legendkiller222

But to say he took the job at the NSA to mainly reveal info to other countries is misleading and that is what you seem to be stating. He only took a promotion to be in the position to do something. I am not saying other countries do not have secrets or spy, but why there is outrage among people and countries is due to the extent that it happened and is happening. China is not being given classified information that will be detrimental to us as a country, if they received anything of merit at all. Snowden, as of now is stuck in Russia, and never intended to seek asylum in countries Russia or China in the first place. Also, people have tried to seek asylum in our country and now the shoe is on the other foot people act as though he is a national threat. I can understand you not wanting to say what he did is heroism, but what he did was the right thing. What Snowden is doing is not harmful to anyone except the people in power. Dismissing his attempt at bringing these programs to light because of potential fear that countries can use some information is playing into fear which avoids the true debate that is needed. The debate that is needed isn't if he is good or bad, but if the information given confirms our suspicions. There needs to be evidence out there so we can confirm theories and there can be legitimacy to arguments made against the expansion of anti-terror programs that are just ways to make this country into a police state in a sense.

You are referring to why he took the promotion at the NSA. A job that he had right before he left, but he was working for the NSA/CIA well before that. He didn't reveal vastly new info, but he added the needed evidence for someone to claim this was going on and to what extent. We cannot make him into a villain because he "threatens" our relationship with other countries. We use drone strikes and many other miltary tactics that are not moral all the time. This one incident is not the cause of anything more than knowledge to the American people. If we are to not say that he is patriotic or a hero then we are to say that people witnessing violations of rights and reporting them are wrong to. He only left the country because he did not want to get murdered and wants to spread this info. America has harbored other countries' whistleblowers. Now that America is the one with someone exposing the truth we are somehow suppose to hate him? We cannot say that since governments keep secrets that it is okay to violate the Bill of Rights or for America to spy on its people so broadly. They set up info storage facilities. This causes an issue because it can hinder an uprising of justice when you have the ability to track all the info. This alone isn't terrifying, but with the NDAA, drone strikes, ever increasing dismantlement of individual rights it is terrifying. Our political climate needs to change because Obama is proof that either Republicans and Democrats end up doing the same thing or even worse that someone who seemed or may still be as genuine as Obama really cannot create change.

He did the right thing. Also, he didn't just work at the NSA to steal secrets. He had been working there since even before Obama was in office, but since Obama expanded the program Snowden decided to expose the program. THe FISA courts allowed the Patriot Act to be used in this matter and that was new to the citizens. This was evidence that the gov. was spying on its on citizens and the world unlawfully. We shouldn't defend a gov that is keeping secrets because they say we will be "safer". If Snowden was hungry for fame he would take interviews from the media, but hasn't. He is only out to inform the public. This was a clear violation of our basic rights. Nixon tapped two rooms and got impeached. What changes with Obama, when he mines data from all over the world?

Well, I think cyberbulling can be an issue and that is something that shouldn't exist. While, I agree with you, people should refrain from laws censoring the internet, but we need to keep people safe as well. There has to be some sort of policy/law to protect people from cyber bulling and it is better to be done sooner before a tragedy happens and stricter laws gain traction.

There is legitimate reasoning to arrest someone who makes these kinds of threats that involve players in the game, but there is even more legitimacy to arresting someone when they make threats about people not even remotely associated to players of the game. When he talks about killing school kids, that has nothing to do with the people playing the game. Those kinds of threats are better to go checked. I don't think the kid should get any jail time, but we need to re-evaluate prosecuting threats over the internet. I am not for censorship of most things on the internet, but we can do without threats and harassment.

The LGBT community has suffered many attacks that have been much worse, but in no way does that justify LGBT supporters attacking someone who opposes the LGBT community. However, the preachers could have provoked the attack and from the video this attack does not seem "brutal" at all. That does not mean that attack was okay, but it was hardly brutal in any way.

KH3 could be on the WiiU, but the issue is that the WiiU is not as powerful. This just makes the porting more difficult of a process because they have to scale back. However, I think that it is smart to have any big game on all 3 consoles. The WiiU may just lose out because of the way Nintendo handles their policies when it comes to 3rd party publishers.

Gender identification can be tricky if you pinpoint your gender based upon the cultural norms of each gender. There are cases where people feel they are both and it is perfectly fine to be that way, but remember that it can be a phase of exploration or it can be apart of who you are always. This is important to keep in mind because as you explore your sexuality and grow as a person keep in mind that not everything is constant. So, if one day you like guys and the next girls or both or none that is fine, but if you feel that you are continually confused for a long period I suggest seeking somebody, such as a psychologist or therapist that can help you understand who you are.

America and guns is a topic that is highly blown out of proportion. Our violent crime has been the lowest it has been in 60 years according to FBI statistics. The reason why the gun debate occurs is because a tragedy happens and people think banning guns or restricting them will save lives in the future. While this may seem like a valid way to combat gun violence, the truth is prohibition doesn't work because a black market opens up that allows accessibility to banned items. You only have to look at the War on Drugs for the failure of prohibition. Our gun problem is a crime problem that is linked to inequality economically. People have very few reasons to use guns if they are educated well and have the ability to get a good job. Also, America is a country of 350 million people it is much harder to combat issues with a population of that size.

I don't mean that you are personally ignorant I meant as a whole, humankind is and there is no doubt this is true. We know very little about the universe. Also, please give me a detailed explanation that is supported by facts that point to evolution being invalid as a scientific theory. Freedom of religion meant, freedom of religion, but of course you can argue it wasn't meant to include every religion, but then again certain people weren't meant to be free either. However, as time passes rights are expanded. Religious freedom was sought after in America from it's brith, and as the makeup of America changed more and more religions became protected and accepted. The state of America is way different than in the late 1700s and therefore the policies should of course reflect that. The government is suppose to protect all religious rights and not specify a true religion as the country's religion, even if one religion is more followed than others. Religion can be studied as a culture and analysis of people, but not as a belief in creation due to that because there are hundreds of religions. In fact what makes a monotheistic God more valid than any polytheistic religion such as Greek mythology. The real issue is the actual legitimacy of creationism. There is little to no evidence of it being true that is not faith based. The reason why evolution is taught is because it has actual facts that can be proven. If we ignore this requirement we are digressing academically because then any claim becomes valid regardless of how much truth there is to it. The bible claims the Earth is the center of the universe and the world is flat, but both are wrong. We should not look to religion as a science. There is no problem with believing there is a God and that God created us, but it does not belong in the classroom as a theory until it has enough evidence that is factually correct.

That is still closer to 2000 than the actually accurate millions of years. The plain fact is that creationism is based on religion which cannot be taught in schools that are public schools due to the separation of church and state to avoid playing favorites in religion. Remember not all religions believe in the creation of the Earth exactly the same. Also, there is no actual proof that points to creationism being a valid theory. The only thing is our own ignorance to the universe. The theory of evolution is not something that is a shaky theory. It has many instances that point to it being valid.

There is something to why religions shield truth from people's eyes in order to keep alive some of their myths, however you cannot say people are stupid for believing a religion. As long as people believe in something and accept something when what they believe is found to be wrong that is fine. Look, there is no way people who believe in a certain God now are more right than any other religion. And not every scientific fact is truly 100% accurate. What we know will keep changing. Yes, we know certain truths in the bible to be false, but do not attack Christians as a whole because religion is much more than a theory of creation. The theory of creation may be wrong, but the principles of the religion are good. As long as people practice the principles and do not condemn others than I see no issue in any religion. The only issue ever comes from the infrastructure of religion, not the followers.

Religion cannot be taught in public schools due to not setting up a favorite because that goes against the 1st amendment. However, if all are taught then it becomes a religion class to study as means of studying a type of people. The theory of Evolution is very solid and it is nowhere near being disproved. Religion isn't wrong, but the theory of the world's creation according to religion is false. I am not talking about a God creating Earth, but as in the Earth being created 2000 years ago and such. The specifics more than the actual idea.

Whoever is saying Acid otherwise known as LSD is completely bad for you is mislead. However, with that said there are some drawbacks to acid, but it comes with very high doses. If you take one hit, you will experience enough of it to get an idea of what it is like without it being too overwhelming. With that said do not do it without proper research of the drug and yourself. Look at sites and studies that provide information that does not seem biased. LSD is a wonderful drug that can help people, but remember like most things in life it can be bad for you. Make sure that before you try acid that you understand what it will be like and if you are a type of person that can deal with the trip.

Go to community college for two years and save money. You can figure out more clearly what you wanna do and most community colleges have good programs set up to transfer into near by 4 year colleges. Sometimes you even get additional scholarship money as well. Honestly what you wanna do will change a lot and that's fine. Just its better to start somewhere like a community college if money is an issue. Remember there is no real difference between community colleges and 4 year colleges except a possible campus life, which you can still get if your friends go to schools around you.

1. People are gonna judge you regardless of what you say. But your parents will most likely not think negative of you no matter what you say if its truly how you feel. Sometimes they may be stubborn and disagree, but everyone is stubborn. Also, your friends if they are your friends will not judge you negatively they may criticize you, but it will probably be with their best intentions if you say something they don't agree with, but then again nobody has to agree with each other all the time. 2. Hanging out isn't anything special. It's just you doing whatever. The key to being social is to let things slide and do not think as much. If you haven't already you should read the book Perks of Being a Wallflower, it will speak to a lot of how you feel.

GPA in high school is meaningless unless you want to apply to a top tier school. Even if you don't do too well most community colleges have transfer programs into surrounding schools and those programs are based on your GPA in college. Also, there are always satellite campuses that do not require as high GPA has the college or university's main campus does and acts as a direct bridge into the main campus. For example Penn State. My opinion is community college is a good choice unless you get into a "great" school that is giving you a good aid package. Remember it is your money and the degree from any four year school isn't any less valuable if you went to a community college for two years then transfer to that school. This isn't an excuse to goof off in school, but just a reminder that high school GPA isn't an end all be all. Your friends and classmates might think that they are special for getting a great GPA and getting into a "great" school, but only a few schools really put you ahead of others and it isn't even by that much in the long run. You do not need to take two language courses, but I'd advise it since it is required for pursuing most degrees in college, so it just makes things easier. Also, a lot of colleges like to see language courses. Do not get a laptop until you are about to go to college because technology is growing so fast and by the time you go to college your computer will be out of date. Also, new tech will of course be cheaper. Send as many applications as you feel is enough, but really only send it to colleges you want to attend. And I mean really want to attend. Do not send 10 applications for this is just a waste of money and if accepted to all 10 makes the choice even harder. I say pick 2 "safety" schools (Schools that you don't mind going and somewhere you have a high chance of getting in) and also 3 more difficult schools that are really either dream schools or just schools that are better than your "safety" schools. An undergrad is someone pursuing an Associates or Bachelors degree.

I'm not attempting to argue superiority by saying I took a class, but what I mean is that I have a better understanding for debating and how it goes about. Facts are needed to support an initial claim because honestly your opinion (Anybody's opinion) means nothing without it. I could think that Elmo created the world, but that doesn't make it true without facts. My whole point being is that there is no evidence that there are enough guys to call it sexist and jumping to that conclusion is problematic because in reality it is really a high school thing. I would agree with you 100% if you related this to high schoolers only because high school can be very sexist because it is built around immature stereotypes. High schoolers and very few college kids use this term and therefore it is not sexist it is just immaturity of how teens handle a situation. You're most likely right in the context of your environment (high school), but not when it comes to society as a whole.

I have to respond to your claim that racism cannot be done against white people. Racism is the belief that a group of people are superior, so if a bunch of Asian kids act that way to a white kid then that is being racist. Racism in America is more evident against people who are not white because white people are the majority in most areas. But to the real argument... You have to realize that when you make a claim you have to support your main idea. This is the foundation of debate, trust me, I have taken argument and debate in college and know how this works. As the negative, one disproving your claim, I do not need to present evidence denying a claim being made unless there is evidence already there by the one making the claim. Also there is no real evidence so I am arguing your experiences that are stereotyping a population. To the Youtube video, this guy sure formalizes his points well, but his argument is still invalid because he is jumping to the conclusion that enough guys do this to call it sexist. He is using one example as the whole situation. "Friendzone" isn't sexist, but as people on here have pointed out people can act sexist from their reaction to being rejected. Really it is just acting frustrated at the situation. It is completely fine to act like a jerk when you are rejected at first. We are humans and are allowed to be upset and angry. It isn't right to continue this behavior for a while, but it is normal to have some negative feelings at first. Also, there is the other side to this that men "firendzone" and girls get mad about it and talk s**t on them. This argument could be better taken as an argument that we should not use "friendzone" in a negative way to describe someone who rejects someone else. However, this is still on an individual level because the way you use it is different every time. I can say "I need to ask so and so out soon before I get into the 'friendzone'." Indicating that there is an amount of time before a girl sees me only as a friend. This is not sexist it is a logical assumption that after awhile of showing no or little interest to take things to a more than friends level that I am seen as only viewing her as a friend. Basically it is context and since there is only a slim number of people compared to the entire population that goes through this that it is not enough to lobby to get rid of "friendzone" as a word. This is more of an immature high school thing as well. As people get less and less angry at the person for "friendzoning" them as they get older because they understand it. It isn't sexist as much as it is immaturity which is seen a lot among high schoolers who are growing, developing and learning about the world. I think it is great you are questioning things as a teenager. That is something everyone should do. My advice to you however is to argue more clearly and less emotionally because when arguing it doesn't matter what your opinion is if the evidence is not there to support the initial claim. Also, there is always another side that may even be more valid than yours and to find a compromise.

Alright I have been as polite as possible, but you are being so immature and just an angsty teen, who really has yet to even understand how the world works (That is for being so impolite when I am only trying to let you understand that there are a few things that can be disagreed with and that you cannot generalize a segment of the population without actual facts). There are so many fallacies that you are putting up as supposed truths. First, racism can be experienced by all races, but it is most commonly experienced by the minority race in a population (that can be a white kid in a black school as well). Second the n word is completely different than "friendzone" because the n word means something negative about a group of people, but both men and women "friendzone". It could very well possibly be commonly used to define what a woman did, but it happens more with women because men pursue women more than women pursue men (This is evident in nature. The male pursues the female more often). If I say oh I'm in the friend zone with a girl its about me and is not insulting me where as if I were to say I am a n word or my friend is a n word or that guy is a n word that is something negative because of the connotation it has around it. "Friendzone" does not mean anything bad it just means that you are friends with someone you sought to be more than friends with.Third you have no real facts that the term is sexist. This is the same as I to say that all girls that are teenagers are overly emotional because my experiences and the experiences of a few others around me back that up while at the same time ignoring the fact that this is all personal experience. Fourth and most importantly you do not have any evidence of anything. When have you post data from studies or trials that have successfully and repeatedly linked friendzoning to sexism against women that is when you can really argue this. This isn't a truth that is widely known or accepted it is a claim that you are making, which is vastly different than the n word being a racist term. Yes guys can be dicks to girls who "friendzone" them and blame them, but girls can be the same way. You ignored any actual argument I made and chose to pick out a sentence and argue you which is not giving what I even said context. Also it can be argued that when a woman is pregnant it is both the man and the woman's baby because of the fact if the baby is delivered then the man is expected to support it, also the fact that a man is needed to have a kid. By the way there is also a question of a destroying a life before it has a chance (this is different than the day after pill/ birth control because someone is actually in the process of producing a child). That is not to say a woman doesn't have a right to an abortion, but if the man is around then she should discuss it with him because it is also his kid. You can be angry that some guys are jerks, but some girls are bitches. You can be mad at inequality among men and women in various areas of life, but you have to understand what eliminating certain terms do. But if you curtail even the most harmless word like "friendzone" then you are setting precedent to eliminate a vast majority of the English language from being used in the public forum. You are also eliminating free speech because even hateful words, actual ones like the n word are still allowed because we have free speech unless it threatens someone or a group directly. "Friendzone" is something that both sexes do and both say. Girls could (no evidence to prove it) even use it less, but they still define it the situation the same way as someone using "friendzone". Before you counter my argument remember as the person making the claim you have to support your argument with actual evidence and fact. Not just emotional banter that generalizes this because of experiences of a select few.

It depends on where you go to school and what your major is. The best general advice I can give is: 1. Go to a school that you want to go to. Do not go somewhere because your family says so or because your friends go there as this most likely will not make you happy. 2. You don't have to pick a major right away. You have two years to decide. And you will not pick a major and stick with it. There will be a lot of indecision. 3. Realize how much work goes into that major and ultimately that career field. Be ready with realistic expectations of what the job market will be like. 4. Go somewhere that is affordable. This means that basically avoid schools that are too much money and will force you to use private loans because they can be VERY VERY expensive. And you do not want to have a 25% interest rate on loans it will keep you in debt forever. 5. Meet new people. Do not stick to just your friends that you know before college or meet in your freshman year. Take in new experiences. 6. Try to live on campus for it gives you the best experience of that college. 7. Study. Don't put things off. This isn't like high school where classes really don't mean much (well sometimes its like that). 8. Research teachers on ratemyprofessor.com and take the good teachers if possible. 9. Take classes that expand your horizons. Challenge yourself. Remember getting a C in a class doesn't mean you didn't learn anything. Getting an A doesn't mean you learned a lot either. 10. Enjoy yourself now and take things as they come. Love high school now because you only do it once. Then when you get to college love that. Do not look too much into the future because you cannot plan ahead that far. Life is unpredictable and you never know what tomorrow will bring. I started out in community college and did my two years. In the fall I will be at Temple University double majoring in Film and Advertising because I know I will need a good career field if film doesn't work out. I do not regret going to a community college and do not look down upon it. It is a great place if you work hard and get out in two years or less. If you have friends that go to other schools you can as I did still get a "real" college experience. I cannot give studying advice besides just study and don't push things off because your experience with classes and your learning style may be different than mine, but if you stay on top of things college won't be any harder than high school. Sometimes its easier because you are taking stuff that interests you/you are more mature.

That is not true that friendzone is a sexist term. Because both people can do it. A guy can friendzone a girl. The point being is that humans have human emotions and part of being human can be acting irrational or getting mad that someone rejected you. However, the term friendzone is perfectly fine because it does not refer to a woman or a man. I don't view it as the girl's fault if the guy handles it bad and the girl told him nicely. But its understandable to be angry at first. People feel hurt when the person they like does not feel the same way. Plus girls feel the same way, unless now girls have evolved past emotions that every human has had since the beginning of time. Being angry at someone for not liking you is acceptable for a limited amount of time, but it is a healthy human emotion. It isn't selfish to feel bad. It's called being human. I feel like not in this day and age when the word "friendzone" cannot be used we are living in this sheltered environment that neglects the fact that we as humans act irrational and have emotions. It may not be right to have hate towards a person who doesn't like you, but everybody does it. It doesn't last forever (or shouldn't). If the situation directly involves you, it is not being self-centered to think about it in terms of yourself. People do this with everything. Your parents say no to something and you take it personally. Your teacher calls you out because you are talking in class. Your boss yells at you at work. It's perfectly normal and healthy for a human to look inward in a situation like this. Also you bring up issues that have to do women that have nothing to do with this argument. Women being expected to carry a child is not the reason friendzoning is sexist or not sexist, the same goes with rape. Those are separate issues that you are tying into sexism, and are only valid discussing sexism, but not if friendzoning is sexist. And again this is all experience based. The original post had no research done it was just her experience which may not be the norm. However, nice guys that become jerks aren't really jerks sometimes they get pushed to be a jerk. People have emotions and they have limits to how nice they will be and how much they are willing to put up with stuff that upsets them.

I never said there is anything wrong with a girl who chooses not to like someone, I'm just stating the truth. If a girl doesn't like a guy or a guy doesn't like a girl or guy doesn't like another guy or girl doesn't like another girl it means that they think that person isn't good enough for them. There is no way to argue that. It's put in nicer terms, but its the truth. If you like someone it means you want them and if they don't want you it is because they don't view you as good enough for them or "right" for them which is saying you don't have qualities they want, it still means you aren't good enough for them in their eyes. That can be hurtful for anyone. I can see why a guy would act hateful. It's natural to be upset and angry after being rejected by anyone for anything. When someone is revealing feelings for you it depends on how you react and that sets the whole thing in motion. Sometimes a girl can handle it well and still the guy gets mad, but its fine to and they have a right to because they are being told that they do not have what that person wants which is in other words being told they aren't good enough for them. This is all on an individual level and needs to stop being distorted into a whole attack on women because it truly isn't. There are people who just handle being rejected not so well and that is fine and there are people that handle telling the person who likes them that they don't harbor the same feelings not so well.

This is always a generalization that guys who are rejected hate girls who friendzone them. Girls say "oh they hate women", no they probably just hate YOU because you handled it terribly. A girl can friendzone a guy and it can go well or terribly depending on how the girl tells the guy or what she lets happen before she tells him how she feels. If a girl leads the guy on and he is then rejected he will feel hurt. Sometimes the guy takes it the wrong way, but its hard to not feel like hating that person at the moment you hear that you basically aren't good enough for them. Usually nice guys get the short end of the stick because they aren't as aggressive as douches are and end up just being the shoulder to cry on when things go bad. Girls are the same exact way when being rejected by guys. They talk sh*t on guys that reject them just like guys do the same about the girls that reject them.

I have posted many pics before in a post comparing all the norts and the colors do look similar if not the same...remember AX's eyes are not fully the same color as MX. This means that the eye color can really act as a scale to show how much MX has an influence on that person. I believe that ATW has been somewhat corrupted and fought it off, but is now under MX's control. It just seems to weird to me that he has the same color eyes or so close to it. Also he was so close to AX maybe he performed experiments on himself that led to him being corrupted by AX which is of course controlled by MX. Nobody else has this similarity except ATW and from what we know about MX's eye color is it plays a role in showing us his influence on others. So, it seems logical and likely for him to be apart of the new org. since he was so close to the experiments that caused the creation of Ansem SoD and Xemnas. Plus AX uses the name Ansem...the reason for that is probably due to the fact that he wanted ATW on his side and if ATW didn't submit at first he would if he let the darkness overcome him in response to Ansem SoD taking his persona.