Ginger_Warrior

Damn, that's a really good idea. With the jewellery too, two birds one stone. I can actually see that being massively successful. : To make this post on-topic... today the santa hats should go. It's bad luck now. ;)

Having a happy life (as in, really enjoying it, not necessarily using alcohol or drugs to enjoy it) is usually a good way of prolonging life, not the opposite. I don't wanna live to 120 though. I'd rather die at 70 having lived a happy one.

What's the point in crayons? Pencils are better anyway. I am the anti-wax. :thumbup:

No. It's a humanity in my opinion. I think the closest 'science' you could get to psychology is sociology. Apart from history, maths was my favourite subject until it got ridiculously complex and pointless so I dropped it. After, chemistry was my favourite and it shows in my exam results. I wasn't too keen on biology, hence why I got a B in it during A levels.

Really, I think you've thought into this way too much. You appear to be suffering from self-consciousness over your identity when there's really no need for you to feel worried. If people like you, they'll like you for who you are, not what hobbies you're into. It never hurts to try new things though, or expand on things that give you contentment. Even something as basic as exercise could be considered a hobby, so you've got a whole list to choose from; running, going to the gym, swimming, sports. Anything recreational would also count. Instead of spending all your time on the GIMP if you're going into that, try and spend time away from the computer conceptualising ideas on paper. I wouldn't know when it comes to art (I'm hopeless at drawing stuff), but when it comes to writing historical essays and such, I've found it much easier to come up with ideas on paper in rough before going for the final thing. There you are. You're no longer doing a hobby on the computer.

Isn't that kind of retribution supposed to be designed to teach someone a lesson by mimicking experiences? On a similar note, like telling someone to pay back all that they stole from someone during a house break-in? It's just I'm struggling to understand the point of teaching someone if death is a part of the lesson...

I think the point is that they may as well have released "bombbay" over Gaza. This is what happens when you use massive firepower on a dense area already suffering from a humanitarian crisis; no matter how precise the bombs, or how reliable the intelligence, masses of people will be killed. There is now no place in Gaza safe for civilians to survive. Yet despite this, and despite the fact that this has not achieved anything so far, Israel seems prepared not only to continue the campaign, but escalate it. It is astounding to me how any one can still sit here and say the Israelis are doing all they can to avoid civilian casualties.

Not that I support Communism, but this argument is logically irrelevant. The reason some people earn more for their jobs on average than others in a Capitalist system is because of two reasons: 1) Supply and demand - essentially, labour is a commodity sold on the market, and the price of said labour is determined by market forces; 2) Human capital - If I go to university to study, or I work my up through employment or an apprenticeship, I am making myself as a labourer more worthy, because I hold more capital due to the skills I have gained. The italicised part is the important bit. Communism isn't so much the perfectly even distribution of wealth; it's the elimination of capital as the most powerful force in the economy. The whole "even wages" aspect of Communism stems from that, because point 2) is redundant in a Communist society. It goes further than that too. Under Marxist Communism, which is itself incredibly vague since Marx never offers much description past a socialist dictatorship, machinery takes over the vital industries, that is, agriculture, main industry, power stations etc.. Under this logic, demand for human employees is now 0, thus point 1) is also redundant. Again, I'm not saying I support that ideology, but logically Communism doesn't need to justify even wages. It's like asking to justify why Capitalism needs private investors. It just does.

Kaiser Chiefs - Learnt My Lesson Well I just fell in love with this song all of a sudden.

I was too shy to ask my fiance' out face to face. I asked him over the net because I knew he was leaving for the army in about a week for 6 months and I only had a fraction amount of time to gain the courage to ask him. I knew within myself if I didn't ask him right there and then over msn, I would lose my shot. It worked out for me. If being gutless got me a son and soon to be husband, then being gutless rocks. I'd never break up with someone over msn or text message though. I feel too bad if I do that. You're telling me. My last relationship, neither of us asked each other. It just sorta... happened. Mutually. Yeah. Anyway, I'm not saying it spells S-U-I-C-I-D-E I'm just saying it's not exactly the best way to do it.

1) Other (ViewSonic) 2) 3 3) Erm... LCD? 4) BSkyB 5) Other (Sports and Music)

It's the truth. What you do in your own home, so long as it's not completely amoral is your own business. The "enclosed" area option is the right one, except places like railway stations seemed to have jumped on the bandwagon to ban smoking on their premises too (last I checked, a railway station cannot possibly be a fully enclosed area).

It just says something about how gutless you are that you can't even ask those sorts of questions face to face. Like dumping people by text messaging. Nothing wrong with it, per se, it's just a little bit shallow (actually, it's very shallow).

How would that make it a better deterrent? If anything, I'd say that makes it a worse one. If they feared life in prison more than death then they could easily remedy that by committing suicide. Why would a life sentence deter you if you could just kill yourself for an easy way out of the punishment? If they've killed themselves, aren't you happy anyway? They're dead. If they're gonna chop themselves, I don't see why the state needs to do the deed for them.

Whatever. I'm sorry to assassin if he was offended. All this is needless flaming. I was merely displaying that l0l's lack of explanation to his posts, and confusion between ideology and methodology, leave him susceptible to accusations of hypocrisy, or blind idealism.

Above all else, if this girl wants to move away from this guy and their past together, and her smoking is clearly upsetting him, it might just reinforce the idea that smoking is giving her the kind of reaction she wants from him. Therefore, him waving his arms around shouting, "Thou shalt not smoke, sinner!" isn't going to get her to stop, and just places him in more difficulty because it removes cards from the table later. Even if you take away the whole, "It's her body, she can do what she wants with it" aspect, it's definitely a bad move to pursue this, given his unfortunate position with her.

If you read my post you'll see I was calling myself a douche. I've read over your post. I can't see how you were possibly calling yourself a douche. Either you're bad with English, or you were flaming. I'll presume the former. Oh please, it's nothing I don't get given to me. How about I lecture you on all my various ideals as if you were incapable of understanding them for yourself, or as if you didn't already know about them? Make an obvious comment to someone you know already knows better, and they will likely get patronised by it.

I think the most ironic thing about capitalism is that it preaches about how it's so financially prosperous, even when we're in the midst of a recession. How's that for irony? Capitalism isn't supposed to guarantee constant economic growth, that's unsustainable for a number of reasons. Recessions are a natural part of the trade cycle. The long term trend though is for economic growth to occur. I think I remember saying the same thing myself about half a dozen times on other threads, but thanks for showing the consideration to lecture me anyway, just in case I'd forgotten how capitalism works. :roll: I was merely displaying there are faults with all systems, thus l0l's "Socialism/Communism sux because Capitalism's an absolute God-send of a system!" stance just comes across as a tiny bit baseless and unexplained.

Those wacky ties people get. Meaningless things like "blue sky thinking". Posh emos. 'Oh no, daddy can't afford to get me a new TV. I'm stuck on my old 17" flatscreen', was a comment that really wound me up a few months back.

I think the most ironic thing about capitalism is that it preaches about how it's so financially prosperous, even when we're in the midst of a recession. How's that for irony? I don't really regard banning individualism synonymous with socialism either. Baring in mind the buzz word around the NHS these days is "choice".

1. What is your job? None 2. Do you have any nicknames? Ginger; Doogie; I used to be called 'Casper' when I was younger because of how pale I was. 3. What famous celebrity/fictional character do you look like? Erm... dunno really. 4. What famous celebrity/fictional character do you want to most look like? I'm cool with the way I am 5. What are you most proud of in life? Ooo... lots of things. GCSEs, A Levels, getting into Med School, picking up the drums as fast as I did. 6. What do you regret most in life? I could be here all day. :? 7. Pancakes or waffles? I've never had an American "waffle", so that would be pancakes. 8. Favorite cookie flavor? Rich tea digestives. With a good cuppa. Mmm... :D If you split them in half it's even better 'coz you can eat them before they start to crumble. 9. What is the most expensive thing you have bought? Apart from this computer, which cost me personally £200 (Dad bought the other half), my iPod nano with docking speakers. Probably set me back around £190. 10. What is the most expensive thing you have broken? My DS. It fell off my bed and... snap. Would have been about £120's worth. 11. What is the funniest thing you've seen? Never Mind the Buzz[roosters]. The episode with the guy from Glasvegas on it. The way Simon constantly needles him with awkward questions is hilarious. :lol: 12. What's your dream meal (appetizer, entree, and dessert)? Err... BBQ wings, meat pizza and... ice cream. Pizza Hut, basically. 13. If you could go back in time, what year would you go to and why? 2006. Last year of high school (15-16yo). Just great fun. 14. Pizza, yeeeeeeaaaaahhhh or naaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh? YEEEEEEAAAAAHHHH!

a) So... you're allowed to spend bucket loads of US aid on increasing the strength of your military, but Hamas aren't? Do you want to prove the stereotype that Israel wants to control Palestine entirely any more than you currently are? B) If we're going to quote history, at least give a balanced response. You make it sound like you were there first and the big, bad Hamas didn't like it, so they started launching attacks. Who was it that took twice as much land as it was initially granted during the Six Day war? Who was it that sliced an extra 10% of the West Bank when it built a separation wall? Who has continuously set up a blockade on the Gaza Strip and meddled in its internal affairs? Who continues to control a foreign sovereignty's air and sea space? I can't condone violence, especially against civilians, but if I were Palestinian, I'd feel hard done by. It should do. I'd advise people to read up on the brutal acts of aggression from the supposedly "moral" and democratic British Empire on the Irish during the first twenty years of the 20th Century. One feature is noticeable now as it was then: those acts of aggression got Britain nowhere in solving the problem, indeed, it actually made it worse by alienating the population against them, whilst at the same time giving the Irish nationalists some sort of legitimacy to their grievances. All Israel is doing is making a peaceful negotiation even less likely than it was before, as Arabs looking from the sidelines become even more sympathetic towards Palestine. A political party the Palestinians voted into power. That's the problem with democracy, and it was democracy you were calling for when Arafat was in control. I wasn't aware it was now acceptable to attack a fair democracy because you don't like its leading party. Amnesty International has called for fighting from both sides to stop. The International Committee of the Red Cross has warned Israel to stop its attacks because hospitals are being overrun. It has also said Israel's purposeful attempt to prevent aid getting into Gaza is unacceptable, and the UN has warned of a humanitarian crisis. Yet Israel still continues the assault, in full knowledge the campaign is not stopping the rocket attacks against them. How is that avoiding civilian casualties? You all seem to be saying "Israel is avoiding casualties" as though it's an established fact.

Indeed. Maybe Paris Hilton sneezing would be more interesting. Who knows? I'd generally ban superlatives like "crisis", "massive" or "catastrophic". On the BBC of all places, they've just got no place on a responsible broadcaster.

You've pretty much summed it up. What it's about is dependency. Someone who drinks two glasses of wine a day to relieve stress is doing so because they need that consumption of alcohol. Me going to a party once every two months and getting drunk is not a need, it's a desire. Just as easily, I can turn round and say, "No, I'm having pop". I am in control of the alcohol, rather than the other way round.

I find it more disturbing when people want these psychos to continue being a threat to society. I don't want them to be a threat to society either. You seem to have interpreted a false dichotomy where you either kill murderers, or release them freely. Taking serial killers out of society (people who usually revert back to their old ways) doesn't make society any safer? That doesn't make sense. I hope you're just talking about personal retributions rather than doing something for a greater good. I don't really think of murderers, or rapists as a "group" of people. That would be to imply that they're all similar to each other, or that they're some part of organised crime. Under this logic, the group can be oppressed, stopped even, to make society a safer place. Extremely high sentences work well because they have a direct impact on other murderers thinking of following suit, or on the organisation of the group itself. You can even go further, and idealise a perfect society where all in this group are dead, and thus the crime itself fails to exist altogether. Unfortunately, there's just one problem with this vastly ideological perception of crime: this view is wrong. I prefer to think of murderers as exceptional radicals; people who go off the rails apparently randomly because an experience in their life has triggered them to become sociopathic. Under this logic, the chances of becoming a victim of a murderer remain constantly random, and thus the death penalty (or life sentences, depending on your location) becomes nothing more than a device society uses to fulfill an emotional need for retribution. Nevertheless, society is no safer, unless you count an emotional perception as "safe". You've killed someone, and for apparently no gain. Regrettably, sociopaths exist. Nothing short of monitoring each and every single person's behavioural patterns will stop this. The death penalty does not decrease the amount of sociopaths, thus I feel no need for its inclusion in a judicial system.