Crocefisso

Congratulations to this week's guest author. That was a thoroughly enjoyable article: the prose was evocative, the content a well-balanced mix of universal and specific, abstract and yet pertaining to an age old 'issue' within RS (namely, that of futility and boredom). =D> Once more, congratulations, whomsoever you are.

It's almost certainly a troll, and if it's a fangirl, she's a little more than deluded - probably psychotic or some other mental illness. But more likely it's a joke.

I'm sorry to have to do this, but I think you meant to say "bear with me". 'Bare' only ever means things along the lines of exposed, deflowered etc, unless you're speaking in slang, in which case it is used to indicate a large quantity. But 'bear' as in 'I can't bear Bieber', ie, being able to stand or endure something, is the correct usage in this context. (And usually you begin the list with a colon, not a semi-colon).

What I don't understand is why you're trying to debate the qualities of a candidate from a party you're diametrically opposed to anyway. This is the funny thing: in principle, I shouldn't be. Since I got British citizenship, I voted for the Conservative Party in the 2011 local elections, and plan to do so again in the general election a few years hence unless they trip up badly. Of all the developed democracies in the world, I fall on the left only in America, and it is because the right there is so very far to the right that, in Britain for example, it would be considered a fringe/extreme party. Therefore, my rather simple question was: why vote for Santorum? I was just curious as to why you supported him, because you seem sensible and he is backwards and unable to grasp the concept of secularism. I've not been debating, just making the question longer each time so you've got something to respond to.

My problem with Santorum is the ludicrous and reactionary nature of his policies. Looking from the outside in, I cannot see a single positive with this man. Let us not forget he was anti-gay, a destructive environmental policy, a silly immigration policy, pledging to repeal Obama's attempt at bringing European-style health care to the USA and the rest. I found a nice little link that isn't, as far as I can tell, too partisan, though correct me if I'm wrong: http://elections.msnbc.msn.com/ns/politics/candidate/Rick-Santorum/. And in the areas where he's not entirely backwards, his ideas are still markedly less sensible than those of other candidates.

If your great grandmother was running, I'd consider voting for her. Housing bubble was caused by a push for getting everyone a house, starting in the 1990's. Banks were given a carrot and a stick - they were penalized for not making sub prime loans to low income, high risk people. They were allowed to offload those mortgages into Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Big government caused the problem. Come on sees, stop dodging the question: what is there about Santorum that's worth voting for? As for the big/small govt debate, obfuscator has answered what I would in a clearer manner. Point being that the big/small govt dichotomy is not as one-sided or clear-cut as many make out.

Wow. I've two questions here, really: 1. Why Santorum? To me, he seems like a backwards, slightly stupid and absurdly Christian political charicature, with no legitimacy as a President. 2. Why is Romney-care so awful? I've yet to see a good argument for why adopting a system that Europe has successfully had in place since, in the UK at least, the 1940s is a bad idea. Santorum isn't progressive, and doesn't have Romney-care Big government is always a bad idea. My great grandmother also isn't progressive, nor does she have Romney-care. Is she a valid Presidential candidate? And precisely why is big government always a bad idea? I'm sure a small government would have struggled to bail out banks in 2008-9 etc, a problem caused by a lack of regulation and small government approach to banking. I've never understood why people think that if Iran got a nuclear weapon they would launch it at Israel. Wouldn't they be ensuring their own destruction, then? the only would way that i see it happening is if mad men got a hold of one and everything (but we know the chances of that happening from historical precedent and simple analysis - next to nothing). From a region of suicide bombers, do you think they care about their own destruction? That is an incredibly crass and ill-informed generalisation. Remember that 'suicide bombers' are almost without exception fundamentalist Sunni groups. Iran, on the other hand, is a well organised Shia state that uses proxies such as Hezbollah - which has enough rockets (c. 15,000) not to need suicide bombers for the most part - and has in fact waged a calculated proxy war against the USA et al. In short, Iran is not going to blow it. More likely, it seeks nuclear weapons in order that it may have them as a deterrent against Israel - let us not forget that the Netanyahu wants rocket strikes against Iran, not the other way around - and so that it can continue to assert itself as a regional power. I don't understand your point... "Iran won't nuke Israel because it already has Hezbollah to send rockets for them." That's reassuring. You know that wasn't the point. I was pointing out how derogatory and wrong your entire discourse about the Iranian problem was, because it is based in the popular misconception of Iran which comes from leaving cultural factors unexplained, and is best surmised in your comment on how the Middle East is a "region of suicide bombers". Aside from it being a very silly generalisation, it also fails to factor in the difference between the Sunni suicide bombers and subtler Shia terrorism, and implies that Iran is a self-destructive state. The reference to Hezbollah was merely illustrative of the point that Iran is too well-coordinated to need suicide bombers. My aim was only to inform you, not reassure you.

Wow. I've two questions here, really: 1. Why Santorum? To me, he seems like a backwards, slightly stupid and absurdly Christian political charicature, with no legitimacy as a President. 2. Why is Romney-care so awful? I've yet to see a good argument for why adopting a system that Europe has successfully had in place since, in the UK at least, the 1940s is a bad idea. Key word. Trolling, surely? I've never understood why people think that if Iran got a nuclear weapon they would launch it at Israel. Wouldn't they be ensuring their own destruction, then? the only would way that i see it happening is if mad men got a hold of one and everything (but we know the chances of that happening from historical precedent and simple analysis - next to nothing). From a region of suicide bombers, do you think they care about their own destruction? That is an incredibly crass and ill-informed generalisation. Remember that 'suicide bombers' are almost without exception fundamentalist Sunni groups. Iran, on the other hand, is a well organised Shia state that uses proxies such as Hezbollah - which has enough rockets (c. 15,000) not to need suicide bombers for the most part - and has in fact waged a calculated proxy war against the USA et al. In short, Iran is not going to blow it. More likely, it seeks nuclear weapons in order that it may have them as a deterrent against Israel - let us not forget that the Netanyahu wants rocket strikes against Iran, not the other way around - and so that it can continue to assert itself as a regional power. The problem is that our perception of Iran has been badly skewed by the media, and if one looks at Iranian rhetoric with a little more cultural context than Fox News and Sky are willing to give, the Iranian problem, though certainly a problem, becomes less of a threat. a) Ayatollah Khomeini's famous name for the USA - the 'Great Satan' - does not mean that the USA is some demonic entity. Rather, in the context in which a Muslim cleric uses it, this term is rather less scary: in Islam, the Devil has always been thought of as something that acts from within, tempting the hearts of men. This is rather distinct from the traditional Christian view, and thus we tend to interpret the term in a Christian way. In reality, the term means, in our terminology, something more akin to 'Great Tempter' etc. Yet, without explanation, Iran suddenly seems a lot more dangerous than it really is. b) 'Israel will be wiped off the map' does not mean Israel will be obliterated by a nuclear bomb. It is a rhetorical way of saying that Israel will not be able to withstand the pressures that come with its existence. Again, less sinister than one might originally think. My point here is that, though I am certainly no Iranian apologist, our approach to Iran is so overblown and paranoid, thanks to the subtle misinformations of the media, that, as seen in the above posts, there is a tendency to talk of Iran as more of a threat than it is.

If I were American, I would likely vote for Obama, if only because, being European, I know the undeniable benefits of having a healthcare system like the one he is halfway through implementing (the American right can lie all it wants, but on healthcare it is certainly wrong) and because the republican party is rife with extreme right wingers such as the Tea Party, and as such any Republican President would have to do at least some pandering to the dangerous reactionaries. And to the Christian right. Oh, and Romney's record on employment in Mass. isn't too great either, so he's got no economic credentials really. That's quite a large tangent you've got there. EDIT: In response to Ham's post: Yes, Parliamentary democracy is a far more flexible and sensible system than the Presidential system used in the Americas, France, Russia etc. There are myriad benefits to having a head of state who isn't also head of govt, as has been shown by the actions taken last Oct/Nov in Italy and Greece in response to crises. Going one step further, it's nice that the UK has a monarchy, because that way your head of state isn't some career politician, and rather a part of a traditional and cultural institution that's also good at taking action in a crisis.

Today a few of the 'Famicom Mini' series of GBA re-releases arrived from Japan. Just been enjoying a good hour on Ganbare Goemon: Karakuri Dochu.

Very well said. =D>

To be honest, and it's likely been mentioned on this thread before, all of our ethics are part consequentialism, part deontological, and part situationist. If you're religious, then virtue ethics are also going to play a part. Exceptions such as psychopathy excepted, there's really little to discuss.

Videos like that make me wonder what the 80s though they were doing.

^ I find the Zarathustra a typically 19th century piece of nonsense, and though it is understandable, it doesn't communicate Nietzsche's philosophy as well as his other books. I recommend starting with Twilight of the Idols, a 90 page quick overview of his philosophy (written by Nietzsche), which is by far the best book of his. Beyond Good and Evil is a good place to go from there.

The animated Go Compare woman is by far the worst EDIT: Meant confused.com woman. :P All these crappy ads have clearly merged into one in my head.

People seem to find that Thailand is a good place for rediscovering oneself.

I don't see in what ways the above argument opposes the idea of human rights. It think that the details of situations tend not to have a great deal of impact on the application of universal, codified principles, because human rights are always applied with some basic recognition of circumstance.

Rurouni Kenshin is enough to convert anyone to anime.

Is at least one of the children yours, Range?

I'm afraid I agree with the above poster - I can't see this serving much purpose as a skill.

Given I am unable to distinguish between most genres of music, the last few posts on this thread might as well be written in a foreign language for me.

That the trailer doesn't look at all like the game is understandable, and as such I take no issue with this being the case. However, I do think that if Jagex insist on spending money on such a nice looking trailer, they should at least make something a little more inspired and less clichéd. My two cents.

How exactly was it not? I cheated on this person just to confirm that I wanted to break up with her, and because her neurotic behaviour drove me to it I feel somewhat less guilty than if she were sane.

Can't believe I didn't see this thread earlier. Though I'm not the most qualified person when it comes to computers and whatnot, I can't help but feel this is all rather futile.

I can't claim to be innocent of cheating, though in my defence she was clingy and it wasn't cheating per se (not in my books at least).