You lucky son of a gun .

That's what I've been trying to tell people, but noooo.
And thank you! (I happen to be a madam)

Search for I need a hero on spotify, and its the first song by Andrew spencer. It is the same song as in saints row.

Let's be sameRon Paul haters... : )

Bonnie Tyler's "Holding Out for a Hero"

Thanks.

Andrew Spencer is the name of the Artist

No hes not. Im talking about the 1980s I think female singer.

Search for I need a hero on spotify, and its the first song by Andrew spencer. It is the same song as in saints row.

I FOUND MY MOM GIVIN ME SOMETHING AFTER 3 DAYS
I FOUND LETTERS IN THIS BASKET CASE
I PUNCHED MY MOM IN THE FACE
NOW I OWN MY DAD'S LONELY PLACE

Its hard enough to resist when she behaves normal.....

KIDDING.

But yeah, that sucked pretty bad in that situation. I would probably never speak to her again.

i love these kind of gifs, never seen that one before so cheers

That doesn't disprove my assertion. I'm saying that because we agreed to this set of morals created by man, we must follow them. That's why in countries outside of the US there are different moral rulings. They are not less moral by an objective stance, they simply created their own set of morals and had all of their citizens agree to follow them.

Yup, and it is immoral to needlessly slaughter animals. We have set that up as a social construct. Yes, you can say morals are defined by the individual but regardless in order to be a citizen you must accept the constitution and that constitution clearly outlines what is considered immoral by society. Also, if you're religious there are divinely revealed morals, one of which rules against the abuse of animals. I actually did a study on biblical views on slaughter and use/abuse of animals :D

I thoughly enjoy debates like this, but no studies sadly. But surely the constitution is a construct made by a man ? And if you believe in a god/s then EVERY god in history has used a man as a prophet etc.. therefore we can undoubtly say that EVERY moral or belief was governed by a man at one time or another.

That doesn't disprove my assertion. I'm saying that because we agreed to this set of morals created by man, we must follow them. That's why in countries outside of the US there are different moral rulings. They are not less moral by an objective stance, they simply created their own set of morals and had all of their citizens agree to follow them.

it's not a matter of good and evil. It's a matter of someone who is stronger immediately has the ability to do whatever he wants. It's symbolizes the deterioration of society because the only people with any measure of power will be as intelligent as the guys on jersey shore. Why bother reading when you'll just get the shit beat out of you. Better to only focus on becoming tougher. Life will become isolated, brutish, and short. We became a dominant species by creating laws. By defining right and wrong through the method of greatest good done for the most amount of people. By defining good as positive benefits we typically look at quality of life as an indicator. A man living under police protection has a much better quality of life than someone living in anarchy. I could go on for hours on this train of thought. All you need to know is that if anarchy was instated (as I'm sure you wish it would) then life would become a lot worse for everyone. Yes in the first week when the looting is happening and rich fatcats lose their lives to the horde we'll all be happy. But as time goes on there will be no regulation of good and services. We'll most likely return to a bartering system and a large degree of the population will simply die out because they will not be able to provide any essential services in this new world.

Im not a fan of Ararchy of which you thought I was, I believe in a system of early fuedilism like the times of Alfred the great, you make a valid points, but on a different subject, this discussion was based and the possiple moral points on domestic animal slaughter. :)

Yup, and it is immoral to needlessly slaughter animals. We have set that up as a social construct. Yes, you can say morals are defined by the individual but regardless in order to be a citizen you must accept the constitution and that constitution clearly outlines what is considered immoral by society. Also, if you're religious there are divinely revealed morals, one of which rules against the abuse of animals. I actually did a study on biblical views on slaughter and use/abuse of animals :D

I thoughly enjoy debates like this, but no studies sadly. But surely the constitution is a construct made by a man ? And if you believe in a god/s then EVERY god in history has used a man as a prophet etc.. therefore we can undoubtly say that EVERY moral or belief was governed by a man at one time or another.

That doesn't disprove my assertion. I'm saying that because we agreed to this set of morals created by man, we must follow them. That's why in countries outside of the US there are different moral rulings. They are not less moral by an objective stance, they simply created their own set of morals and had all of their citizens agree to follow them.

but remember, we live by a set of standards and morals :) If we live by jungle law that would mean the abolishment of law and government. Survival of the fittest. The jock at the gym could murder you and steal your house. Would you really want that kind of world?

Those thing are only 'negative points' because someone somewhere made up what is right or wrong, good and evil are opinions and therefore are non-existent.

it's not a matter of good and evil. It's a matter of someone who is stronger immediately has the ability to do whatever he wants. It's symbolizes the deterioration of society because the only people with any measure of power will be as intelligent as the guys on jersey shore. Why bother reading when you'll just get the shit beat out of you. Better to only focus on becoming tougher. Life will become isolated, brutish, and short. We became a dominant species by creating laws. By defining right and wrong through the method of greatest good done for the most amount of people. By defining good as positive benefits we typically look at quality of life as an indicator. A man living under police protection has a much better quality of life than someone living in anarchy. I could go on for hours on this train of thought. All you need to know is that if anarchy was instated (as I'm sure you wish it would) then life would become a lot worse for everyone. Yes in the first week when the looting is happening and rich fatcats lose their lives to the horde we'll all be happy. But as time goes on there will be no regulation of good and services. We'll most likely return to a bartering system and a large degree of the population will simply die out because they will not be able to provide any essential services in this new world.

Im not a fan of Ararchy of which you thought I was, I believe in a system of early fuedilism like the times of Alfred the great, you make a valid points, but on a different subject, this discussion was based and the possiple moral points on domestic animal slaughter. :)

Yup, and it is immoral to needlessly slaughter animals. We have set that up as a social construct. Yes, you can say morals are defined by the individual but regardless in order to be a citizen you must accept the constitution and that constitution clearly outlines what is considered immoral by society. Also, if you're religious there are divinely revealed morals, one of which rules against the abuse of animals. I actually did a study on biblical views on slaughter and use/abuse of animals :D

I thoughly enjoy debates like this, but no studies sadly. But surely the constitution is a construct made by a man ? And if you believe in a god/s then EVERY god in history has used a man as a prophet etc.. therefore we can undoubtly say that EVERY moral or belief was governed by a man at one time or another.

That doesn't disprove my assertion. I'm saying that because we agreed to this set of morals created by man, we must follow them. That's why in countries outside of the US there are different moral rulings. They are not less moral by an objective stance, they simply created their own set of morals and had all of their citizens agree to follow them.

i know, i was asking him if he did good sir.

u are one fucked up person...

How is geting beaten by your parents or killng an animal fucked up ? Welcome to LIFE people having been doing worse things then this and this for tens of thousands of years.
Wether you believe in evolution or creationism, animals murder each other horribly for eons and you cry or bitch at a dog getting killed instantly GET REAL, and if you believe in god/s he murdered thousands of people for a differnece of opinion, so dont try to bring in your warped sence of morality into this.

but remember, we live by a set of standards and morals :) If we live by jungle law that would mean the abolishment of law and government. Survival of the fittest. The jock at the gym could murder you and steal your house. Would you really want that kind of world?

Those thing are only 'negative points' because someone somewhere made up what is right or wrong, good and evil are opinions and therefore are non-existent.

it's not a matter of good and evil. It's a matter of someone who is stronger immediately has the ability to do whatever he wants. It's symbolizes the deterioration of society because the only people with any measure of power will be as intelligent as the guys on jersey shore. Why bother reading when you'll just get the shit beat out of you. Better to only focus on becoming tougher. Life will become isolated, brutish, and short. We became a dominant species by creating laws. By defining right and wrong through the method of greatest good done for the most amount of people. By defining good as positive benefits we typically look at quality of life as an indicator. A man living under police protection has a much better quality of life than someone living in anarchy. I could go on for hours on this train of thought. All you need to know is that if anarchy was instated (as I'm sure you wish it would) then life would become a lot worse for everyone. Yes in the first week when the looting is happening and rich fatcats lose their lives to the horde we'll all be happy. But as time goes on there will be no regulation of good and services. We'll most likely return to a bartering system and a large degree of the population will simply die out because they will not be able to provide any essential services in this new world.

Im not a fan of Ararchy of which you thought I was, I believe in a system of early fuedilism like the times of Alfred the great, you make a valid points, but on a different subject, this discussion was based and the possiple moral points on domestic animal slaughter. :)

Yup, and it is immoral to needlessly slaughter animals. We have set that up as a social construct. Yes, you can say morals are defined by the individual but regardless in order to be a citizen you must accept the constitution and that constitution clearly outlines what is considered immoral by society. Also, if you're religious there are divinely revealed morals, one of which rules against the abuse of animals. I actually did a study on biblical views on slaughter and use/abuse of animals :D

I thoughly enjoy debates like this, but no studies sadly. But surely the constitution is a construct made by a man ? And if you believe in a god/s then EVERY god in history has used a man as a prophet etc.. therefore we can undoubtly say that EVERY moral or belief was governed by a man at one time or another.

That doesn't disprove my assertion. I'm saying that because we agreed to this set of morals created by man, we must follow them. That's why in countries outside of the US there are different moral rulings. They are not less moral by an objective stance, they simply created their own set of morals and had all of their citizens agree to follow them.