Ginger_Warrior

It'd be nice if Tip.It could have one, but I honestly don't think there's enough people on Tip.It that are into sports to keep it tenable. :(

Amazingly enough, I remember a $700 billion package only a couple months ago was meant to save the world economy. I wonder why it didn't work? What makes you think this will "save the economy"? It's not broken - it enters a recession every now and then, and recovers on its own.

Of course it has a maker - the bulb or the seed that it grew from, the rain it gained water from, and the soil it drew nutrition from. Everything that exists must have been created by something(s) before it. The universe is surely no exception to that rule, and that's the one fallacy science is unable to explain so far: How do you create something from nothing? My logical answer would be this: There must have been something there before the Big Bang. In which case, what caused that?

Marriage's intention was never for procreation. Indeed, that's a silly argument since marriage is nearly always monogamous and that results in less women giving birth. Marriage's intention was to encourage children to be raised in a stable relationship between two guardians, and to legally set social norms that had established themselves in ancient civilisations, such as not getting married or giving birth by relatives. As for procreation being beneficial - the world is overpopulated. It could be argued that a birth rate of > 2.2 is detrimental to global society, not beneficial. So really, your argument isn't about the definition of marriage at all. You just don't like gays, plain and simple. (The fact you're a devout Christian is obviously a coincidence) So, just playing around here, you're against people marrying if one of them has had a castration then? Or if they're paralysed? Or if the woman is too weak to give birth? Or if they're too old to have children? Anyone else you want to deny rights to?

Look, you've already discovered why this guy makes her more happy than you do. Your whole attitude reeks of "I'm so much better than this guy anyway, I'll just wait for him to [bleep] up then she's mine". She's ain't interested in guys who act that way. In all honesty, that's what you get when you're friends with girls. They make better company, but if you start developing feelings for them, that's where it starts to get a little... muddy.

Yes, and this is the other error when following Islam, some people like to only look at it from 2001 onwards because that's the only time where they've actually cared. The media are included in that. Radical Islam has been going on for centuries before. Hell, you could even argue Muhammad was an advocate of radical Islam in the way he conquered Mecca. What people need to learn is the difference between spiritual religion, and political religion, instead of lazily banding the two together and saying "Spiritual Islam is bad because some aspects of political Islam are bad". The real debate on Islam is this: Is it Islam that causes some people to strap a belt to them and blow themselves up on a busy London afternoon; or is it some people using a twisted interpretation of Islam to prey on some (mostly young) people's legitimate grievances? Now, having spent 14 years of my life in two schools where the majority of pupils were Muslims, and also having seen the rise in Islamist extremism post-Iraq invasion, and I'm more obliged to say it's the latter, and that the vast majority of Muslims are no more dangerous to society than the law-abiding Atheists on this board.

Errr, no. christ people I just didn't think anyone saw it so I re-posted it. Do you want me to copy and paste or something? srysly -.- srysly, if you're that insecure about whether your posts get seen by people, I wouldn't trust you within 1,000 miles of a gun.

You seem to think repeating the same statistics over and over again somehow adds to your argument.

Hence why you're encouraged to read other personality types. Knowing your own is useless if you've nothing to compare it to, or cross validate it with. Most websites will confirm that the types are merely archetypal, you won't completely match with any Jungian personality type, and you aren't meant to 'box yourself' in to a given personality because of the results. The whole point is to be aware of your negative traits, and work on ways to counter them. In the same way Hippocrates is no longer relevant to modern day medicine, or Homer is no longer relevant to modern day poetical literature, yes. The fact of the matter is this: the whole field of personality psychology is subjective, since we all have distinct personalities. 'Subjective' doesn't equate to 'wrong' though, so long as it doesn't claim to be a scientific analysis without objective evidence first. I've not come across any interview process which does use it. In some ways, that entire statement is like the IQ test debate. It's a non-issue since so few organisations actually use them, and they're more designed for team-building, personal development, and above all else, to point out how irrelevant they actually are on the grander scheme of things. Again, you're raising strawmen. Of all these tests I've taken, not even one has been offered to me by a workplace! No one's claiming there are 16 personality types, and every single person fits perfectly into one of these types. There's other people who have been flagged the same type as me in this thread, but are not otherwise similar to me in any way. The test is not meant to be taken literally as a guide on how to perceive or act on things in life in accordance to personality. As Quoi_Tu says, it's meant to provoke people into thinking critically about why other people and themselves act the way they do, what qualities we like in other people, and why some people just can't get along with one another.

Firstly, it's important you find the right balance between your physical routine, and the amount of food you're taking. It is very important NOT to starve yourself. I've seen people try and go on diets by skipping breakfast. What happens? They're snacking at 3pm despite only having lunch at half 12, and they lose nothing. They've also suffered academically because their brains are literally dead on energy during the morning. At the same time, don't overexert yourself. If you don't feel physically able to run 5 times a week, don't. You'll do yourself more harm than you will good, and it could possibly lead to a more serious or long-term injury. The only general advice I would give for everyone thinking of losing weight is to reduce the amount of calories you take by 500 per day. So if you're taking, say, 2,500 now, come down to 2,000 each day. If you're snacking, try and restrict it to only a couple times a week. As for exercise, the vast majority of people don't need to work out to maintain a healthy weight, because their day to day lifestyle simply doesn't demand it. Get a pedometer, and try and walk up to 10,000 steps a day. Again, if you're not up to walking that much, start at a lower number and work yourself up. That should be plenty exercise for most people. Finally, only lose weight with accordance to the BMI. Loosing too much weight is just as dangerous as not losing enough, especially in the winter.

Arabia =/= Islam

That would be the same Iran that we're told is conducting nuclear tests to build a nuclear arsenal of its own? Two nuclear powers aiming missiles at each other's heads, both feeling they have a divine right to do whatever they want to gain the promised land and God will reward them for it when they die, so what have they got to lose by using them anyway? Sounds like a genius solution. Where do I (not) sign? In regards to Palestine, added to that the fundamental issue that the land was Palestine's until Israel decided to displace the people from their land. How would you like the Russian Army to just march into your land, tell you they now own it, tell you they're going to implant hundreds of their own settlers into the region, and you have to move hundreds of miles away to rebuild your life with others who are stuck in the same dilemma? I can't imagine you'd be wishing, "Oh, if only Russia aimed a nuke at us instead" then. I'm all for children learning about the despicable actions of the Nazi regime in regards to mass genocide, but that does not mean we owe the Jews any more than we owe the gays, socialists, black people or disabled, all of whom were also persecuted for the Volksgemeinschaft. After all, the first opponents of the regime were political, not religious/racial. When you consider Israel has one the most blatantly racist constitutions of all time, I really don't see what I have to owe them. Nor does that make me an anti-Semite.

I must confess... his reflexes amazed me. I guess all that cheerleading stuff during Vietnam came in handy after all.

Don't be an idiot. Being an atheist is one thing, denial is another. If the whole basis of science is that everything that occurs has a logical answer, then there must be a cause to the Big Bang. For that to happen, there must have been something already there, no matter how small, for it to occur. The question is therefore this: What made that small space? What made the particles that caused the Big Bang? And what made those things? And what made that thing? So on, and so forth... Yours and l0rd's theory that protons just float in and out of existence in an anarchic state is equally as ridiculous to the scientific method as the concept of God itself. The fact of the matter is this: no one knows what was before the Big Bang for sure, and to rule out the possibility that there may have been some deity who orchestrated it, in the light of no evidence to rule that conclusion out, is bigoted and closed minded.

What it needs is peoples brawling... I'm hoping to start again after Christmas. I might get one second hand in the January Sales.

I wrote this paper (using the source BlueLancer provided), Originally for a school paper on a Controversial topic, thought it would stir up quite a discussion on the forums. Without going into depth as to why - give a clear opinion/interpretation. Describing a situation in an essay is pointless, and later on in your academic career, you'll be slated if you do.

The difference being, there is proof that the universe happened by accident. The big bang has been proven, what came or happened before it is wild speculation. Either way what created our universe came out of nowhere, whether you believe in it being an all-powerful being or a series of different materials exploding and joining together. One just holds a bit more proof than the other. Thats not at all true, the big bang theory has plenty of evidence behind it and dont get me wrong I'm not at all refuting it, but it says nothing about the cause, there are some theories about possible causes, but none of them are in any sense proven. The Big Bang theory extrapolates back to a point of singularity, it makes no claims about what happened at that singularity or what caused it. Indeed, using that analogy, some religions have actually gone further than most scientists in trying to explain what started the universe. Some would use the 'cause of a cause' analogy to prove God exists - in other words, they do not refute the Big Bang happened, but try and explain the uncaused cause by simply saying this was the point at which God created existence. I'm more open minded to that idea until science comes up with evidence that throws it into doubt. After all, by science's own laws, you cannot create something from nothing. It just doesn't happen. That's the only fallacy in science I'm willing to fill with the idea of God.

:lol: So... this this really a serious problem or not? I can't pick out double-bluffs over the Interwebs. ;)

Islam is the world's fastest growing religion anyway. I mean that even if you take away the fundamentalists. Atheism isn't growing as fast as Islam. Means nothing to me, I just thought I'd put this here...

Extractions hurt like Hell! (No they don't. I was just a weakling) I enjoy New Year's Eve more, to be honest.

It'd fix the physical injury, no doubt. Does nothing for the psychological trauma of battle though.

Jesus, if a bit of stolen money is all you two have to worry about as friends, you've nothing to worry about. Just hug and make up... or whatever you guys do. :|

10 points. You realised my answer was a personal response. I never claimed my attitude towards life could be applied to everyone. It's merely what I believe. Fortunately, I've found a purpose in life.

The italicised is the main way I achieve happiness and comfort in life. Anyone who knows me knows I'm an incredibly passionate person. There are things we can all do to improve our lives in terms of happiness, but happiness is only one aspect of life, and the fundamental point of my post still remains. Life for the sake of living is not really a justification at all. Life, like all things, has to have some purpose. Therefore, living forever, without any purpose at all, is pointless.

A foolish desire. There is a story, although its name eludes me, about a man reading an entire library, complete with all of human knowledge, and yet by the time he reaches the back cover of the final book, he still does not know everything there is to know. Why? Because as he's read through it all, new books have been added to the shelf as he's read across. It is impossible to know everything there is to know, because new information is always being gathered at a pace humans simply cannot keep up with. Hence society's need to train people in "specialities", and educate them at university to effectively research into others areas they're not necessarily learned in. Would I like to live forever? No. Even if you remove all the stuff about 'loved ones'. I'm used to people dying. But what is the point of living, if it never ends? How on Earth can we strive to achieve when we have an infinite amount of time to do so? I suppose if I could put it poetically: What is the point in living, if there is nothing we have to die for?