At 10/10/08 12:34 PM, Diederick wrote:

At 10/10/08 11:45 AM, Frattochino wrote:
You're not born straight, so people identify their sexuality with experiences and visuals. So yes, exposing a child to homosexuality DOES make them gay.

What do you mean with "you're not born straight..."? You think sexuality is something which is determined after birth, post-natal? You are a funny one.

It probably is, at least to some degree, especially since sexual preference can change during life. It may be that the possibility of becoming bi/homo is set before birth, and even the likelyhood, but there are evidence suggesting that post-birth experiences may affect one's sexual preference. That doesn't make it a choice, though.

I think of it a little as skin color. You can be born white, black, brown, red, yellow, whatever, but if you're born white among elephants in the middle of africa and live there as a hunter your whole life, you won't look the same as a white person born here in Sweden, living a protected life. Your skin may have the same base color, but it will surely be differently tanned, differently scarred (sp?) and so on. It's surely not a choice if you're gonna be tanned and what scars you're gonna wear, but it's not entirely decided before birth either.

At 10/10/08 11:45 AM, Frattochino wrote: Obsession, depression, and alot more. A monogomous relationship is alot more safe for a good life.

Wooohooow wait a second! Apart from you being a total retard in this whole post, this is something I must comment, because it's wrong, plain and simple. Sex makes you feel good and REDUCES depressions by releasing endorphins. I have a diagnosed bipolarity and my doctor has actually told me to try to have an active sexuality.

You can get depressions from failed relationships though, but they aren't really LESS likely to fail because of sexual abstinence.

Also, what makes something right or wrong? You talk a lot about homosexuality, wanking, and polygamy being "wrong". In what way are they wrong? As in how "1+1=3" is wrong, or in "I killed somebody yesterday" is wrong?

At 9/30/08 03:14 PM, cHunter wrote:

At 9/30/08 11:26 AM, Sajberhippien wrote:

I don't see how that makes him a murderer. It makes the kid a moron.

I know at least here, being afraid of someone isn't reason enough to shoot'em. Even if it's in your property.
Over here, it WOULD have been considered murder, or, if he was extremely lucky, manslaughter.

That said, I'm happy I live in a country with strict gun laws. Those things just doesn't happen here.

Because guns are the only way to murder people...oh wait.

Because it's very much easier to pull a trigger than to stab someone. I mean, looking at the facts, we DO have less murders here. So does norway, which have similiar weapon laws. Finland, which is very close and has about the same demographics, have a much higher rate of murder, and has had two school shootings (while we've had zero). You know what? Finland has less gun control.
No, guns aren't the only way to kill people, but the more guns are in circulation, the larger the risk someone gets shot. Just in the same way that nuclear bombs aren't the only way to kill people, but you want to limit them because the more are around, the larger the risk they will be used.

You know what? Most CRIMINALS over here doesn't even have them. It's not worth the risk. If you are seen with a gun, the cops come and get you no matter who you are (unless you can show a special license, and even then, only in private property is it allowed).

At 10/1/08 03:00 PM, Oblivia wrote: Saddam needed to be ousted like committing crimes against humanity by killing the Kurds and instigating against UN laws, at least from what I hear.

While I could get the other reasons, I just can't figure out how a country which time and again refuses to abide by UN laws could stomach an attack against another country and refer to this... I mean, you refuse to accept the convention against torture and the convention for children's rights, you have said several times that you won't give up US citizens to international courts no matter what the prosecution case and so on.
I mean, you are throwing fucking BOULDERS from your glass house.

At 9/29/08 05:21 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

[Called conservatives in foreign countries that have been raped and brutalized by central planning like Russia] will praise the beginning of a new age of enlightenment or something.

Yeah, and countries like Sweden, who's "raped and brutalized" to the point where we have a higher life expectancy and better healthcare.

Though we are actually using the term liberal, though for us, liberalism is a right-wing thing. Where we mean neo-liberalism or nearly libertarianism when we talk about liberalism, you seem to mean social liberalism, which we for some stupid reason call social democracy.

For once, I fully agree with Cellardoor, and Pox is the imbecill fucktard.

That said, I'm happy I live in a country with strict gun laws. Those things just doesn't happen here.

At 9/25/08 12:54 PM, animehater wrote: Nothing wrong with helping the poor, until you force people to that is. Also, I think you got the regions mixed up. Last time I checked it was the west that was poor and the east struggling for self reliance against the central government.

Oh, sorry about the directions XD

Personally I support the idea of democracy though.

So, from what I've heard, due to the large gap between the poor in the east and the rich population in the west, the government is trying to get social reforms working - basic things like combating starvation, and some sort of basic health care for the poor.
The rich west however, is in open revolt due to this, actually using violence to keep away the government.

Other than that, I've not heard much more, but it seems interesting. Does anyone know where to find more information? I've tried googleing, but I'm not very good googleing news in English, and in Swedish there is just so much to learn.
Does anyone have an opinion?

At 9/22/08 07:01 PM, hrb5711 wrote:

I don't think we are anywhere near this. First off we have multiple parties, even right now two parties run the government. Besides the only reason the two party system works so well is because a true majority of people elect the president. Think about if we had three big parties and a president was elected by getting 34% of the vote, the other two canidates took 33% of the vote each. Now 34% of the country would be happy and 66% would be pissed off. You can only have two major parties to have a true majority elect the president.

Here in Sweden, we've got 7 parties in the parliament (four right-wing, one in the middle, and two left-wing, though the largest party is left-wing). Here it is solved through having multiple parties in the government. When the voting is done, it can usually look something like this (this is from the election 2006):
Moderates (they're the most right-wing, ironically): 26%
Christian Democrats: 7%
People's Party: 8%
Center Party (which are also right-wing): 7%
Environmental Party: 5%
Social Democrats: 35%
Left Party: 6%

So then the parties team up (though it's always obvious who will team up; The first four, the last two, and more often than not the Environmental party goes with the last two.
Right now, we have a government of Moderates (which the prime minister is), the People's party (who holds for example the School Minister post), Christian Democrats (who holds the post of the Social Minister, i think) and Center Party (though I don't know what posts they hold). So we have four parties in our government.

Actually, I find that more democratic, since instead of having to choose between two different opinions, there are seven. If you're conservative and christian, go with Christian democrats. If you're conservative and not christian, go with moderates. If you want low taxes and care about the environment, Center party. If you care about the environment and equality between the sexes and less racism, go with the Environmental Party. And so on.

At 9/17/08 11:23 PM, Rockthebestmusic wrote: Who ARE we to try and prevent them from damnation?

Humans? Isn't the whole preachy-thing about saving other people from damnation?

At 9/17/08 04:14 AM, GallitoMix wrote:
But not as democratic as Saddam Hussein and Kim Jom Il from North Korea. They both achieved 100% approval rate, whereas Chavez has been oscillating between 55%-70%.

A difference would be that there are more than one party allowed in Venezuela.

At 9/17/08 12:30 AM, EndGameOmega wrote: Lotsastuff

I fully agree with Omega, on every single point, and would only like to add one thing:

Trying to prosecute the possession of depictions of child pornography as if the person where responsible for its production is as bad as the actual molester will only make things worse. Think

If this would be anything other than child molestation, this would be unthinkable.
Sure, Snuff movies are bad, horrible things and prosecuting possession of them is a good thing.
However, no-one would think of prosecuting possession of Snuff movies as if the possessor had commited the murders!

And it gets even worse when it comes to non-real child pornography; Hentai and such for example. Don't know if that's illegal in the US, but here in Sweden, it's considered child pornography with CP hentai. Prosecuting someone for having hentai equal to someone molesting children is like prosecuting someone for mass murder because they rented an action movie.

At 9/15/08 12:49 PM, FUNKbrs wrote:

At 9/14/08 12:17 AM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: The problem is, that there is no detailed defination or requirement for any form of morality, or even not being tied down to morality a la amoral creatures.

So you're basically saying there is no unspoken pact of moral compliancy in a community?

There may be around some things, e.g. murder, rape, and assault, but there are often things in between. For example, looting containers the way freegans do (google it if you don't know about it) is illegal in some countries, and many right-wing people thing it's stealing to take things other people have thrown away. On the other hand, neither I nor my friends think it's immoral, even though it's illegal. Actually, we think it's more immoral for the companies to throw away tons of eatable food than for us to use it. Also, there is the matter of non-physical ownership (pirate copying and such), and buying out alcohol for people who can't legally drink it. All those thing are considered immoral by some, and neutral or even moral by others.

At 9/12/08 07:04 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: You're right, he should have hired a Swedish mercenary with a mohawk. And a V-8.

I'm swedish and have had a mohawk! No mercenary though, but quite the prostitute. Is that enough?

At 9/14/08 01:35 AM, Lookaz wrote:

1. Prostitution
the right to engage in the act of prostitution between the times of 11:00pm to 7:00am

Why the time limit?

5. Curfew
The National curfew for those Ages 1-9 is 9:00pm to 4:30am. For those ages 10-12 is 10:30pm to 4:30am. For those ages 13-15 is 1:00am to 4:00am. For those ages 16 and over, no curfew is in effect.

Whawhawhat?

While I'm not going to say it's true or false, it wouldn't be the first time America finances murders against democratically elected leaders due to them being to socialist.

At 9/9/08 11:52 PM, homor wrote:

At 9/9/08 11:28 AM, CaiWengi wrote: Do you not think killing alot of innocent civilians (because yes that has happened in iraq and afghanastan) will not of just created more terrorists?

so you're saying our troops, the only fucking reason your arrogant disobediant ass (and god bless it too, civil disobediance is your right) is alive, are murderers?

Are you seriously saying that the US wouldn't exist if you hadn't gone to war with afghanistan and/or iraq?

At 9/10/08 12:53 AM, Korriken wrote: I'll put it like this. Angola has a giant farm setup that the prisoners work at.

YES! That is an excellent idea. And a VERY important effect is that when the prisoners become free, they have learned a trade and have an easier time joining the regular society. Which will reduce the rate of people falling back to crime. Which will further reduce the cost for prisons, apart from the humanitarian benefits of less suffering.

At 9/7/08 08:06 PM, hawkkid777 wrote:

At 9/7/08 08:01 PM, SynicalSatire wrote: Oh you know things like communism and us people who work for a living have to pay healthcare for illegals and bumbs, I'm deffinetily NOT voting Obama.

Mccain 08!

That's a strong argument!

I dearly hope you are sarcastic.

At 8/30/08 06:13 AM, Imperator wrote:

At 8/30/08 06:01 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: I fully agree.

On a side note though, Einstein was an atheistic agnostic (that is, he was agnostic and lacked belief in gods). There's several quotes on this.

See, here's the problem.

#1: Who cares?
#2: What does it matter?

Einstein could have been a Satanist for all I give a shit, because it doesn't negate the fact he's EINSTEIN.

I mean, what's the argument on either side there? XYZ smart people adhered to ABC group, therefore the group must be good/bad? Guilt by association? What a perfect way to draw a conclusion without doing any thinking or research whatsoever.

I didn't mean it as an argument in any way, sorry if it sounded like that. I am against using this kind of things as an argument, I was merely pointing out that it isn't just an erroneous argument, it's also factually wrong.

I fully agree.

On a side note though, Einstein was an atheistic agnostic (that is, he was agnostic and lacked belief in gods). There's several quotes on this.

At 8/30/08 03:50 AM, poxpower wrote: All text in your last post

Actually Pox, I usually think you are overreacting. But when I read this, I was stunned, in a good way.
This is probably the best post I've ever read by you.

At 8/30/08 03:12 AM, THEBEASTKING wrote: Also if religions are for peasants I guess Albert Einstein,

Apart from ignoring the fact that the random peasant should know more about the world today than the most educated did two hundred years ago, this is outright bullshit.
Einstein has clearly said that he doesn't believe in a personal god, and that anyone claiming he does is a liar.

At 8/29/08 10:03 AM, Saruman200 wrote: The fact is, the bible says homosexuality is a sin punishable by burning in hell for all enternity. So while most Christians arn't homophobes, most homophobes are Christians.

Or muslims, hindus, buddhists, or rednecks (although most rednecks would be christian too, I guess... at least in some way).

At 8/29/08 09:55 AM, LordJaric wrote:

At 8/29/08 04:41 AM, Sajberhippien wrote: It goes against things said all over the bible.

Not every christen followers the bible from beginning to end, I for one know that it is a damn fact that the scriptures were written by men and men decided what scriptures made up the bible

Well, if you pick- and choose what parts of the bible to believe in and still consider yourself a christian, then so am I a christian. I don't believe in God, Jesus (he MAY have existed, but I don't believe in the miracles), angels, the devil, or anything like that. However, I DO believe that rome existed, and rome is mentioned in the bible, so I'm christian.
You realize how stupid that sounds, right?
How much can you skip from the bible and still be a "true" christian? Can you skip the "turn the other cheek"-speeches? Can you skip belief in turning water into wine? Who decides what can be skipped, if we can't believe in the bible itself to tell us?

At 8/29/08 05:17 AM, sweetshinmusic wrote:

i wish i could say it's not the catholics fault, but it is. BURN THE POPE! and let protestants be the only christians.

Actually, the problem is that THE BIBLE states that homosexuality is a punishable sin.
It'll be hard to say that only people who doesn't believe in the bible would be allowed to be christians.

At 8/29/08 04:01 AM, aranS wrote: I noticed tons and tons of people assume that christians hate gays,

NOT ALL CHRISTIANS HATE GAYS

only few people do, more people beleive 'God loves everyone' rather than 'God hates fags'

God does not 'hate fags', annoying bigots that think they speak for everyone 'hate fags'

While I wouldn't use "hates", I can't understand how someone could accept homosexual behaviour and still call themselves a christian. It's a bit like saying that "turn the other cheek is just bull-crap, I kill whoever I want", and still calling oneself a christian. It goes against things said all over the bible.
But sure, one could accept gays as people while rejecting their behaviour, just like for a murderer or whatever.

In my country, it's illegal to own a firearm if you haven't got a special license for it (and it's RARE to have, I don't know a single person having a license), and it's illegal to carry a knife in public unless you've got a really good reason to do so, and even then, it's illegal to have it drawn (good reasons include being a boy scout having his knife in the backpack on the train to his camp, or being a carpenter having one in his pocket).

And actually, we have pretty low rates of violent crimes. Of course weapons find their way to criminals, but it's not common, except for knives. Most burglars, and even most robbers, doesn't have a firearm.

When discussing bans on firearms, many opponents to strict weapon laws use the argument that most weapons used in violent crimes are already illegal, so that it wouldn't make a difference. However, they forget to mention how they got them. For example: If I shoot someone with a gun I stole from someone, the gun is gotten illegal. However, if the person hadn't got a gun in the first place, I couldn't have stolen it. So quite frankly, I got the gun indirectly from a legal gunstore (supposing the victim of the theft bought it there).

At 8/26/08 02:45 PM, morefngdbs wrote: Stuff

YES! YES! YEEEES! *orgasm*

I agree 100%.

At 8/25/08 06:16 AM, kipper456 wrote: wait she lifted up their shirts to see if THEY were gay.....

omg hipocrite

Gay or not, I'd lift shirts on hundreds of jailbaits, had I the chance. :)