Quote:
Originally Posted by Vettezuki
If they were born biologically incapable, they wouldn't improve. Teachers and educational systems matter a lot.
|
Some men are born 4'11" at 92lbs while others are born 7' at 320lbs. Some men are born dark skinned, some olive. Some women have a 34DD cup size while others have the chest of an 11 year old boy. But they were ALL born with similarly capable brains. Because the brain isn't a physical thing, subject to the same biological chance that the rest of our body is subject to... Science first, unless it's not PC, right?
Big G, you missed my point entirely. I have no doubt that there are stupid democrats. But Bill Clinton asking the court to define "is" was not stupid. It was a matter of context. They were putting his private sex life on trial and he was giving them semantic hell, I would have done the same, but I would have been more hardcore than he was.
In the deposition, the president was asked if he was involved with Lewinski in the present tense (using the word is) and clearly he was not at the point. So a truthful answer would have been, no. I would have simply stated no, if the person questioning was too stupid to phrase the question correctly. He actually tried to clarify, saying something to the extent of: if is, means is not and never has been (now including the past tense) then that's one thing (not providing an anwer, is he?) versus if is, means is not (currently) then the answer is no (which was a true statement).
I'll give an example to clarify. If you ask me if I'm having sex with my girlfriend (who is amazing and gorgeous btw
) while we're in your living room drinking a beer, I could answer "no." Which would be a completely true statement, because at that time, in your living room... I'm obviously not sexing her! Now if I had sex with her the night prior, and was in a sexual relationship with her, that would not necessarily change my answer. The question was phrased in the present tense, not a general tense. As your friend, I would likely respond to the true meaning of your question, but would I provide such a gracious answer to a man who has me on trial that is trying to humilaite me publically? Hells no. Fuck him. I'll answer no, let him get his own shit together. I'll make him to define my name if he's not careful with the English language.
By the way, I belive Bill was responding to the question in a more general, less time specific manner than my example. Meaning that he was no longer in sexually active relationship with Lewinski. Whether he was in a sexual relationship with her prior, was not specified.
And before you get all excited and quote the actual lie(s) that he made (or as he would most likely argue, being a lawyer, his seemingly contradictory testimony due to his disagreement with what a reasonable definition of sexual relation is
)... I know that he lied. I'm not going to defend him where I should not. I would never cheat on my GF, much less my wife.