vbnautilus

I don't understand why everyone is giving strat the wrong advice. To me, when a girl invites me to stay at her house, unless she is married (and maybe even then) it is effectively an invitation into her panties. Especially when I've been in them before. Especially when getting to her involves crossing an ocean. Humor her and pretend you have no feelings for her until then (she's testing you to see if you can do this, no self-respecting modern woman can admit to herself that she's arranging a cross-atlantic booty call), and then once you're there, laaaay the ol' pipe. Seems pret

Man, anyone who would pose as a girl to lure someone over the internet into a relationship is seriously nuts.

See! I was RIGHT!

Welcome to LA. I agree with what you said earlier about the traffic, the variance is so high that its really difficult to plan for. The one thing I've learned is that I can pretty much guarantee the freeway will be stopped if I don't have a lot of time to get somewhere.

What exactly is the issue? Embarrassment about pooping? Fear of disease? I know some girls who don't want to poop in public restrooms because they want to keep up their image as feminine, pristine things that would never do such a thing as defecate. Is that it?

College football is pretty big in L.A. (USC, UCLA), and college basketball too (UCLA).

there is office for mac.

Agree. A lot of those pre-screening genetic tests will pop up at that age and people often abort for those reasons.

I just listened to it for the first time in years, and honestly I'm not sure listening to her talk makes it any more clear that she's real. I mean, I know that she is, but she really sounds like a person pretending to be a character.

We should be grilling the presidential candidates to find out which has the best anti-recession prayer.

I have audio tapes of conversations some of us had with her.

Sorry to those who saw this elsewhere, but I still haven't decided what to do next in this situation, so I could use some more input. Remember that burrito place I told you about where they are too friendly? Well, I wrote them this letter:Dear <redacted> Burrito,First let me commend you on an excellent burrito. I write this letter to offer my feedback on several aspects of my experience in your restaurant, and while the feedback contained in this letter may sound negative, I only write it because I really do love your burritos. I eat at the <redacted> location on <redacted&

Where can we find this new, rewritten version of the statute?

I've been watching it. I both like it and don't like it. The extremely dense dialog where two characters just banter/argue/yell at each other is really annoying and takes me out of my suspension of disbelief pretty often because its so ridiculously contrived. The overly sappy high-grounded moral monologues are pretty annoying too. But its still interesting enough that I won't stop watching it yet.

Doesn't it though?

If I were the kind of guy who put quotes in my signature, I would strongly consider going with this one.

I'm fine with that, but that still falls within the purview of a concern about the well-being of conscious, suffering-capable organisms.

Sure you can, that's why you don't mind killing lima beans, even though they don't continue on afterwards as if it never happened. It's hard to imagine with a person example, since they do suffer, and even if we try to imagine our way into an example where they don't, well maybe people who know them somehow suffer when we kill them. But ultimately it comes down to someone's suffering. I don't think you'll be able to find an example of something that is morally wrong that doesn't somehow involve the well-being of conscious, suffering-capable organisms.

I try! Yeah, it's way oversimplified. For one thing, "pain" should be more generally "suffering". To delve into your example a bit, there might be some other consequences to getting punched in the face, but who is to be concerned about them? In other words, you are implying that the owner of the face is going to suffer in some other way besides the pain. But if he is really incapable of suffering?

I'm pretty sure that you did, so maybe I need to explain better. So my position here can be formalized as:IF (organism does not experience pain) THEN (it's ok to harm)Let's abstract this as IF X THEN YYou come along and say: The implication here is that my position leads toSINCE (organism experiences pain) THEN (it's not ok to harm)orNOT X, THEREFORE NOT YDenying the antecedent is precisely this, when you start with the premiseIF A THEN Band then conclude NOT A, THEREFORE NOT B.

OK, but you're committing the fallacy of denying the antecedent.The real starting point is:If no pain => ok to killpain => not ok to kill does not logically follow from this. I don't think it's moot. Organisms that can suffer deserve more protection than those that don't. That is not the same as saying we should never kill anything that feels pain.

Surely when we kill animals for food we should do it in a way that minimizes their suffering. We don't have to worry about corn in the same way.

I'm just saying your "secular government" vs. "christian community" is a false distinction. The government is made up of christians.

It's not FCP's choice, IP Board just took this feature away. People have been complaining to them, but they don't seem inclined to put it back. Their whole philosophy now is to make things "simpler" by taking away lots of options. That and the inability to hide avatars are probably the two most complained about feature-losses on the IPB forums.