BlueLancer

Well, it's really not on the topic, but you ought to see it from the perspective of truly "every human child" in that case. Houses in Asia, African countries, Spain, Middle-East don't usually have a triangle-top roof. It's almost exclusively a western phenomena (chinese and japanese buddhist/shinto temples do often have triangle roofs though) As you see, it's really just perception. You might think it's hard-wired into kids to draw the same kind of house, but in the majority of countries, a house is usually pretty much a square with a flat roof and white/light walls to deflect heat from the sun. Not just in a debate, but also in the real world, it's good to think about every perspective, not just your own. It will give you a much more realistic and accurate view of the world. Likewise, no matter if you're a hindu, buddhist, christian, jew or muslim, remember that about 75% of the world's population don't follow your religion (and if you're an agnostic or atheist, that's about 80% of the world population that disagrees) [1]

"Short distances" are trips to the local supermarket/Target/etc., visiting friends who live 200ft from your home, etc... I have cousins in California who use a SUV literally for *everything*. We went to visit a neighbour who was 2 houses down the road, and they had to take the friggin' SUV instead of just walking, kept it to myself though :lol: It's impractical to walk or bike distances like 4/10 miles as in your family's case, asking to 'go green' on your daily travel would be more of a nuisance than an actual benefit, plus you'd need to wake up much earlier, etc.

It means in 2005, he voted 'Yes' or 'No' in the senate 77% in line with issues Bush personally advocated, and in 2007, 95% of the time.

You're not entirely wrong; McCain did vote with Bush 77% of the time - in 2005. [1] In 2007, last year, he voted 95% of the time in line with Bush. Note the figure includes votes in which republicans have strongly disagreed with the president, like with his immigration policies [2], so it's safe to say his views as of recent, are extremely similar to those of George W. Bush

Probably troll, but let's try anyways.. Isn't it kind of obvious that if a million people get a difficult cancer for example.. By definition, 100,000 of them will survive by normal treatment with a 10% survival rate without any 'divine intervention'? The rest as a peer group will die no matter if a God exists/how religious or atheist they were due to the nature of the disease, if the 10% figure holds true. By your logic people who win the lottery are also blessed by God since the chance to win in a six-number lottery is 1 out of 14 million. It's nothing more than pure mathematical chance, if 40 million people play the lottery with varying random numbers on each coupon, it would be less likely for somebody not to win it (since 40 million coupons with a 1:14m winning ratio has a positive expectancy ratio in the long run) Likewise, for every hundred/thousand/million people who die of an uncurable disease such as AIDS, there is a very small % who are born with a genetic mutation/the bodies develop resistance to it by random chance[1], mostly in african/asian countries. It has nothing to do with a God

By statistics it should be pretty clear Obama is elected, same time last election the polls were pretty much tied with 45%/45% with some 10% unsure voters... This time around, depending on the poll, Obama has a 5-14% lead. Anything can still happen though... If you firmly believe McCain can win, now's your time to also profit big time :lol: Big betting agencies already give up to 7.00 odds for your money if you bet on him to win. 50 bucks with McCain will get you $350 ($50 with Obama will get you only $6 profit)

That. But it seems unpopular amongst tip.it'ers. :? Now that I think about it, I mostly just write text messages/emails related to friends, business, etc.. It's clumsy, but has good extra features (though I never watched a movie on it yet, or even listened to a mp3, what a waste)

No, it's not. Since you chose to just reply with 3 words, I take it you misunderstood the broader message... You're free to believe in the absence of Gods or in the existence of them, I meant it from an encyclopedic, neutral view... Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines a 'God': Since you can't produce plausible, testable evidence neither towards the existence of a God nor towards the absence of one, the result is "unknown", just as in a crime without witnesses or inconclusive evidence, a verdict cannot be reached based on assumptions or personal experiences/perceptions. Rational and personal beliefs can be separate. There are people who are christians/muslims by personal preference, yet completely understand it's a possibility a God might not exist. There are many non-religious people who understand it might be possible a God exists.

Yep that's a perfect translation.. PM if you need more accurate serbian/bosnian/croatian translations (speaking as 2nd language since birth)

Unless you'd be a serious environazi, there's no reason to be 'green by the book'. The small things that make sense are so easy they should be taught to kids (like it is in some kindergardens in nordic countries)... -Turning off lights and appliances while you aren't at home/you sleep -Walking/biking short distances instead of driving a car -Conserving water Because.. You know, neither electricity or water is infinite. I'm not an environment nut, but I find the above extremely easy to do. Hell, it doesn't even harm you, if anything, your electronic appliances last longer since they get rest periods, your electric/water bills get lower, etc... I don't buy into that "don't purchase from the big corporations" boycott though... Really. For every self-conscious western person choosing not to buy Nestle/McDonald's/whatever, there's 10 new customers in poorer countries who will happily take their products due to the cheap price to feed their families... It really doesn't matter (unless those companies like Nestle got actually banned in western countries, which isn't going to happen)

Agnosticism is the only rational stance towards religion. You can't possibly know if a god/supernatural entity exists or not, which is the exact core premise of agnosticism. Really, in a classic logical debate, it shouldn't even be given a second thought. By using objective reasoning it's not possible to come to any other conclusion. That doesn't mean people don't have the right to believe there is a god/gods, or that there isn't one at all, far from it. But theism has nothing concrete to support it, and (while not under the burden of proof, though) atheism is based on denial based on lack of evidence. Think a thief has broken in a shop in the middle of the night, but the security camera failed to work and there no evidence. Were he ever to get caught, the jury can only make assumptions and beliefs in the absence of proof, and in countries of proper law & habeas corpus, you can never be convicted of something without a fair trial and substantial evidence against you. By that example atheism would seem more rational, though the concept of 'God' isn't as simple as a common thief. The thief might confess himself some day, but it's impossible to conclude whether a 'God' exists or not, given he/it can't even be physically observed. You can only make a belief either way. Agnosticism is in contrast to both atheism and theism. Agnosticism simply states the fact no conclusion can be reached based on empirical evidence.

The more songs I listen to songs by this this band, the more professional & creative they seem (even though there's the occassional annoying screamo song every now and then, but rare). I didn't even know they've made a full 6 or so albums. Currently listening to their older creations.. Funny easter egg is a song called 'billy' or 'johnny', or 'bob' in almost every album (as a part of mocking mainstream culture/names/phenomena)

Holy crap. :lol: (Jeep?) Probably useful for carrying stuff around, etc., but I'd never drive such an engine in urban cities, the diesel consumption per 100km is abysmal for a 4.2L. Not even money is necessarily the issue, but rather if you drive around a lot, you'll need pretty regular refills :shock: Conservative estimate... 15/20+liters per hundred?

Drive my car so it consumes 4-5l per 100km? :lol: Doesn't really make much difference (except for your wallet)... But driving techniques, driving on high gears/sparing the gas can save you even a few thousand bucks/year in gas costs. And hey, if it reduces Co2 emissions (which it does), what's to lose... With beginner driving techniques, depending on the engine of the car, for argument's sake 2.0l, you'll consume 8 liters or more per 100km, so it does matter.

Don't think many people can disagree that being out with friends (most of the time) beats just sitting bored at home chatting away on MSN, but this guy who plays his 36 accounts can't be labeled a loser just because he "doesn't hang out with jocks and girls". If he can sustain the habit, have a job, maybe a family in the future, what's making him so much of a loser? Admittedly, I find his setup extremely geeky, but I don't think he's a "loser" at all. If a person has an interest that hurts no-one, he's much less of a loser than a hard-drug addict, abusive husband, mugger etc.. (people who are real losers) Just remember your jock friends or girlfriends aren't an extension of you that boost your inherent self-worth in society. You're the one who makes your life what it is and how you're percieved.

In a lot of industrial countries these days, highly racist or hate-mongering books can be entirely banned from sale, library lease, import or school curriculums. So it is completely possible to "ban" books from being read, most of the time the target of the ban in Europe is a neo-nazi, anti-semitic, ultra-nationalistic book. It's actually possible to get a copy of Mein Kampf in some European libraries, but not the original version. The one available for the public in most countries is heavily commented in a critical light via footnotes, or blatantly edited. Can't say that's disappointing though, there are some things best left unread especially if the reader is young and prone to new influences

Abuse is a VERY loosely used term when it comes to drugs. I smoked a joint last night. Many people would call that abuse because I used an illegal drug. I call it use because the amount I smoked was not very harmful to my body. My point is many people consider using a drug and abusing a drug the same thing. In my mind, abuse it when your drug use becomes harmful to your health or you cannot control your addiction. Even though I'm not a big friend of drugs, that's one thing I always strongly agreed with.. The term "abuse" has just become a propaganda tool in this situation (war on drugs). If you are moderately using a substance, be it alcohol or drugs, and it doesn't immediately harm you or others around you.. How can it be "abuse"? Likewise, if you eat greasy hamburger meals once per month, you aren't exactly "abusing junk food". If you have a glass of wine with your dinner, you aren't an alcoholic who abuses it. "Abuse" itself implies somebody is being harmed by abnormal consumption, if no harm is being done to anyone, it can't be abuse.

Racial profiling is a pretty sweeping generalization... You can't honestly say you haven't met at least a few attractive people from every ethnicity... I'd say people from all ethnicities are mostly average, no group is above another. The only reason why some cultures seek to emulate western/european looks is media influence, and possibly the fact that caucasian people have interesting genetic 'mutations' that shouldn't practically exist, like blond/light brown/red hair, all sorts of eye colors from light blue to dark green and hazel, while the usual norm amongst most cultures in the world is simply black hair and eyes, sometimes brown.

Well in that aspect, Europe is the pinnacle of literary liberty, because besides Mein Kampf, anything can be sold or rented at public libraries, anything from radical left-wing ideology to children's books and satanist books/black magic manuals. In the States, anything that tends to cause even the slightest controversy is often 'banned' for the 'public good', which is really a cop-out. Controversy is good, it makes people think. Critical thinking isn't a negative thing that should be actively avoided.

In the end though, 9/10 times they are the ones who end up with the hotter group of girls. I almost forgot, that's the meaning of life, the 'group of girls' you hang out with (I thought earlier, a g/f or wife counted for something) based on appearance Either way, since Nadril brought it up... It is a bit sad he's tapping into his parents' money to finance this. Nothing prohibits him from doing it though, he's not hurting anyone, I wouldn't hate on him.

Singapore also has one of the lowest crime rates of any country, cleanest streets, high financial and academic prosperity... Sure, it's a small country, but it doesn't even rank because it has one of (if not, the) the lowest crime rates in the world, least corruption.. (Note that much smaller countries such as Malta, Estonia, do rank up there) Statistics is a cold-hearted b*. I'm not totally anti-drugs, but nobody can deny the correlation between proper prohibition of hard drugs and a general good quality of life exists. If anyone didn't know, the penalty for trafficking drugs in Singapore is death.

Just listened to them for the first time after this topic, MtH is actually a very positive surprise. It's actually pretty decent compared to all the lame screaming and 10-minute repetitive solos out there. Their songs as a whole have a good versatile metal sound

Got to agree, even though it's extremely violent, the way Sopranos is made, is just beautiful. It deserves the high ratings it got. Another one is Dexter. Give it a shot after watching all Sopranos seasons, think you'll like the dark style, imagery and music of the series.

Salvia is a really, really mild drug if used recreationally. In terms of effect, it's likely weaker than hospital morphine or even aspirin with whiskey... It makes absolutely no logical sense to ban it, but obviously from the government bureaucrat's viewpoint, it's more often than not untaxable, so ruling it illegal as 'retaliation' makes sense. Cocaine and heroin should always stay illegal though, I wouldn't like my kid to have access to cheap, legal heroin and get so addicted it will be the only thing they'll appreciate in life, would you? Yes, a few people can control their habit... But users who already somehow manage to gain money for big amounts of illegal coke/heroin, to put it bluntly, just how messed up would their life become if you could get those substances at $5 per gram in a pharmacy just by showing your ID card?

Don't want to bash on anyone, but I must 100% agree with Azvareth purely based on personal experience... I know 2 'pro' gamers in real life (one of which actually gets money to participate in CounterStrike source tournaments with a clan), and even though they likely have never even met each other, are... Very elitistic and antisocial. Well, the only reason they'll even talk to me, is because I was sort of helping them in school with some subjects back when I was younger... But I think they view it as a burden It would be idiotic to generalize all hardcore gamers as freaks, but the ones I know really are weird... They don't have any human contact even with their parents or siblings, bar maybe the pizza courier, and get really agitated even if you message them online while they play (I don't want to imagine their reaction if you were actually sitting next to the guy) Probably nobody on tip.it fills the criteria for 'hardcore gamer', I doubt anyone here plays a single upwards to 20 hours per day regularly, for up to months/years. A 'gamer' is just an average person though, if you're 'hardcore' anything, it pretty much excludes you from regularity. It's not discriminating; Think; If someone is a hardcore chess player, heck, even hardcore piano/instrument player, are they going to live normal lives? I'm not saying a 'normal life' is the best, but if you devote almost all of your time to a single activity, your career and social life *must* suffer as a consequence, almost always.