no1729

It goes to show you which demographic plays the Wii... picture related, that's what my face was like when reminded irresponsible (and/or stupid and/or irrational) people continue to exist...

Why have a baby when you don't want one? That's what I tell myself every time the abortion argument comes on. There are other reasons like, the baby could potentially kill the mom (Rhesus factor), or the baby would go be in a world of hurt before dying. The baby has no right to life yet, solely because it's still unborn, and it is still dependant on the mother; thus negating the abortionist' argument.

Doesn't matter if they own 'em or not, they're selling 'em like hot cakes.

It will achieve nothing but gaining the ire of the not-so-dedicated ones. I would know, we have a similar thing back here, but bigger. It's called Islamic studies. You learn every aspect of Islam in it, from marriages to jihad. Islamic studies = nap time. I think Bible studies will suffer the same fate.

Since when was it obligatory to not be fat?

I am Malaysian. Malaysia is a nationalistic country, with a monarchy, parlaiment, a constitution, and the syariah court (Islamic court). I think just letting you know the combo itself is enough to tell you how I feel (about my country). Wanna know whats funny? The new national slogan is "1Malaysia, Rakyat didahulukan, pencapaian diutamakan" meaning "1Malaysia, the people come first, achievement is top priority", priority paradox anyone?

Wow, I'm amazed none of the destitutes tried to chase her away or eat her. Maybe they're too tired from the preaching to do so. I've always wondered how Anti-Reality continues to exist in Reality in this day and age. Reminds me of what Toohey once said, "Offer them poison for food, then offer them poison for the antidote" or something similar to that. I think M. Teresa is that phrase personified.

If you've read Rand's ideas, she abhors taxes and sees them as gunpoint robbery. There is no such thing as social duty. Duty in itself is against Objectivism, because it turns certain demands (social or otherwise) into obligations. Need is not a right to claim. Never has been, never should be. (The "it to, ought to" argument comes into this discussion, you can read it on wiki for fun). Needs will never negate rights, if it were, I could claim to "need" to kill children legally or I'll refuse to respect other people's rights (if that makes any sense to you). Your first question I am unsure how to proceed, because the sentence before that was a statement and not a question, but the premise is that I have a social duty to perform, and that I have given you a blank check on my life. I refuse. I'd rather blow up what I have than surrender it in the name of "social duty". Besides, I (or any rational person) would not vote for someone who just wants something from me. P.S. please do not post Ad Hominem statements, and remain objective when replying. Thank you