Rape is already illegal. We should implement the death penalty for rape, then we'd also eliminate those people who were infected other people with HIV by raping them. As for the hospital staff, if we just make the decision to just leave the faggots and junkies to rot, then there'd be less risk for hospital staff to catch HIV.

Additionally, the infection rate would drop drastically if people would just stop fornicating.

It would have been strange if you did, seeing that Wikipedia did not yet exist at the time.

Maybe if you have been less lazy, you would have taken some time to read the Usage section in those two pages and would have noticed that while in the US English version it says, "should be avoided by careful users of English", in the British English version it says, "is regarded as incorrect in standard English".

I think it has gotten to the point that the majority of passengers on many flights into/out of Asia are Chinese. The Chinese do fly a lot.

Look carefully at the URL you just posted. It's clearly in the "american_english" dictionary.

Organic gas? Is that another American-coined term that makes absolutely no sense? What do you mean by 'organic gas'? You do realise that petroleum, as well as all petroleum derived hydrocarbons, like gasoline, is organic?

I would definitely choose the guillotine.

Wow, there's such a thing as "US units"?

You keep insulting me in every post, which is a sign that you don't have valid arguments to support your views.

You know that "this site is for science and tech news", so then why did you make a diatribe against a political leader whose view you happen to not agree with? Is it scientific to insult and call people names?

In conclusion, I win.

You're the one who's confused. Let me remind you of the context under which we are discussing. You were talking about Vladimir Putin - whom you pejoratively referred to as Vladolf Putler - whereby you inferred that he "hate people just for being born gay". In the context of Putin, he has never said anything to imply that he hated people who are attracted to people of the same sex. What he did was enacted legislation against homosexual practices and propaganda. I re-emphasise - practices and propaganda, NOT attraction. So in this context, gay means people who commit homosexual behaviour, not those who're only attracted to people of the same sex, because there's no way you can legislate against attraction, is there?

What's the point of being gay if one doesn't engage in homosexual acts? To put it another way, what's the difference between a non-gay person and a gay person who doesn't exhibit homosexual behaviour? There's no difference. When we talk about gay people, we need only consider those people who actually exhibit homosexual behaviour. A non-practising gay person is irrelevant to the discussion.

If someone is born with the genetic predisposition to violence, would you call him a violent person the minute he's born? Of course not - you'd call him a violent person only if he exhibits violent behaviour once he grows up. The same with homosexuality. A person is born as an asexual. He cannot be called a homosexual until he hits puberty and exhibits homosexual behaviour.

Nobody's born gay. Or are you saying that some boys were born with their penises up another boy's anus?

You go from "no attempt to hide" to "actively seeks out...contribute to or take part in" to "advertising". That's a really broad spectrum. Can't you be more specific?

OT, but I'm curious. Which part of suicide bombing do you oppose? Is it the suicide part of the bombing part? Is bombing without suicide okay? What about suicide without the bombing?