Truth

Imagine this:
Two men are walking in an almost-empty parking lot. By this I mean there are approximately 60 car slots, and 7 cars. There is few enough cars to be at any point in the lot and be able to see every car. Suddenly, one man stops the other.

"There is the car," he says.

"I see no car," says the second man.

So we find ourselves in a predicament. Much like the question "does the tree make any sound?", I ask you: is the car really there? Which man is sane, and which is insane? This is a microcosm of the definition of truth. Because, isn't truth nothing more than popular acceptance? It is true that cells are the smallest unit of an organism. It is true that Columbus set foot on North America in 1492. Isn't it? What if there was another man there? A third party who says, let's say, the car really isn't there. Then the lone man is crazy and it is truth that that the car isn't there. But does that make the car's existence any more true or untrue? More probable, maybe, but truer... I don't think so. Now lets expand this microcosm into the real world, and perhaps the ratio of "crazy men" to "sane men" (who know the truth). Let's say one man claims that Christopher Columbus set foot on North America last year. All would say that he is insane. But what prevents it from being true? Or better yet, let's say all people agree on one thing, like Christopher Columbus landing in 1492. Does that make it true?

The answer is no. Truth cannot be defined as popular acceptance. Just as easily as something can be "true", it can be "untrue". These ideas form the basis of the theory known as Skepticism. That theory states that nothing can be for certain. However, I've come to realize that one thing can be for certain. That is love. Love between two people, or love between a man and God, is eternally true. That is because love is not something that can be known. That is, it is not something that can be explained. It is something that can only be felt. Knowledge is not truth. Only love is truth.

Afterlife, among other things, is the relief of ignorance and fulfillment of knowledge, as in most cultures. These cultures believe that when in the afterlife, a man knows all and his soul can rest. This is true. But people have come to regard this "fulfillment of knowledge" as knowing things, such as all aspects of Science, including the human mind, or more abstract, religious things like "what is God's plan?". The afterlife is nothing more than complete love. Love is the only truth and holding it completely will be complete truth. All aspects of the Universe are contained by love. They were created by love and are controlled by love. I'm not quite sure whether Jesus of Nazareth is indeed El Christo, but he certainly did carry the right message: God is Love. God is the ultimate, omnipresent power in the Universe. Love is that power, that we know exists, we know its power, yet is intangible.

Most importantly, you cannot know love. You can only feel it. It is truth, and all the power of the universe lies within it. Perhaps one of the greatest accomplishments of man is to not "know" love, but to know it exists.

I pity the fools who cannot open up their minds to the other sides opinion.
I remember a few years ago, vaguely hearing of some book that described one main problem with society is the furthering divide between the spiritual and scientific sides of human studies. However, it seems that in recent years, the more open-minded individual has endevoured to bridge this gap, and encourages us to believe and respect both religion and science.
Also, there was an article I read about how faith has been found to be innate in the human mind. I don't know where I read it or anything on it, but it was pretty cool.

Religion is ok, and can be reconciled with scientific thought, as long as you are open about your beliefs.

My question then, is how open do you have to be? Right now moderate religious belief is hard to argue against on grounds of morality. They preach tolerance and openess, something that should be admirable to the christian as it is to the athiest. They're beliefs however share only the name of the religion that came before it.

I said before that God would die when our knowledge expanded farther than the idea could adapt. Let me alter that a bit:

God has died many many times in the past, only to be replaced by a new God who shares a few characteristics with the old. When I say died, I mean has fallen out of mainstream belief to slowly wither away to an extremist fringe and eventually to obscurity.

You can no doubt find some people or groups in north america who believe in the direct vengeful, wrathfull, interventionist God of the past, but generally most chirstians believe in a God of love and morals and metaphores. What happened to the vengeful God? He died, is what happened. He could no longer survive in a world of social conciousness brought about by industrialization and civil rights.

My point is: if it can happen to that God, then given future social development it can happen to any current interpretation of God. If the idea of God is so unstable, then what can we say is the fundamental character of our God?

This may look like an attack on christianity alone, but remember that even the vaunted religions of the new-age movement: hinduism, Buddhism, etc... They all talk about spirits and mysterious worlds beyond our own. They are as much emersed in mysticism as the moderate christians. And they too are subject to the progress of secular ideas and knowledge. I doubt that the mideaval Buddhist is very much like the modern celebrity one.

If religion has to evolve and change due to secular pressures, then what is it's real value? You can't say it's the universal message of love, because that is a more recent development. What fundamental value of any given religion has survived more than one or two revolutions in religious thought to be passed onto it's replacements?

Even the unchanging text of religious books change in interpretation.

This is what I don't understand about religion.

All religions tell you to be a good person. Right? But here's the catch. If you be a good person, you'll get rewarded.

I prefer to be a good person for the sake of being a good person.

The problem with religions is that they all want to tell you how to live. Instead of giving you a moral code to live by, they tell you who you can marry, what you can believe, when you can take a shit, and where you can place yourself in society.

Funny, reminds me of a little thing called COMMUNISM.

And that's what religion was at first; a form of government. You lived your life by the laws of the religion. And if a ruler wanted to change a law, they altered the religion. And people think the bible is still 100% accurate. Amazing.

So why does one religion hate another? Why does something that's supposed to be so god damned righteous have to be so fucking evil?

How many people have to die in the name of GOD before people realize that IT'S ALL THE SAME? They're all worshipping SOMETHING, isn't that good enough? Take the crusades, for instance. In the name of God, you know, the guy who said "Thou Shalt Not Kill," thousands (millions?) of innocent people were SLAUGHTERED. And what were they doing? Looking for the holy grail.

Well for one, the bible should be used as a symbol, not literal interpretation. Most people believe the bible and religion is wrong/stupid because they think they are suppose to follow it literally. And since the bible was wrote about a couple of thousands of years ago, it's quiet difficult to know what they are  truly speaking of or what they meant.

>>43
Well the crusades weren't about finding the holy grail...that came from stories about individual knights. The crusades were a preacher inspired invasion of the middle east to either push back the Islamic (moores) influence, or in the case of later crusades to punish them for encroaching on western authority. Each crusade was started by a different political force, the original being started by European princes and the pope, later onese being influenced by popular preachers and bishops in Europe.

Remember they happened not long after finally pushing the moores out of Spain, so they weren't just nonesense quests for mystical artifacts. The fact is that many knight orders gained fame in the middle east "liberating the holy land" and stories of thier searches for relics or their use of relics came back to mideaval europe creating stories for the people to believe in.

In the end it was just an exuse to stick it to the moores (muslims from africa who had conquered most of spain).

I used to be religious, maybe even considered a zealot. But some personal problems in my life ,which I would rather not talk about, led me to question my beliefs. I don't want to sound like an enlightened douche teen who thinsk he knows the correct ways of life, but it really has made me a better and more open minded person. I used to get fairly offended when someone cracked a priest pedo joke, but now I don't even care.

Seriously, do that. I doubt anyone can have total faith. Even when I was my most religious, I never believed most of the things I was told. But I was afraid to say it becasue they slapped that hell sticker on everything.

The crusades occur because the pope wanted power. Basically, he made it seem like if you joined the crusades you'd be all powerful and well respected, so obviously most people being peasants joined probably having nothing to do with Christianity. They may have killed many, but they doesn't make it right or what god intended. Those were all actions by a human. 

Black people don't deserve special treatment. Their ancestors were used as farm equipment, but then they were released from slavery. They weren't forced to stay in the country, and they aren't forced to now. They haven't been slaves themselves, and therefore don't deserve "reparations" for their "suffering," as they call it. They get hired over every other race because of this.

Let's take a look at one of the largest organizations behind this bullshit. It's called the "National Association for the Advancement of Colored People." These people complain about racism, and yet they call black people "colored," which sounds somewhat racist, at least to me. They make it sound as though their members are not as "advanced" as other people. Or maybe they're trying to "advance" their army towards world domination?

Black people get to call each other "Nigga", but white people can't? Why not? Any derogatory term for white people can be freely used by blacks, why the reverse discrimination?

The only policy I am on par with the United States' current adminstration is its opposition toward Affirmative Action programs. Anyone with the audacity to advocate such a concept is naive and more than likely a racist himself. Race, in the situation of employment and college admission, is a factor that should NEVER be taken into consideration.

Oh god, you racists make me sick.

Years of racial segregation and discrimination and SUDDENLY it's not ok to base anything on race anymore.

Try having some compassion and giving the less fortunate a hand you asswipes.

"Affirmative action" means positive steps taken to increase the representation of women and minorities in areas of employment, education, and business from which they have been historically excluded not giving privileges over the fact ancestors where used as farm tools. When Affirmative action originally began it was hard for African Americans to get into schools and jobs that they where qualified for.
This rant is crap it doesn’t show any proof or backing to why affirmative action is not needed or real evidence how blacks are chosen over other races because of Affirmative action.
Next you go on about reparations, this has more to do with government compensation than affirmative action so really it’s another issue all together.
THEN you go one about the NAACP and show no examples of how it has done anything wrong or how it supports Affirmative action negatively.
hey next time why don’t you do a better job of giving us examples to back you point, if not you look like an uneducated racist piece of shit....but than again maybe you are.

>>48
So, you think affirmative action only works for black people? You seem like the kinda guy who would go to Africa and say "Look at all the minorities!" Bigot.

My mother is getting a full-paid minority scholarship at Tennessee State University.

And she sure as hell isn't black. No, 100% Caucasian. However, at TSU, she would be a minority, because the majority of the students there are of African descent.

You can't help but look at the facts. The majority of the people who are stuck in the slums in America are minorities. This is due to poor background and existing racism in this country. Affirmative Action is simply a way to work around this problem. The moment we get rid of bigots and social class profiling (no, I'm not a communist), the better.

It really has nothing to do with slavery. The NAACP might tell you that, but they're all a bunch of idiots who don't know anything. You shouldn't even associate them with the productive black community.

I have black friends and I call them "nigga" all the time. They don't mind.

I don't know why you think Affirmative Action is just repayment for slavery. There was also, you know, segregation.. and the civil rights movement.. yeah. But it's really just a way to balance for institutional racism.

Also, minorities are under-represented in the workforce and collegiate institutions but over-represented in prisons and inner cities.

This is for one of two reasons.

Either (a), minorities are inherently dumber and more criminal.

Or (b), institutional biases are set against minorities.

Affirmative Action is supposed to be a temporary fix for instiutional biases. For an institution to use an affirmative action policy, they have to set a time limit (under the Clinton administration, I believe the limit was 4 years).

Not to mention as part of the collegiate entry process, qualitative evaluation is acceptable. Colleges don't just look at statistics. For most colleges, it doesn't matter if you're black or white. What matters is your experience with racial diversity. For instance, if you're a black student in an inner-city school who received relatively poor education, had no access to expensive SAT classes, and received a 1050, surely that means more than an elite-class student with access to everything who makes a 1050 after taking lots of classes from mommy and daddy at his top-100-highschool? Affirmative Action is just a way of recognizing the adversity someone faced because they were black, Hispanic, or Asian.

This is like giving entry to the best oboe player in the state even if he made poor grades just because he'll be a good addition to the marching band. It's just a way for schools to justify bringing in people with something new to add to the table.

And the only reason affirmative action is based on race is because if the Democrats based it on class and included you poor sniveling white bastards, they'd be labeled "socialists".

Like everything else in life, Affirmative Action can either be abused or used toward the greater humanitarian good.

I'm Vietnamese, one-out-of-six children, and my parents could not afford to put me through to college. Fortunately for me, I understood this early into high school, got some good grades, and was able to hustle a grant from the government to go to Virginia Tech. Was I poor? Not in the worst sense, no. I had food on the table every night and about a 1000 turtlenecks, so there was no reason for me to complain as my father made damn sure that it could always be worse.

At school, I saw plenty of white, useless kids who took their good fortune for granted, and day-by-day they pissed their parents money away only to graduate college and go to work at daddy's company. Is there anything wrong with that? Not really, but what about the minorities out there who get denied because of financial reasons, and have bigger and more ambitious dreams to make a dent in the world? Should they get screwed? There are FAR MORE dumber, more underserving kids who go to college than you think, but that's life.

In other words, there's a flipside to everything. Know what you are talking about before you berate Affirmative Action; its helped many minorites I know.....many of which who have decided to dedicate their own professional lives in areas of civic and sociological/humanitarian professions.

Basically, most of these arguments regarding affirmative action and even retarded shit like 'I can't call black people nigger! That sucks!' can be reduced to a basic premise:

'It's not fair!'

No shit chumps, get over it. OE and others made some very good points about people having a disadvantage due to socioeconomic status (which is frequently tied to race). Getting into college when you have to work and barely scratch by is a lot harder than it has been for the majority of the people reading this, many of whom have been fostered in decadence while practicing mediocrity themselves.

As for 'nigger', I don't understand the obsession with this term, even on the boards, it's all over the place. There is nothing funny or friendly about it. Sure, some friends might use it to refer to each other, but it's just like calling your friend a motherfucker or cunt, its a highly offensive term, but you simply don't mean it. It's not OK for a black person to call a white person a nigger, I'm not sure where you got this idea. It’s not OK for ANYONE to use this term in reference to anyone else. The biggest fight in my high school career was centered around a close and rough basketball game and the other team tried to start shit afterwards. The other team's center, who was black, had been fouled out near the end and was pissed as Hell, at me especially. There were words exchanged, culminating in numerous references to me, not black, as a 'nigger'. The brawl started shortly after those words were introduced. Most of my teammate's were black, so I suppose they shouldn't care if some other black guy calls somebody 'nigger', right? Wrong, you dumb motherfuckers.

It's a disgusting term and anyone who uses it should feel dirty or have a damn good reason why not.

Asians, Middle-Easterners, Hispanics, Jews, and other minorities, despite several disadvantages inherent in immigration, are generally prosperous. A common occupation upon the Hispanic community is gardening. Asians typically lease gas stations, liquor stores, etc. The Jewish community on northern La Brea Ave. is remarkably successful. What do I see in the African-American community in southern La Brea? I do not witness thriving indie businesses. However, corporate installations of Wal Mart, Starbucks, and McDonalds are all that exist in shitty southern La Brea. Many immigrants, including my own relatives, have been able to prosper due to hard-work. My father went from renting a slummy Hollywood blvd single-room apartment room in 1978 to owning a three-level household in the mountains in 1992. Most Niggers, almost entirely due to laziness and a lack of common sense, have been failures in capitalistic America. African-Americans lack sufficient cleverness to be able to succeed in a capitalistic society. Humiliation of African-Americans lies in the fact that they are NATIVES of the Yankee Empire. African-Americans continue to piss and moan about events that have long faded away. Some of them even have the nerve to condemn Europeans for importing slaves from Western Africa. If negroes loathe the North American continent and its colonizers, then I suggest we set up a program in which ships will transport all peoples of black descent to the famine-ridden, disease-stricken, illiterate region.

Affirmative Action? Theoretically, it is spoon-feeding pieces of shit at the expense of more skillful, hard-working citizens. You cocksuckers and your hyperbolical depcition of racism need to depart from the past. It is the year 2004, not 1954. Here in California, the racism I detect comes not from whites, but from blacks and their revisionist white supporters. Like I explcitly stated before, racial/ethnic should NEVER be taken into consideration during employment and college admissions.

Most Niggers, almost entirely due to laziness and a lack of common sense, have been failures in capitalistic America. African-Americans lack sufficient cleverness to be able to succeed in a capitalistic society...

If negroes loathe the North American continent and its colonizers, then I suggest we set up a program in which ships will transport all peoples of black descent to the famine-ridden, disease-stricken, illiterate region...

Here in California, the racism I detect comes not from whites, but from blacks and their revisionist white supporters.

Affirmative action was first created by JFK and the Committee on Equal Employment Opportunity that was supposed to "take affirmative action" to ensure that hiring and employment practices are free of racial bias. At the time this was created it was needed the inability of the qualified black Americans to get into schools and jobs needed to be dealt with, Affirmative action dealt with this.

Later the use and need of affirmative action was proven to be unfair in the case California v. Bakke when the use of such inflexible quotas as the medical school had set aside was not constitutional. But instead of fixing and rewriting Affirmative action there it went on....

then the case of jobs in Affirmative action the Wygant v. Jackson Board of Education when the board of education had a policy of protecting minority employees by laying off non-minority teachers first, even though the non-minority employees had seniority. The Supreme Court ruled against the school board, maintaining that the injury suffered by non-minorities affected could not justify the benefits to minorities....

Finally someone came and changed the way Affinitive action was dealt with when President Bill Clinton in a White House memorandum called for the elimination of any program that "(a) creates a quota; (b) creates preferences for unqualified individuals; (c) creates reverse discrimination; or (d) continues even after its equal opportunity purposes have been achieved."

The injustice of Affirmative action was shown to the people and Proposition 209 was seen in California Banning all forms of Affirmative action, As well as other states such as Washington and Florida.

Lastly the Supreme Court makes a ruling in 2003 that point systems used in university admissions is wrong but race can be one of many factors considered by colleges when selecting their students because "a compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body."
In all Affirmative action has created the racial bias that itself was made to stop. Diversity is good but the fact that you will be looked over just because you are non-minority is in itself Racist and should be stopped by abolishing Affirmative action!

I was always a sad kid, but when I found my mother's diary five years ago and read about how she had another secret family that she was going to leave us for, I really cracked. I left for college soon afterwards still having some symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, with nightmares still occurring nearly every night.

A few months afterwards, I had gotten to the point where I was oversleeping to avoid my problems, usually sleeping 15-20 hours a day.

I finally sought psychiatric treatment 3 1/2 years ago. They initially put me on Provigil for the over-sleeping and Lexapro for the depression, and they were both crap. Then they put me on Wellbutrin, which just made me feel jittery about 4 hours after taking it, but was still crap. Then they moved me to Effexor XR with a Cytomel (hypothyroid med) supplement; they kept increasing the dosage of the Effexor, and I am now at 375 mg/day. If I forget to take my pills, I feel like I'm getting electric shocks to the brain.

I still want to kill myself every day.

>>59

THEN WHAT ARE YOU WAITING FOR?

http://forums.xgenstudios.com

>>61
Do you, like me, wish the Nazis had won?

Theirs was a truly effective fascist government that took a nation on its knees from a depression and turned it into a military, technological and economic powerhouse within the space of thirty years.

It was a social experiment in the way that many reformed or new nations are. America was an experiment in democracy and (eventually) egalitarianism. The Soviet Union was an experiment in Communism. Nazi Germany was the grandest experiment of them all: a rejection of the gentle side of man and a wholehearted pursuit of our more teutonic side: The glorification of the strong, the self-sufficient, and the dominant. It was to be the beginning of a bolder and more uncompromising global civilization that would bring discipline where before there was only coddling; that would harden the soft, and that would not be afraid to say that equality means equal opportunities, not that all men regardless of education or skill are inherently equal to one another. It was a call out to all men to transcend their passive, mediocre existances and aspire to become the heroic and unstoppable species that mankind always had the potential to become.

Nazi Germany was the combined hopes, dreams and ambitions of all who dared to dominate; but in the end, these dreams were quashed by weak, subversive men who would rather hold their superiors back rather than attempt to catch up.

I'm so sick and tired of white people cruising down the street and pumping rap at 47,000 decibles. Why, God? Oh why have you cursed the planet with these cretinous buffoons who feel the constant need to pollute the air with their commercialized frickin' garbage??? With all of the great music that black artists have created, why is it that Whitey has chosen to latch onto the most annoying, repetitive, and phoney style of music ever set loose upon the world? Doesn't anybody listen to Otis Redding, Al Green, Etta James, Muddy Waters, or James Brown anymore?!

Look, I'm twenty years old and I understand the whole "youthful rebellion" and "teen angst" aspects of rap. Heck, I actually love a lot of the Old School stuff I've heard. But sadly, in the twenty-first century, white record executives, in conjunction with a new generation of overrated, overhyped, and overpaid rappers, have taken away ALL of the artistic integrity that rap (if it ever had any) could ever lay claim to. Hey Puffy, how can you be a hardass gangster mofo with an attitude fresh from the 'hood when you pull down eight figures a year, live in Beverly Hills, and drive a Lexus??? The answer, needless to say, is YOU CAN'T, YOU POSER!!!!!

Now, back to my original question. Why am I and many other unsuspecting motorists constantly being deluged by loud, obnoxious, and artistically void gangsta crap, blasting from the speakers of suburban white youths who couldn't possibly be LESS ghetto??? Why aren't white people proud of their OWN stuff? Do they have to hijack someone else's music (music that wasn't all that great to begin with) and overuse it 'til it's worn to the nub? Why do I NOT drive by white kids playing a piano sonata by Ludwig Van Beethoven, a tone poem by Richard Strauss, or one of the latest joints from Pyotr Ilytch Tchaikovsky? Why aren't white kids cruising down the road and bobbing their heads to Frank Sinatra, Johnnie Ray, Hank Snow, or Patsy Cline? This is great stuff and NOBODY listens to it! Well...at least nobody I've driven by.

Don't get me wrong. Music IS colorblind, and all races should be able to embrace eachothers' art unconditionally. But when people take the wrong music too seriously, we all suffer! If I could offer any sage advice to my fellow white guys, I would tell them to seek out REAL soul music, starting with the cats who invented rhythm & blues waaay back in the mid to late 1940's. Groups like the Ink-Spots, Billy Ward & the Dominoes, the Orioles, the Golden Gate Quartet, etc. Sure it's old, but sometimes those old tunes were even dirtier and more laden with innuendo than this modern "gangster" music, so it rocks anyway, you ignorant putz. OR, if group harmony doesn't suit your taste, give the Motown label a try. Everyone who recorded for them was brilliant (well, except for DeBarge. They sucked). Soul got even funkier in the 1970's when Isaac Hayes, Barry White, and Stevie Wonder put basslines with the beat.

So, what are you waiting for, Whitey? Get out there and listen to some good tunes!

Ok What the fuck. this thread was about religion, then changed to racist debate about black people...then something about someone being depressed, and now nazi's and germany? WTF?

>>63
Amen to that! I feel a similar brand of virulent rage toward idiots who feel compelled to play Limp Bizkit and Kid Rock. Industrial rock sucks with just as much ferocity as rap does. It just seems a much more common occurence (at least in the part of the country where I live) for these conformist jagoffs to blast their crummy rap music at the highest point on the volume dial. They're not always white either, but most of the folks around here who engage in this noise pollution are. Just ONCE I think it'd be cool to hear someone roll down the block cranking Beethoven's Ninth Symphony from a huge pair of woofers in his trunk. It'd be a change of pace. I'm not trying to force my musical tastes on anybody, but you've got to admit, the general problem of music having lost its soul within the last fifteen to twenty years is a growing concern.

why write this whole long quasi-intellectual rant about white people listening to rap when you say your point is simply that rap sucks.

Musical taste is subjective, there can not be a factual norm of good vs bad music. Only your own preference. And the fact that you bring up race as an issue at all just makes you a douchebag.

>>63 why write this whole long quasi-intellectual rant about white people listening to rap when you say your point is simply that rap sucks.

Musical taste is subjective, there can not be a factual norm of good vs bad music. Only your own preference. And the fact that you bring up race as an issue at all just makes you a douchebag.

>>67
>>66
Or maybe it just makes me a horrified witness to the rapid decay of American popular culture and the utter debasement of our sorry excuse for a generation.

Dude, it's like I said. I'm not saying that white people should stop loving black music. 80% of the music I listen to falls under the above category. I merely said that rap music's artistic integrity is highly debatable, at least as it stands at the current moment in time, so it bothers me when people (who are GENERALLY WHITE) blare their infernal pseudo-music at top volume. Like I said, I like a lot of Old School rap, but when you take the edge out of it and turn it into another teen commodity, you rob the music of everything it stands for. The same exact thing happened in the 1950's, but the trend in those days was cover versions, and the results were disatstrous. Great R&B and doowop tunes were covered by bland, watered down pop crooners in an effort to rob more fans and artists of their money.

It's not even that I'm blaming white people for this. Whites have created so much great music as well, it boggles my mind as to why nobody cares about it anymore. And yes, taste in music is subjective. That's why this is a rant thread and not a science paper. Not once have I stated that my convictions were factual. It's just what's on my mind and I figured the issue needed to be addressed. If you want facts, go to school. I'm too sleepy to address the banterings of any more overly sensitive 4chanfags today...

A girl of 6 years old has fallen in love with a 45 year old man. The man is a friend of the parents of the young girl and fell in love the second they were introduced. They both genuinely love each other. One night the man has dinner over the girl's parents' house. Afterwards the girl and the man go into her room and have sex.

Is it morally wrong?

>>69
I believe it is moraly wrong now. If you ask the question in several years, I doubt it. Look at this thread I made a couple days ago.

>>69
A 6 year old may love her puppy and love pudding and most definately her parents but would be unable to love on a level that is required for a realationship. I now ask, can you truly love someone who either does not or cannot return that love? I say NO, there may be an infatuation with that person but that is about as far as it can go.

Morality has nothing to do with this issue, what you suggest is not possible, therefore the question is void.

On a side note, string the fucker up by his balls and wip the flesh from the bones of the parents.

There is an absolute right and wrong. People who run around and talk about how "it's all shades of gray" are just people who are trying to rationalize their behavior. "Oh, yeah, what about if a man steals food for his starving family? Isn't that shades of gray?" No. That guy is stealing, which is wrong. The fact that his family is starving is irrelevant; the only reason people bring that up is so that you feel all guilty and are like, "well, IN THAT CASE I guess it's OK to steal." Hey, too bad your family is starving -- but since when did that make it OK to take my stuff? And why can't this dickwad feed his family in a legal fashion?

>>1-70
SAME PERSON
ID:9Pvd/Z4h

>>1-72, that is

>>1
his id =  9Pvd/Z4h
DIFFERENT PERSONS

um he has a point. 9Pvd/Z4h is a bunch of them. i think it is copypasta

dude your stupid, talking to yourself, haha

>>73
>>74
>>76
damn and i was reading the whole thread thinking that it was a win, sage for SAME PERSON

>>78
lol mi id is WIN ID:Heaven

also >>78 >>79 is same person (me)

>>79
ur fukkin crazy w/ the kopipe...lol