Ginger_Warrior

Morals are genetically inherited? Lolwat

Aye, couldn't agree more. End of the day, if you focus on your own interests, you're more likely to find someone like-minded anyway, and if this doesn't happen, at least you're happy doing your own thing. Too many young people taking the relationship thing so seriously. What the hell happened to exploring yourself?

It's hard enough getting young British girls to play football, or even sports in general as it is without cretinous opinions like that hanging around the sport's elite pundits' necks. Then again, Sky Sports are hardly ones to talk about the portrayal of women in laddish footballing culture. Anyone who's ever watched Soccer Am can testify to that. You were saying about Berba's away form, btw?

Dan is half-right though. Best cure for heartache is not to sit at home and brood over what happened. I wouldn't recommend sex, especially at 14 because that's such a powerful thing but meeting new people and new girls especially helps rebuild self-esteem.

Though such a viewpoint assumes only the chain of events that lead us to be here was the only chain events that could have produced "anything out of nothing", as the phrase goes. Is it beyond the realm of probability that, had conditions been slightly different, things would still have been created out of chaos, just they'd be different things? The lottery tomorrow may read six specific numbers; it is simply not logical to think only this combination could ever have happened without taking into account the other billions of possibilities that could have occured. I guess the answer would lie in the question: What made the chain of events that lead to us being on planet Earth in 2011 AD as human beings? For religion to sufficiently answer that question, they'd have to prove something made that chain of events predestined to have happened. As an atheist, I've seen no such evidence, therefore I have to assume it was completely arbitrary.

He said it makes it harder, not necessarily hard enough. Frankly, when anything has to be smuggled into a country rather than legally mass produced, it *will* make it harder to obtain one however slight that difficulty may be due to the criminal, covert nature of the transaction. This is a common sense argument. Please don't tell me you honestly believe otherwise. And of gun ownership inciting their use?

People argue, it happens. When you live that close to someone, while constantly having to put up with the little things that annoy you, eventually patience snaps. It's how you go about it that makes a difference between good people and bad people. Make some time for her, buy her something sentimental, cook her dinner or something, just so she knows that for the part of you that gets short with her, there's a much bigger part that doesn't.

That's not the original point he made. There are so many strawman arguments on this page alone you could set them on fire and melt Chicago.

I can't imagine the checking the door thing did any wonders. It's almost like saying, "Yeah, by the way, I like you (honest) but I don't like you enough so that everyone else in my family should know about it." It really isn't that big a deal, people do it and if you should do it anywhere you should do it in your own room. Thing is, if she's attacking you on Facebook like that and not really caring, she's clearly fishing for some attention. Unless she's a [bleep], people don't usually insult people for no good reason; they want that person to do something in return. Phone her, see what happens, if she's still acting funny then just leave it or else you're gonna get walked all over here.

Was today enough for the Berba doubters to stfu? If it isn't nothing ever will be. Fantastic game by Wayne too. Playing well with important matches against Blackpool, Southampton and City coming up. To make things sweeter, Latics are one step closer to relegation after today. :D

"Was" almost implies something dramatic happened...?

My sacred system? My outlook on life isn't totally grounded in science, I also have faith like you, it just isn't religious faith. It annoys me when religious people and antitheists make this a battle of science vs religion; there's room for both the scientific method and faith. For instance, religious faith when altruistic has been scientifically proven to lower the incidence of some mental illnesses. The idea that there is a 'higher being' to see us through life provides hope to the hopeless. A case of science proving the positive effects of faith, but not necessarily the existence of god. Another example might be those who travel to the poorest nations on Earth to reduce cholera by installing healthy water supplies. The science provides the technical knowledge for why dirty water leads to cholera; faith provides the motivation to put it into place. Don't turn this into a false dichotamy of science vs everything else.

So your evidence of god is, "Maths is just as wrong as we are". OK then...

Am I the only one confused as to how this rather banal discussion about maths has anything to do with evidence of divine intervention? "5 isn't defined as 1+1+1+1+1, it's 4+1"... Yeah, and?

You've done your best; ball's in her court now.

I do not believe there is substantial enough evidence of devine intervention for me to personally believe a god exists, but I do not deny how other people's lives have been enriched as a result of this belief, however fallacious I personally think that belief is. So long as religious belief doesn't infringe on my rights, each to their own.

So it's more of a "What if?" scenario. OK, fair enough. Second thing: Whatever the rights and wrongs, you're currently treating #1 in a way you clearly don't want to treat #2. Let's say three months down the line, you and #2 are an item. You have a tif (as in an argument, not a Tip.It Forums, lol). You're upset, then #4 comes along and starts flirting. What's stopping you lining up #4 in the same way you've done for #2 and #3 against #1 here? I'm not judging, I'm just genuinely curious.

There's one thing saying statistics (or rather, judgements made from the field of statistics) are flawed, and saying they're wrong. Dismissing differences between countries in relation to their homocide rates by firearms as 'Culture' isn't proving a statistic wrong; it's plain laziness from an arguing perspective. Statistics aren't wrong so long as the design behind them is correct and appropriate for the question in hand, and their limitations in terms of what they can actually prove are taken into account. Saying "X amount of people have used guns to defend themselves" doesn't answer the question, "Are guns needed for people to defend themselves?". The alternative possibility that they could have defended themselves via other means hasn't been explored. Stop with the "Statistics are wrong" attitude and just argue the points made against you.

Inappropriate judgementalism on sexual relationships aside; are you sure going with #3 will make it easier for you to get it out of your system? When people give into temptation and find something they like, doesn't it usually make it harder to leave, not easier?

It's obvious she meant the waffles are so unusually grand in size that they take nine years to eat, and that this is no longer the case when they become soggy. Are you stupid? :rolleyes: fail grammar nazi

I hope you die a slow and painful death. :)

Agreed. But then, I've never played a game that so crudely tries to squeeze lots and lots of skill levels into one number for the supposed convenince of everyone else. My objection is that combat level itself isn't a meaningful term. Attack level is, strength level is, defence level is, HP is, because these all have a direct influence on somebody's ability to hit and take damage. Combat level is an inconsistent umbrella term that doesn't fully represent what it stands for. To take another RPG as an example, you say Blissey has 225 HP and 135 SpDef base stats, but you don't say its average base stat is 90 because this says nothing meaningful about its strengths against special sweepers and horrific weakness against physical sweeps. 225HP is meaningful, 135 SpDef is meaningful, trying to make an average between them isn't. Whether you include potions, food, armour or whatever is really irrelevant to the argument that the term itself is just an artificial number. The question really is: What does 'combat level' actually mean?

So why is it that in England, Wales and Scotland, where 'self defence' is not accepted as a proper reason for the police to issue you with a shotgun and gun ownership is largely contained to rural areas where hunting may need to take place, homocide by guns is almost unheard of; yet in Northern Ireland, where 'self defence' is accepted because of its history of sectarian violence during The Troubles, the rate of gun-related murders is about thirteen times as high? Surely, those of us without the ability to defend ourselves should be suffering more than those who are.

In what sense is it working? If combat level is meant to be a relative measure of KO ability, and a level 50 pure could easily wipe the floor with a level 70 main, how's it working?

I'm more likely to blame the attitudes most English-speaking countries have towards hallucinogens and psychoactive drugs for their usage, rather than the fact they're illegal. Yes, if you legalise it, it removes the 'bad' appeal, but if you see the Netherlands it's not just that they're treated with more maturity, it's that they genuinely have a more cautious attitude towards things that can influence the mind. So far as evidence exists that we have an immature attitude towards psychoactives, in the crowds of people stumbling out of nightclubs on a Saturday night (of which I'm a part of sometimes), I won't accept that making drugs legal is the only answer to drug use. The reasons people take drugs and the reasons people possess guns are different.