BlueLancer

My friend's father left for good when he was maybe 2 years old, and he's completely stable after being raised only by his mom, so in that sense I disagree that it's absolutely necessary for a child to have a mother and a father. But having two fathers or two mothers, as said, would be possibly confusing, but the child could accept it. It's not natural, but I saw two documentaries about it, and the children don't really get bullied nor do they think it's weird (though some of the other kids did wonder why the kids had two moms). As long as people keep the two subjects apart from each other, the unnaturality of having two parents of the same gender and the necessity not to have two parents of the same gender, it's ok. Because ultimately, a child can grow up and become a stable person with upbringing that differs from the social norm.

Just to add to Warrior45's post, you can still be a christian and not take every word in the Bible literally. You say you still believe 'Jesus is your savior'. You can still believe that, and accept the proof radiometric dating gives us about the age of the world. Do you really think 'God' will be angry because 1 person didn't believe a piece of fiction? You can still believe in God and accept scientific facts about the world. Science is not a synonym for 'anti-religion'. Science explains how stuff works. Scientists are not a bunch of antichrist's with an agenda to destroy religions. They only publish facts that can be observed by anyone to be true through empirical evidence and testing, but they do it for you so you don't have to test it yourself. And, if you doubt it, you could always go to a laboratory and observe it yourself. They have no reason to release flawed facts when in today's world of fast communications and internet somebody could prove them wrong in a whim and their entire careers and reputations would be gone.

Nah, in the real world, it often doesn't work like that. They just want to know if you speak a language or not, not if you learnt it in Harvard or a random mud-hut. The customer doesn't care 'how' you learned the language, but that you actually speak/write it. I pretty much learned English on my own, and it's my 3rd language. It does take motivation and the younger you start, the better. :) Languages are always useful (so far I can speak fluently english/finnish/swedish/russian/serbian/croatian...) everywhere you go in the world. Even better if you know major languages like spanish, chinese, japanese... Those will be very important when you grow up if you're young now. I'm going for chinese, over 1 billion speakers and already a highly important business skill to have. -------- P.S Bubsa: Haha, I started with C++ :P But you're right, it was frustrating without any prior coding experience whatsoever.. Still didn't get very far with that. Made a few calculators, haha... ------- Depends, what do you want to learn? I've got tons of links.

It's obvious you don't know about the subject. Worldwide, the Iranian and Iraqi power plants contribute theoretically nothing to global warming. They are both countries with less than 30m inhabitants. Just because there are wars in those regions, it doesn't mean they produce more CO2. USA+China equal about 50%, half of the world's industrial CO2 emissions, and China will most likely surpass the US in a few years (also in the size of their economy) P.S: I'm not from Australia. I was using it as an example. So you can belittle australians because "I don't live there so I don't give a crap"? Too bad, it could and most likely will happen to you as well, depending on where you live. Texas isn't exactly the best climate for a snowfall either, just like some southern european countries and african countries that haven't seen snow for decades.

The new version is horrible, the weapons sound like toy guns, and in-game lag (not server lag) has increased. Hopefully they'll patch it 8-)

And too bad Australia hasn't had proper rains for years, and they are being forced to reuse sewage water and the government organised 'official' prayers in churches to get water in there quick (...) Are you really trying to say "global warming" doesn't exist? If it conforts you, even your president admits it's true. And yeah, Al Gore is a democrat.

Would you write your reasons for disagreeing with such a system?

Yes there is, you're taking this to a way too theoretical level. Killing somebody is an absolute evil, because nobody WANTS to be killed. There is not a single person in the world who wants to be murdered, other than probably a few hundred mentally unstable people. Then yes, the 6 billion other people are right. Stealing is an absolute evil. Why? Stealing is prohibited in every single country because every single country contains humans. Humans don't like having their items stolen. No human wants to be stolen from. Homosexuality, on the other hand, is not an absolute evil, not even an evil. Why? Some people are born gay, and they can't do anything about it. Homosexuality is not prohibited in most societies, and some countries offer them the option of legal marriage (South Africa, Canada, The Netherlands to name a few) Why isn't being gay prohibited, like murdering or stealing? Why do some governments even endorse it? It is not a direct threat to anything in society. They work. They eat. They produce. They can adopt children. They are not a source of evil, like a robber or a murderer. Why is it so hard to understand? As a historical example, in Greece, it was even normal to be gay. Still, in Greece, it was not normal to be a murderer or robber. They were still punished, gay people were not. Common sense alone, let alone any discussion of morals dictates homosexuality cannot be rationally proven 'evil'. Example --------------------------------- I'm for abortion, because I support the woman's right to choose. However, a person such as Locke who disagrees with me has a higher moral stance. Why? I theoretically support the killing of a living being. Locke, on the other hand, disagrees and says the child should have the right to live. That's an example of moral superiority; My belief in that sense would cause more evil than the opposing belief; Hence my belief is not fully rational. It's just practical in today's world, but it's evil nonetheless.

The one who causes less evil. A moral absolute, like mentioned above, is for example "murder is wrong". You can't debate that even on a theoretical level, because nobody wants to be murdered, not even a murderer. Homosexuality on the other hand doesn't hurt anybody, nor do they even try to hurt anybody, yet people are ready to tell them how they're "morally wrong" for being born in such a way. Being a homophobe can't be an absolute moral because it causes no direct harm to anybody in the society, related or unrelated to the person. A murderer, on the other hand, is a threat to every random person.

Why can't an atheist defend that, since it's universally (in every culture) regardless of the culture's religion, accepted as an absolute moral?

That's not an argument, that's ridiculous. You're starting the same flame war as on the religious threads; "If you don't believe in God, you can't have morals". It's not worth discussing this since you obviously fail to understand morals have nothing to do with religion. If it is ridiculous how come atheists can't defend moral absolutes? What do you mean by 'atheists can't defend moral absolutes'? Do you mean, atheists or anybody believing in a different God than you has lesser morals? Also, provide an example of an absolute moral. Some members of the Habsburg family are still alive, but are forbidden by the Austrian constitution to take part in politics (because they could gain popular support and possibly reinstate a monarchy)

A common mistake is to do massive amounts of press-ups or situps to try and build muscle. If you want to build muscle mass you should do low repetitions of high weights. This is a little trickier for sit-up type exercises without access to a gym, but try doing it with a weight on your upper chest area. For home exercises though, a set of adjustable dumbells is very useful. Personally, I play hockey for about an hour or two normally once or twice a week this time of the year, normally in matches or training. Rugby before Christmas, and tennis in the summer. I also go to the gym three/four times a week to work with weights and go swimming. In the summer I also cycle a lot, and run in the winter, although less running this winter. I got told, that way is unhealthy for people under21 becuase our body is still developing, so the best way for that age is high reps low weights, it doesnt cause as much damage Rubbish. High reps low weights only increases endurance at any age. You can't build muscle mass by doing 300 reps of whatever excercise you do. Even most pro's do about 2 reps of 6 lifts, with a pause in between. P.S: Depending on the person, you can start bodybuilding at 14-16 with high weights low reps. It totally depends on your body.

That's not an argument, that's ridiculous. You're starting the same flame war as on the religious threads; "If you don't believe in God, you can't have morals". It's not worth discussing this since you obviously fail to understand morals have nothing to do with religion.

Prostitution is legal and taxed, for example in Germany. Almost all drugs are legal and taxed, for example in The Netherlands. Many countries haven't signed UN treaties for the prohibition of child labor because the families WANT their children to work, the family would be in even more extreme poverty otherwise, for example in over 40 countries in the world. Not sure what you mean, but yeah, an assault is completely illegal and no human could wish it's legal. Gay marriage is allowed in many countries, for example, South Africa, Canada, The Netherlands... ------------------------------------------- You fail to see YOUR government's morals aren't absolute. The american government even advocates the death penalty which has been abolished in just about every other western nation. So is everybody in those countries 'evil', because they allowed their governments to pass those laws? No. It's just that your morals are too absolute and different morals apply in different cultures. What's wrong to you, is natural to the other. They think prostitution is right, and the death penalty is wrong. You think prostitution is wrong, but the death penalty is right. Which one has a better moral standing, given that prostitution kills nobody, and killing is the ultimate form of stealing a person's freedom and rights to live a life?

Correction: The past few millennia. What makes the 21st century any different from other historical centuries, other than the fact that some people are better off than their ancestors could've ever imagined in their wildest dreams? Check how many wars are going on now and compare it to the 20th, 19th, 18th century and so on. Check out world poverty rates and compare it to the earlier centuries when basically everybody not from a royal family lived among dirt and scarce food. People like to whine just because. Actually, if you live in a western country and have internet access, you are privileged in the world. The internet has about ~1 billion regular users, there are soon nearly 7 billion people. Even less than 1b have a computer at home. Those issues mentioned in the OP have always existed in the world, just less in the 21th century.

Yeah, that was after gym. Didn't have any proper meals during the day, so I figured the day was ruined anyways to start planning meals. BTW, 12 hamburgers is a lot. It's equivalent to 6 double cheeses (obviously), so it's a huge stack of meat. You don't want to order that unless you literally haven't eaten for days (or a bit over a day)

A few weeks ago I was really hungry in the evening and had no food at home, so I ordered 12 normal hamburgers (without the cheese) and water. Yeah the staff did give me some weird looks when I said I'll eat it there. 8-)

http://www.windowsmarketplace.com/categ ... 38&tabid=1 Seems like they charge for a popup blocker add-on. And google toolbar doesn't mean built-in 8-)

WHICH is why Mac is much safer than Windows. This is common knowledge. And no, I don't use Mac. Finally a debate where faith plays no role. 1. FF has a built-in popup blocker. 2. FF has built-in tabbed browsing. 3. FF has more options...

:lol: People who want to download the IE7, which is probably worse than FF/Opera, will probably try 'IE7.com', and instead get that logo. It will make even more people download the (likely) superior browser.

In RSC, all the best XP spots were in the wilderness. The hobgoblin mine (and later the axe hut/pirate house) was easily the best XP in the whole game. Yeah, sometimes people died there after being raided by PK'ers. But it doesn't happen as much as you'd think. It was fairly worth the risk, and you could kill hundreds of monsters before being at risk. If there isn't some incentive to go to the wilderness, nobody will go there. Everyone wants to gain something by doing an action, i.e. entering the wilderness. Currently, it's stealing items from other players by killing them. Fair enough, but other incentives are good too since the risk is high.

Sounds like you need to speak to some soldiers about the reality of war. Of course, most of them won't tell you, because they don't want to remember fully. War means your best friends having their limbs shot off, or being blinded for the rest of their lives. War means shooting one of your allies by mistake because the battle is so confusing. War means that every 'enemy' person you kill is someone with a real life, someone with a real mother and father, possibly with children of their own - someone who has lived for 20 years and has been educated, but will never get to use their education. War is where people don't just respawn like in your computer games, they stay dead forever. War means killing children and women and considering them acceptable damage. I imagine that you play FPS games from time to time - next time you die in one, remember that in war you don't get a second chance. Even if you think you have a good cause to go to war, all of the above is still true. No one gets "owned" in war. On TV sometimes it reports that 40 people died, and 5 of them were women and children. But that's someone else that killed them, and it's an acceptable loss, because 35 bad guys died. What though, if you were the one to kill them, would that still be an acceptable loss? Dusqi.. You raised all the points that weren't needed.. It was quite obvious the post should've just been ignored. No 14 year old kid will think of the consequences of REAL war. Hey, after all, we can just respawn and go 'pwn' those enemies who are really just robots with no feelings or families or pasts?

I don't even get it, why be a 'fanboy'? Here is my theory, simple and to the point. 1. Person A is 13 years old and gets a PS3/Wii/XB for a birthday present. 2. Since that's all he's going to play for the next few years, he'll defend it with his last breath and drop of blood. You don't buy a console because it's certain brand. You buy it because it's entertaining. The Wii and PS3 don't currently have a good selection of games (only a few good ones), the Xb360 beats them in that area. But the Wii, as time will probably show, will be the most entertaining and innovative console because of it's new approach to controllers, and gaming in general. The PS3 is a grand loser in the war. Why? A. It doesn't have many good games B. It costs more than the 2 other consoles combined C. It has a standard gaming approach similar to the PS2 with only improved graphics, unlike the Wii In the current situation, depending on what type of games you like, Xb/Wii are the best consoles. XBox: 2 points +Has already some good games +Fairly cheap Wii: 2 points -Not many good games yet +Completely unique gaming approach +Fairly cheap PS3: 1 point -Not many games yet +Good graphics -Very expensive

Reward people for taking risks, in other words, going to the wilderness. [*:2noyjnt6]Unique monsters with high exp. rate [*:2noyjnt6]4x XP rate on all monsters found in the wilderness [*:2noyjnt6]Add decent respawns worth guarding/raiding, like spawns of 10000 gold per 5 minutes, treasure chests with mid-range rune items, etc. [*:2noyjnt6]No 3 item rule at all. Instant skull when entering the wilderness. [*:2noyjnt6]3xp XP rate on mining and woodcutting That way, by choosing the more dangerous route, you can be rewarded by taking the risk instead of being safe in a non-wilderness area, but you also can lose all the gear you carry. Give incentives to people going in the wilderness, otherwise it's meaningless. The risk rate is significant anyways.

They develop high tech assault helicopters, aircraft, weapons, and test them there. Nothing 'mysterious' about it. You don't hear from the stuff what happens in there because most likely, the employees sign a contract not to leak out information or risk severe penalties. Every big country has their own 'area 51', even moderate sized countries do. The 'use of lethal force' is authorized, most likely, to deter foreign agents spying for their country. Not to shoot drunkards who have a bad mouth and shout outside the facilities if they get that close. Yeah, they may have found weird aircraft from the space. But it's not like you're going to find out...