Bioshock jokes aside, which despotisms are preferable to democracies?

Anarchists assume people are good.

Anarchists assume the rich people ain't assholes.

Anarchists assume that only good practice earns money.

Anarchists assume that humanity is rational, at least on average.

Anarchists eh?

Make everything legal, then there's no crime!!%Pr

Typical Daily Fail. They can make an anti-suicide group a suicide cult, the innocent death of a gay idol and the display of sympathy despite his sexuality a controversial case of rampant homophobia and now talk about how they beacons of knowledge are "not in the real world" "arrogant" "irrational" and (sic) "superstitious".

If only a respected medical journal ran the headline "Yes, The daily Mail does much good. But a country run by these arrogant gods of certainty would truly be hell on earth"

"But there is an increasing presumption among many intelligent and good-hearted people that The Daily Mail is an absolute truth, that its methods of arriving at the truth are infallible and that The Daily Mail must be listened to at all times."%Pr

"What, and be a victim of our foreign policy?" %Pr

At 10/22/09 07:38 PM, AapoJoki wrote: Actually, he doesn't deny the holocaust anymore:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMWcxqgzY dQ

Not publically. Not publically anymore.

Also, BNP is finally letting black people join the party (assuming that any of them want to join):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/
oct/15/bnp-non-white-members

They're still being blocked by the highest ranking members behind closed doors.

I can't really say that this is a bad thing, but it's hard to see any kind of sincerity in these reforms.

Indeed man. Indeed.

Wow, a guy who denies the holocaust and calls the jews "mind-benders" calls well established "PC" military generals (fucks yes, but well established and PC also) Nazis?

Talk about throwing bricks in glass houses.

This is the equivalent of letting off a firework whilst in a cellar%Pr

At 10/19/09 11:15 PM, pr0ded wrote: what, if you read i'm for the woman's choice

Shit. Shit. Shit. Shit!

Sorry!

That's what having too many tabs open at the same time does to you.

SHIT!

At 10/19/09 06:08 PM, fatape wrote:

At 10/19/09 03:43 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote:

yeaahhhh, calling people names makes my arguement look better :)

My point is that whatever your beliefs on third world countries having less of a community or somehow the problems that mean the current system exists not being relevant is horse shit.

ive never suggested giving women less rights .

That's what the abortion things about. Giving the male part of the rights which the female currently has

2: guys can be manipulative fucks. Again trust.

and women can't be manipulative?

Nowhere near as manipulative, or at least not in any damaging sense on the pregnancy issue; ie the woman isn't gonna get the guy knocked up.

<cough>Sean fucking Bland </cough>

never heard of em

Sorry, bit of an in-joke for anyone who grew up round Bournemouth! Slap my wrists.

No-one? Spiky hair, shit loads of spots?

At 10/18/09 08:58 PM, fatape wrote:
you grew up in fucked up neighbourhood my freind , half the people on ng I swear grew up in a muslim country judgeing by this thread.

I grew up in a church school town with more than enough cash,

Way to go, dick head.

anyways, we need to teach women to stick up themselves more as well, if some guy won't put on a rubber for you he's not worth it anyways.

Geez, you don't get it do you? 1: The way to teach women to stick up for themselves (the few but important few who may need teaching) is to give them more rights not less, and 2: guys can be manipulative fucks. Again trust.

<cough>Sean fucking Bland </cough>

At 10/18/09 11:24 PM, pr0ded wrote:

At 10/18/09 04:26 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote: But they do, which is why we need the current system. Trust me, they do A LOT.

At least where I grew up.

no they don't need to persuade, especially when the argument is that the man doesn't have any say on keeping the baby
scenario: you coerce her into unprotected sex, get her pregnant, you want to keep the baby, she doesn't

Then LET the girl abort. The guy shouldn't have a say if he's not mature enough to treat grown people with any respect dignity etc.

here:
Most likely during a late term abortion, the man should have decided earlier :O
then match that with what i quoted, and read back from that

What's the point man? If anything that shows that seeing as the girl takes all the risk, she should have the right to decide.

And no amount of burgers is going to leave you perpetually monged.
Trust.
... and in the rare eventuality that they do the guy has a right to say he had no idea what he was doing.

At 10/17/09 03:27 PM, pr0ded wrote: lots of people have drugged out their mind, with substances like food where they don't even realize it has psychoactive properties

Dude, find me a burger that fucks your mind like ketamine does and ill stop being vegetarian.

that's what i was quoting, and the man should never persuade the woman to have unprotected sex

But they do, which is why we need the current system. Trust me, they do A LOT.

At least where I grew up.

i was replying to something on the first page, and you can google "maternal death" in quotes alongside pregnancy and abortion

No, i mean any sense of grammar went out the window, and i can't understand a word of it. Rephrase man, rephrasPr

At 10/16/09 04:00 PM, pr0ded wrote:

At 10/16/09 03:16 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote: where they didn't know what they were getting into

damn, whats the outcome of unprotected sex?

Wow, way to misunderstand. Three draft circumstances:
- Drugged out his mind.
- 15 or younger.
- Unavoidable complication during conception (condom bursts).

yes, it should be a mans right for the woman to risk pregnancy complications like dieing

Err, what the fuck? Elaborate.

King's of Leon? BREAKTHROUGH? 4 TOP CHART REACHING ALBUMS IN THE UK!

10 YEARS!

10 FuCkING y3ARS!

AHHHHHHHhhhhhHHHhHhHhHHhHhHHHHnnnHHhhHHH hHH4HHhhHHHhhhHHHHHhhhhhhh4HHHHHH!

* head explodes *

OK, here goes.

God exists; he's got to. We have Him wired into our brain! All the correct prophesies, all the disproved atheists.

Let's really think about.

Physics and logic tells us nothing can be created or destroyed, only transferred.

Then why is there anything?

There must be something outside physics and logic, therefor rendering ANY logical argument useless on the matter of omniscience/ omnipotence/ anything HUGE. By HUGE I mean OMNIPRESENT.

But all religions demonstrate a gravitation to god. He fulfills many emotionally, aside from the odd crazed nut.

So, reason is useless at disproving it, it brings many ie: Mother Theresa, Sir John Templeton the will to do incredible charitable thing, and whats more, there's even some science supporting it.

NOT ONE WORD OF THE ABOVE IS TRUE

At 10/16/09 02:28 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: If a woman gets pregnant, and the male wants to keep it, bad luck, the woman can abort it if she wants to and the man has no power.

However, if the woman wants to keep it and the man wants abortion, bad luck, she gets to keep it AND he will be FORCED to pay to raise the baby for the next eighteen years.

Hmm... yeah, but what's the alternative? The best system in the extreme grey areas like this tend to b e the ones which cause the least harm i.e: age of sexual consent, assisted suicide and mandatory schooling. There are flaws everywhere, big ones, small ones, ones as big as your head. But what if the man did have a legal say, as oppose to leaving it between a responsible father and mother? The woman takes on the majority, well almost all, of the emotional burden, and has to deal with a pregnancy which means no more self-earned income for five, six months.

Of course, there are flaws in the system. For example, if the mother was say, an irresponsible pro-lifer and the father's not ready he's screwed. Royally. Similar, if the guy feels really strongly like he needs to look after and have this kid but the dad's not ready he's screwed also. And for the record, I don't think they should be forced to pay security in circumstances where they didn't know what they were getting into or they simply aren't and never were emotionally ready for this kid.

Also, I'm a strong believer that courts have too much bias towards the mother in most custody cases. But there's no denial of the vote, no being forced into compromising discrimination. It's concerning, but not alarming.

The mother does need to be favoured in abortion cases though. Always, 100%, if their of reasonable mind and emotionally or physically compromised, which is pretty much covered by the current British systems. Like I said, it works like an efficient machine, but some people get caught in the wheels, who need help and aren't getting it. However, the current mother favouring system is, in my humble view Proxy-Connection: keep-alive
Cache-Control: max-age=0

least, the least bad solution.

Great job liberals.

Oh yeah, make it bi-partisan, why don

At 10/15/09 03:25 PM, AngyaL wrote: I'm a woman, and a feminist one and I think that in some cases gender equality doesn't come true when talking about men. Because of the myth that women are more nursing that men, a lot of kids go live in rotten homes with abusing mothers if the woman can fake through few interviews, where as the men have to proove time and time again that they are better choice for the caretaker of the children.
I believe that true feminism works for both genders.

I predict a misunderstanding.

Last time I checked most feminist philosophies are based on equality which I absolutely 100% believe in. Having a different set of organs means very little.

What's more: stop bitching guys. Boo fucking hoo we're allowed to fight in the front line and don't get the same priorities, there isn't a single fucking country with totally equal gender employment, the closest there is 48 something percent in Italy, which shows real progress, but come on. Just because it's fun , doesn't mean it doesn't make those of us with some perspective cringe at a prime example of responding to valid claims of inequality by making a blatant attempt to curry sympathy.

Seriously.

Totally man. Israel makes so many of the Arab theocracies mad, because it shows that the answer to their problems isn't that more Islamic purity. It's secular democracy. So they villify Israel, and so many morons go along with it.

Never mind the total lack of any of the "brotherhood" to Palestine, where they are turned away or used as human battering rams against Israel. The billions of dollars going into Palestine are all military. The reason there are these claims of genocide is for the theocracies to keep their people suppressed and to keep them believing that their leaders are righteous, and that any problems are the thieving infidel Jews' fault.

Love and peace!

At 10/9/09 04:48 PM, TightRope wrote: If, I lived in Britain I would be voting for the BNP. OP, this is just your opinion, not everyone feels they need to "Deal" with a party that you claim are a bunch of spoiled upper class white people who know what the hell they're doing for their nation.

Ahhhh, the subjectivity card. This could just as well be used for "not everyone feels the need to deal with Muslim extremists", which is absolutely true. And I never said they were "a bunch of spoiled upper class white people who know what the hell they're doing for their nation". The reality's a hell of a lot more complex. It's RUN by a real twat, by I'd say the same about the Tories.

They are are inherently racist, though, and your ignorance of this is astonishing. It was one of their key policies that they cannot have a leader who has not descended from those who settled in Britain "since the Ice Age". They also happen to simplify everything to "get the Pols and the Pakis out" if you HAD ever met any of them. Which you haven't I'm guessing.

Well done, you complete and utter twazock.

I still don't get why no can haz guillotine? Completely painless. Or what about administering the lethal drug orally?

However, here are some ideas if you want cruel and unusual-

- Indefinitely long Russian roulette.
- Hanging by the feet in a high gravity chamber.
- Strapped to a chariot pulled by lemmings with a very large cliff placed near,
- Shark tank- BUT ALL THE SHARKS HAVE MUZZLES!
- Choked on live rats.
- Death by chocolate- 4 R34L!

Nitrous oxide poisoning is NOT cruel or unusual. You kill someone in a state of sedation with a 100% lethal painless druPr

At 10/7/09 03:58 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 10/7/09 03:34 PM, AKACCMIOF wrote: Haha! You guys have got to be ahead, with everything the Barnet formulas done!

Nah its a brass neck having to ask for money! And theirs more than that, the majority of people in Scotland didn't want to go to war. In fact Alex Salmond was one of the main people up here who tried to impeach Blair. I'm glad to know my government doesn't bend over to support Americas illegal wars.

Wow, that I didn't know. I'd definitely rather Scotland be more independent. Then democracy would be a lot more apparent. No two countries want the same thing. We both have different needs. Plus that might leave an anti-Iraq neighbour the English might listen to.

At 10/8/09 06:58 PM, IMACAT wrote: A lot.

One word: UKIP. Or EDP. Anyone without links to combat 18, National front or David Duke. No exaggeration. Also less than five percent of the population =/= everyone.

At 10/3/09 05:21 PM, DiscipleofCthulhu wrote:
I'm afraid, bigoted though it may seem, I am forced to agree here.

Me too, and as a bisexual ex-Muslim teenager living in the most diverse county of London as a member of UAF, I'm probably the furthest you'll get to a BNP member, without going to Mosque regularly. Secularity means a lot. However the British system is more or less completely screwed every which way, but we're moving forward away from the theocratic past.

Really though, Britain wide Sharia is a moot point. It only affects those who want it to effect them. At least it will steal the extremists' thunder!

Love & Peace.

At 10/6/09 06:12 PM, Jon-86 wrote: The republic of Scotland, my southern chum.

Haha! You guys have got to be ahead, with everything the Barnet formulas done!

At 10/6/09 03:11 PM, Tancrisism wrote: What do you think the best countries are to live in, and why?

I'd think somewhere like Canada or Norway. They both have pretty good education, crime control and have pretty good job opportunities and nice cultures. However, Italy would be nice, with the minimal sexism, beautiful culture, good alcohol and no real violent street drunk culture. Also Greece has a popular drink "Ozo" I think it's called which is 40% alcohol. That MIGHT be worth the civil unrest when coupled with stunning history, beautiful culture and incredible weather and environment.

Japan would be a trip and a half as well. All the amazing Buddhist history, (now) liberal government and incredible ex-warrior monasteries to visit like in Naga. Caucasians are pretty sparse, so hopefully that would give me some kind value as a sort of representative for western culture (telling people about the underground drum n bass scene, etc.) Speaking Japanese is pretty damn tough though, and their economy isn't doing too well, but that's nothing new or unique!

Turkey or Lebanon would be amazing too. Incredible Muslim and Orthodox Christian heritage, incredible bazaars, just really stunning places. Public services ain't too good though! Also I'm not sure I'd be too popular in a country populated largely by Arab Muslims. Especially with the whole "Israel" thing!

I don't know, I'd probably go for Canada. Nice place, nice people.

I wouldn't wanna shag any animal. But if I gotta, its gotta be a gazelle. Clean. Lithe. Sexy. Until they kick you that iPr

At 9/30/09 05:27 PM, TheAdd wrote:
I don't think i really said anything that offensive, but i will go back to general where i belong :)

Lol.

"and they are wrong - both of them ughhhhhh , disgusting gays, ugh, peedos, WTF GO DIE U A***** H**** D**"

Us bisexuals don't tend to take too kindly to that kinda shit mate!

At 9/29/09 06:10 PM, Mr-Pope wrote: Good to see the discussion has been reduced to a hyperbolic debate over one unsourced, second hand account of an incident regarding Muslims, relayed to us by a borderline illiterate.

You don't seem to understand. Stuff like this fuels the fire. When debate is surprised we polarise. And men die. So don't suppress; debunk or support.

u guyz r soooo fukn retarded

Point made.

At 9/30/09 01:27 PM, TheAdd wrote: I know what you mean, its just a bunch of racist pricks that can't handle anything more than a white working-class manly man, their tiny neanderthal brains can't cope with seeing anything more complicated than a club. Just do what i do - if they come near you, laugh - laugh and take the piss with your mate's - they soon fuck off :)

I don't agree with everything your saying, but your right: They can't handle outside concepts. But they've been shat on as a people and marginalised and misrepresented. My god has the status quo got a lot to answer for.

However, you don't seem to have been round the rougher parts of London. Really, they don't tend to fuck off. They tend to fuck you up.

Hold your own, but don't look for a fight mate. Worldly piece of advice.

At 9/29/09 09:46 PM, dudewithashotgun29 wrote:
But, the same aged girl could have a girl on girl(if the other girl is also the same age) experience with no repercussions? Just saying, they want to talk about consent, yet most people find it ok if 2 of the same age people have sex? If anything thats worse, sence both of them have no idea what they're getting into.

True, but neither are punishable. And that's the difference. They'd be seperated, and helped understand what they did, but who could you punish? Pedophile rapists
know the consequences of their actions, and go for it anyway. That's the difference.

Harmless attraction is just that: Harmless.

And WTF is TheAdd doing here? If you want to get to general, go alt+f5%Pr

At 9/27/09 04:48 PM, 4urentertainment wrote:

It's funny how such very small things could have such a huge impact on history. Would there had even been a WW2 should Hitler had been accepted to the art college? Just one man's decision on accepting him or not, would have made such a big difference.

True. But, then, would Himmler or Goebells have gotten a career in the mainstream, gradually harnessing the German resentments, making permanent changes?

And what about the communists?

And what about Soviet Russia?

Would America have recovered?

Would Japan become a democracy?

So may questions. And not one true answer.

At 9/28/09 03:16 PM, ThePretenders wrote:
What about 16-17 year olds? The average age of consent and marriage is 16 (with parental consent for marriage). The biological difference between 16-18 year olds is much less than the difference between 13-16, so 16 is an apt age.

And why can't mature 13-16 year olds consent? They just need to KNOW. Really fucking KNOW what they're doing. That might put them off. It did for me.