Oh yes , the 'subtext ' ."

"Try looking two inches below the surface ."

"Oh yes , the 'subtext ' ."

DISAGREE

"Try looking two inches below the surface ."

"Oh yes , the 'subtext ' ."

"Try looking two inches below the surface ."

"Oh yes , the 'subtext ' ."

DISAGREE

"Try looking two inches below the surface ."

"Oh yes , the 'subtext ' ."

"Try looking two inches below the surface ."

"Oh yes , the 'subtext ' ."

DISAGREE

"Try looking two inches below the surface ."

"Oh yes , the 'subtext ' ."

"Also , if what you say is true , and they can just `` marry `` without the celebration , what 's the point in banning it ? They 're getting `` married `` anyway , right ?"

"Who said anything about banning it ?"

DISAGREE

"if what you say is true , and they can just `` marry `` without the celebration , what 's the point in banning it ?"

"Who said anything about banning it ?"

"Also , if what you say is true , and they can just `` marry `` without the celebration , what 's the point in banning it ? They 're getting `` married `` anyway , right ?"

"Who said anything about banning it ?"

DISAGREE

"what 's the point in banning it ?"

"Who said anything about banning it ?"

"That 's not what I was talking to . The logic is whatever God does is morally just and even if the act independent of God is evil , the fact that God did it makes it morally just because God did it . People like Arch would call Pol Pot 's extermination evil , but when God does the same to millions in the flood , it 's morally just despite being extermination both ways . Thus , because God is the one killing people , the act of killing that would normally be immoral becomes moral . Thus , whatever God does in the eyes of people like Arch is morally just independent of what the act actually is ."

"Exactamundo , finally the ignoramus gets something right ."

AGREE

"That 's not what I was talking to . The logic is whatever God does is morally just and even if the act independent of God is evil ,"

"Exactamundo , finally the ignoramus gets something right ."

"That 's not what I was talking to . The logic is whatever God does is morally just and even if the act independent of God is evil , the fact that God did it makes it morally just because God did it . People like Arch would call Pol Pot 's extermination evil , but when God does the same to millions in the flood , it 's morally just despite being extermination both ways . Thus , because God is the one killing people , the act of killing that would normally be immoral becomes moral . Thus , whatever God does in the eyes of people like Arch is morally just independent of what the act actually is ."

"Exactamundo , finally the ignoramus gets something right ."

AGREE

"The logic is whatever God does is morally just and even if the act independent of God is evil , the fact that God did it makes it morally just because God did it ."

"Exactamundo , finally the ignoramus gets something right ."

"That 's not what I was talking to . The logic is whatever God does is morally just and even if the act independent of God is evil , the fact that God did it makes it morally just because God did it . People like Arch would call Pol Pot 's extermination evil , but when God does the same to millions in the flood , it 's morally just despite being extermination both ways . Thus , because God is the one killing people , the act of killing that would normally be immoral becomes moral . Thus , whatever God does in the eyes of people like Arch is morally just independent of what the act actually is ."

"Exactamundo , finally the ignoramus gets something right ."

AGREE

"Thus , whatever God does in the eyes of people like Arch is morally just independent of what the act actually is ."

"Exactamundo , finally the ignoramus gets something right ."

"That 's not what I was talking to . The logic is whatever God does is morally just and even if the act independent of God is evil , the fact that God did it makes it morally just because God did it . People like Arch would call Pol Pot 's extermination evil , but when God does the same to millions in the flood , it 's morally just despite being extermination both ways . Thus , because God is the one killing people , the act of killing that would normally be immoral becomes moral . Thus , whatever God does in the eyes of people like Arch is morally just independent of what the act actually is ."

"Exactamundo , finally the ignoramus gets something right ."

AGREE

"whatever God does in the eyes of people like Arch is morally just independent of what the act actually is ."

"Exactamundo , finally the ignoramus gets something right"

"Do pro abortion people support euthanasia as a reason for abortion ? Meaning for instance ... if after amniocentesis it is discovered that the child has down syndrome or if it is discovered the child will be born with no legs the previously hoping and willing parents decide to abort for this reason . Do pro abortion people support this ?"

"I believe prochoice people support choice . I do n't know what proabortion people support . I 've never met one ."

DISAGREE

"Do pro abortion people support euthanasia as a reason for abortion ?"

"I believe prochoice people support choice ."

"Do pro abortion people support euthanasia as a reason for abortion ? Meaning for instance ... if after amniocentesis it is discovered that the child has down syndrome or if it is discovered the child will be born with no legs the previously hoping and willing parents decide to abort for this reason . Do pro abortion people support this ?"

"I believe prochoice people support choice . I do n't know what proabortion people support . I 've never met one ."

DISAGREE

"Do pro abortion people support euthanasia as a reason for abortion ?"

"I believe prochoice people support choice . I do n't know what proabortion people support . I 've never met one ."

"Do pro abortion people support euthanasia as a reason for abortion ? Meaning for instance ... if after amniocentesis it is discovered that the child has down syndrome or if it is discovered the child will be born with no legs the previously hoping and willing parents decide to abort for this reason . Do pro abortion people support this ?"

"I believe prochoice people support choice . I do n't know what proabortion people support . I 've never met one ."

DISAGREE

"if after amniocentesis it is discovered that the child has down syndrome or if it is discovered the child will be born with no legs the previously hoping and willing parents decide to abort for this reason . Do pro abortion people support this ?"

"I believe prochoice people support choice . I do n't know what proabortion people support ."

"So its basicly an argument against those who wants to ban weapons without changing the constitution ?"

"How else should it be done ? It is a constiturionally protected right . To eliminate that right , the constitutional protection must be removed first , is the removal itself , becomes unconstitutional ."

DISAGREE

"So its basicly an argument against those who wants to ban weapons without"

"To eliminate that right , the constitutional protection must be removed first"

"So its basicly an argument against those who wants to ban weapons without changing the constitution ?"

"How else should it be done ? It is a constiturionally protected right . To eliminate that right , the constitutional protection must be removed first , is the removal itself , becomes unconstitutional ."

DISAGREE

"So its basicly an argument against those who wants to ban weapons without changing the constitution ?"

"How else should it be done ? It is a constiturionally protected right . To eliminate that right , the constitutional protection must be removed first"

"Equality is not defined by you or me . It is defined by the Creator who created men ."

"Actually I think it is defined by the creator who created all women But in reality your opinion is gibberish . Equality is , like every other word , defined by the people who use the language . Currently it means `` the same `` . People are n't equal because they are not all the same . Any attempt to argue otherwise is a display of gross stupidity ."

DISAGREE

"Equality is not defined by you or me ."

"Equality is , like every other word , defined by the people who use the language ."

"Equality is not defined by you or me . It is defined by the Creator who created men ."

"Actually I think it is defined by the creator who created all women But in reality your opinion is gibberish . Equality is , like every other word , defined by the people who use the language . Currently it means `` the same `` . People are n't equal because they are not all the same . Any attempt to argue otherwise is a display of gross stupidity ."

DISAGREE

"Equality is not defined by you or me . It is defined by the Creator who created men ."

"I think it is defined by the creator who created all women But in reality your opinion is gibberish ."

"The ID movements form of ID states that there are `` large gaps `` in the theory of evolution that can only be explained by the presence of a supernatural designer . Behe is happy to think that it is the christian god ( like the rest of them ) , but they ar n't allowed to say that , because if they do , they violate that annoying ammendment ! The ID argument is not scientific , because it 's not falsifiable , and has no supporting evidence . The ID movement relies solely on LACK of evidence for evolution , which is complete bunk . Just because we do n't know yet , it does n't mean that godditit . ( Incedentally , most of Behe 's claims of `` Irreducible Complexity `` are already destroyed by science , as DamEtel will be more than happy to explain . )"

"That , of course , is the logical fallacy known as 'Personal incredibility `` . The concept he promoted of `` irreducilble complex `` has been shown to be devoid of any meaning . All example he showed of 'gaps ' in systems he proclaimed to be 'irredibly complex ' have been shown to be reducible . Some were even found to be reducible even BEFORE his book `` Darwin 's black box ' was published . Those gaps in knowledge were filled in . What Behe was basiclaly saying is 'Gosh , we do n't know , it must have been God ' . We found out . God retreats . Yes , there are unknowns , and probably always will be . But our ignornace is not evidence of an intelligent designer . To promote an intelligent designer as a scientific theory , you have to have evidence FOR an intellient designer , rather than gaps in the knowlege of how biochemical systems formed . Believing in a God is fine , but it is n't science ."

DISAGREE

"Behe is happy to think that it is the christian god ( like the rest of them )"

"But our ignornace is not evidence of an intelligent designer ."

"For me , it would therefore have made no difference if I had been aborted in the first or second trimester or if I had never been conceived - either way , I never would have existed . So , I have no problem in general with abortions in the first and second trimester . However , I would strictly limit third trimester abortions since I can empathize with mentally existing beings and would not want them to be killed without very good reason , as I would not want to be killed without good reason . -- -- - So , what are your views on this issue or your own moral approaches ?"

"It logically follows from the moral foundation set up but you made to important claims or `` proclamations `` as you called it . 1 ) Treat others as you wish to be treated ( golden rule ) and 2 ) Mental existence is required to have value My morality was already nicely summed up by you ( atleast part of it )"

AGREE

"it would therefore have made no difference if I had been aborted in the first or second trimester or if I had never been conceived"

"It logically follows from the moral foundation set up but you made to important claims or `` proclamations `` as you called it"

"For me , it would therefore have made no difference if I had been aborted in the first or second trimester or if I had never been conceived - either way , I never would have existed . So , I have no problem in general with abortions in the first and second trimester . However , I would strictly limit third trimester abortions since I can empathize with mentally existing beings and would not want them to be killed without very good reason , as I would not want to be killed without good reason . -- -- - So , what are your views on this issue or your own moral approaches ?"

"It logically follows from the moral foundation set up but you made to important claims or `` proclamations `` as you called it . 1 ) Treat others as you wish to be treated ( golden rule ) and 2 ) Mental existence is required to have value My morality was already nicely summed up by you ( atleast part of it )"

AGREE

"However , I would strictly limit third trimester abortions since I can empathize with mentally existing"

"Mental existence is required to have value My morality was already nicely summed up by you ( atleast part of it )"

"good thing this argument has never been done ! ... oh wait . With that logic we should make everything legal . You are much better off making theft legal and safe ( no more guns needed ! ) than to have it illegal and dangerous ."

"And teen sex does n't , by the very nature of it 's action , result in ending a life that would grow into a toddler , a child , an adolescent , and an adult -- basically the action of killing someone ."

DISAGREE

"You are much better off making theft legal and safe ( no more guns needed ! ) than to have it illegal and dangerous ."

"And teen sex does n't , by the very nature of it 's action"

"good thing this argument has never been done ! ... oh wait . With that logic we should make everything legal . You are much better off making theft legal and safe ( no more guns needed ! ) than to have it illegal and dangerous ."

"And teen sex does n't , by the very nature of it 's action , result in ending a life that would grow into a toddler , a child , an adolescent , and an adult -- basically the action of killing someone ."

DISAGREE

"good thing this argument has never been done ! ... oh wait . With that logic we should make everything legal"

"And teen sex does n't , by the very nature of it 's action , result in ending a life that would grow into a toddler , a child"

"I know one thing , anything that happens , politically motivated people will demonize us , anyway ! Like this . FBI Arrests Three Men in Terror Plot that Targeted New York If not directly blame us , they would be screaming that the Right instigated or financed it or something . That is where we are now . The Crazies have take over the parties and corruption is so rampant , that this does not look anything like the country you , I , and I guess Doc grew up in . Now we train our investigators on the law-abiding , cause we ca n't trust even them ! About the only thing I can say Sarge , is Beam me up Scotty ! Everything is sure Bazaar now ."

"Was n't sinjin crowing about his plans to take the family , wife and children , to the fair this weekend because it `` was so safe since normal folks could n't carry in that gun free pardise ? `` Insane killer escapes on field trip to county fair - Yahoo ! News"

DISAGREE

"I know one thing , anything that happens , politically motivated people will demonize us , anyway ! Like this"

"Was n't sinjin crowing about his plans to take the family , wife and children"

"I enjoy Botany more than most things and I have heard of a couple of Botanical Experiments that involve ; * 1. pressurizing a plant stem with CO2 and * 2. bringing in outside sun light through fiber optic cable for the plant . It brings in the full spectrum light in high lumens , but , because it 's glass - it blocks harmful rays . Does anyone here have knowledge of where I might acquire the supplies necessary to conduct such experiments ?"

"Hi Smallax , welcome to the forum . I did a search and have found some products which might give you an idea about costs and concepts for performing such an experiment . It sounds interesting by the way . First , I found Glass Bell jars that are safe at high pressure . https : //www1.fishersci.com/wps/porta ... =y & amp ; fromSearch= Here 's a Nalgene vacuum chamber as another option to the Bell Jar depending on the pressure you 're going to use . https : //www1.fishersci.com/wps/porta ... =y & amp ; fromSearch= Here 's a motor driven vacuum pump : https : //www1.fishersci.com/wps/porta ... =y & amp ; fromSearch= Here 's a precalibrated absolute zero apparatus : https : //www1.fishersci.com/wps/porta ... =y & amp ; fromSearch= This link gives a wide range of products that you might want to be aware of for a wider selection of potential equipment : https : //www1.fishersci.com/wps/porta ... & amp ; catCode=SE_SC Here 's a fiber optic system which is interesting and utilizes natural light : Huvco Daylighing Solutions | Parans Fiber Optic Systems | Tubular Skylights | High Performance Skylights Here 's another design but is a different company : SUNLIGHT DIRECT Keep us informed if you run the experiment . I 'd be interested in the results ."

AGREE

"bringing in outside sun light through fiber optic cable for the plant ."

"might give you an idea about costs and concepts for performing such an experiment ."