"To be governed by politicians is a necessary evil. To be governed by arrogant scientists would truly be hell on earth."

Yes, of course I'd rather place my faith in a group of taypayer-thieving, party-line-toers who represent mostly the corporate interests and party leaders they belong to instead of a group of factual, unbiased individuals who would decide policy in the most efficient manner possible.

'Mainly Bile'.

At 11/3/09 12:01 PM, Ericho wrote: Oh, that is supposed to be humble? That is simply ridiculous. If no one cares and nothing can save you, and you're just a spec of dust, then why not kill yourself? It may not show humility, but it makes sense. How can we be here for no reason? And if there's no reason, why not go and kill everybody? If everybody has no reason for being there, there's no point in letting them live, for crying out loud!

"If you don't look at the world from my perspective, you're obviously wrong and should kill yourself!"

Ludicrous. We've been through this point time and time again and you still don't get it.

You are the one, Ericho, saying that a purpose for living can only be valid if you believe it was given to you by the creator of the universe. You still don't seem to get that that isn't a hard fact that everybody 'obviously' knows; it is, in fact, something that you've imagined in your head and haven't given any sort of reasoning towards explaining why.

For someone constantly pandering to 'respecting everyone's views', it seems pretty hypocritical of you to then turn around and start pointing fingers at everyone who does not agree with exactly what you believe in.

At 11/2/09 02:17 PM, RightWingGamer wrote: if it were anyone else, i'd be shittin' my pants, but i think i can trust my own government.

You can never, ever trust the government. The whole concept, in every single country in the world, has absolutely nothing to do with the people it supposedly represents, and everything to do with furthering it's own power. Absolute fact.

At 11/1/09 04:19 PM, RightWingGamer wrote:

At 11/1/09 04:15 PM, Drakim wrote: I regret to inform you that I am in favor of capitalism.

then why make a thread that just says "capitalism sucks"?

Jesus Christ.

At 10/31/09 01:27 PM, RubberTrucky wrote:

At 10/31/09 01:18 PM, Ericho wrote: I would say that we should first legalize marijuana and once that is done, all hard drugs will be legalized eventually as it's obvious prohibition didn't work. While the things may be bad in themselves, people are just going to get more of it in more of it in even worse versions.

If we were going to legalise murder, would also less people be doing that?

Strawman argument. Ericho never raised that as a point for legalisation in his post, and nothing indicated that he even took that stance.

As for my own answers:

At 10/31/09 09:17 AM, CloudEater wrote: What are your thoughts on these drugs?

They are clearly the most interesting, perhaps 'artistic' drugs, because of their effects on the user's way of thinking. I don't see a problem with them at all, if a person wants to take them and can accept any possible long term psychological alterations that might occur (obviously depending on the type of hallucinogen/strength/on how regular a basis they are used, etc.) then that is ultimately their decision.

Are these drugs really that much worse than alcohol and tobacco?

Probably not, but I don't think that is the issue anyway.

The real issue here is not with whether or not they will hurt/addict the person taking the drug, but rather: should it be the government's job to decide whether people are capable of making their own choices or not?

Should these drugs be taken more seriously?

In terms of...?

Law enforcement? Psychological impact?

Do you really care if people consume these drugs?

No.

What are you doing tomorrow night? etc....

wat

Labour out now.

At 10/30/09 10:36 AM, morefngdbs wrote: No they do not.
They are no better than any other group of deluded individuals.
Why is it that you get a group who seem to believe , because they're in a group their delusions should somehow carry more importance.
These people are nothing more than conmen & women who are stealing naive, vulnerable people's money.

no

At 10/30/09 06:14 PM, zer0gravity1 wrote: Seriously, can someone help me out?

rock band

At 10/30/09 07:05 AM, GuntherHermann wrote: the only conceivable difference is smeg. smeg is a good thing because it separates those who shower once a month from those who never shower at all.

Once a month?

At 10/29/09 08:38 PM, TheStonePilot wrote:

At 10/29/09 06:13 PM, Victory wrote: come on guys these people have a right to their beliefs and a right for those beliefs not to be questioned or criticised by anyone

They do when their beliefs are potentially harmful. For example the hatred against psychiatrists and the ban on drugs.

stop being so arrogant and offensive

you are OFFENDING ME

At 10/29/09 08:18 PM, xXShortEmoKidXx wrote: This country is SO fucked....

The only way your country would be fucked is if it were populated by more people as illiterate as you.

Read the damn thread through before posting your unthinking knee-jerk reaction..

come on guys these people have a right to their beliefs and a right for those beliefs not to be questioned or criticised by anyone

At 10/28/09 11:29 PM, The777Demon wrote: definitely a violation of the bill of rights what else is new in this fucked up country.

If you had actually read through the thread properly, you'll see that this 'bill of rights' shit has been refuted at least, what, fifteen times by now?

Get a clue moron.

At 10/28/09 07:40 PM, AndrewGlisson13 wrote: From what I recall in reading The Inferno, God made the people who live in Heaven incapable of feeling compassion or sorrow for the damned in Hell. That way, they could easily enjoy their eternity in heaven.

Hm, doesn't sound much like free will to me..

Why not just get a lobotomy?

At 10/28/09 07:47 PM, yurgenburgen wrote:

At 10/28/09 07:35 PM, Victory wrote: Gott mit uns.

I certainly do!

Oh lol.

If a private company wants to convey a certain image to the public, doing so through their representatives (employees) is but one method and subsequently they have the right to dictate exactly how the employee will behave/appear to potential customers.

I don't see what there is to dispute here. The man knew what he was doing when he signed a contract which waived certain rights of his to the company. This has nothing to do with the company 'taking offence', who should of 'respected his beliefs', as certain posters have mentioned so far..

At 10/28/09 07:20 PM, MrPercie wrote: What about hitler? What he was doing he thought was right.

Hitler was a Roman Catholic.

Gott mit uns.

But im not going to go into some deep mental religious thing all im gunna say is Im gunna live a good life because I am good person but Im gunna go to heaven so I can lived with my loved ones in paradise. I dont see anything wrong with this, it just doesnt suck.

Well here's a tricky question for you. Say one of your loved ones did not believe in god and ended up going to hell; could you be eternally happy in heaven knowing they were suffering endlessly at the same time?

ITT: knee-jerk reactions.

At 10/17/09 01:51 PM, StrangelyMauled wrote: What's more likely? God or a the combustion of nothing?

False dichotomy.

It isn't a one-or-the-other situation.. there are alternative theories.

I swear, this gets brought up in every single god thread and the people propagating always act as if this is some sort of magic defeating argument against atheism.. in fact, it is incredibly weak and does not even refute the atheist's position if the false dichotomy wasn't a false dichotomy.

Fail.

At 10/26/09 07:24 PM, Sh0T-D0wN wrote: All you idiots bitching ITT sicken me.

Why, because an unconstitutional phrase has been removed after it was implemented 50 years ago as an anti-Communist propaganda tactic?

At 10/26/09 03:26 PM, Jon-86 wrote: Ok is that immigration or illegal immigration and what is it about their views on that do you think is right?

This country obviously has a problem regarding immigration.

Islam has been in this country for years, tell me what exactly is it about Islam that threatens "western freedoms" or what freedom is it that they claim a religion is threatening in this country?

Free speech.

The term 'islamophobia', for instance, was deliberately invented for the very purpose of silencing opponents of the fascistic, misogynistic regime that Islam is, riding on a wave of Western tolerance that came as a result of the gradual emancipation and acceptance of blacks, gays and other minorities in the last forty years (and the subsequent marginalisation of racist attitudes in society that came with it).

The term is ridiculous. In every Islamic society around the world, all that exists is oppression.

The under god part was added in 1954 during the Red Scare.

It has nothing to do with what America was founded on. America is a secular country founded on secular principles.

Christian liars will be the first to tell you otherwise.

You probably deserved it you atheist scum. Praise to Allah.

At 10/26/09 08:11 AM, MwnciHead wrote: in my experience, mot muslims arent the suicide bombing type and are decent honest hard working people that do the best to fit in with society,

Yes this is largely my experience with the Muslims that I know too.

The same cannot be said of Islam as a whole, which has has itself singled out and catered to its every whim by the pseudo-left cowards which run this country.

and imagine how much worse they would have been if this country was run by people like mr griffin and his bigot buddies.

I never said I support the BNP. The one point I agree with is their attitude towards Islam.

At 10/26/09 05:29 AM, newreaper wrote:

At 10/25/09 05:20 PM, Jon-86 wrote:

At 10/25/09 02:49 PM, newreaper wrote: The BNP are real extremeists, but through their views they bring up some real problems.

Such as?

well immigration and thats about it ereally

They are also the only political party which views Islam as the real threat that it is to Western freedoms.

At 10/25/09 07:16 PM, lapis wrote: And the BNP reports that 3,000 new members signed up the day after Nick Griffin appeared on Question Time.

Jesus Christ, I just tried to watch the whole Question Time bit, but wasn't able to do so. That was completely atrocious. You know, in an actual debate show a moderator tries to keep the whole thing balanced. He makes sure that the two sides get equal speaking time, maybe presents arguments that support the case of one side if that side is poorly represented on the table. This guy was just the leader of the execution squad, deciding when which whip lash would be delivered. Even Nick Griffin's weak points, like Holocaust denial, came across poorly because all his answers were interrupted by either the crowd or the other panel members.

I totally agree. I watched it on YouTube and the format of the show took the form of bombarding him with questions and ridiculing his answers before he even got a proper chance to defend himself.

And a lot of the questions posed to him were just further emotional attacks designed to raise a reaction out of other audience members ('Dick Griffin', oh how hilarious).

What is completely ironic about the whole thing was that, prior to the show, there was outrage over whether he should be allowed on in the first place, since some Labour/Conservative politicians claimed his party are fascists who want to ban free speech. The BBC, as a supposedly bias-free public organisation, merely stifled his free speech again and again during the course of the show.. what a farce.

At 10/25/09 01:41 PM, TheStonePilot wrote:

Oh lol, you gonna debate me on this one, but not reply to any of my constant rebuttals of your posts in the legalisation-of-drugs thread in politics?

1) That proves our 'view'

No, it only proves what you lot think about Macs.

2) Copying products? Whuzzit?

Zune.

3) This is for debate, not 'I AM RIGHT BECAUSE I AM RIGHT' statements.

I haven't seen too much of that 'debate' in this thread. Just people who fit into that stereotype I outlined in my previous post high-fiving each other over their pathetic anti-Mac deriding.

4) Strongest company on earth? Hah. HAHAHAH. HAH.

'...in terms of their innovation, their aesthetic across all products, and their consistent approach to design.'

Learn. To. Read.

5) Apple is not the majority. PC is.

Quote me exactly where I said that.

6) Being good looking does not compare to actually working.

I mentioned 'good aesthetic' as just one attribute to Apple's products.

7) 'Consistent approach to design' means they all look the same.

Yeah if you're a complete moron.

Shall I go on?

Jog on.

Everyone on this forum hates Macs because they view them as a fashionable consumerist product, which is obviously at odds with their position in life as a tasteless, alienated, unsociable nerd who harbours resentment towards anything resembling 'the majority', which funnily enough also explains their love for heavy metal and hatred of sports. Do not deny it, you know this to be fact.

Apple is the strongest company on this earth in terms of their innovation, their aesthetic across all products, and their consistent approach to design. Their influence is obvious; now Microsoft has to resort to simplifying their operating system and copying Apple's products to attempt to keep up with the flow of people switching to what is obviously the vastly superior operating system.

It's mystifying how the American Religious Right has systematically done the complete opposite of every single principle Jesus ever stood for.

At 10/23/09 11:05 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Actually if you look at it from a christian perspective, God isn't cause anything bad at all, mankind did, God may have made it possible but we made the choice to have it that way.

Maybe you can then explain River Blindness then. Why exactly would a benevolent God deliberately create a parasite worm whose only function in it's life is to be transmitted to a human, die, and cause blindness?

which in return may lead to an eternity of pain and suffering, and that makes no sense as I explained.

Yeah, it makes no sense whatsoever to equate an all-loving god with punishing people who did not correctly 'guess' the right set of evidence-less premises by the time their life was over.

At 10/23/09 06:28 PM, Ohioman wrote: Atheists believe that any god or spirit does not exist and that it is impossible, so no, you are not.

No, get your facts straight, almost no atheists use that definition.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity in the face of a deficit of evidence. Not an assertion in of itself.