She read a student’s paper from a student generated assignment…

This is the product of ”a student generated writing assignment [that] produced content not conducive to student instruction”. (I know, way too many big words for you).
A student wrote it in a creative writing class you brain dead slug.

Get a fucking grip you infantile loser. Second graders today know about fellatio and hear about it on tv, radio, from public conversations, print, the internet, and from idiots getting outraged and shouting about it (in front of children).

Again, we know this anger stems from your own uncontrollable thoughts about homosexual sex acts and your self hatred over them, not because there’s an issue with high school kids hearing or reading or writing the words “dick in the mouth”. 🤦‍♂️

I don't trust Israel, not even a little bit....with good reason....and it's not my video.

Btw, you should look into what the word "literally" means, or learn to count, because there were literally 8 words in the first identification message, and it's just one of many. 8 words are all you need to hear them identify the ship.

Specifically jamming American military frequencies and international distress frequencies is a dead giveaway they knew who they were shooting at.....as if the recordings of the identification weren't enough.

Opening fire on lifeboats is another war crime.

But didn't people use all those other words in the piece, just not 'racist'? Perhaps not, I don't have time to watch it again right now.
EDIT: OK, not exactly those, but many loaded words were used that were definitely intended to be offensive, like 'you're not a woman, your a bird, get out of here birdy'.
I understand your point, but since many weren't worried about the words they used or how the offender would take them, it seemed wrong that they excluded that one word that described her behavior exactly.
I just saw it as the norm, where 'people of color' can't possibly be 'racist', so we call them something else. That bothers me. Just look at the comment above...I find the sentiment not only stupid and short sighted, but absolutely wrong. Simply because a majority of racism went in one direction does not mean it's a one way street.
If you discriminate against a person based on their race, you are racist. Period. If you think your race somehow absolves you of that character flaw, you're a racist idiot.
I'll try to ignore the unfounded, unexplained, anti-race mixing racist sentiment directly above, it's not deserving of response IMO, only ridicule.

Name a couple please? How many 'empty words' can you find in your statement here if it's broken-down in a Socratic fashion? Sounds more like an advert for some deodorant or corn chip, ACTually

Dude, you can have spiritual insights and be an atheist. But you're also doing what many other religious people do that gives religion a bad name - presume that spirituality is synonymous with morality. It's not the same thing. Most atheists have a code or morality.

I'm not getting into my personal religious beliefs with you. Quite frankly they are irrelevant.

For the record, you don't have definitive proof an omnipotent being revealed to you the absolute truth. You may believe you do, but you don't. Believe it all you want, strongly believe in it. That doesn't bother me, but you have no definitive proof for certain that God exists, let alone revealed to you the exact truth of his nature, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, it is very arrogant to think you have this knowledge. It's not arrogant of me to say that. You have no slam dunk evidence prove he has revealed this to you, or even if he exists. That's why it's called faith. I feel god has visited me in my lifetime to reveal truth, but I don't dare go around telling people that he most certainly did, and his truth is my beliefs, and therefore I know the truth and anyone who contradicts me is wrong. That's quite frankly repugnant and shows a total disrespect for others and their beliefs that haven't a thing to do with you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You do not have a monopoly on spirituality or spiritual insight. You assume that your spirituality gives you the complete truth, and you jumped the shark to certainty of your beliefs. I don't have a problem with you believing you're correct. That's sorta why you came to that conclusion. It's the part where you're certain, and deny the mere possibility you could be wrong when debating others, and have the audacity to tell other people they have no spiritual insight.
Messenger is an atheist; by definition he knows nothing about the spirit. Further he explicitly denies that there is any such thing. Even if I wasn't certain about what I believe, what I said would still be factual.
Jesus said He is the way, the truth and the life. He had the audacity not just to say He is right, but that He is truth itself. I believe Him and agree. If I had doubts about who Jesus is, I wouldn't follow Him. A Christian makes an audacious decision; that Jesus is the living God.
That's garbage, and the exact point I was making to Messenger when he assumed your religion was controlling your mind. It's this kind of thing that gives some religious people and atheists who refuse to acknowledge there's a possibility of a god a bad name.
Do you believe there is a God?
It doesn't depend on the question. There's a ton of things loaded into the question. What are you defining as god? Who are you defining as Jesus? What does it mean to be the "Son of God"? Etc. etc. etc. There are different ways to answer those questions, and depending on those answers, it radically changes what the meaning is of a yes or no answer. The different ways you answer it can provide useful insights.
Of course it depends on the question. If I ask, was the Universe created, that has a right answer and a wrong answer. If I ask, what is the Universe, that has many answers. Words have meaning, and if we agree upon those meanings, we can come to a point of fact. If we define God as the Creator of the Universe, and Jesus as the historical person, Jesus of Nazereth, then there clearly is a yes or no answer.
Although it is promising that you believe in absolute truth, you are still trying to make it relative. You are saying there is a truth, but you are also implying that no one can know what it is. If someone did know what it is, would they be arrogant for being certain about it? No. You just seem to believe no one can be certain about it. There are two scenerios in which you could know the truth absolutely: 1. You are an omnipotent being. 2. An omnipotent being reveals the truth to you. I fall under scenerio 2.
And to be honest, these are questions often thrown out there that cause more problems than they help solve. First off, it doesn't necessarily matter if Jesus is truly the son of God or not. Believing it still can provide a useful belief framework to help people make themselves better. Choosing to believe in the principle of "matter can not be created nor destroyed" can provide insights into the world even though we know that's not entirely true.
Regardless, you and your religion are not the final arbiters of spiritual truth. Period. It's conceited to think you are.
It absolutely matters whether Jesus is God because what you believe about Jesus determines where you spend eternity. If Jesus is God, He is the final arbiter of spiritual truth, and it is on His authority as God that I speak that truth. You think it's wrong to be certain of truth, yet absolute truth is exclusive truth. It is simply unreasonable for you to place the limitation of your uncertainty about truth upon others. If God came to you and gave you absolute and undeniable revelation, would you be wishy-washy about whether you believe it or not? Can you admit to yourself that God, if He wanted to, could give absolute revelation of the truth to anyone? If you can admit that, and you know that I believe that He has given such revelation, then you shouldn't be surprised that I claim to know what it is with certainty. That is exactly what you would expect from someone who has encountered the living God.
>> ^heropsycho:

You do not have a monopoly on spirituality or spiritual insight. You assume that your spirituality gives you the complete truth, and you jumped the shark to certainty of your beliefs. I don't have a problem with you believing you're correct. That's sorta why you came to that conclusion. It's the part where you're certain, and deny the mere possibility you could be wrong when debating others, and have the audacity to tell other people they have no spiritual insight.

Messenger is an atheist; by definition he knows nothing about the spirit. Further he explicitly denies that there is any such thing. Even if I wasn't certain about what I believe, what I said would still be factual.

Jesus said He is the way, the truth and the life. He had the audacity not just to say He is right, but that He is truth itself. I believe Him and agree. If I had doubts about who Jesus is, I wouldn't follow Him. A Christian makes an audacious decision; that Jesus is the living God.

That's garbage, and the exact point I was making to Messenger when he assumed your religion was controlling your mind. It's this kind of thing that gives some religious people and atheists who refuse to acknowledge there's a possibility of a god a bad name.

Do you believe there is a God?

It doesn't depend on the question. There's a ton of things loaded into the question. What are you defining as god? Who are you defining as Jesus? What does it mean to be the "Son of God"? Etc. etc. etc. There are different ways to answer those questions, and depending on those answers, it radically changes what the meaning is of a yes or no answer. The different ways you answer it can provide useful insights.

Of course it depends on the question. If I ask, was the Universe created, that has a right answer and a wrong answer. If I ask, what is the Universe, that has many answers. Words have meaning, and if we agree upon those meanings, we can come to a point of fact. If we define God as the Creator of the Universe, and Jesus as the historical person, Jesus of Nazereth, then there clearly is a yes or no answer.

Although it is promising that you believe in absolute truth, you are still trying to make it relative. You are saying there is a truth, but you are also implying that no one can know what it is. If someone did know what it is, would they be arrogant for being certain about it? No. You just seem to believe no one can be certain about it. There are two scenerios in which you could know the truth absolutely: 1. You are an omnipotent being. 2. An omnipotent being reveals the truth to you. I fall under scenerio 2.

And to be honest, these are questions often thrown out there that cause more problems than they help solve. First off, it doesn't necessarily matter if Jesus is truly the son of God or not. Believing it still can provide a useful belief framework to help people make themselves better. Choosing to believe in the principle of "matter can not be created nor destroyed" can provide insights into the world even though we know that's not entirely true.

Regardless, you and your religion are not the final arbiters of spiritual truth. Period. It's conceited to think you are.

It absolutely matters whether Jesus is God because what you believe about Jesus determines where you spend eternity. If Jesus is God, He is the final arbiter of spiritual truth, and it is on His authority as God that I speak that truth. You think it's wrong to be certain of truth, yet absolute truth is exclusive truth. It is simply unreasonable for you to place the limitation of your uncertainty about truth upon others. If God came to you and gave you absolute and undeniable revelation, would you be wishy-washy about whether you believe it or not? Can you admit to yourself that God, if He wanted to, could give absolute revelation of the truth to anyone? If you can admit that, and you know that I believe that He has given such revelation, then you shouldn't be surprised that I claim to know what it is with certainty. That is exactly what you would expect from someone who has encountered the living God.

>> ^heropsycho:

When people get so desperate to pack themselves on the back and attribute nothing to anyone else, this is what you get. So many negative words would hold descriptive relevance, I'll settle for: sad

Man, you Americans are missing out on so many fun words.

>> ^Payback:

"Fuck" diminishes and degrades. That version of "torture" is metaphorical and hyperbole. The words have the meaning they do because of the way they're used, and how often for a particular reason, not because of what they describe.
Make love, not war. Fuck, don't fight. Both say the same thing, but because "fuck" is normaly used as a curse, usually in anger, it's percieved that way whenever it's used.

Exactly, but that doesn't really explain why the expletives we use are those words and not others. Why are so many swear words connected with sex, and not as Fry suggests something like torture? Its not as if its unique to English either, its the same deal across multiple languages. Its not just sex tho, shit is a popular one, as is blasphemy ofc, but when I tried to think of swears connected more to violence the only ones I can come up with are rape/d, which is sex again, and Bloody which I think is pretty limited to the UK and even then its prolly not going to bother the censors.


I suppose the question really is why are such trivial things so taboo while we speak quite frankly of the worst humanity has to offer.

You just know she didn't write this. Too many "big" words.

yah, totally, too many, like, words and, you know, concepts. Besides, Americans may not immediately know the references, so it shouldn't be on the internet.

So many long words. Cognitive dissonance?! Slow down, Jack. This is cable news. Two syllables maximum.

>> ^shuac:
There's just one thing. Did he have to use so many cuss words?


What the fuck are you talkin about?

There's just one thing. Did he have to use so many cuss words?

The weirdest part of the whole thing is that vapid look on Palin's face as O'Reilly talks to her. Maybe he was just using too many big words.