Whats your definition of dating..murder

[DhN]

self explanatory

doing a paper on dating...and do you think age difference plays a big part in a relationship...also when do you think

this murder question is jus soemthing i was debating recently..

whats your definition of murder..is war murder? abortion?

[lil_dcb7]

i can add a little. im kinda lazy to do a whole schpeel myself.

but for dating. in my honest opinion, i dont think age plays a dramatic role. Maturity, on the other hand does. I believe that maturity in a relationship is the big thing.

ex: I went out with a 22 year old for a while. i was 16. it actually was working out great, until her psychotic sister got all crazy and shit. after that it was just drama with HER family. my mom was a little "eh" at first. but the chick i was dating was in school, had a good job. had a good grip on life. her family made it really difficult once they found out how old i was. we decided to just call it quits, but maintain a good, close friendship.


but i wasnt like most dick head little teens. you know?

and as far as murder. thats far out of my reach of comprehension. its like asking me why are we in iraq. murder is what it is, it is taking one's life. do you consider abortion taking ones life? If you do, then its murder. Do you believe war takes lives? if you do, then its murder

it all depends on the person you ask, or the audience your presenting it to.

now as far as my opinion. i think abortion is wrong. i think its messed up. how can you not give some one the opportunity to live? the greatest gift from God (lay off, its what i believe) is life.

And as far as war goes. no matter what, war is a overly dramatic dick sizing contest. some one has a bigger ego than some body else, and it hurts them. so they get guns, and try to kill them. yes. then i guess i do considder it murder.

good luck with your paper, bro.

[owequitit]

i can add a little. im kinda lazy to do a whole schpeel myself.

but for dating. in my honest opinion, i dont think age plays a dramatic role. Maturity, on the other hand does. I believe that maturity in a relationship is the big thing.

ex: I went out with a 22 year old for a while. i was 16. it actually was working out great, until her psychotic sister got all crazy and shit. after that it was just drama with HER family. my mom was a little "eh" at first. but the chick i was dating was in school, had a good job. had a good grip on life. her family made it really difficult once they found out how old i was. we decided to just call it quits, but maintain a good, close friendship.


but i wasnt like most dick head little teens. you know?

and as far as murder. thats far out of my reach of comprehension. its like asking me why are we in iraq. murder is what it is, it is taking one's life. do you consider abortion taking ones life? If you do, then its murder. Do you believe war takes lives? if you do, then its murder

it all depends on the person you ask, or the audience your presenting it to.

now as far as my opinion. i think abortion is wrong. i think its messed up. how can you not give some one the opportunity to live? the greatest gift from God (lay off, its what i believe) is life.

And as far as war goes. no matter what, war is a overly dramatic dick sizing contest. some one has a bigger ego than some body else, and it hurts them. so they get guns, and try to kill them. yes. then i guess i do considder it murder.

good luck with your paper, bro.

All good points, and I agree.

But I have a question.

Was WWII a contest of manhood?

[TekSi]

IMO age doesn't matter, it's the maturity level of the two people in the relationship that matters, if there is an age gap. I'm gonna sound like an old person but "age is just a number". Of course this is just my opinion, some other people may say that age does matter. And in some cases it may matter(the word rape comes to mind.)

[ACC0RD22]

Was WWII a contest of manhood?

I suppose it depends which side of the fight you are analyzing. The allies, probably not, they were just defending themselves against an outside invader. The Axis' cause could be boiled down to that at its very basic core I guess.

[DhN]

ok so.//first thanks for the input..its greatly appreciated

second...when do you think..2 people should actually date? what consitutes friendship and dating like..when can you say your more than friends..and whats the difference between jus friends and dating..i need other opinions and such not jus my own..thus me asking questions

[owequitit]

IMO age doesn't matter, it's the maturity level of the two people in the relationship that matters, if there is an age gap. I'm gonna sound like an old person but "age is just a number". Of course this is just my opinion, some other people may say that age does matter. And in some cases it may matter(the word rape comes to mind.)

I would agree that life experiences and and maturity matter more.

Except for the law as you say.

To some extent though, age does play a little bit of a role, because normally it takes time for people to figure things out.

For instance: In general, you will find a big maturity gap between most high school students and most college students who may only be a couple years older, but you wouldn't see that same gap if you looked at high school kids a couple years younger.

[owequitit]

I suppose it depends which side of the fight you are analyzing. The allies, probably not, they were just defending themselves against an outside invader. The Axis' cause could be boiled down to that at its very basic core I guess.

I would agree with that.

[lil_dcb7]

ok so.//first thanks for the input..its greatly appreciated

second...when do you think..2 people should actually date? what consitutes friendship and dating like..when can you say your more than friends..and whats the difference between jus friends and dating..i need other opinions and such not jus my own..thus me asking questions

that depends on a lot of things. see, my girl and I, we weren't even friends.

we met, and there was instant attraction. we skipped the whole friends part.

we met, went on a date, considdered each other boyfriend and girl friend. two more dates later, we're lovers.

fast, i know, but we feel nothing is wrong. and things arent bad in our relationship.

in my personal EXPERIENCES, going out with a friend, dosent always end up too good. sometimes it may...

[TekSi]

In my experiences it's better to date somebody you have to get to know then somebody you're friends with. The only reason why IMO is because when you get to know that person you eventually consider them your best friend as well as your boyfriend/girlfriend.

[deevergote]

I think age plays a large part in the emotional level of a relationship. Most young teenagers are very self-centered and easily influenced by external sources. Their concept of love is mainly based on how they feel around a person, as well as the images portrayed in music, books, and film. It's quite superficial. Easily created, easily destroyed.
A more mature sense of love (some people never even reach that stage) is a bit deeper. The object of the emotion no longer simply represents the joys of the relationship. The object of the emotion (the person being loved) is loved as an individual entity. It is possible to love someone you don't even like, at this level.

When is it OK to date? That's more of a social determination than anything else. "Dating" can be going to the movies with a group of 8 kids. "Dating" could be talking on the phone every night and seeing each other in school. "Dating" could be a strict, monogamous relationship at age 12. "Dating" could be sexual activity at that same age. At what point is "Dating" accpetable? That's for the parents to decide, and I feel they should have a very active role in their children's dating choices, at least until the child is old enough to be mobile (16-17, normally). By that time, the parents should have educated their children enough to equip them with the knowledge to protect themselves as best they can.








Murder? The official definition of murder is to kill intentionally with premeditation.

Going strictly by this definition, is war murder? Yes and no. It could be argued that war is mutual self defense. The soldiers in a war aren't fighting each other, they're trying not to get killed! Can the decisions of the higher-ups, who have no physical blood on their hands, be considered murder? I'd say moreso than the actions of the soldiers... but again, this is more of a philosophical ethics question than anything else. There is no clear-cut answer! Chessboxer could probably run circles around me with this topic...
Abortion? Is it intentional and premeditated? Yes. Is it destroying a life, or a growing cluster of cells within a human being (cancer is the same thing...)? IMO, the child's life begins with a heartbeat. Before then, the cells are a part of the woman, and it is not a life. That can be argued. Some can say it's not truly a life until the child is born. Some can say that it's a life at the moment of conception. Who is right? Who can say?
By the strict definition, and assuming that the child IS a seperate life at the time of the heartbeat, it IS murder. Like the war argument, though, it's a bit more of a foggy ethical question than a cut and dry statement. I'm not an anti-abortion activist, and I feel there are probably times when it may be the best route... though adoption is a much better route.
Nothing infuriates me more than seeing middle-class white girls getting abortions because they are ashamed. I say white girls, because white babies are in the highest demand for adoptions. There are long lists of loving, financially secure, qualified people waiting for a white baby to adopt. For ANYONE to abort a child that could have a bright future otherwise really bothers me. That goes for any race, but knowing the qualified demand for white babies makes that situation a sore spot for me (and I have a number of aquaintances that have done just that...)

[owequitit]

I think age plays a large part in the emotional level of a relationship. Most young teenagers are very self-centered and easily influenced by external sources. Their concept of love is mainly based on how they feel around a person, as well as the images portrayed in music, books, and film. It's quite superficial. Easily created, easily destroyed.
A more mature sense of love (some people never even reach that stage) is a bit deeper. The object of the emotion no longer simply represents the joys of the relationship. The object of the emotion (the person being loved) is loved as an individual entity. It is possible to love someone you don't even like, at this level.

When is it OK to date? That's more of a social determination than anything else. "Dating" can be going to the movies with a group of 8 kids. "Dating" could be talking on the phone every night and seeing each other in school. "Dating" could be a strict, monogamous relationship at age 12. "Dating" could be sexual activity at that same age. At what point is "Dating" accpetable? That's for the parents to decide, and I feel they should have a very active role in their children's dating choices, at least until the child is old enough to be mobile (16-17, normally). By that time, the parents should have educated their children enough to equip them with the knowledge to protect themselves as best they can.








Murder? The official definition of murder is to kill intentionally with premeditation.

Going strictly by this definition, is war murder? Yes and no. It could be argued that war is mutual self defense. The soldiers in a war aren't fighting each other, they're trying not to get killed! Can the decisions of the higher-ups, who have no physical blood on their hands, be considered murder? I'd say moreso than the actions of the soldiers... but again, this is more of a philosophical ethics question than anything else. There is no clear-cut answer! Chessboxer could probably run circles around me with this topic...
Abortion? Is it intentional and premeditated? Yes. Is it destroying a life, or a growing cluster of cells within a human being (cancer is the same thing...)? IMO, the child's life begins with a heartbeat. Before then, the cells are a part of the woman, and it is not a life. That can be argued. Some can say it's not truly a life until the child is born. Some can say that it's a life at the moment of conception. Who is right? Who can say?
By the strict definition, and assuming that the child IS a seperate life at the time of the heartbeat, it IS murder. Like the war argument, though, it's a bit more of a foggy ethical question than a cut and dry statement. I'm not an anti-abortion activist, and I feel there are probably times when it may be the best route... though adoption is a much better route.
Nothing infuriates me more than seeing middle-class white girls getting abortions because they are ashamed. I say white girls, because white babies are in the highest demand for adoptions. There are long lists of loving, financially secure, qualified people waiting for a white baby to adopt. For ANYONE to abort a child that could have a bright future otherwise really bothers me. That goes for any race, but knowing the qualified demand for white babies makes that situation a sore spot for me (and I have a number of aquaintances that have done just that...)

LOL! It is a very ethical question.

I won't even touch politics on the war scale, because their ethics are typically questionable before war even enters into the equation.

As far as the soldier, I don't think it is murder.

They don't intentionally go in wanting to kill people. If the objectives can be achieved without a loss of life, then that would most certainly be welcomed as taking someones life is not a pleasurable experience.

Unfortunately, war is such an animal that the loss of life and successful completion of objectives are usually juxtaposed.

It is very similar to a life/death struggle in nature. If two animals are fighting for their lives, then one will die, and one will live.

War is not entirely the same though, because animals do not usually fight for alterior motives, unless they are trying to attract a mate.

War is an unfortunate occurence that should be avoided if at all possible.


As far as abortion, that is another matter entirely. I can understand both sides of the story, although personally, I am with Deev in that I would not do it or want my lady to do it.

However, on the other side of the coin, and something that most people don't know, talk or think about, is that in the days when abortion WAS illegal, they were still being performed. Often, the conditions were not sanitary and the doctors were not qualified.

It was VERY dangerous for both the child AND the mother. It wasn't uncommon to lose both.

By legalizing it, we added a certain taboo about making it "OK" but we removed a lot of the risk involved from a safety standpoint because now we could regulate the process and standards, as well as allow qualified doctors to perform the procedures.

I am here because of an adoption. My grandmother was unwanted by her parents, but her aunt and uncle, who couldn't have kids, gladly raised and adopted her.

Oh how things could have been different.

[deevergote]

Legal vs. illegal abortion is another topic, though. The ethical question of whether or not it's murder has little to do with the method and legality of it.

The question is, how far back can you take it? I say when the heart starts beating. Some say at the time of conception. Some would say that "spilling your seed" is murder. Every time you fire off a few knuckle children, you're commiting murder! Hell, how many sperm must die for ONE to fertilize the egg?


To throw an even bigger wrench into the works... who's opinion matters? If the parents of the unborn child believe that the child is still a part of the woman as long as it is still inside the woman, who is to say they are wrong? The child is technically hardwired to the mother. With that point of view, it's no less a part of the mother than any other parasitic organism (nobody cries murder when you take antibiotics!)
That's a pretty stone-age way of thinking about it, but who can say it's wrong? If I were to believe that, and you were to tell me differently, why should I change my way of thinking? The law, the bible, and "common sense" don't apply... I can interpret or disapprove of those as I choose, thus invalidating those arguments.

[owequitit]

Legal vs. illegal abortion is another topic, though. The ethical question of whether or not it's murder has little to do with the method and legality of it.

The question is, how far back can you take it? I say when the heart starts beating. Some say at the time of conception. Some would say that "spilling your seed" is murder. Every time you fire off a few knuckle children, you're commiting murder! Hell, how many sperm must die for ONE to fertilize the egg?


To throw an even bigger wrench into the works... who's opinion matters? If the parents of the unborn child believe that the child is still a part of the woman as long as it is still inside the woman, who is to say they are wrong? The child is technically hardwired to the mother. With that point of view, it's no less a part of the mother than any other parasitic organism (nobody cries murder when you take antibiotics!)
That's a pretty stone-age way of thinking about it, but who can say it's wrong? If I were to believe that, and you were to tell me differently, why should I change my way of thinking? The law, the bible, and "common sense" don't apply... I can interpret or disapprove of those as I choose, thus invalidating those arguments.

Personally, if it is unable to survive on its own, then it isn't really a life yet.

Life forms can exist, develop, survive and ultimately die on their own.

That is just my opinion though.

Interestingly, to muddy the waters even further, it is proven that we aren't really "concious" as a being until we get to be a little older.

Thank God it isn't based on THAT definition!

[deevergote]

Ugh... he's going through the terrible twos... I think I'll have an abortion.