Spike

Just because the liquid in the huge tank isn't drinkable yet doesn't mean it isn't beer. Destroying ingredients and destroying something that has been created by human hands are two very different things. Humans don't just pop up out of the ground and neither does mash, it takes human interaction to create. Sperm, eggs, hops and water exist without human interaction. Sex and fertilisation creates a human, as does adding water, hops and yeast into a vat creates beer.

An unconscious person doesn't have consciousness, do you kill them? If a person is in a comatose state do you kill them? What if you know they'll wake up in nine months? You are arguing the philosophical state of being, I'm arguing the biological state of being. It is literally a scientific fact that a human begins at contraception, whether conscious or not."The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote."[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

It was also an Asian dude. Interesting, but of course it does go both ways and honest reporting what have us know that both sets of people have their morons. Of course that isn't compelling to sell. http://www.dailywire.com/news/12708/protester-shot-outside-milo-event-shooter-thought-james-barrett Anyway, where are the actual Fascists they are protesting?

Incorrect. It takes two to tango and a puzzle is incomplete without the other half. A sperm is nothing and an egg is nothing but when the two are combined they create a human life, a sperm life is not a human life, an egg life is not a human life, when the two have been conceived it is a human life. You wouldn't say I wasted beer if I poured some water on the ground and burnt some hops, would you? No they are just two pieces that create something. It is not scientifically meaningless and Princeton has provided a useful list: https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html "Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception)."Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being."[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

Easy, it has to make me laugh. It isn't their body, it's the child's body; all people that are pro-abortion weren't aborted themselves... It is pretty easy to define life, from the moment it is fertilised it is alive. Yeah, I can see where you are coming concerning safe abortion, but 'people do it regardless' isn't a good moral justification for abortion.

Arabs didn't strictly exist then (well as we see them today). The proto-Arabians were a nomadic people living in the Arabian peninsula, they probably had a little interaction with the Romans and Israelites but I'd wager that it'd be minimal and reduced to trading. If you observe this image of pre-Islam Arabia you'll notice that the closest Arabian nomads were the Ghassans, I doubt that Jesus would have any relation to them but it is a possibility. I've read that they would've spoken a Nabatean dialect which is related to Aramaic, which is of course one of the languages Jesus would've spoken. No doubt there is some relation between the two peoples but not close enough to make a statement that Jesus was an Arab. They probably looked very similar in appearance but the differentiating factor would be the language, people are divided more by language than anything else. Yeah they are both Semitic peoples but as are many groups in the Levant, if you were to make a case for Jesus being Arabic you'd also have to make the same case for any other linguistic or ethnic group. Well he was a Jew as well and I don't believe the only reason they'd forsake him is because of his race. He was a heretical reformer that claimed to be the son of their god.

Film and living witnesses lie. Why should I believe anyone just because they say it to be true, I give it more credence than a lot of other sources but it isn't infallible. It's as if you didn't even bother to read the material I provided. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35120965 Here is the link again, I gave you the courtesy of reading what you give me, please do the same for me. Even in the bible, Judas tells the Roman soldiers which person is Jesus out of him and the other eleven disciples. If you believe that they were all black, you can if you like but between forensic evidence, historical data, the bible and common sense, it is completely safe to deduce that Jesus was Semitic. Not Italian, not Korean, not Chinese, not Black, not Ethiopian, Semitic. http://biblehub.com/parallelgospels/Judas_Betrays_Jesus_Soldiers_Arrest_Him_and_the_Disciples_Desert_Him_Friday_after_Midnight.htm If you can give your belief to random people that state facts, you can do the same for scientists and the bible. If the Romans and many thousands of different people, tribes, ethnicity and cultures can accept Jesus as a Jew (the most hated religion of all time perhaps?) than they can accept him as a Black Jew, if it were the case.

You ignore what is inconvenient. I provide a BBC link that uses historical knowledge, genetics and science but that isn't good enough. You provide a BBC link about racial tensions in Chicago and it's good enough. Would you dispute that ethnicity of William the Conquerer? He could have been Moorish, we just don't know, we only have five generations of his heritage as well as the knowledge he was from Normandy. That sort of ridiculous statement can be made about near any historical figure. Maybe Muhammed was black despite being from Arabia.

I said the link you provided wasn't BBC/

That wasn't BBC.

Of course it makes sense, the religion states that Betheleham was Jesus' birthplace, that requires faith. If you extrapolate the faith and used what we know about Israel then it comes to a an easy conclusion that Jesus was Semitic. You cannot seem to understand that based of historical evidence, the genetics of people living in the Levant, the political era and that Jews were semitic that Jesus was semitic, and if he was black he was Ethiopian which is incredibly unlikely. Of course you bring it back to racism, that is all everyone does, you don't like an opinion so it is racist. Forget empirical evidence It's really amazing that women think they have the right to interfere in another's life.

That is only your opinion. If women had total control over human life, than your mother can abort you right now if she wished. The rights of being human don't suddenly and magically appear at a certain age, they either exist or they don't. The murder of humans isn't the domain of women, it's the domain of all of us. I have a vested interest in the future of humanity and I will not relinquish my own humanity just because some people think that only women have rights to children. It takes two to tango in the human race and equality will never exist (as well as your social classless society) if one has monopoly over the value of human life. If a woman can decide to terminate a life than she is better than a man as she has her own set of morals that are above our own, if she is better than us she exists in her own social class. Human life begins at the moment of fertilization. It is a child, it is a life that will grow. To suggest that a woman can destroy a life on the basis that it is inside of her (it isn't her body, it is another's body) is to suggest that all human life is meaningless. All life is equal, and to add what I said earlier of men being inequal that is in terms of ability.

Jesus appearance is religion. To dispute the religion is to dispute the faith that Jesus was born in Bethlehem. To dispute his ethnicity is to dispute history, if Jesus was real and born in Bethlehem, he would be Semitic in appearance because that is what the Jews are, that is what the Jews that lived there were. It is completely a grasp at straws to state that Jesus was black, nothing more than a pipedream that wishes to use religion as a means of racial harmony. Facts don't care about your feelings. That is a blog, it has no credence. I've no doubt that happened, I'm not disputing that but reading that blog and comparing it to your statement ' FBI really stepped up their extra-judicial killings of the Black Panthers was when they linked up with redneck traditional racists ' would make your statement more than a lie. Chicago is as redneck as Southampton and I read nothing suggesting that the whites were racist rednecks. The Confederate Flag means more to a lot of people than simply a 'flag for slavery' and not even mentioning the fact that Chicago isn't in the south so nobody would sincerely care about the Confederacy in Chicago. That reads like it was nothing more than a gesture of solidarity. Humans are hierarchical in nature. There will always be those that are subservient and those that delegate. No men are equal, I'm not even equal to the man I was yesterday.

It really isn't. You're a man, what makes you so sure that is the answer? Equal rights = Equal say in abortion.

Hearsay? The entirety of religion is based upon faith and if you have no faith in religion than it is nothing. You cannot just waive away 'the child was born in Bethleham' because it is inconvenient to your own narrative. Do you really honestly believe that a sub-Saharan family immigrated north, converted to Judaism (something that didn't happen until modern day) and gave birth to a child in Roman Israel? He could have been Ethiopian but unlikely given that his name is Yiddish for the Hebrew name Yeshua as oppsoed to Qwara or whatever Ethiopians spoke. Do you actually have any source to that? First I've heard of it. United working class? That is such a British thing to say, only the British have some sort of bizarre pride in being working class. No one in America takes pride in being working class, the crux of the American dream is upwards mobility, the working class don't fight for being 'united' they fight for the equality of upwards mobility to escape their income class.

You got me wrong. I'm not saying that all women that are raped should get an abortion if they are impregnated, I'm just stating that I understand why they would want too especially if the woman has severe mental health issues. Do you want a child to come into this world knowing they'd suffer at the hands of a mentally unstable woman? What if the abuse from the mother causes great harm to the child? What if the child itself falls victim to the supposed 'cycle of molestation'? You're extrapolating a hypothetical to your Pastor, I'm happy, I'm relieved that your pastor has had an incredible life that started out as woe but he isn't the rule. I think it is the ultimate cruelty to bring a life into this world knowing that their life will be abused by the people around them. You only see the possible positive and pureness of human life, but not everyone gets to experience that. Not every child is adopted... What if a woman is 45 years old and is pregnant with a child that has Down's Syndrome. What if she and her husband are the only family they have? What happens to the child in twenty years when they pass away? What happens to the child when they are old and cannot care for him? What happens? I never said it wasn't murder but I'm not opposed to murder being an alternative to a life of suffering. Not everything is black and white and being a Christian man you'd have to understand that being accepted into God's grace through early death is insurmountably better than a life of suffering brought on by knowing human hands. Each life is deserves life but when that life isn't guaranteed than you are showing no mercy and only cruelty if you allow a lifetime of horribleness to happen.

He was from the Levant, he was a Semitic person and they are Caucasoid. No, he wasn't black and Trump isn't banning black people. That isn't black: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35120965 Yes, it really is moving in that direction. I never said I wasn't welcomed, never once. I said my ethnicity has been used in debates against me to nullify my opinions. People have assumed I'm racist because I'm Australian. I've found those people as well, I've never disputed their existence but I'm not making the debate for rednecks, am I? I just stated that there are liberal bigots and racists but you waived it off when you mentioned your own experiences. The liberals do the exact same thing, all election long they painted anywhere that voted red as a bunch of 'racists and bigots' when it simply isn't true, same as your redneck types. But in saying that just because they are redneck doesn't mean they are conservative or right. The left isn't an exclusive zone of racism, and the fact that you assume that someone is conservative because they are a bigot or racist is highly flagging about your own bias. Reading your post it almost implies that conservative are only white. What I'm more concerned about is the reasoning why people assume these thing about rednecks, blacks and hispanics. Let's have a look at rednecks first, why do people assume they are conservative? Is it because the leftists parties are more focused on the cities? Or is it because the republicans lie to them about returning their manufacturing jobs? Or is because Democrats want to take away their guns and their way of life? Why do conservatives have a stigma for being racist? Is it because they pander to middle-America where historically more racist areas are found? Or is it because racists flock to the republican party because of the Democrats obsession with the black and Hispanic votes alienating many poor white people? Why do blacks have a reputation for being muggers? Is it because most muggers in America are black? Is it because blacks have the highest amount of crime in America? Is it because people are racist? Why are hispanics seen as rapists? Is it because the coyotes that smuggle people in from Mexico rape nearly every single woman that immigrates? Is it because the poor Mexican woman that just wants a better life in Mexico knows she will be raped by a coyote so she takes Plan B and other contraceptives before hoping the border? Instead of being upset there are racists that view blacks as mugger and hispanics are rapists, I'd rather focus on the patterns as to why people assume these things about them. I'd rather help the black person that lives in poverty so chooses a life of crime over lecturing a redneck why he shouldn't be racist. I'd rather tighten border security so a lot less women are raped on the way over to America than to lecture people why Hispanics aren't rapists. These things happen and they are problems, the patterns appear and the 'stereotypes' don't appear out of middair. I'd also like the Democrats and the Republicans to stop lying to America and forcing identity politics (the reason you assume a redneck is conservative) down our throats, but that isn't going to happen... Your'e observing the same patterns about rednecks being racist conservatives as they about blacks and hispanics; i.e. it happens in patterns and we associate. All I care about is the truth and I'll fight for the truth even if it is disgusting. You think I like sticking up for Trump? I don't, I dislike the fellow but between everyone on this forum, I feel like I'm the only one that wants to look at him objectively without rushing to absurd accusations and claims.

I've yet to met a hard 'lefty' that can convince me on several subjects Abortion is immoral outside of very select circumstances. Rape, molestation and severe genetic defects are the only time I'll accept abortion. Haha, I know it's eugenics; but I can at least see the justification for abortion when they are issues like that. Suing someone on the basis of 'rejecting to bake a cake due to homosexuality' is hypocritical and is a two way street of discrimination; sexual and religious. The free market can handle situations like this, and no-one is entitled to another's labour. Higher taxes and other thieving taxation laws. Why is the government entitled to more of my money when they waste so much of it on unnecessary programs? Hey, hey, hey let's give a $200,000 grant to find out why Wikipedia is sexist! WHY CAN THE GOVERNMENT TAX ME YEARLY ON THE 'VALUE' OF MY CAR WHEN I'VE ALREADY PAYED SALES TAX? More government and more bureaucracy. It's ridiculous how inefficient it is in America but people want more layers to the cake. Did you know that the health-department still knocks scores off restaurants if they have dents in their canned goods? Did you know that canned goods are no longer made of tin so the metal doesn't flake when dented ergo making that regulation completely redundant? It just so they can extract more money from entrepreneurs that create jobs. Open borders. No borders, no country. Mexico kicks illegals to the curb without remorse, so why cannot America do the same?

Trump didn't ban Israelis. It's not a sweeping statement when it a fact that opinions can be categorised onto a graph. Democrats aren't left, they are just left of the Republicans. It isn't what is 'considered' at all, traditional left v right only takes into account economics, completely ignoring social issues. No, communism and socialism are becoming the new norm of what is left. The youth of America is embracing ideologies they don't understand. More than once I've had my opinion disregarded by a lefty because I'm foreign, that isn't moderate, it's hypocritical. They embrace immigration and diversity but reject and chastise (white men like me) with different ideas but at the same time they wouldn't dare do the same to a Muslim or a immigrant that wasn't white. I've even been told by lefties that only white people can be racist. This isn't moderate for me, it's complete insanity. Actual classical liberalism is closer to American conservatism than you realise. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservatism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism There is nothing wrong with 'old fat women that love children' and I didn't say anything of the sort. In fact I actually complimented their civil nature in protest, especially when compared to a bunch of children that loot and destroy businesses because they are upset with the president.

If we go by what right-wing actually is and not by the media caricature then near everyone is right. USA, England, Australia. I always found die-hard liberals far more condescending and self-righteous than conservatives. I've never been lectured by a conservative but the liberal always wants to scream why they are right whilst ignoring my personal reasons. They are always the type to say things like 'Oh you oppose abortion? I guess you hate women and their rights.' I live in the most red state in America and I'm still lectured like a child, where do these nutty liberals come from? I also have to say that the stupid Sunday morning abortion protests outside of clinics (a bunch ofold fat women that love children) are pretty tame in comparison to the vitriol of seen from the left. . https://www.politicalcompass.org/ https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/02/why-theres-no-conservative-jon-stewart/385480/ I don't think I'm particularly conservative. Everyone on here is incredibly left which makes me look conservative by comparison. I love The Onion, because it goes both ways and never leaves a target untouched. For me, that is the only satirical news that is even worth consuming. I'm trying to find the damn source, but I did read once that John Stewart has always desperately wanted to be a journalist over a comedian and has been trying to wiggle his way into the media. I think that is where my bias comes from. Day after day, I'm reading the same lefty diatribe, the same lefty comedians attacking the same low-hanging fruit, it is old and most of the time I feel none of them have the self-awareness to lampoon the ridiculous facets of their own ideology. No it isn't because the media is failing (which it is). The reason those shows are so popular is because they are easy to consume, fast-pace jokes for the stoned college students to watch. There is little to no nuance to these programs and that is why I detest them. It is the lowest common denominator, just like Family Guy and The Simpsons. If I want political satire I'll watch Dr Strangelove, Four Lions or The Life of Brian, not comedy faux-news.

I didn't say that. I said political journalism. I'll give you Colbert as a satirist, not the others. They just play themselves and skew everything from their perspective, it gets kinda old when they are so biased.

I'd avoid taxes if I had the financial know how. Taxation is theft.

He is actually quite pro-life.

I didn't say that you said that Costa has amazing vision. You based the entirety of your claims on the fact the having assists is equitable to having 'vision' (a arbitrary attribute without any real basis of definition). If I were to suppose that 'vision', 'assists' and 'playmaking' are all synonymous, the evidence I posted from the video is enough to suggest that Costa does indeed have little to no 'vision'. His passes were simple and more often than not either; luck or entirely determinate on the skill of the goal-scorer.

Vision /= amount of assists. Any dunce can make a layback pass inside the box. Your 'facts' are incredibly weak without context. To put this into perspective, Iniesta has an equal amount of assists as Diego Costa. Would you rank their passing vision as equal? We won't even scratch the debate of how asinine assists are recorded in the world of football. If we actually examine the empirical evidence, it will show that Costa's assists are nothing particularly impressive. 1. Header at goal which led to a John Terry tap in. 2. Layback pass to Oscar. 3. Botched volley that led to Gary Cahill's volley. 4. Clumsy ball retention that led to Eden Hazard picking up the ball for a solo effort. 1. Lateral across the box pass to Willian which led to a blooter. 2. Sideways pass twenty yards from the box which led to a blooter. 3. Sideway pass thirty yards from the box which led to an Eden Hazard blooter. 4, Low cross across the goal to Victor Moses. 5. Breakaway pass to Wililan which led to a blooter. So from these two season you can see the evidence that Costa's vision is nothing extraordinary. The breakaway pass to Willian and the low cross to Moses are easily the stand-outs amongst a lot of individual skill from other players.